The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of the Inquisition of Spain from the Time of its Establishment to the Reign of Ferdinand VII.
    
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The History of the Inquisition of Spain from the Time of its Establishment to the Reign of Ferdinand VII.

Author: Juan Antonio Llorente

Release date: December 20, 2011 [eBook #38354]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
        Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was
        produced from scanned images of public domain material
        from the Google Print project.)


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF SPAIN FROM THE TIME OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT TO THE REIGN OF FERDINAND VII. ***




Produced by Chuck Greif and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This book was
produced from scanned images of public domain material
from the Google Print project.)







Though some typographical errors have been corrected (see list at the
end of the etext), little attempt has been made to correct or normalize
the accentuation of the Spanish or the spelling of English that the
author had printed. (i.e. negociate/negotiate; Aragon/Arragon; de
Alpizcueta/d'Alpizcueta/D'Alpizcueta; Escurial/Escorial.)






LLORENTE'S

HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION.




THE HISTORY

OF THE

INQUISITION OF SPAIN,

FROM THE

TIME OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT

TO

THE REIGN OF FERDINAND VII.

COMPOSED FROM THE

ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS OF THE ARCHIVES OF THE SUPREME COUNCIL,
AND FROM THOSE OF SUBORDINATE TRIBUNALS
OF THE HOLY OFFICE.

ABRIDGED AND TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL WORKS OF

D. JUAN ANTONIO LLORENTE,

FORMERLY SECRETARY OF THE INQUISITION,

_CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO, KNIGHT OF THE ORDER OF CHARLES III.,
&c. &c. &c._

_SECOND EDITION._

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR GEO. B. WHITTAKER,

AVE-MARIA-LANE.

MDCCCXXVII.

LONDON:
Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES,
Stamford Street.




CONTENTS.


                                                                    Page

CHAPTER I.--First Epoch of the Church till the Conversion of the
Emperor Constantine                                                    1

CHAP. II.--Establishment of a General Inquisition against Heretics
in the Thirteenth Century                                             12

CHAP. III.--Of the Ancient Inquisition of Spain                       16

CHAP. IV.--Of the Government of the Old Inquisition                   20

CHAP. V.--Establishment of the Modern Inquisition in Spain            30

CHAP. VI.--Creation of a Grand Inquisitor-general--of a Royal
Council of the Inquisition--of Subaltern Tribunals and Organic
Laws--Establishment of the Holy Office in Aragon                      39

CHAP. VII.--Additional Acts to the First Constitution of the Holy
Office--Consequences of them, and Appeals to Rome against
them                                                                  46

CHAP. VIII.--Expulsion of the Jews--Proceedings against Bishops--Death
of Torquemada                                                         53

CHAP. IX.--Of the Procedure of the Modern Inquisition                 59

CHAP. X.--Of the principal Events during the Ministry of the Inquisitors
Deza and Cisneros                                                     71

CHAP. XI.--An Attempt made by the Cortes of Castile and Aragon
to reform the Inquisition--Of the principal Events under
Adrian, fourth Inquisitor-general                                     84

CHAP. XII.--Conduct of the Inquisitors towards the Morescoes          94

CHAP. XIII.--Of the Prohibition of Books and other Articles          100

CHAP. XIV.--Particular Trials for Suspicion of Lutheranism, and
some other Crimes                                                    113

CHAP. XV.--Prosecution of Sorcerers, Magicians, Enchanters, Necromancers,
and others                                                           129

CHAP. XVI.--Of the Trial of the false Nuncio of Portugal, and
other important Events during the time of Cardinal Tabera,
sixth Inquisitor-general                                             142

CHAP. XVII.--Of the Inquisitions of Naples, Sicily, and Malta, and
of the Events of the Time of Cardinal Loaisa, seventh
Inquisitor-general                                                   157

CHAP. XVIII.--Of important Events during the first years of the
Administration of the eighth Inquisitor-general--Religion of
Charles V. during the last years of his Life                         164

CHAP. XIX.--Of the Proceedings against Charles V. and Philip II.
as Schismatics and Favourers of Heresy--Progress of the Inquisition
under the last of these Princes--Consequences of the
particular Favour which he shewed towards it                         179

CHAP. XX.--The Inquisition celebrates at Valladolid, in 1559, two
Autos-da-fé against the Lutherans, in the Presence of some
Members of the Royal Family                                          196

CHAP. XXI.--History of two Autos-da-fé, celebrated against the
Lutherans in the City of Seville                                     212

CHAP. XXII.--Of the Ordinances of 1561, which have been followed
in the Proceedings of the Holy Office, until the present Time        227

CHAP. XXIII.--Of some Autos-da-fé celebrated in Murcia               253

CHAP. XXIV.--Of the Autos-da-fé celebrated by the Inquisitions of
Toledo, Saragossa, Valencia, Logroño, Grenada, Cuença, and
Sardinia, during the Reign of Philip II.                             269

CHAP. XXV.--Of the Learned Men who have been persecuted by
the Inquisition                                                      277

CHAP. XXVI.--Offences committed by the Inquisitors against the
Royal Authority and Magistrates                                      323

CHAP. XXVII.--Of the Trials of several Sovereigns and Princes
undertaken by the Inquisition                                        347

CHAP. XXVIII.--Of the Conduct of the Holy Office towards those
Priests who abused the Sacrament of Confession                       355

CHAP. XXIX.--Of the Trials instituted by the Inquisition against
the Prelates and Spanish Doctors of the Council of Trent             357

CHAP. XXX.--Of the Prosecution of several Saints and Holy Persons
by the Inquisition                                                   371

CHAP. XXXI.--Of the celebrated Trial of Don Carlos, Prince of
the Asturias                                                         377

CHAP. XXXII.--Trial of the Archbishop of Toledo                      409

CHAP. XXXIII.--Continuation of the Trial, until the Archbishop
went to Rome                                                         442

CHAP. XXXIV.--End of the Trial of Carranza--His Death                459

CHAP. XXXV.--Trial of Antonio Perez, Minister and First Secretary
of State to Philip II.                                               472

CHAP. XXXVI.--Of several Trials occasioned by that of Antonio
Perez.                                                               488

CHAP. XXXVII.--Of the principal Events in the Inquisition during
the Reign of Philip III.                                             500

CHAP. XXXVIII.--Of the Trials and Autos-da-fé during the Reign
of Philip IV.                                                        502

CHAP. XXXIX.--The Inquisition during the Reign of Charles II.        512

CHAP. XL.--Of the Inquisition in the Reign of Philip V.              518

CHAP. XLI.--Of the Inquisition during the Reign of Ferdinand VI.     524

CHAP. XLII.--Of the Inquisition under Charles III.                   539

CHAP. XLIII.--Of the Spanish Inquisition under Charles IV.           546

CHAP. XLIV.--Of the Inquisition during the Reign of Ferdinand VII.   565




ADVERTISEMENT.


The Compiler of the following pages has only attempted to give a
condensed translation of a complex and voluminous history, with the hope
that it might prove of more utility in its present form than in the
original works. Those portions which are not calculated to interest or
instruct the general reader, and afford no illustrations of the subject,
have been passed over. Those trials have been selected which serve as
examples of the various laws of the Inquisition, and of its state at
different epochs, and which include the persecutions of the most eminent
men.

The curious will be amply gratified by the perusal of the history of the
secret tribunal; the man of leisure cannot fail in finding occupation
and amusement in the pages of Llorente; and the philosopher will
discover in them ample scope for reflection on the aberrations of human
reason, and on the capability of our nature, when under the influence of
fanaticism, to inflict, with systematic indifference, death, torture,
misery, anxiety, and infamy, on the guilty and the innocent.

All the records of the fantastic cruelties of the heathen world do not
afford so appalling a picture of human weakness and depravity as the
authentic and genuine documents of the laws and proceeding of this Holy
Office, which professed to act under the influence of the doctrines of
the Redeemer of the World!

I offer, with humility, this abridgement of the work to the public, and
while I hope that it will be kindly and favourably received, I believe
that it may prove interesting and useful to every class of readers.

_June, 1826._




PREFACE.


Although a tribunal has existed for more than three hundred years in
Spain, invested with the power of prosecuting heretics, no correct
history of its origin, establishment, and progress has been written.

Writers of many countries have spoken of Inquisitions established in
different parts of the world, where the Roman Catholic faith is the
religion of the state, and yet not one is worthy of confidence. The work
of M. Lavallée, entitled the "History of the Inquisitions of Italy,
Spain, and Portugal," and published in 1809, has only added to the
historical errors of the authors who preceded him. The Spanish and
Portuguese writers on the same subject deserve no higher credit; and
have not detailed, with accuracy, the circumstances which led to the
establishment of this dreadful tribunal. These writers even differ in
their statements of the period of its origin, and place it between the
years 1477 and 1484. One affirms, with confidence, that the latter date
is the true one, because in that year the regulations of the tribunal
were enacted; another decides that it originated in 1483, because in
that year Thomas Torquemada was appointed inquisitor-general by the
Pope.

The inquisition of Spain was not a new tribunal created by Ferdinand V.
and Isabella, the queen of Castile, but only a reform and extension of
the ancient tribunal, which had existed from the thirteenth century.

No one could write a complete and authentic history of the Inquisition,
who was not either an inquisitor or a secretary of the holy office.
Persons holding only these situations could be permitted to make
memoranda of papal bulls, the ordinances of sovereigns, the decisions of
the councils of the "_Suprême_," of the originals of the preliminary
processes for suspicion of heresy, or extracts of those which had been
deposited in the archives. _Being myself the secretary of the
Inquisition at Madrid_, during the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, I have
the firmest confidence in my being able to give to the world _a true
code of the secret laws by which the interior of the Inquisition was
governed, of those laws which were veiled by mystery from all mankind_,
excepting those men to whom the knowledge of their political import was
exclusively reserved. A firm conviction, from knowing the deep objects
of this tribunal, that it was vicious in principle, in its constitution,
and in its laws, notwithstanding all that has been said in its support,
induced me to avail myself of the advantage my situation afforded me,
and to collect every document I could procure relative to its history.
My perseverance has been crowned with success far beyond my hopes, for
in addition to an abundance of materials, obtained with labour and
expense, consisting of unpublished manuscripts and papers, mentioned in
the inventories of deceased inquisitors, and other officers of the
institution, in 1809, 1810, and 1811, when the Inquisition in Spain was
suppressed, _all the archives were placed at my disposal_; and from 1809
to 1812, I collected everything that appeared to me to be of consequence
in the registers of the council of the Inquisition, and in the
provincial tribunals, for the purpose of compiling this history.

Never has a prisoner of the Inquisition seen either the accusation
against himself, or any other. No one was ever permitted to know more of
his own cause than he could learn of it by the interrogations and
accusations to which he was obliged to reply, and by the extracts from
the declarations of the witnesses, which were communicated to him, while
not only their names were carefully concealed, and every circumstance
relating to time, place, and person, by which he might obtain a clue to
discover his denouncers, but even if the depositions contained any thing
favourable to the defence of the prisoner. The maxim on which this was
founded, is, that the accused ought not to occupy himself but in
replying to the chief points of his accusation, and that it was the
province of the judge afterwards to compare the answers that he had made
with those which had been given favourable to his acquittal. Philip
Limborch, and many more of veracity, have erred in their histories, from
their ignorance of the method of conducting an inquisitorial trial.
Those authors relied wholly on the accounts of prisoners, who knew
nothing of the groundwork of their own case; and the details in
Eymerick, Paramo, Pegna, Carena, and some other inquisitors, are too
limited to yield the necessary information.

These facts make me hope that I shall not transgress the bounds of
propriety when I say, that I only can give a true history of the
Inquisition, as I only possess the materials necessary for the
undertaking.

I have read the most celebrated trials of the modern Inquisition, and
the details given by me differ essentially from those of other
historians, not excepting those of Limborch, who is the most exact of
them. The trials of Don Carlos of Austria, prince of the Asturias, of
Don Bartholomew Carranza, archbishop of Toledo, and of Antony Perez, the
first minister and secretary of Philip II., have been greatly
illustrated in many important particulars.

I have established the truth of that which concerns the Emperor Charles
V.; Jeanne of Albret, queen of Navarre; Henry IV., king of France, her
son, and of Margaret of Bourbon, the sovereign duchess of Bar, her
daughter; of Don James of Navarre, son of Don Carlos, prince of Biana,
surnamed the Infant of Tudela; of John Pic de Mirandola; of Don John of
Austria, son of Philip IV.; of Alexander Farnèse, duke of Parma, and
grandson of Charles V.; Don Philip of Arragon, son of the Emperor of
Morocco; of Cæsar Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI., and relation of the
king of Navarre; of Jean Albret, duke of Valentinois, peer of France;
of Don Peter Louis Borgia, last grand-master of the military order of
Montessa, and of many other princes against whom the Inquisition
exercised its power. The lover of history will find the details of the
trials of seven archbishops, twenty bishops, and a great number of
learned men, among whom are many of the members of the Council of Trent,
who were unfortunately suspected of entertaining or favouring the
Lutheran doctrines. To this list I have added the suits instituted by
the _holy office_ against many _saints_, and other personages, held in
reverence by the Church of Spain, and also of many literati persecuted
by this tribunal. These, for the sake of perspicuity, I have divided
into two classes; the first class comprises those learned theologians
who were accused of Lutheranism, for having, in their zeal, corrected
the text of Bibles already published, or Latin translations from the
Greek and Hebrew editions. The second class consists of those learned
men, designated by the holy office under the title of False
Philosophers, and who were persecuted for having manifested a wish to
destroy, in Spain, superstition and fanaticism.

This history will make known numberless attempts perpetrated by the
inquisitors against magistrates who defended the rights of sovereign
authority, in opposition to the enterprises of the _holy office_ and the
court of Rome; and which enables me to state the trials of many
celebrated men and ministers who defended the prerogatives of the crown,
and whose only crimes were having published works on the right of the
crown, according with the true principles of jurisprudence. These trials
will display the Counsellors of the Inquisition carrying their audacity
to such a height, as to deny that their temporal jurisdiction was
derived from the concession of their sovereign, and actually prosecuting
all the members of the council of Castile, as rash men, suspected of
heresy, for having made known and denounced to the king this system of
usurpation. In addition to these intolerable acts, will be found
accounts of their assumption of superiority over viceroys, and other
great officers of state. I have also shewn, that these ministers of
persecution have been the chief causes of the decline of literature, and
almost the annihilators of nearly all that could enlighten the people,
by their ignorance, their blind submission to the monks who were
qualifiers, and by persecuting the magistrates and the learned who were
anxious to disseminate information. These monks were despicable
scholastic theologians, too ignorant and prejudiced to be able to
ascertain the truth between the doctrines of Luther and those of Roman
Catholicism, and so condemned, as Lutheran, propositions incontestably
true.

The horrid conduct of this _holy office_ weakened the power and
diminished the population of Spain, by arresting the progress of arts,
sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of
families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the
Jews and the Moors; and by immolating on its flaming piles more than
_three hundred thousand victims_!! So replete with duplicity was the
system of the inquisitors-general, and the council of this _holy
office_, that if a papal bull was likely to circumscribe their power, or
check their vengeance, they refused to obey, on the pretext of its being
opposed to the laws of the kingdom, and the orders of the Spanish
government. By a similar proceeding, they evaded the ordinances of the
king, by alleging that papal bulls prevented them from obeying, under
pain of excommunication.

Secrecy, the foe of truth and justice, was the soul of the tribunal of
the Inquisition; it gave to it new life and vigour, sustained and
strengthened its arbitrary power, and so emboldened it, that it had the
hardihood to arrest the highest and noblest in the land, and enabled it
to deceive, by concealing facts, popes, kings, viceroys, and all
invested with authority by their sovereign. This _holy office_, veiled
by secrecy, unhesitatingly kept back, falsified, concealed, or forged
the reports of trials, when compelled to open their archives to popes or
kings. The Inquisitors constantly succeeded, by this detestable knavery,
in concealing the truth, and facilitated their object by being careful
not to number the reports. This was practised to a great extent in the
trials of the archbishop of Toledo, of the Prothonotary, and others.

Facts prove beyond a doubt, that the extirpation of Judaism was not the
real cause, but the mere pretext, for the establishment of the
Inquisition by Ferdinand V. The true motive was to carry on a vigorous
system of confiscation against the Jews, and so bring their riches into
the hands of the government. Sixtus IV. sanctioned the measure, to gain
the point dearest to the court of Rome, an extent of domination. Charles
V. protected it from motives of policy, being convinced it was the only
means of preventing the heresy of Luther from penetrating into Spain.
Philip II. was actuated by superstition and tyranny to uphold it; and
even extended its jurisdiction to the excise, and made the exporters of
horses into France liable to seizure by the officers of the tribunal, as
persons suspected of heresy! Philip III., Philip IV., and Charles II.,
pursued the same course, stimulated by similar fanaticism and
imbecility, when the re-union of Portugal to Spain led to the discovery
of many Jews. Philip V. maintained the Inquisition from considerations
of mistaken policy, inherited from Louis XIV., who made him believe that
such rigour would ensure the tranquillity of the kingdom, which was
always in danger when many religions were tolerated. Ferdinand VI. and
Charles III. befriended this _holy office_, because they would not
deviate from the course that their father had traced, and because the
latter hated the freemasons. Lastly, Charles IV. supported the tribunal,
because the French Revolution seemed to justify a system of
surveillance, and he found a firm support in the zeal of the
inquisitors-general, always attentive to the preservation and extension
of their power, as if the sovereign authority could find no surer means
of strengthening the throne, than the terror inspired by an
Inquisition.

_During the time I remained in London, I heard some Catholics affirm
that the Inquisition was useful in Spain, to preserve the Catholic
faith, and that a similar establishment would have been useful in
France._

These persons were deceived, by believing that it was sufficient for
people to be good Catholics not to have any fear of the _holy office_.
They knew not that nine-tenths of the prisoners were deemed guilty,
though true to their faith, because the ignorance or malice of the
denouncers prosecuted them for points of doctrine, which were not
susceptible of heretical interpretation, but in the judgment of an
illiterate monk, is considered erudite by the world, because he is said
to have studied the theology of the schools. The Inquisition encouraged
hypocrisy, and punished those who either did not know how, or would not,
assume the mask. This tribunal wrought no conversion. The Jews and
Morescoes, who were baptized without being truly converted, merely that
they might remain in Spain, are examples which prove the truth of this
assertion. The former perished on the pyres of the Inquisition, the
latter crossed over into Africa with the Moors, as much Mahometans as
their ancestors were before they were baptised.

I conclude with declaring that the contents of this history are
original; and that I have drawn my facts with fidelity, from the most
authentic sources, and might have greatly extended them[1].




HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION.




CHAPTER I.

FIRST EPOCH OF THE CHURCH TILL THE CONVERSION OF THE EMPEROR
CONSTANTINE.


The Christian religion was scarcely established before heresies arose
among its disciples. The Apostle St. Paul instructs Titus, the Bishop of
Crete, in his duty towards heretics, saying, that a man who persists in
his heresy, after the first and second admonition, shall be rejected:
but St. Paul does not say that the life of the heretic shall be taken;
and our Saviour, addressing St. Peter, commands that a sinner shall be
forgiven, not only seven times, but seventy times seven, which infers
that he ought never to be punished with death by a judgment of the
church. Such was the doctrine of the church during the three first
centuries, until the peace of Constantine. Heretics were never
excommunicated until exhortation had been employed in vain. As this
system was adopted, it was natural that some persons should write
against heresy to prevent its increase. This was done by St. Ignatius,
Castor Agrippa, St. Irenæus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Justin, St.
Denis of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen, and many others.

These faithful imitators of the benevolence of their Divine Master were
averse to oppressive measures. Although the evil produced by the
religion of the impious Manès was so great, that Archelaüs, Bishop of
Caschara, in Mesopotamia, judged it necessary to imprison him, yet he
renounced that design when Marcellus (to whom Manès had written)
proposed another conference with him. Archelaüs succeeded in converting
the heretic, and not only gave up his intention of detaining him, but
saved his life when the people would have stoned him to death.

It is possible that the church was in a certain degree compelled to act
in this manner, from the impossibility of employing the coercive
measures of temporal power against heretics during the reigns of the
heathen princes; but this was not the only motive for her tolerance,
since it is certain that when no edicts of persecution existed against
the Christians, the emperors received the appeals of the bishops in the
same manner as those of their other subjects: this is proved by the
history of the heretic Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch.

The council of that town, assembled in 272, perceiving that Paul had
relapsed into heresy, after the abjuration which he had made before the
council of 266, deposed him, and elected Domnus in his place. The
episcopal house being still occupied by the deposed bishop, he was
ordered to quit it, that his successor might take possession. Paul
having refused to obey, the bishops applied to the Emperor Aurelian, who
had not then begun to persecute the Christians: he received their
complaint, and replied, that as he did not know which of the two parties
was right, they must conform to the decision of the Bishop of Rome and
his church. The holy see was then occupied by Felix I., who confirmed
the decision of the council, and the Emperor Aurelian caused it to be
executed.

As toleration was universal in the Christian church, it is not to be
supposed that the church of Spain followed different principles.
Basilides and Marcial, Bishops of Astorga and Merida, apostatized; they
were reconciled to the church without any punishment but degradation,
to which they submitted before the year 253, when they appealed to Pope
Stephen.

The Council of Elvira in 303 decreed, that if an heretic demanded to be
re-admitted into the bosom of the church, he should be reconciled,
without suffering any punishment but a canonical penance of ten years,
which was the more remarkable, as this council established more severe
punishments for many crimes which appear less heinous. This seems to
prove that the Spanish bishops who composed this council, among whom
were the great Osius of Cordova, Sabinus of Seville, Valerius of
Saragossa, and Melantius of Toledo, were persuaded, like Origen, that
leniency was the means to convert heretics, in order to prevent them
from falling into obstinacy and impenitence.


SECOND EPOCH.--_From the Fourth to the Eighth Century._

If the primitive system of the church towards heretics had been
faithfully pursued, as it ought to have been, after the peace of
Constantine, the tribunal of the Inquisition would never have existed,
and, perhaps, the number and duration of heresies would have been less;
but the popes and bishops of the fourth century, profiting by the
circumstance of the emperors having embraced Christianity, began to
imitate, in a certain degree, the conduct which they had reprehended in
the heathen priests.

These pontiffs, though respectable for the holiness of their lives,
sometimes carried their zeal for the triumph of the Catholic faith, and
the extirpation of heresy, to too great a height; and to ensure success,
engaged Constantine and his successors to establish civil laws against
all heretics.

This first step, which the popes and bishops had taken contrary to the
doctrine of St. Paul, was the principle and origin of the Inquisition;
for when the custom of punishing a heretic by corporeal pain, although
he was a good subject, was once established, it became necessary to vary
the punishments, to augment their number, to render them more or less
severe, according to the character of each sovereign, and to regulate
the manner of prosecuting the culprit.

The Emperor Theodosius published, in 382, an edict against the
Manicheans, decreeing that they should be punished with death, and their
property confiscated for the use of the state, and commissioning the
prefect (Préfet du Prétoire) to appoint inquisitors and spies to
discover those who should conceal themselves.

It is here that inquisition and accusation are first mentioned in
relation to heresy, for until that time only those great crimes which
attacked the safety of the empire were permitted to be publicly
denounced. The successors of Theodosius modified these edicts, some of
which menaced heretics with the prosecutions of the impartial judges, if
they did not voluntarily abjure their errors. Notices were given to
known heretics who did not abjure after the publication of the edicts,
that if they were converted in a certain time, they would be admitted to
a reconciliation, and would only suffer a canonical penance.

When these conciliatory measures were unavailing, various punishments
were adopted. Those doctors who, in contempt of the laws, promulgated
their false opinions, were subjected to considerable fines, banishment
from cities, and even transportation. In certain cases, their property
was confiscated; in others they were obliged to pay a fine of ten pounds
of gold, or they were scourged with leathern thongs, and sent to islands
from whence they could not escape. Besides these punishments, they were
forbidden to hold assemblies, and the offenders were liable to
proscription, banishment, transportation, and even death in some cases.
The execution of these decrees was intrusted to the governors of
provinces, magistrates charged with the administration of justice,
commanders of towns and their principal officers, who were all liable to
various punishments in case of negligence.

The establishment of most of these laws had been solicited by popes and
bishops of known sanctity, and it must be allowed that it was not their
intention to carry those which decreed the punishment of death into
execution; they only desired to intimidate innovators by their
publication.

The church of Spain continued faithful to the general discipline, under
the authority of the Roman emperors; the Arian heresy was afterwards
established among them under the Goths; but since their princes have
embraced the Catholic faith, the laws and councils of Spain inform us of
their treatment of heretics.

The fourth Council of Toledo, assembled in 633, at which St. Isidore,
Archbishop of Seville, assisted, was occupied with the Judaic heresy: it
was decreed, with the consent of King Sisinand, that they should be at
the disposal of the bishops, to be punished, and compelled by fear to
return to Christianity a second time: they were to be deprived of their
children, and their slaves set at liberty.

In 655, the ninth Council of Toledo decreed, that baptized Jews should
be obliged to celebrate the Christian festivals with their bishops, and
that those who should refuse to conform to this discipline should be
condemned either to the punishment of scourging, or abstinence,
according to the age of the offender.

We find that greater severity was shown towards those who returned from
Christianity to idolatry. King Récarede I. proposed to the third Council
of Toledo, in 589, that the priests and civil judges should be
commissioned to extirpate that species of heresy, by punishing the
culprits in a degree proportioned to the crime, yet without employing
capital punishment.

These rigorous measures did not appear sufficient, and the twelfth
Council of Toledo, in 681, at which King Erbigius assisted, decided
that, if the offender was noble, he should be subject to excommunication
and exile; if he was a slave, he should be scourged and delivered to his
master loaded with chains, and if the proprietor could not answer for
him, that he should be placed at the disposal of the king.

In 693, the sixteenth Council of Toledo assembled in the presence of
King Egica, added, to the measures already established, a law, by which
all who opposed the efforts of the bishops and judges to destroy
idolatry were condemned, if noble, to be excommunicated and pay a fine
of three pounds of gold; and if of a low condition, to receive a hundred
strokes of a whip, and have half his property confiscated.

Recesuinte, who reigned from 663 to 672, established a particular law
against heretics: it deprived them indiscriminately of the wealth and
dignities they might possess, if they were priests, and added to these
punishments, perpetual banishment for laymen, if they persisted in
heresy.


THIRD EPOCH.--_From the Eighth Century to the Pontificate of Gregory
VII._

In the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, the ecclesiastics
obtained many privileges from the kings and emperors, and the judicial
power became, in some cases, a right of the episcopacy. These
acquisitions, and the universal ignorance which followed the irruption
of the barbarians, were the causes of the influence which the pontiffs
of Rome acquired over the Christian people, who were persuaded that the
authority of the pope should be without bounds, and that he had supreme
power both in ecclesiastical and temporal affairs.

In 726, when the Romans deposed their last duke, Basil, Pope Gregory
II. usurped the civil government of Rome, and had recourse to the
protection of Charles Martel, mayor of the palace, against the King of
Lombardy, who aspired to the command in that capital. His successor,
Gregory III., offered the dignity of patrician to Charles Martel, as if
he had the right of disposing of it. Zachary, who was elected pope, in
741, acted as the temporal sovereign of Rome, and permitted Pepin, son
of Charles Martel, to take the title of King of France, after having
deposed Childeric III., who was the legitimate sovereign. Pepin was
crowned in France by Stephen II., who became pope in 752.

At last, Leo III. crowned Charlemagne emperor of the west, on Christmas
day, in the year 800. In this ceremony, which took place at Rome,
Charlemagne was proclaimed the first emperor of the restoration.

The popes employed the great influence they had gained over general
opinion, to extend and preserve their dominion. Pepin and Charlemagne
did not foresee how fatal their example would prove to their successors,
when they solicited Stephen II. to release the French from their oath of
fidelity to Childeric III. When the doctrine, that a pope possessed the
power of releasing subjects from their oath of fidelity, was once
established, it became necessary that kings should endeavour to
conciliate the popes. Succeeding events show that this doctrine was
favourable to the rise of the Inquisition.

The idea that excommunication produced all the effects attached to
infamy, not only to the Christian on whom it fell, but to all who held
any communion with him, was another cause of the great influence of the
popes, and the progress of the Inquisition. The barbarians had preserved
the doctrine of the Druids, which forbade a Gaul to assist one whom the
priests had declared impious and abhorred of the gods, on pain of being
deemed guilty towards the gods, and unworthy of the society of men. The
priests, finding this opinion established, did not combat it, because
it added force to the anathemas of the church. Fortunately the popes of
the middle ages had not yet thought of commissioning men to ascertain if
Christians were orthodox, and the ancient discipline of the church was
still pursued towards heretics.

Felix, Bishop of Urgel, in Spain, had embraced the erroneous opinion
that Jesus Christ was the Son of God only by adoption. He returned to
the faith of the church, but relapsed some time after into the same
error, although he had abjured, before the Council of Ratisbonne, in
792, and before Pope Adrian, at Rome. The conduct of Felix was very
reprehensible, yet Leo III. would not excommunicate him in a simple
manner, but only pronounced, the anathema against him, in case he
refused to abjure a second time. Felix afterwards abjured, and suffered
no punishment but deprivation of his dignity.

The Emperor Michel, in 811, renewed all the laws which condemned the
Manichean heretics to death. The patriarch Nicephorus represented to him
that it was better to convert them by gentle means; but the spirit of
the church at that time was so far from moderation, that the Abbot
Theophanes, celebrated for his piety, does not hesitate to speak of
Nicephorus and the other counsellors of the prince, as ignorant and ill
advised; and adds, that the maxims of Holy Writ warrant the custom of
burning heretics, because they can never be brought to repent.

Theodore Critinus, chief of the Iconoclastes, was called before the
seventh council general, assembled at Constantinople in 869. He was
convicted of entertaining opinions contrary to the doctrines of the
church: he abjured his heresy, with several of his sect, and was
reconciled without being subjected to any penance. The Emperor Basil,
who assisted at the council, honoured him with a kiss of peace. We may
conclude from this, that if the conduct of the church had always been
equally lenient, heresy would not have been so frequent among the
Christians.

In 1022, certain heretics, who appeared to profess the doctrines of the
Manicheans, were discovered in Orleans, and several other towns; among
them was Stephen, confessor to Queen Constance, wife of Robert. That
prince assembled a council at Orleans: Stephen was summoned to appear
before it, and attempts were made, but in vain, to bring him back to the
true faith. The bishops resolved to punish these heretics, and those who
were ecclesiastics were degraded and excommunicated with the others. The
king immediately afterwards condemned them to be burnt. Several, when
they felt the flames, exclaimed that they were willing to submit to the
church; but it was too late, all hearts were closed against them. These
examples show the difference which was made between the Manichean and
other heresies.

It is necessary to mention several maxims which had been introduced into
the ecclesiastical government, and which passed at that time for
incontestable truths. The first of these opinions was, that it was
necessary not only to punish obstinate heretics with excommunication,
but to employ it against every species of crime, which abuse was carried
to such a height, that Cardinal St. Peter Damian reproached Pope
Alexander with it. According to the second maxim, if an excommunicated
Christian persisted for more than a year in refusing to submit and
demand absolution, after having been subjected to a canonical penance,
he was considered as an heretic. The third maxim held that it was a
meritorious act to prosecute heretics, and apostolical indulgences were
granted as a recompense for this service to the cause of religion.

These maxims, and several others which prevailed during the fourth
epoch, prepared the minds of the people for the establishment of the
Inquisition, which was destined to persecute heretics and apostates.


FOURTH EPOCH.

The celebrated Hildebrand ascended the pontifical throne in 1073, under
the name of Gregory VII., soon after his predecessor, Alexander II., had
summoned the emperor Henry III. to Rome, to be judged by a council. This
prince had been denounced by the Saxons, who revolted against him, as an
heretic. As he did not appear, the pope excommunicated him, released his
subjects from their oath of fidelity, and caused them to elect, in his
stead, Rodolph, Duke of Suabia.

The authority which this pope acquired over the Christian princes
greatly surpassed that of his predecessors, and although it was directly
contrary to the spirit of the New Testament, his successors employed
every means to preserve it.

The famous French monk Gerbert being elected pope in 999, under the name
of Sylvester II., addressed a letter to all Christians, in which he
supposes the Church of Jerusalem speaking from its ruins, and calling
upon them to take up arms and fight boldly to deliver it from
oppression. Gregory VII. also undertook, in 1074, to form a crusade
against the Turks, in favour of Michael, emperor of the East; but as he
died before he could put his plan into execution, his successor, Urban
II., caused it to be proclaimed in the Council of Clermont, in the year
1095. The efforts of the pope had an incredible success; a numerous army
left Europe soon after, which first took the city of Antioch, and
afterwards Jerusalem in 1099. The injustice of this war, and the other
expeditions of the same kind which succeeded it, would have disgusted
all Europe, if the people had not been prepossessed with the absurd
idea, that it was meritorious to make war for the exaltation and glory
of Christianity: the consequences of a system so fatal to temporal power
were felt in France at the time of the Patarians, Catharians, and other
sects of Manès. Alexander III., having sent Peter, Bishop of Meaux, to
Count Raymond V. of Toulouse, that legate made him and all his nobles
take an oath that they would not favour the heretics who had taken up
arms in defence of their party; and in the Council of Lateran, the
following year, the fathers declared that though the church did not
approve of sanguinary measures, yet she would not refuse the assistance
offered by Christian princes: in consequence, Alexander not only
excommunicated the heretics and their adherents, but promised all those
who should die in the war against them absolution and salvation, and for
the present granted indulgences for two years to all who should take up
arms.

In 1181, Cardinal Henry, Bishop of Alva, was sent into France to pursue
the war against the Albigenses; but this expedition did not entirely
destroy that party, and a new council was held, in whose decrees
Cardinal Fleury supposes he has discovered the origin of the
Inquisition. He was not mistaken in this opinion, but it was not at that
time actually instituted, since the bishops alone, as they had always
been, were commissioned to preserve the faith. The council recommended
that the bishops, or their archdeacons, should visit the dioceses once
or twice a year, and that they should cause the inhabitants to take an
oath that they would denounce all heretics, or persons who held
meetings, to the bishop or archdeacon. The council also decreed that
counts, barons, and other nobles should take an oath to discover
heretics and punish them, on pain of excommunication and deprivation of
their estates and employments.

In 1194, Cardinal Gregory St. Angelo instigated Alphonso II., King of
Aragon, to publish an edict banishing heretics of all sects
indiscriminately from his states; and Peter II., son of Alphonso,
published another in 1197, with nearly the same injunctions, which
proves that the former edict had little effect.




CHAPTER II.

ESTABLISHMENT OF A GENERAL INQUISITION AGAINST HERETICS IN THE
THIRTEENTH CENTURY.


In 1203, Pope Innocent III. commissioned Peter de Castelnau and Ralph,
two monks of the order of Cistercians, in the monastery of Fontfroide,
in Narbonnese Gaul, to preach against the Albigenses. Their exhortations
were not in vain, and the success of their mission was a favourable
introduction to a plan which Pope Innocent had formed of instituting
inquisitors independent of the bishops, with the privilege of
prosecuting heretics, as delegates of the holy see.

On the 4th of June, in the seventh year of his pontificate, he named the
abbot of the Cistercians, with Peter and Ralph, apostolical legates. He
gave them full powers to prosecute all heretics; and to facilitate the
execution of the orders of the holy see, they were to engage in the name
of the pope, Philip II., King of France, his son, and all his nobles, to
pursue the heretics, and to promise them full indulgences as a
recompense for their zeal. The pope invested these monks with the
necessary powers to enable them to destroy or establish whatever they
might judge to be favourable to their design, in the ecclesiastical
provinces of Aix, Arles, Narbonne, and other bishoprics where heretics
might be found, only recommending that they should apply to the holy see
in all difficult cases; at the same time he wrote to Philip, requesting
him to assist his commissioners, and even, if it was necessary, to send
the presumptive heir to his throne with an army against the heretics.

The legates encountered many difficulties, because their mission was
displeasing to the bishops. The King of France took no part in the
affair, but the Counts of Toulouse, Foix, Beziers, Cominges, and
Carcassone, and the other nobles of these provinces, seeing that the
Albigenses had singularly increased, and persuaded that a very small
number would be converted, refused to banish them from their states, as
it would lessen the population, and, consequently, be against their
interests: an additional motive for this refusal was, that these
heretics were all peaceful and submissive subjects.

Peter and Ralph commenced preaching against the heretics; they held
conferences with these fanatics, but the number of the converted was
very small. Arnauld, Abbot of the Cistercians, called upon twelve abbots
of his order to assist him; and (during their sojourn at Montpellier)
they admitted two Spaniards to share their labours, who were known under
the names of Diego Acebes, a bishop of Osma, who was returning to his
diocese, and St. Dominic de Guzman, a regular canon of the order of St.
Augustine. They both converted several Albigenses, and when the Spanish
bishop returned to his diocese, he permitted St. Dominic to remain in
France.

The great feudal chiefs of Provence and Narbonne refused to execute the
orders of the legates, to pursue the heretics in their states, alleging
that they were always at war with each other; but the legates threatened
to excommunicate them, and to release their subjects from their oaths of
fidelity. These menaces alarmed the nobles, and they consented to sign a
peace.

The most powerful of these princes was Raymond VI., Count of Toulouse.
His conduct towards Peter de Castelnau, who had threatened him several
times for not performing his promises, induced the Albigenses who were
his subjects to assassinate the legate, who was beatified in 1208. The
pope wrote to all the nobles of the provinces of Narbonne, Arles,
Embrun, Aix, and Vienne in Dauphiny, pressing them to unite and march
against the heretics, and promising them the same indulgences which had
been granted to the crusaders.

The assassination of Peter de Castelnau had excited among the Catholics
the greatest indignation against his murderers. Arnauld took advantage
of this moment to execute the orders which he had received from the
pope. He commissioned the twelve monks, and others whom he had
associated, to preach a crusade against the heretics, to grant
indulgences, to note those who refused to engage in the war, to inform
themselves of their creed, to reconcile the converted, and place all
obstinate heretics at the disposal of Simon de Montfort, commander of
the crusaders. This was the beginning of the Inquisition in 1208.

Pope Innocent III. died on the 16th of July, 1216, before he had
succeeded in giving a permanent form to the delegated inquisition: the
continuation of the war against the Albigenses, and the opposition which
he met with from the bishops in the Council of Lateran, were perhaps the
causes of his failure. Honorius III., who succeeded him, prepared to
finish his undertaking.

Innocent had sent St. Dominic de Guzman to Toulouse, that he might
choose one of the religious orders approved by the church, for the
institution which he intended to form. He preferred that of St.
Augustine; and on his return to Rome with his companions, Honorius
approved his choice on the 22nd of December, 1216.

St. Dominic also established an order for laymen. This order has been
designated as the _Third Order of Penitence_, but most commonly as the
_Militia of Christ_, because those who were members of it fought against
heretics, and assisted the Inquisitors in the exercise of their
functions; they were considered as part of the inquisitorial family, and
on that account bore the name of _Familiars_. This association
afterwards gave rise to that which was called the _Congregation of St.
Peter Martyr_; it was approved by Honorius, and confirmed by his
successor, Gregory IX. Another association was formed in Narbonne, which
also bore the name of _Militia of Christ_; it was soon after blended
with the third order of St. Dominic. Honorius having formed a
constitution against heretics, the Emperor Frederic II. gave it the
sanction of civil law at his coronation. In 1224 the Inquisition already
existed in Italy under the ministry of the Dominican friars, which is
proved by an edict of the Emperor Frederic against heretics at Padua.
The efforts of the Inquisition in Narbonne had not succeeded according
to the expectation of the pope, who imputed its failure to the
negligence of Cardinal Conrad, whom he recalled, and sent Cardinal Roman
in his place. The importunity of this legate induced Louis VIII., King
of France, to place himself at the head of an army to march against the
nobles who protected the Albigenses. But Louis died in the same year,
and the pope followed him, without having succeeded in giving a
permanent form to the new tribunal which had been introduced into
France.

Gregory IX., who ascended the pontifical throne in 1227, finally
established the Inquisition: he had been the zealous protector of St.
Dominic, and the intimate friend of St. Francis d'Assiz. Cardinal Roman
was more fortunate than the legates who preceded him: the nobles, weary
of a war which had lasted twenty years, wished for peace. The Count of
Toulouse, Raymond VII., after the death of his father, who had begun the
war, reconciled himself to St. Louis and the church in a Council of
Narbonne, and promised to drive the heretics from his domains.

In 1229 another council was held at Toulouse. The decrees were nearly
the same as those made at the Councils of Lateran and Verona, except
that laymen were then first prohibited from reading the Scriptures in
the vulgar tongue. In the succeeding year, many other edicts were
published, increasing in severity; but it appears that these rigorous
measures failed in effect, as the heresy of the Albigenses penetrated
even to the capital of Christendom.




CHAPTER III.

OF THE ANCIENT INQUISITION OF SPAIN.


In 1233, when the Inquisition in France had received the established
form which was bestowed on it by St. Louis, Spain was divided into four
Christian kingdoms, besides the Mahometan states. Castile was under the
dominion of St. Ferdinand, who added to it the kingdoms of Seville,
Cordova, and Jaen. James I. governed Aragon, and conquered the kingdoms
of Valencia and Majorca; Navarre was possessed by Sancho VIII., who died
in the course of the following year, and left his crown to Theobald I.,
Count de Champagne and de Brie. Sancho II. reigned in Portugal.

Many convents of Dominicans existed in these kingdoms after the
establishment of the order, but there are no authentic records, to prove
that the Inquisition was introduced before the year 1232, when Pope
Gregory IX. addressed a brief to Don Esparrago, Archbishop of Taragona,
and to his suffragan bishops, in which he most earnestly exhorted them
to oppose the progress of heresy by every means in their power.

The archbishop sent the bull to Gil Rodriguez de Valladares, first
provincial of the Spanish Dominicans; he also sent it to Don Bertrand,
Bishop of Lerida, in whose diocese the first Spanish Inquisition was
founded. Pope Innocent VI. conferred many privileges on the Dominican
Friars, and in 1254 extended the rights of the Inquisitors, and in the
same brief decreed that the depositions of witnesses should be
considered valid, although their names were unknown. Urban VI. and
Clement VI. also augmented their privileges.

The Kings of Aragon continued to protect the Inquisition, and James II.,
in 1292, published a decree, commanding the tribunals of justice to
assist the Dominicans, to imprison all who might be denounced, to
execute the judgments pronounced by the monks, to remove every obstacle
which they might meet with, _&c_. The hatred which the office of an
inquisitor everywhere inspired in the first ages of the Inquisition
caused the death of a great number of Dominicans and some Cordeliers:
the honours of martyrdom were assigned to them, but St. Peter of Verona
was the only one canonized by the pope. Nothing certain is known of the
state of Portugal during this period: it appears that in the thirteenth
century the Inquisition was established only in the dioceses of
Taragona, Barcelona, Urgel, Lerida, and Girona.

The convents of Dominicans having multiplied in Spain, a chapter-general
of the order decreed, in 1301, that it should be divided into two
provinces; that the first in rank should be named the province of Spain,
and comprise Castile and Portugal; and that the second should have the
title of Aragon, and be composed of Valencia, Catalonia, Rousillon,
Cerdagne, Majorca, Minorca, and Iviza.

The provincial of the Dominicans of Castile, designated as the
provincial of Spain, possessed the right of naming the apostolical
inquisitor in the other provinces. In 1302 Father Bernard was inquisitor
of Aragon, and celebrated several _autos-da-fé_ in the same year.

In 1308 Pope Clement V. commanded the King of Aragon and the inquisitors
to arrest all the knights templars who had not been prosecuted, and to
confiscate their property for the use of the holy see; the templars in
Castile and Portugal were also arrested.

In 1314, other heretics were discovered in the kingdom of Aragon;
Bernard Puigceros, the inquisitor-general, condemned several to
banishment, the others were burnt. Many who abjured were reconciled.

In 1325, F. Arnaldo Burguete, inquisitor-general of the kingdom,
arrested Pierre Durand de Baldhac, who had relapsed into heresy, and he
was burnt alive in the presence of King James, his sons, and two
bishops.

In 1334, F. William da Costa condemned F. Bonato to the flames, and
reconciled many persons who had been perverted by that monk.

In 1350, Father Nicholas Roselli discovered a sect of heretics named
_Begards_, whose chief was named Jacobus Justis; they were all
reconciled, and Jacobus was condemned to perpetual imprisonment. The
bones of three of these heretics who had died impenitent were
disinterred and burnt. Roselli being elected Cardinal in 1356, Nicholas
Eymerich succeeded him. Eymerich composed a book entitled "The Guide of
Inquisitors," in which the most minute details of his judgments, and
those of other inquisitors of Aragon, are found.

It is not certain whether the provincial of Castile exercised his
privilege of naming inquisitors; perhaps heresy had not penetrated into
the states of Castile.

Pope Gregory IX. dying in 1378, the Romans named Urban VI. as his
successor; but several cardinals assembled out of Rome, and elected
another Pope under the name of Clement VII.

The great schism of the West then began, and lasted till the election of
Martin V., in the Council-general of Constance in 1417, where Don Gil
Muñoz, who had been elected as Clement VIII., renounced the papacy. This
revolution influenced the state of the Inquisition as much as the other
points of ecclesiastical discipline. Castile followed the party of
Clement VII., and Portugal that of Urban VI. The order of Dominicans was
equally divided, and elected different vicars-general. Urban VI. died in
1389, and his party elected Boniface IX., who appointed F. Rodrigo de
Cintra apostolical inquisitor-general of Portugal. He afterwards named
F. Vicente de Lisboa inquisitor-general of Spain. Castile, Navarre, and
Aragon were under the dominion of Benedict XIII., who was elected Pope
after the death of Clement VII. Such was the state of the Inquisition in
Spain towards the end of the fourteenth century.

It is uncertain if the Inquisition existed in Castile in the beginning
of the fifteenth century; for, though Boniface IX. appointed F. Vicente
de Lisboa inquisitor-general, his authority was not recognized, as that
kingdom belonged to the party of Benedict XIII., who, after the Council
of Constance, was designated as the anti-pope Peter de Luna. The town of
Perpignan was the seat of one of the provincial Inquisitions of Aragon,
whose jurisdiction extended over the countships of Rousillon and
Cerdagne, and over the islands of Majorca, Minorca, and Iviza. Benedict
XIII., who was recognized in this part of Spain, divided this province
and appointed two inquisitors, who celebrated several _autos-da-fé_, and
burnt a considerable number of people.

The election of Martin V. having put an end to the great schism of the
West, the Portuguese monks ought to have submitted to the authority of
the Provincial of Spain, who was then a monk of their nation, named F.
Juan de Santa Justa; but the Dominicans who were at Constance persuaded
the Pope that his jurisdiction was too extensive, which induced the
pontiff to subdivide the province of Spain into three parts: the first
part was named the province of Spain, and comprised Castile, Toledo,
Murcia, Estremadura, Andalusia, Biscay, and the Asturias de Santillana;
the second, Santiago, was composed of the kingdom of Leon, Galicia, and
the Asturias of Oviedo; and the third, that of Portugal, extended over
all the dominions of the monarch.

Martin V. established a provincial Inquisition at Valencia, in 1420, at
the request of Alphonso V., King of Aragon; hitherto commissioners had
only been sent there.

The Inquisitor of Aragon, 1441, was F. Michael Ferriz, and that of
Valencia, F. Martin Trilles, who reconciled in their districts several
Wickliffites, and condemned many others to be burnt. Several inquisitors
succeeded these till 1474, when Isabella, wife of Ferdinand of Aragon,
King of Sicily, ascended the throne of Castile, after the death of Henry
IV. her brother. John II., King of Aragon, dying in 1479, his son,
Ferdinand, united that kingdom to Sicily; he soon after conquered the
kingdom of Grenada, which belonged to the Moors, and lastly that of
Navarre, which was secured to him by the capitulation of the
inhabitants.




CHAPTER IV.

OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE OLD INQUISITION.


Although the Popes, in establishing the Inquisition, had only proposed
to punish the crime of heresy, yet the inquisitors were commissioned to
pursue those Christians who were only suspected, because it was the only
means of discovering those who were really guilty. There were many
crimes which came under the jurisdiction of a civil judge, which the
Popes considered no one could be guilty of without being tainted with a
false doctrine; and although they were pursued by secular tribunals, the
inquisitors were enjoined to consider the accused as suspected of
heresy, and to proceed against them, in order to ascertain if they
committed these crimes from the depravity natural to man, or from the
idea that they were not criminal; which opinion caused a suspicion that
their doctrine was erroneous. A species of blasphemy which was called
heretical, belonged to this class of crimes; it was committed against
God or his saints, and showed in the offender erroneous opinions of the
omniscience or other attributes of the Deity. It rendered the blasphemer
liable to be suspected of heresy, as the inquisitor might consider it a
proof that his habitual thoughts were contrary to the faith.

The second species of crime which caused a suspicion of heresy, was
sorcery and divination. If the offenders only made use of natural and
simple means of discovering the future, such as counting the lines in
the palm of the hand, they came under the jurisdiction of a civil judge;
but all sorcerers were liable to be punished for heresy by the
Inquisition, if they baptized a dead person, re-baptized an infant, made
use of holy water, the consecrated host, the oil of extreme unction, or
other things which proved contempt or abuse of the sacraments and the
mysteries of religion.

The same suspicion affected those who addressed themselves to demons in
their superstitious practices. A third species of crime was the
invocation of demons. Nicholas Eymerich informs us that, in his office
of inquisitor, he had procured and burnt, after having read them, two
books which treated of that subject; they both contained an account of
the power of demons, and of the mode of worshipping them. The same
author adds, that in his time a great number of trials for this crime
took place in Catalonia, and that many of the accused had gone so far as
to worship Satan, with all the signs, ceremonies, and words of the
Catholic religion.

A fourth kind of crime which caused suspicion of heresy, was, to remain
a year, or longer, excommunicated without seeking absolution, or
performing the penance which had been imposed. The Popes affirmed that
no Catholic, irreproachable in his faith, could live with so much
indifference under the censure of the church.

Schism was the sixth case where heresy was suspected. It may exist
either without heresy or with it. To the first class belong all
schismatics, who admit the articles of the faith, but deny the authority
of the Pope, as head of the Catholic Church, and vicar of Jesus Christ.
The second is composed of those who hold the same opinions as the first,
and also refuse to believe in some of the articles; such as the Greeks,
who hold that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father, and not from
the Son.

The Inquisition also proceeded against concealers, favourers, and
adherents of heretics, as being suspected of professing the same
opinions. The seventh class was composed of all those who opposed the
Inquisition, and prevented the inquisitors from exercising their
functions.

The eighth class comprehended those nobles who refused to take an oath
to drive the heretics from their states. The ninth class consisted of
governors of kingdoms, provinces and towns, who did not defend the
Church against heretics, when they were required by the Inquisition. The
tenth class comprised those who refused to repeal the statutes in force
in towns and cities, when they were contrary to the measures decreed by
the holy office. The eleventh class of suspected persons, were all
lawyers, notaries, and other persons belonging to the law, who assisted
heretics by their advice; or concealed papers, records, and other
writings, which might make their errors, dwellings, or stations known.
In the twelfth class of suspected were those persons who have given
ecclesiastical sepulture to known heretics. Those who refused to take an
oath in the trials of heretics when they were required to do it, were
also liable to suspicion. The fourteenth class were deceased persons who
had been denounced as heretics. The Popes, in order to render heresy
more odious, had decreed that the bodies of dead heretics should be
disinterred and burnt, their property confiscated, and their memory
pronounced infamous. The same suspicion fell upon writings which
contained heretical doctrines, or which might lead to them. Lastly, the
Jews and Moors were considered as subject to the holy office, when they
engaged Catholics to embrace their faith, either by their writings or
discourse.

Although all the persons guilty of the crimes above-mentioned were under
the jurisdiction of the holy office, yet the Pope, his legates, his
nuncios, his officers, and familiars were exempt; and if any of these
were denounced as heretics, the inquisitor could only take the secret
information and refer it to the Pope. Bishops were also exempt, but
kings had not that privilege.

As the bishops were the ordinary inquisitors by divine right, it seems
just that they should have had the power of receiving informations, and
proceeding against the apostolical inquisitors in matters of faith; but
the Pope rendered his delegates independent, by decreeing that none but
an apostolical inquisitor could proceed against another. The inquisitor
and the bishop acted together, but each had the right of pursuing
heretics separately: the orders for imprisonment could only be issued by
both together, and if they did not accord they referred to the Pope. The
inquisitors could require the assistance of secular power in the
exercise of their authority, and it could not be refused without
incurring the punishment of excommunication and suspicion of heresy. The
bishop was obliged to lend his house for the prisoners; besides this,
the inquisitors had a particular prison to secure the persons of the
accused.

The first inquisitors had no fixed salary: the holy office was founded
on devotion and zeal for the faith; its members were almost all monks,
who had made a vow of poverty, and the priests who were associated in
their labours, were generally canons, or provided with benefices. But
when the inquisitors began to make journeys, accompanied by recorders,
alguazils, and an armed force, the Pope decreed that all their expenses
should be defrayed by the bishops, on the pretence that the inquisitors
laboured for the destruction of heresy in their dioceses. This measure
displeased the bishops, still more as they were deprived of part of
their authority. The expenses of the Inquisition were afterwards
defrayed by the fines and confiscations of the condemned heretics: these
resources were the only funds of the holy office; it never possessed any
fixed revenue.


_Of the Manner of Proceeding in the Tribunals of the Old Inquisition._

When a priest was appointed an inquisitor by the Pope, or by a delegate
of the holy see, he wrote to the king, who issued a royal mandate to all
the tribunals of the towns where the inquisitor would pass to perform
his office, commanding them, on pain of the most severe penalties, to
arrest all the persons whom he should mark as heretics, or suspect of
heresy, and to execute the judgments passed upon them. The same order
obliged the magistrates to furnish the inquisitor and his attendants
with a lodging, and to protect them from insult and every inconvenience.
When the inquisitor arrived at the town where he intended to enter upon
his office, he officially informed the magistrate, and required his
attendance, fixing the time and place.

The commander of the town presented himself before the delegate, and
took an oath to put in force all the laws against heretics. If the
officer or magistrate refused to obey, the inquisitor excommunicated
him; if he made no difficulty, the inquisitor appointed a day for the
people to meet in the church, when he preached, and read an edict which
commanded that all informations should be given within a certain
period. The inquisitor afterwards declared that all who should
voluntarily confess themselves heretics, should receive absolution, and
be subjected to a slight penance, but that those who were denounced
should be proceeded against with severity.

If any accusations took place during the interval, they were registered,
but did not take effect until it was known that the accused would not
come voluntarily before the tribunal. After the expiration of the period
allowed, the informer was summoned; he was told that there were three
ways of proceeding to discover the truth,--accusation, information, and
inquisition, and was asked to which he gave the preference. If he chose
the first, he was invited to accuse the denounced person, but at the
same time to consider that he was subject to the law of retaliation if
he was found to be a calumniator. This manner of proceeding was adopted
by very few persons: the greater number declared, that fear of the
punishments with which the holy office menaced those who did not inform
against heretics was the cause of their appearance; and they desired
that their information might be kept secret, on account of the danger
they incurred of being assassinated if they were known.

The inquisitor interrogated the witnesses, assisted by the recorder and
two priests, who were commissioned to observe if the declarations were
faithfully taken down, and to be present when they were read to the
witnesses, who were then asked if they acknowledged all that was read to
them. If the crime or suspicion of heresy was proved in the information,
the criminal was arrested and taken to the ecclesiastical prison. After
his arrest, he was examined, and his answers compared with the testimony
of the witnesses. If the accused confessed himself guilty of one heresy,
it was in vain for him to assert that he was innocent of the others; he
was not permitted to defend himself, because his crime was proved. He
was asked if he would abjure the heresy of which he acknowledged himself
guilty. If he consented, he was reconciled, and the canonical penance
was imposed on him, with some other punishment; if he refused, he was
declared an obstinate heretic, and was delivered up to secular justice,
with a copy of his sentence.

If the accused denied the charge, and undertook to defend himself, a
copy of the process was given to him, but without the names of the
accuser or the witnesses, and with every circumstance omitted which
might lead to their discovery.

The accused was asked if he had enemies, and if he knew their motives
for hating him. He was also permitted to declare that he suspected any
particular person of wishing to ruin him. In either case the proof was
admitted, and the inquisitor considered it in passing judgment. The
inquisitor sometimes asked the accused if he knew certain persons; these
individuals were the accusers and witnesses; if he replied in the
negative, he could not afterwards challenge them as enemies: in the
course of time, every one concluded that these persons were the accuser
and the witnesses, and the custom was abandoned. The accused person was
also permitted to appeal to the Pope, who rejected or admitted his
appeal, according to the rules of justice. There was no regular
proceeding before the Inquisition, and the judges did not fix a time to
establish the proof of the facts. After the replies and defence of the
accused, the inquisitor and the bishop of the diocese, or their
delegates, proceeded to pass sentence without any other formalities. If
the accused denied the charges, although he was convicted or strongly
suspected, he was tortured, to force him to confess his crime; or if it
was thought that there was no necessity for it, the judges proceeded to
pass the final sentence.

If the crime imputed to the accused was not proved, he was acquitted,
and a copy of the declaration given to him, but the name of his accuser
was not communicated. If he had been calumniated, he was obliged to
clear himself publicly by the canonical method, in the town where it had
taken place; he afterwards abjured all heresy, and received the
absolution _ad cautelam_[2] for all the censures which he had incurred.
In order to proportion the punishment to the suspicion, it was divided
into three degrees, named _slight_, _serious_, and _violent_.

The person who was declared to be suspected, though in the least degree,
was called upon to renounce all heresies, and particularly that of which
he was suspected. If he consented, he was reconciled, and was subjected
to punishments and penances; if he refused, he was excommunicated; and
if he did not demand absolution, or promise to abjure after the space of
one year, he was considered as an obstinate heretic, and proceeded
against as such. If the accused was a _formal_ heretic, willing to
abjure, and not guilty of having relapsed, he was reconciled with
penances.

A person was considered as relapsed if he had already been condemned, or
_violently_ suspected of the same errors. The abjurations were made in
the place where the inquisitor resided, sometimes in the episcopal
palace, in the convent of Dominicans, or in the house of the inquisitor,
but most generally in the churches. The Sunday before this ceremony, the
day on which it was to take place was announced in all the churches of
the town, and the inhabitants were requested to attend the sermon which
would be preached by the inquisitor against heresy. On the appointed day
the clergy and the people assembled round a scaffold, where the person
_slightly suspected_ stood bare-headed, that he might be seen by every
one. The mass was performed, and the inquisitor preached against the
particular heresy which was the cause of the ceremony; he announced that
the person on the scaffold was _slightly suspected_ of having fallen
into it, and read the process to the people: he concluded by saying,
that the culprit was ready to abjure. A cross and the Bible was given to
the offender, who read his abjuration, and signed it, if he could write;
the inquisitor then gave him absolution, and imposed upon him those
penances which were thought most useful.

When the suspicion of heresy was _violent_, the _auto-da-fé_ took place
on a Sunday, or festival-day, and all the other churches were closed,
that the concourse of people might be greater in that where the ceremony
was to be performed. The offender was warned, not only to be a good
Catholic for the future, but to conduct himself in such a manner as not
to be accused a second time; as, if he relapsed, he would suffer capital
punishment, although he might abjure and be reconciled. If the offender
was suspected in the highest degree, he was treated as an heretic, and
wore the habit of a penitent during the ceremony; it was composed of
brown stuff, with a scapulary which had two yellow crosses fastened on
it.

If the suspected person was to clear himself from calumny by the
canonical method, the ceremony was also announced before it took place,
and he was obliged to take an oath that he was not an heretic, and to
produce twelve witnesses who had known him for the last ten years, to
swear that they believed his affirmation to be true. He then abjured all
heresies.

If the accused was repentant, and demanded to be reconciled after having
relapsed, he was to be delivered over to secular justice, and was
destined to suffer capital punishment. The inquisitors, after having
passed judgment on him, engaged some priests, who were in their
confidence, to inform him of his situation, and induce him to demand the
sacrament of penance and the communion. When these ministers had passed
two or three days with the prisoner, an _auto-da-fé_ was announced; the
sentence was read which delivered the culprit over to secular justice,
and recommended the judges to treat him with humanity.

If the accused was an impenitent heretic, he was condemned, but the
_auto-da-fé_ was never celebrated until every means had been tried to
convert him; if he was obstinate, he was delivered up to the justice of
the king, and burnt. If the unfortunate heretic had relapsed, it was in
vain for him to return to the true faith; he could not avoid death, and
the only favour shewn him was, that he was first strangled, and
afterwards burnt. Those who escaped from the prisons, or fled to avoid
being arrested, were burnt in effigy.

The tribunal of the Inquisition being ecclesiastical, had originally
only the power of inflicting spiritual punishments; but the laws of the
emperors during the fourth and following centuries, and other
circumstances, caused the inquisitors of the thirteenth century to
assume the right of imposing punishments entirely temporal, except that
of death. The sentence of the Inquisition imposed a variety of fines and
personal penalties; such as entire or partial confiscation; perpetual,
or a limited period of imprisonment; exile, or transportation; infamy,
and the loss of employments, honours, and dignities. Those persons who
abjured as _seriously suspected_ of heresy, were condemned to be
imprisoned for a certain time proportioned to the degree of suspicion.
If the accused was _violently suspected_, he was condemned to perpetual
imprisonment, but the inquisitor had the power of mitigating the
sentence, if he judged that the prisoner repented sincerely. If the
abjurer had been a _formal_ heretic, he was imprisoned for life, and the
inquisitor had not the power of shortening the duration of the
punishment.

Among the punishments to which heretics were condemned, must be
enumerated that of wearing the habit of a penitent, known in Spain under
the name of _San Benito_, which is a corruption of _saco bendito_. Its
real name in Spanish was _Zamarra_. The first became the common name,
because the penitential habit was called _sac_ in the Jewish history.

Before the thirteenth century it was the custom to bless the _sac_ which
was worn in public penance, and hence it derived the epithet of
_bendito_ (blessed). It was a close tunic, made like the cassock of a
priest, with crosses of a different colour affixed to the breast. St.
Dominic and the other inquisitors caused the _reconciled heretics_ to
wear these crosses, as a protection against the Catholics who massacred
all known heretics, although they might be unarmed. The _reconciled
heretics_ wore two crosses to distinguish them from pure Catholics, who
only wore one as crusaders.




CHAPTER V.

ESTABLISHMENT Of THE MODERN INQUISITION IN SPAIN.


The state of the Inquisition in the kingdom of Aragon, at the accession
of Ferdinand and Isabella, has been shown in a preceding chapter. This
tribunal was then introduced into the kingdom of Castile, after having
been reformed by statutes and regulations so severe, that the Aragonese
violently resisted the fresh burdens which were imposed on them.

This is the Inquisition which has reigned in Spain since the year 1481,
which was destroyed, to the satisfaction of all Europe, and which has
since been re-established to the grief of all enlightened Spaniards.

The war against the Albigenses was the first cause of the establishment
of the Inquisition; and the pretended necessity of punishing the
apostacy of the newly-converted Spanish Jews, was the reason for
introducing it in a reformed state. It is important to remark, that the
immense trade carried on by the Spanish Jews had thrown into their hands
the greatest part of the wealth of the Peninsula; and that they had
acquired great power and influence in Castile under Alphonso IX., Peter
I., and Henry II.; and in Aragon under Peter IV. and John I. The
Christians, who could not rival them in industry, had almost all become
their debtors, and envy soon made them the enemies of their creditors.
This disposition was fostered by evil-minded men, and popular commotions
were the consequence in almost all the towns of the two kingdoms. In
1391, five thousand Jews were sacrificed to the fury of the people in
different towns. Several were known to have escaped death by becoming
Christians; many others sought to save themselves in following their
example; and in a short time more than a million persons renounced the
law of Moses to embrace the Christian faith. The number of conversions
increased considerably during the ten first years of the fifteenth
century, through the zeal of St. Vincent Ferrier and several other
missionaries; they were seconded by the famous conferences which took
place in 1413 between several Rabbis and the converted Jew, Jerome de
Santafé. The converted Jews were named _New Christians_; they were also
called Marranos, or the cursed race, from an oath which the Jews were in
the habit of using among themselves. As the fear of death was the cause
of most of these conversions, many repented, and secretly returned to
Judaism, though they outwardly conformed to Christianity. The constraint
to which they were obliged to submit was sometimes too painful, and
several were discovered. This was the ostensible reason for the
establishment of a tribunal which gave Ferdinand an opportunity of
confiscating immense riches, and which Sextus IV. could not but approve,
as it tended to augment the credit of the maxims of the court of Rome;
it is to these projects, concealed under the appearance of zeal for
religion, that the Inquisition of Spain owes its origin.

In 1477, Philip de Barbaris, inquisitor of the kingdom of Sicily, went
to Seville, to obtain from Ferdinand and Isabella the confirmation of a
privilege granted in 1233, by the Emperor Frederic, which gave to the
Inquisition of Sicily the right of seizing a third part of the property
of condemned heretics. Barbaris, through zeal for the interests of the
Pope, endeavoured to persuade the king that the Christian religion
derived the greatest advantages from the fear which the judgments of the
Inquisition inspired. He was eagerly seconded by Alphonso de Hojida,
prior of the convent of Dominicans at Seville; and Nicholas Franco, the
nuncio of the Pope at the court of Spain. A report was then spread in
different parts of the kingdom that the _New Christians_, with the
unbaptized Jews, insulted the images of Jesus Christ, and had even
crucified Christian children in mockery of his sufferings on the cross.
Ferdinand was willing to receive the Inquisition into his states: the
only obstacle was the refusal of Isabella; that excellent queen could
not approve of measures so contrary to the gentleness of her character,
but her consent was obtained by alarming her conscience: she was told
that it became a religious duty to adopt them in the present
circumstances.

Isabella suffered herself to be led away by the representations of her
council, and commissioned her ambassador at Rome, Don Francis de
Santillan, Bishop of Osma, to solicit in her name a bull for the
establishment of the Inquisition in Castile, which was granted in 1478.
It authorized Ferdinand and Isabella to name the priests who were to be
commissioned to discover in their states all heretics, apostates, and
favourers of these crimes. As this measure was displeasing to Isabella,
her council, by her order, suspended the execution of the bull until
less severe remedies had been tried.

The queen commissioned D. Diego Alphonso de Solis, Bishop of Cadiz,
Diego de Merlo, and Alphonso de Hojida, prior of the convent of
Dominicans, to observe the effects produced by gentle means, and give a
faithful account of them. Their reports were such as might be expected
from the situation of affairs; and the Dominican fathers, the nuncio,
and even the king, desired that the measures preferred by Isabella
should be declared insufficient.

The events of this year proved how displeasing the institution was to
the Castilians. In the beginning of the year 1480, the Cortes assembled
at Toledo. It was occupied in providing means to prevent the evil which
the communication of the Jews with Christians might produce: the ancient
regulations were renewed; and among others, those which obliged
unbaptized Jews to wear some distinguishing mark, and to inhabit
separate quarters, to which they were compelled to retire before night:
they were also prohibited from exercising the professions of physicians,
surgeons, merchants, barbers, and innkeepers; yet the Cortes had no
intention either of approving or demanding that the Inquisition should
be established in the kingdom.

The consent of the queen was obtained; and while the two sovereigns were
at Medina del Campo, on the 17th of November, 1480, they named as the
first inquisitors Michael Morillo and John de San Martin, both
Dominicans, as adviser and accessor of these two monks, Doctor John Ruiz
de Medina, a counsellor of the queen's; and as (procurator-fiscal)
attorney, John Lopez del Barco, the queen's chaplain.

On the 9th of October an order was sent by the king and queen to all the
governors of provinces to furnish the inquisitors and their suite with
everything they might require in their journey to Seville; an
extraordinary circumstance in that time, and which proves the influence
which the Dominicans had already acquired. Their privileges were the
same as those granted in 1223 by the Emperor Frederic. The Castilians
were so far from being pleased at the introduction of the Inquisition,
that the inquisitors, on their arrival at Seville, found it impossible
to collect the small number of persons necessary to the performance of
their functions, although they shewed their commission; and the Council
of Spain was obliged to issue another order, that the prefect and other
authorities of Seville, and the diocese of Cadiz, should assist the
inquisitors in their installation; this order was also interpreted in
such a manner that it was only executed in those towns which belonged to
the queen. The _New Christians_ then immediately emigrated into the
states of the Duke de Medina Sidonia, the Marquis of Cadiz, the Count
D'Arcos, and other nobles; and the new tribunal declared that their
heresy was proved by their emigration.

The inquisitors established their tribunal in the Dominican convent of
St. Paul, at Seville; and on the 2nd of January, 1481, they issued their
first edict, which commanded the Marquis of Cadiz, the Count D'Arcos,
and all grandees of Spain, to seize the persons of the emigrants within
fifteen days; and to send them under an escort to Seville, and
sequestrate their property, on pain of excommunication, besides the
other punishments to which they would be liable as favourers of heresy.
The number of prisoners was soon so considerable, that the convent
assigned to the inquisitors was not sufficiently large to contain them,
and the tribunal was removed to the Castle de Triana, situated near
Seville.

The inquisitors soon published a second edict, named the Edict of Grace,
to engage those who had apostatized to surrender themselves voluntarily:
it promised that if they came with true repentance, their property
should not be confiscated, and they should receive absolution; but if,
on the contrary, they suffered the time of _grace_ to elapse, or were
denounced by others, they would be prosecuted with all the severity of
the tribunal. Several suffered themselves to be persuaded; but the
inquisitors only granted them absolution when they had declared upon
oath the names, condition, and place of dwelling, of all the apostates
whom they knew or had heard spoken of. They were also obliged to keep
these revelations secret; and by these means a great number of _New
Christians_ fell into the hands of the inquisitors. When the period of
grace was passed, a new edict was published, which commanded all persons
to denounce those who had embraced the Judaic heresy, on pain of mortal
sin and excommunication. The consequence of this edict was, that an
heretic was only informed that he was accused, at the moment when he was
arrested and dragged to the dungeons of the Inquisition.

The same fate awaited the _converted_ Jew, who might have acquired
certain habits in his infancy, which, though not contrary to
Christianity, might be represented as certain signs of apostacy. The
inquisitors mentioned in their edict several cases where accusation was
commanded. The following cases are so equivocal, that altogether they
would scarcely form a simple presumption in the present time. A convert
was considered as relapsed into heresy, if he kept the sabbath out of
respect to the law which he had abandoned; this was sufficiently proved
if he wore better linen and garments on that day than those which he
commonly used, or had not a fire in his house from the preceding
evening; if he took the suet and fat from the animals which were
intended for his food, and washed the blood from it; if he examined the
blade of the knife before he killed the animals, and covered the blood
with earth; if he blessed the table after the manner of the Jews; if he
has drunk of the wine named caser, (a word derived from caxer, which
means _lawful_,) and which is prepared by Jews; if he pronounces the
bahara, or benediction, when he takes the vessel of wine into his hands,
and pronounces certain words before he gives it to another person; if he
eats of an animal killed by Jews; if he has recited the Psalms of David
without repeating the Gloria Patri at the end; if he gives his son a
Hebrew name chosen among those used by the Jews; if he plunges him seven
days after his birth into a basin containing water, gold, silver,
seed-pearl, wheat, barley, and other substances, pronouncing at the same
time certain words, according to the custom of the Jews; if he draws the
horoscope of his children at their birth; if he performs the ruaya, a
ceremony which consists in inviting his relations and friends to a
repast the day before he undertakes a journey; if he turned his face to
the wall at the time of his death, or has been placed in that posture
before he expired; if he has washed, or caused to be washed, in hot
water the body of a dead person, and interred him in a new shroud, with
hose, shirt, and a mantle, and placed a piece of money in his mouth; if
he has uttered a discourse in praise of the dead, or recited melancholy
verses; if he has emptied the pitchers and other vessels of water in the
house of the dead person, or in those of his neighbours, according to
the custom of the Jews; if he sits behind the door of the deceased as a
sign of grief, or eats fish and olives instead of meat, to honour his
memory; if he remains in his house one year after the death of any one,
to prove his grief. All these articles show the artifice used by the
inquisitors in order to prove to Isabella that a great number of Judaic
heretics existed in the dioceses of Cadiz and Seville. These measures,
so well adapted to multiply victims, could not fail in their effect, and
the tribunal soon began its cruel executions. On the 6th of January,
1481, six persons were burnt, seventeen on the 26th of March following,
and a still greater number a month after; on the 4th of November, the
same year, two hundred and ninety-eight _New Christians_ had suffered
the punishment of burning, and seventy-nine were condemned to the
horrors of perpetual imprisonment in the town of Seville alone. In other
parts of the province and in the diocese of Cadiz, two thousand of these
unfortunate creatures were burnt; according to Mariana, a still greater
number were burnt in effigy, and one thousand seven hundred suffered
different canonical punishments.

The great number of persons condemned to be burnt, obliged the prefect
of Seville to construct a scaffold of stone in a field near the town,
name Tablada; it was called Quemadero, and still exists. Four statues,
of plaster, were erected on it, and bore the name of the _Four
Prophets_; the condemned persons were enclosed alive in these figures,
and perished by a slow and horrible death[3].

The dread which these executions inspired in the _New Christians_ caused
a great number to emigrate to France, Portugal, and even to Africa. Many
of those who had been condemned for contumacy had fled to Rome, and
demanded justice of the Pope against their judges. The sovereign pontiff
wrote on the 29th of January to Ferdinand and Isabella, and complained
that the inquisitors did not follow the rule of right in declaring those
to be heretics who were not guilty. His Holiness added that he would
have pronounced their deprivation but from respect to the royal decree
which had instituted them in their office, but he revoked the
authorization which he had given. On the 11th of the following month the
Pope despatched a new brief, in which, without mentioning the first, he
says, the general of the Dominicans, Alphonso de St. Cebriant, having
proved to him the necessity of increasing the number of inquisitors, he
had appointed to that office Alphonso de St. Cebriant, and seven monks
of his order. It was at this time that Queen Isabella requested the Pope
to give the Inquisition a permanent form which should be satisfactory to
all parties; she required that the judgments passed in Spain should be
definitive and without appeal to Rome, and complained at the same time
that many persons accused her of being influenced in all that she did
for the tribunal by a desire to seize the wealth of the condemned.

When Sixtus IV. received this letter he had just learnt that his bulls
had met with some resistance in Sicily from the viceroy and other
magistrates, and artfully took advantage of Isabella's request to
confirm his authority in that kingdom. He replied to the queen, and
praised her zeal for the Inquisition; appeased her scruples of
conscience in regard to the confiscations; and assured her that he would
have complied with all her demands, if the cardinals, and those charged
with the administration of affairs, had not found insurmountable
difficulties in so doing. He exhorted her to maintain the Inquisition in
her states, and above all to take proper measures that the apostolical
bulls should be received and executed in Sicily.

The councillors to whom the Pope had submitted the demands of Isabella,
approved of the creation of an apostolical judge of appeal in Spain; and
proposed at the same time that no person descended from the Jews, either
by the male or female side, should be admitted among the inquisitorial
judges. Don Inigo Manrique was named sole judge of appeals in all
matters of faith.




CHAPTER VI.

CREATION OF A GRAND INQUISITOR-GENERAL; OF A ROYAL COUNCIL OF THE
INQUISITION; OF SUBALTERN TRIBUNALS AND ORGANIC LAWS: ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE HOLY OFFICE IN ARAGON.


In 1483, Father Thomas de Torquemada was appointed inquisitor-general of
Aragon, and the immense powers of his office were confirmed in 1486, by
Innocent VIII. and by the two successors of that pontiff. It would have
been impossible to find a man more proper to fulfil the intentions of
Ferdinand in multiplying the number of confiscations than Torquemada. He
first created four inferior tribunals at Seville, Cordova, Jaen, and
Villa-Real (now Ciudad-Real); the latter was soon after transferred to
Toledo. He then permitted the Dominican fathers to exercise their
functions in the kingdom of Castile: these monks, who held their
commission from the holy see, did not submit to the authority of
Torquemada without some resistance; they declared that they were not his
delegates. Torquemada did not pronounce their deposition, as he feared
it would injure the execution of the enterprise which he was commencing,
but prepared to form laws which he found very necessary. He chose as
assistants and councillors, two Civilians, named John Gutierrez de
Chabes, and Tristan de Medina. At this time Ferdinand, perceiving how
important it was to the interest of the revenue to organize the
tribunal, created a royal council of the Inquisition, and appointed
Torquemada president, and as councillors, Don Alphonso Carillo, Bishop
of Mazara in Sicily, Sancho Velasquez de Cuellar and Ponce de Valencia,
both doctors of law. Torquemada commissioned his two assistants to
arrange the laws for the new council, and convoked a junta, which was
composed of the inquisitors of the four tribunals which he had
established, the two assistants, and the members of the royal council.
This assembly was held at Seville, and published the first laws of the
Spanish tribunal under the name of instructions in 1484. These
instructions were divided into twenty-eight articles.

The 1st article regulated the manner in which the establishment of the
Inquisition should be announced in the country where it was to be
introduced.

The 2nd article commanded that an edict should be published, accompanied
with censures against those who did not accuse themselves voluntarily
during the term of grace.

By the 3rd, a delay of thirty days was appointed for heretics to declare
themselves.

The 4th regulated that all voluntary confessions should be written in
the presence of the inquisitors and a recorder.

The 5th, that absolution should not be given secretly to any individual
voluntarily confessing, unless no person was acquainted with his crime.

The 6th ordained, that part of the penance of a _reconciled heretic_
should consist in being deprived of all honourable employments, and of
the use of gold, silver, pearls, silk, and fine wool.

By the 7th article, pecuniary penalties were imposed on all who made a
voluntary confession.

By the 8th, the person who accused himself after the term of grace could
not be exempted from the punishment of confiscation.

The 9th article decreed, that if persons under twenty years of age
accuse themselves after the term of grace, and it is proved that they
were drawn into error by their parents, a slight punishment shall be
inflicted.

The 10th obliged the inquisitors to declare, in their act of
reconciliation, the exact time when the offender fell into heresy, that
the portion of property to be confiscated might be ascertained.

The 11th article decreed, that if a heretic, detained in the prisons of
the holy office, demanded absolution, and appeared to feel true
repentance, that it might be granted to him, imposing, at the same time,
perpetual imprisonment.

By the 12th, if the inquisitors thought the repentance of the prisoner
was pretended, in the case indicated by the former article, they were
permitted to refuse the absolution, to declare him a false penitent, and
as such condemn him to be burnt.

By the 13th, if a man, absolved after his confession, should boast of
having concealed several crimes, or if information should be obtained
that he had committed more than he had confessed, he was to be arrested
and judged as a false penitent.

By the 14th article, the accused was to be condemned as impenitent, if
he persisted in his denials even after the publication of the testimony.

By the 15th, if a semi-proof existed against a person who denied his
crime, he was to be put to the torture; if he confessed his crime during
the torture, and afterwards confirmed his confession, he was punished as
convicted; if he retracted, he was tortured again, or condemned to an
extraordinary punishment.

The 16th article prohibited the communication of the entire deposition
of the witnesses to the accused.

The 17th article obliged the inquisitors to interrogate the witnesses
themselves, if it was not impossible.

The 18th article decrees, that one or two inquisitors should be present
when the prisoner was tortured, or appoint a commissioner if they were
occupied elsewhere, to receive his declarations.

By the 19th article, if the accused did not appear when summoned,
according to the prescribed form, he was condemned as a heretic.

The 20th article decrees, that if it is proved that any person died a
heretic, by his writings or conduct, that he shall be judged and
condemned as such, his body disinterred and burnt, and his property
confiscated.

By the 21st, the inquisitors were commanded to extend their jurisdiction
over the vassals of nobles; if they refused to permit it, they were to
be censured.

The 22nd decreed, that if a man, burnt as a heretic, left children under
age, a portion of their father's property should be granted to them
under the title of alms, and the inquisitors shall be obliged to confide
their education to proper persons.

By the 23rd, if a heretic, reconciled during the term of grace, without
having incurred the punishment of confiscation, possessed property
belonging to a condemned person, this property was not to be included in
the pardon.

The 24th obliged the reconciled to give his Christian slaves their
liberty, when his property was not confiscated, if the king granted the
pardon on that condition.

The 25th prohibited the inquisitors, and other persons attached to the
tribunal, from receiving presents, on pain of excommunication,
deprivation of their employments, restitution, and a penalty of twice
the value of the gifts received.

The 26th recommends to the officers of the Inquisition to live in peace
together.

The 27th commands that they shall carefully watch the conduct of their
inferior officers.

The 28th and last, commits to the prudence of the inquisitors the
discussion of all points not mentioned in the foregoing articles.

Ferdinand having convoked at Tarazona the Cortes of his kingdom of
Aragon, decreed that the Inquisition should be reformed in a
privy-council. After this resolution, Torquemada named Gaspard Juglar, a
dominican, and Peter Arbuès d'Epila, as inquisitors for the
archbishopric of Saragossa. A royal ordinance commanded all the
authorities to aid and assist them in their office, and the magistrate
known by the name of Chief Justice of Aragon, took the oath with
several others. This circumstance did not prevent the resistance which
the Aragonese opposed to the tribunal; on the contrary it augmented, and
rose to such a height, that it might have been termed national.

The principal persons employed in the Court of Aragon were descended
from _New Christians_: among these were Louis Gonzalez, the royal
secretary for the affairs of the kingdom; Philip de Clemente,
prothonotary; Alphonso de la Caballeria, vice-chancellor; and Gabriel
Sanchez, grand treasurer; who were all descended from Jews condemned, in
their time, by the Inquisition. These men, and many others employed in
the court, had allied themselves to the principal grandees in the
kingdom, and used the influence which they derived from this
circumstance, to engage the representatives of the nation to appeal to
the Pope and the king, against the inquisitorial code. Commissioners
were sent to Rome and the Court of Spain, to demand the suspension of
the articles relating to confiscation, as contrary to the laws of the
kingdom of Aragon. They were persuaded that the Inquisition would not
maintain itself if this measure was abandoned. While the deputies of the
Cortes of Aragon were at Rome, and with the king, the inquisitors
condemned several _New Christians_ as Judaic heretics. These executions
increased the irritation of the Aragonese; and when the deputies wrote
from the Court of Spain, that they were not satisfied with the state of
affairs, they resolved to sacrifice one or two of the inquisitors, with
the hope that no one would dare to take the office, and that the king
would renounce his design. The project of assassination having been
approved by the conspirators, a voluntary contribution was raised among
all the Aragonese of the Jewish race; and it was proved by the trials of
Sancho de Paternoy and others, that Don Blasco d'Alagon received ten
thousand reals, which were destined to reward the assassins of the
Inquisitor Arbuès, John de la Abadia, a noble of Aragon, but descended
from Jewish ancestors on the female side, took upon himself the
direction of the enterprise. The assassination was confided to John
d'Esperaindeo, to Vidal d'Uranso, his servant, to Matthew Ram, Tristan
de Leonis, Anthony Gran, and Bernard Leofante. They failed several times
in their attempts, as Peter Arbuès, being informed of their design, took
the necessary precautions to secure his life.

It appears, from the examination of some of the murderers, that the
inquisitor wore a coat of mail under his vest, and a kind of helmet
covered with a cap. He was at last assassinated in the metropolitan
church, during the performance of the matins, on the 15th of November,
1485. Vidal d'Uranso wounded him so severely in the back of the neck,
that he died two days after. The next day the murder was known in the
town, but its effects were different from what had been expected, for
all the _Old Christians_, or those who were not of Jewish origin,
persuaded that the _New Christians_ had committed the crime, assembled
to pursue them and revenge the death of the inquisitor. The disturbance
was violent, and its consequences would have been terrible, if the young
archbishop, Don Alphonso of Aragon, had not shewn himself, and assured
the multitude that the criminal should be punished. Policy inspired
Ferdinand and Isabella with the idea of honouring the memory of Arbuès
with a solemnity which contributed to make him pass for a saint, and
caused a particular worship to be addressed to him. This took place long
after, when Pope Alexander VII. had beatified him as a martyr, in 1664.
A magnificent monument was erected to his memory, by Ferdinand and
Isabella. While the sovereigns were occupied in honouring the remains of
Peter Arbuès, the inquisitors of Saragossa were labouring without
ceasing to discover the authors and accomplices of his murder, and to
punish them as Judaic heretics and enemies to the holy office. It would
be difficult to enumerate the number of families plunged into misery
through their vengeance; two hundred victims were soon sacrificed.
Vidal d'Uranso, one of the assassins, revealed all he knew of the
conspiracy, which was the cause of the discovery of its authors. There
was scarcely a single family in the three first orders of nobility,
which was not disgraced by having at least one of its members in the
_auto-da-fé_, wearing the habit of a penitent.

Don James Diaz d'Aux Armendarix, lord of the town of Cadreita, a knight
of Navarre, and ancestor of the Dukes of Albuquerque, was condemned to a
public penance, for having concealed in his house, for one night,
several persons who fled from Saragossa. The same punishment was
inflicted on several other illustrious knights of the town of Tudela in
Navarre, for having received and concealed other fugitives. Don James de
Navarre (the son of Eleanor, Queen of Navarre, and Gaston de Foix) was
imprisoned in the dungeons of the Inquisition, and was subjected to a
public penance for having assisted several of the conspirators in their
flight. The inquisitors knew, when they had the audacity to imprison
him, that he was not beloved by Ferdinand, who always feared him,
although he was not legitimate.

Don Lope Ximenez de Urrea, first count of Aranda; Don Louis Gonzalez,
secretary to the king; Don Alphonso de la Caballeria, vice-chancellor of
the kingdom; and many other persons of equal rank, were condemned to the
same punishment. John de Esperaindeo and the other assassins of Arbuès
were hung, after having their hands cut off. Their bodies were
quartered, and their limbs exposed in the highways. John de l'Abadia
killed himself in prison the day before the execution, but his corpse
was treated in the same manner as the others. The hands of Vidal
d'Uranso were not cut off until he had expired, because he had been
promised his pardon if he discovered the conspirators.

All the other provinces of Aragon made an equal resistance to the
introduction of the new Inquisition. The seditions at Teruel were only
quelled in 1485, by extreme severity. The town and bishopric of Lerida,
and other towns in Catalonia, obstinately resisted the establishment of
the reform, and were not reduced to obedience until 1487. Barcelona
refused to acknowledge Torquemada or any of his delegates, on account of
a privilege which it possessed of having an inquisitor with a special
title. The king applied to the Pope, who instituted Torquemada special
inquisitor of the town and bishopric of Barcelona, with the power of
appointing others to the office. The king was obliged to employ the same
method with the inhabitants of Majorca and those of Sardinia, who did
not receive the Inquisition until 1490 and 1492. It is an incontestable
fact in the history of the Spanish Inquisition, that it was introduced
entirely against the consent of the provinces, and only by the influence
of the Dominican monks.




CHAPTER VII.

ADDITIONAL ACTS TO THE FIRST CONSTITUTION OF THE HOLY OFFICE;
CONSEQUENCES OF THEM, AND APPEALS TO ROME AGAINST THEM.


The inquisitor-general judged it necessary to augment the laws of the
holy office; and added eleven new articles to them; the substance of
them is as follows:--

1st. That each inferior tribunal should consist of two inquisitors as
civilians, an attorney, an alguazil, a recorder and other persons, if
necessary, who were to receive a fixed salary. The same article
prohibits the admission of the servants or creatures of the inquisitors
into the tribunal.

2nd. That if any of the persons employed should receive presents from
the accused or his family, he should be immediately deprived of his
office.

3rd. That the holy office should employ an able civilian at Rome, under
the title of agent, and that this expense, should be supported by the
money arising from the confiscations.

4th. That the contracts signed before the year 1479, by persons whose
property had since been seized, should be regarded as valid; but if it
was proved that any deception had been used in the transactions, that
the culprits should be punished by a hundred strokes of a whip, and
branded on the face with a red-hot iron.

5th. That the nobles who should receive fugitives in their estates,
should be compelled to deliver up to government the property committed
to their care; and if they claimed the fulfilments of contracts signed
by the accused for their profit, that the attorney should commence an
action to reclaim the property at belonging to the revenue.

6th. That the notaries of the Inquisition should keep an account of the
property of the condemned persons.

7th. That the stewards of the holy office could sell the confiscated
property, and receive the rents of the estates which might be let.

8th. That each steward should inspect the property belonging to his
tribunal.

9th. That a steward could not sequestrate the property of a condemned
person, without an order from the Inquisition; and even in that case,
that he should be accompanied by an alguazil, and place the effects and
an inventory of them in the hands of a third person.

10th. That the steward should pay the salaries of the inquisitors
quarterly, that they might not be obliged to receive presents.

11th. That in all circumstances not foreseen in the new regulations, the
inquisitors should conduct themselves with prudence, and apply to the
government in all difficult cases.

The nature of these articles proves that the number of confiscations
had been considerable. Ferdinand and Isabella often gave the property of
the condemned persons to their wives and children, granted them pensions
on the property, or a certain sum to be paid by the receiver-general.

These sums, and the care which people took to conceal their effects,
diminished the funds of the Inquisition; besides which, most of the _New
Christians_ were merchants or artisans, and it often happened that the
receivers who paid the royal gifts were unable to pay the salaries of
the inquisitors. Torquemada, in 1488, decreed that the royal gifts
should not be paid, until the salaries and other expenses of the
Inquisition had been defrayed, and wrote to request the approbation of
Ferdinand, who refused it. The inquisitor-general was then obliged to
permit the inquisitors to impose pecuniary penalties on reconciled
persons (which permission was afterwards revoked). As experience showed
that the revenue of the Inquisition was never sufficient, on account of
the great number of prisoners which it was obliged to maintain, and the
expenses incurred by the agent at Rome, Ferdinand and Isabella requested
the Pope to place at the disposal of the holy office, a prebendary in
each cathedral in their dominions; to which he consented in 1501. The
receivers finding themselves unable to defray the expenses of the
administration, demanded restitution of many persons whom they accused
of retaining estates belonging to the Inquisition. This conduct caused
so many complaints, that the council of the Inquisition was obliged to
prohibit the receivers from molesting the proprietors of estates which
had been sold before the year 1479. It is not surprising that the
receivers should employ such measures to augment the revenue, when the
inquisitors contributed to impoverish it themselves, by disposing of it
according to their caprices, and without the permission of the
sovereigns. This abuse rose to such a height, that Ferdinand and
Isabella complained to the Pope, who prohibited the inquisitors from
disposing of their revenues without an order from the king, on pain of
excommunication. The inquisitors were afterwards obliged to refund the
sums which they had seized.

In 1488 the inquisitor-general formed, with the assistance of the
supreme council, a new ordinance, which consisted of fifteen articles.

The first decreed that the regulations of 1484 should be followed in all
things, except in regard to the confiscations, which were to be
regulated by the rules of equity.

The 2nd enjoins the inquisitors to proceed in a uniform manner, on
account of the abuses produced by a contrary system.

The 3rd prohibits inquisitors from delaying to pass sentence, on the
pretence of waiting for the full proof of the crime.

The 4th imports, that as there are not in all the tribunals civilians of
sufficient ability to be consulted in the preparation of the definitive
sentences, the inquisitors shall send the writings of the trials to the
inquisitor-general, in order to be examined by the civilians of the
supreme council.

The 5th decrees that no person shall be allowed to hold any
communication with the prisoners, except the priests, who were obliged
to visit the prisons once in a fortnight.

The 6th commands that the testimony of witnesses shall be received in
the presence of as small a number of persons as possible, that secrecy
may not be violated.

The 7th, that the writings and papers belonging to the Inquisition shall
be kept in the place of residence of the inquisitors, and locked up in a
chest; the key of which shall be kept by the notary of the tribunal, who
must not give it up, on pain of losing his place.

The 8th article decrees, that if the inquisitors of a district arrest a
man already pursued by another tribunal, all the papers relating to his
trial shall be placed in the hands of the first.

The 9th article decrees, that if there are papers in the archives of a
tribunal which may be of use to another, the expenses incurred in
sending them shall be paid by it.

The 10th article declares, that as there are not prisons enough for all
who are condemned to perpetual imprisonment, they shall be permitted to
remain in their houses, but not to go out, on pain of being punished
with the utmost severity.

In the 11th, the inquisitors are recommended to execute rigorously all
those laws which prohibit the children and grandchildren of condemned
persons from exercising any honourable employment, and from wearing any
garment of silk, or fine wool, or any ornament of gold, silver, or
precious stones.

The 12th article decrees, that males cannot be admitted to
reconciliation and abjuration before the age of fourteen years, or
females before that of twelve; if they had abjured before that age, a
ratification was necessary.

The 13th prohibited the receivers from paying the royal gifts, until the
expenses of the Inquisition were defrayed.

The 14th declares, that the holy office should petition the sovereigns
to build a prison in each town where it was established, for the
reception of those who might be condemned to that punishment. It also
recommends that the cells should be arranged in such a manner, that the
prisoners might exercise their respective professions, and thus maintain
themselves.

The 15th and last article obliged the notaries, fiscals, and alguazils,
and other officers of the Inquisition, to perform their functions in
person.

The inquisitor-general found that these regulations were not sufficient
to prevent abuses; he therefore convoked a junta of inquisitors at
Toledo. The decrees of this assembly were published at Avila in 1498,
and were as follows:--

First, that each tribunal should be composed of two inquisitors, one a
civilian, the other a theologian. They were prohibited from inflicting
imprisonment or torture, or communicating the charges made by the
witnesses, without the consent of both.

Secondly, that the inquisitors should not allow their dependents to
carry any defensive arms, except where their office obliges them to do
so.

Thirdly, that no person should be imprisoned if his crime had not been
sufficiently proved; and that when the arrest had taken place, his
judgment should be immediately pronounced, without waiting for fresh
proofs.

Fourthly, that the Inquisition should acquit deceased persons, if
sufficient proof was not produced, and not delay the trial to wait for
fresh accusations, as it was injurious to the children, whose
establishment was prevented, from the uncertainty of the result of the
trial.

Fifthly, that the entire failure of the funds of the holy office should
not occasion the imposition of a greater number of pecuniary penalties.

Sixthly, that the inquisitors should not change imprisonment, or any
other corporeal punishment, to a pecuniary penalty, but for the
punishment of fasting, alms, pilgrimages, or other similar penances.

Seventhly, that the inquisitors should carefully examine into the
expediency of admitting to reconciliation those who confessed their
crimes after their arrest, since they might be considered as
contumacious, as the Inquisition had been established many years.

Eighthly, that the inquisitors should punish false witnesses publicly.

Ninthly, that two men related in any degree should not be employed in
the holy office, nor a master and his servant, even in case their
functions should be entirely distinct.

Tenthly, that each tribunal should have archives secured by three locks,
the keys of which should be placed in the hands of the two notaries and
the fiscal.

Eleventhly, that the notary should receive the testimony of witnesses
only in the presence of an inquisitor, and that the two priests
commissioned to prove the truth of the deposition should not belong to
the tribunal.

Twelfthly, that the inquisitor should establish the Inquisition in all
towns where it did not already exist.

Thirteenthly, that in all difficult cases the inquisitors should consult
the council.

Fourteenthly, that the women should have a prison separated from that of
the men.

Fifteenthly, that the officers of the tribunal should perform their
functions six hours in a day, and that they should attend the
inquisitors whenever they were required.

Sixteenthly, that after the inquisitors had received the oath of the
witnesses in presence of the fiscal, he should be obliged to retire.

Besides these ordinances, Torquemada established several particular
regulations for each individual belonging to the tribunal: all the
persons employed were obliged to take an oath that they would not reveal
anything they might see or hear: the inquisitor was not allowed to
remain alone with the prisoner; the gaoler could not allow any person to
speak with him, and was obliged to examine if any writings were
concealed in the food which was given him. These were the last
regulations framed by Torquemada, but Diego Deza, his successor,
published a fifth _instruction_ at Seville, in 1500.

Such were the laws of the holy office in Spain. This code caused the
emigration of more than a hundred thousand families useful to the state,
and the loss of many millions of francs which were spent at the court of
Rome, either for the bulls which it expedited, or by those who repaired
thither to solicit their absolution from the Popes. The holy see was far
from complaining of this practice, as it brought immense sums to the
treasury, and no person who presented himself with his money before the
apostolical penitentiary, failed of obtaining the absolution he
solicited, or an order for absolution elsewhere.

This conduct displeased the inquisitors: depending on the protection of
Ferdinand and Isabella, they expostulated with the Pope, who annulled
the absolutions already granted, thus deceiving those who had spent the
greatest part of their fortunes in endeavouring to obtain them. He then
promised new pardons on new conditions, contrary to the engagement he
had entered into with Ferdinand, to abolish every means of appeal to the
Court of Rome. Such was the constant practice of the holy see during
thirty years after the establishment of the Inquisition in Spain.




CHAPTER VIII.

EXPULSION OF THE JEWS.--PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BISHOPS.--DEATH OF
TORQUEMADA.


In 1492 Ferdinand and Isabella conquered the kingdom of Grenada. This
event offered a multitude of victims to the holy office in the persons
of the Moors, who were converted merely in the hope of obtaining
consideration, and after their baptism returned to Mahometanism. John de
Navagiero, in his travels in Spain, states, that Ferdinand had promised
the Morescoes, (as those Moors were called who became Christians,) that
the Inquisition should not interfere with them for the space of forty
years, but that the Inquisition was established in the kingdom of
Grenada, on the pretence that many Jews had taken refuge there. This
statement is not exact; the sovereigns only promised that the Moorish
Christians should not be prosecuted except for serious crimes, and the
Inquisition was not introduced among them before 1526.

It was in the year 1492 that the unbaptized Jews were expelled from
Spain. They were accused of persuading those of their nation who had
become Christians to apostatize, and of crucifying children on
Good-Friday, in mockery of the Saviour of the world, and of many other
offences of the same nature. The Jewish physicians, surgeons, and
apothecaries, were also accused of having taken advantage of their
professions, to cause the death of a great number of Christians, and
among others, that of Henry III., which was attributed to his physician,
Don Maïr.

The Jews, in order to avert the danger which threatened them, offered to
supply Ferdinand with thirty thousand pieces of silver to carry on the
war against Grenada; they promised to live peaceably, to comply with the
regulations formed for them, in retiring to their houses in the quarters
assigned to them before night, and in renouncing all professions which
were reserved for the Christians. Ferdinand and Isabella were willing to
listen to these propositions; but Torquemada, being informed of their
inclinations, had the boldness to appear before them with a crucifix in
his hand, and to address them in these words:--

"Judas sold his master for thirty pieces of silver, your highnesses are
about to do the same for thirty thousand; behold him, take him, and
hasten to self him."

The fanaticism of the Dominican wrought a sudden change in the minds of
the sovereigns, and they issued a decree on the 31st of March 1492, by
which all the Jews were compelled to quit Spain before the 31st of July
ensuing, on pain of death, and the confiscation of their property; the
decree also prohibited Christians from receiving them into their houses
after that period. They were permitted to sell their stock, to carry
away their furniture and other effects, _except gold and silver, for
which they were to accept letters of change, or any merchandise not
prohibited_.

Torquemada commissioned all preachers to exhort them to receive
baptism, and remain in the kingdom. A small number suffered themselves
to be persuaded; the rest sold their goods at so low a price, that
Andrew Bernaldez (a contemporary historian) declares, in his history of
the Catholic Kings, that he saw _the Jews give a house for an ass, and a
vineyard for a small quantity of cloth or linen_.

According to Mariana, eight hundred thousand Jews quitted Spain, and if
the Moors, who emigrated to Africa, and the Christians who settled in
the New World, are added to the number, we shall find that Ferdinand and
Isabella lost, through these cruel measures, two millions of subjects.
Bernaldez affirms, that the Jews carried a quantity of gold with them,
concealed in their garments and saddles, and even in their intestines,
for they reduced the ducats into small pieces, and swallowed them. A
great number afterwards returned to Spain, and received baptism. Some
returned from the kingdom of Fez, where the Moors had seized their money
and effects, and even killed the women, to take the gold which they
expected to find within them. These cruelties can only be attributed to
the fanaticism of Torquemada, to the avarice and superstition of
Ferdinand, and to the inconsiderate zeal of Isabella, who, nevertheless,
possessed great gentleness of character, and an enlightened mind.

The other European courts were not thus influenced by fanaticism, and
paid no attention to a bull of Innocent VIII., which commanded all
governments to arrest, at the desire of Torquemada, the fugitives whom
he should designate, on pain of excommunication; the monarch was the
only person exempted from the penalty.

The insolent fanatic, Torquemada, while he affected to refuse the honour
of episcopacy through modesty, was the first who gave the fatal example
of subjecting bishops to trial. Not satisfied with having obtained from
Sixtus IV. the briefs which prohibited bishops of Jewish origin from
interfering in the affairs of the Inquisition, he even wished to put
two on their trial, namely, Don Juan Arias Davila, Bishop of Segovia;
and Don Pedro de Aranda, Bishop of Calahorra. He made his resolution
known to the Pope, who informed him that his predecessor, Boniface
VIII., had prohibited the Inquisition from proceeding against bishops,
archbishops, or cardinals, without an apostolical commission; but if any
prelate was accused of heresy, he charged Torquemada to send him a copy
of the informations, that he might decide on the method to be pursued.

Torquemada immediately began to take secret informations of the conduct
of the bishops, and the Pope sent Antonio Palavicini, Bishop of Tournai,
to Spain, with the title of apostolical nuncio, when he received the
informations of Torquemada, and returned to Rome, where the two bishops
were cited to appear and defend themselves. Don Juan Arias Davila was
the son of Diego Arias Davila, who was of Jewish origin, and was
baptized after the preaching of St. Vincent Ferrier; he afterwards
became chief financier to the kings John II. and Henry IV. Henry IV.
ennobled him, and gave him the lordship of the Castle of Puñonrostro,
and several other places which form the countship of Puñonrostro, and
the title of Grandee of Spain, which has been possessed by his
descendants from the time of Pedro Arias Davila, the first count, and
brother to the bishop, and who was also chief financier to Henry IV. and
Ferdinand V. The rank of the bishop did not intimidate Torquemada;
informations were taken by his order, and the result was, that Diego
Arias Davila died a Judaic heretic: the object which the
inquisitor-general had in view, was to condemn his memory, confiscate
his property, and to disinter his body, in order to burn it with his
effigy. As, in all affairs of this nature, the children are cited to
appear, Don Juan Arias Davila was obliged to repair to Rome in 1490, to
defend his father and himself, although he had arrived at a great age,
and had been Bishop of Segovia thirty years. He was well received by
Alexander VI., who appointed him to accompany his nephew, the Cardinal
Montreal, to Naples, when he went to crown Ferdinand II. Davila returned
to Rome, and died there in 1497, after having cleared the memory of his
father.

Don Pedro Aranda, Bishop of Calahorra, was not so fortunate. He was the
son of Gonzales Alonzo, a Jew, who was also baptized in the time of St.
Vincent Ferrier, and who was afterwards master of a chapel. Gonzales had
the pleasure of seeing both his sons attain the dignity of bishops: the
eldest was Archbishop of Montreal in Sicily, the second was made Bishop
of Calahorra, in 1478, and president of the Council of Castile in 1482;
yet in 1488 he was the object of a secret instruction, directed by
Torquemada, which however did not prevent him from convoking a synod in
the town of Logrogna, in 1492. At that period Torquemada, and the other
inquisitors of Valladolid, undertook the trial of Gonzales Alonzo, to
prove that he had died a Judaic heretic. The inquisitors of Valladolid
and the bishop of the diocese could not agree on the sentence to be
pronounced on the accused; and his son, Don Pedro Aranda, obtained a
brief from Alexander VI., by which this affair was referred to Don Inigo
Manrique, Bishop of Cordova, and John de St. John, prior of the
Benedictines at Valladolid. They were commissioned to pronounce judgment
and execute the sentence, without any interference on the part of the
Inquisition. Their decision was favourable to Gonzales.

The bishop, his son, gained the esteem of the Pope, who made him chief
major-domo of the pontifical palace, and sent him as ambassador to
Venice, in 1494. These marks of favour did not cause the inquisitors to
relax in their zeal: they proceeded in their trial against Don Pedro,
for heresy: his judges were the archbishop, the Governor of Rome, and
two bishops, auditors of the apostolical palace. Don Pedro called one
hundred and one witnesses for his defence; but unfortunately every one
of them had something to advance against him, on different points. The
judges made their report to the Pope, in a secret consistory, in 1498,
who, with the cardinals, condemned the bishop to be deprived of his
offices and benefices, to be degraded from his episcopal dignity, and
reduced to the rank of a simple layman. He was confined in the Castle of
Santangelo, where he died some time after.

Thomas de Torquemada, first inquisitor-general of Spain, died the 16th
of November, 1498. The miseries which were the consequences of the
system which he adopted, and recommended to his successors, justify the
general hatred which followed him to the tomb, and compelled him to take
precautions for his personal safety. Ferdinand and Isabella permitted
him to use an escort of fifty _familiars_ of the Inquisition on
horseback, and two hundred others on foot, whenever he travelled. He
also kept the horn of a unicorn on his table, which was supposed to
discover and neutralize poisons. It is not surprising that many should
have conspired against his life, when his cruel administration is
considered: the Pope himself was alarmed at his barbarity, and the
complaints which were made against him; and Torquemada was obliged to
send his colleague, Antonio Badoja, three times to Rome, to defend him
against the accusations of his enemies.

At last Alexander VI., weary of the continual clamours of which he was
the object, resolved to deprive him of his dignity, but was deterred
from so doing through consideration for the Court of Spain. He therefore
expedited a brief in 1494, saying, that as Torquemada had arrived at a
great age, and suffered from many infirmities, he had named four
inquisitors-general, invested with the same powers which he possessed.

The familiars of the holy office, who were employed as the body-guard of
the inquisitor-general, were the successors of the familiars of the Old
Inquisition. They were commissioned to pursue the heretics, and persons
suspected of heresy, to assist the officers of the tribunal in taking
them to prison, and to do all that the inquisitors might require.

It has been shown that the Spaniards received the Inquisition with
reluctance; but as they were obliged to endure it when once established,
some prudent persons thought they should be more secure from the danger
of incurring suspicion, if they appeared devoted to the cause, which was
the reason why several illustrious gentlemen offered to become
_familiars of the holy office_, and were admitted into the congregation
of St. Peter. Their example was followed by the inferior classes, and
encouraged by Ferdinand and Isabella, who bestowed several immunities
and privileges on them.




CHAPTER IX.

OF THE PROCEDURE OF THE MODERN INQUISITION.


After the death of the Inquisitor-general, Torquemada, Ferdinand and
Isabella proposed Don Diego Deza, a Dominican, to the Pope, as his
successor. Deza was Bishop of Jaen, and afterwards became Archbishop of
Seville. The Pope signed his bulls of confirmation on the 1st of
December, 1498, but limited his authority to the affairs of the kingdom
of Castile. Deza was displeased at a restriction which did not exist in
the bulls of his two colleagues, and refused to accept the nomination,
until the Pope invested him with the same power over Aragon, in a bull,
in 1499. The new inquisitor-general did not show less severity in the
exercise of his office than his predecessor; but, before I enter on this
part of the history, it is necessary to give some account of the mode of
proceeding of the holy office, as it was the work of Torquemada, the
effect of the laws which he formed, and properly belongs to his
history.

The processes in the Inquisition began by a denunciation, or some other
information, such as a discovery accidentally made before the tribunal
in another trial. When the denunciation is signed, it takes the form of
a declaration, in which the informer, after having sworn to the truth of
his deposition, designates those persons whom he presumes, or believes,
to have anything to depose against the accused person. These persons are
then heard, and their depositions, with that of the first witness, form
the _summary of the information, or the preparatory instruction_.


_Inquest._

When the tribunal judged that the actions or words which were denounced
were sufficient to warrant an inquiry to establish the proofs, the
persons who had been cited as knowing the object of the declaration were
examined, and were obliged to take an oath not to reveal the questions
which were put to them. None of the witnesses were informed of the
subject on which they were to make their depositions; they were only
asked in general terms, _if they had ever seen or heard anything which
was, or appeared, contrary to the Catholic faith, or the rights of the
Inquisition_.

Personal experience has shown me that the witnesses who were ignorant of
the cause of their citation often recollected circumstances entirely
foreign to the subject, which they made known, and were then
interrogated as if their examination had no other object; this
accidental deposition served instead of a denunciation, and a new
process was commenced.

The declarations were written down by the commissary or notary, who
usually aggravated the denunciation, as much as the arbitrary
interpretation of the improper or equivocal expressions used by ignorant
persons would permit. The declaration was twice read to the witnesses,
_who did not fail to approve all that had been written_.


_Censure of the Qualifiers._

When the inquisitors examine the preliminary _instruction_, if they find
sufficient cause to proceed, they send a circular to all the tribunals
in the province to inquire if any charges against the accused exist in
their registers. This proceeding is called the _review of the
registers_. Extracts are made of the propositions against the accused,
and if each is expressed in different terms, which is almost always the
case, they are sent as accusations advanced on different occasions. This
writing was then remitted to the theologians, _qualifiers of the holy
office_, who write at the bottom of the page if the propositions merit
the _theological censure_, as heretical, if they give occasion to
suppose that the person who pronounced them approved of any heresy, or
if he is only suspected of that crime.

The declaration of the _qualifiers_ determines the proceedings against
the accused, until the trial is prepared for the definite sentence. The
_qualifiers_ were generally scholastic monks, almost entirely
unacquainted with true dogmatic theology, and who carried fanaticism and
superstition to such a height as to find heresy in everything which they
had not studied: this disposition has often caused them to censure some
of the doctrines of the fathers of the church.


_Prisons._

When the qualification has been made, the procurator-fiscal demands that
the denounced person shall be removed to the _secret prisons_ of the
_holy office_. The tribunal has three sorts of prisons, public,
intermediate, and secret. The first are those where persons are
imprisoned, who are not guilty of heresy, but of some crime which the
Inquisition has the privilege of punishing: the second are destined for
those servants of the holy office who have committed some crime in the
exercise of their functions, without incurring suspicion of heresy.
Those who are detained in these prisons are permitted to communicate
with others, unless they are condemned to solitary confinement. The
secret prisons are those where all heretics, or persons suspected of
heresy, are confined; they can only communicate with the judges of the
tribunal.

These prisons are not, as they have been represented, damp, dirty, and
unhealthy; they are vaulted chambers, well lighted, not damp, and large
enough for a person to take some exercise in. The real horrors of the
prisons are, that no one can enter them without becoming infamous in
public opinion; and the solitude and the darkness to which the prisoner
is condemned for fifteen hours in the day during the winter, as he is
not allowed light before the hour of seven in the morning, or after four
in the evening. Some authors have stated, that the prisoners were
chained; these means are only employed on extraordinary occasions, and
to prevent them from destroying themselves.


_First Audiences._

In the three first days following the imprisonment of the culprit, he
had three _audiences_ of _monition_, or caution, recommending him to
speak the truth, without concealing anything that he had done or said,
or that he can impute to others, contrary to the faith. He was told that
if he followed this recommendation he would be treated leniently; but in
the contrary case, he would be proceeded against with severity. Until
then the prisoner is ignorant of the cause of his arrest; he is only
told that no person is taken to the prison of the holy office without
sufficient proof that he has spoken against the Catholic faith, and,
therefore, it is for his interest to confess his crimes voluntarily.
Some prisoners confessed themselves guilty of the crimes stated in the
preparatory instruction; others acknowledged more; others less;
generally the prisoners declared that their consciences did not reproach
them, but that they would endeavour to recollect the faults which they
had committed if the accusations of the witnesses were read to them.

The advantages of the confession were, that it lessened the duration of
the trial, and rendered the punishments inflicted on the accused less
severe when the reconciliation took place. Whatever promises might be
made to the prisoners, they could not avoid the disgrace of the
_san-benito_ and _auto-da-fé_, or preserve their honour or their
property, if they acknowledged themselves _formal_ heretics.

Another custom of the Inquisition was to examine the prisoner on his
genealogy and parentage, in order to discover by the registers of the
tribunal if any of his family had been punished for heresy, supposing
that he might have inherited the erroneous doctrines of his ancestors.
He was also obliged to recite the _Pater_, the _Credo_, and other forms
of Christian doctrine, because the presumption that he had erred in his
faith was stronger, if he did not know them, had forgotten them, or if
he made mistakes in the repetition. In short, the Inquisition employed
every means, and neglected nothing in the trial of the prisoners, to
make them appear guilty of heresy, and all this was done with an
appearance of charity and compassion, and in the name of Jesus Christ.


_Charges._

When the ceremony of the three first audiences is finished, the
procurator-fiscal forms his act of accusation against the prisoner, from
the preliminary instruction. Although a semi-proof only exists, he
reports the facts in the depositions as if they were proved; and what
is still more illegal, he does not reduce the articles of his
_requisition_ to the number of facts, but following the practice in
forming the extracts of the propositions for the act of _qualification_,
he multiplies them according to the variations in the statements; so
that an accusation which ought to be reduced to one point, contains five
or six charges, which appear to indicate that the accused has advanced
so many heretical opinions on different occasions, without any
foundation but the different manner in which each witness relates the
conversation.

This mode of proceeding produces the worst effects; it confuses the
prisoner where the charges are read to him, and if he has not coolness
and intelligence, he imagines that several crimes are imputed to him,
and replies, for instance, to the third article, and relates the facts
in different words from those which he employed in answering the second;
this variation taking place in each article, he sometimes contradicts
himself, and thus furnishes the fiscal with fresh accusations against
him, for he is accused of not adhering to truth in his replies.


_Torture._

Although the prisoner has confessed all that the witnesses deposed
against him in the first audiences, yet the fiscal terminates his
_requisition_ by saying, that he is guilty of concealment and denial,
that he is, therefore, impenitent and obstinate, and demands that the
question shall be applied to the accused.

It is true, that it is so long since torture has been inflicted by the
inquisitors, that the custom may be looked upon as abolished, and the
fiscal only makes the demand in conformity to the example of his
predecessors, yet it is equally cruel to make the prisoners fear it.

In former times, if the inquisitors judged that the prisoner had not
made a full confession, they ordered him to be tortured: the object was
to make him confess all that formed the substance of the process. I
shall not describe the different modes of torture employed by the
Inquisition, as it has been already done by many historians: I shall
only say that none of them can be accused of exaggeration. When the
accused acknowledged the crimes imputed to them, during the torture,
they were obliged the next day to ratify or retract their confession
upon oath. Almost all confirmed their first statement, because they were
subjected to the torture a second time if they dared to retract.


_Requisition._

The requisition or accusation of the procurator-fiscal was never given
to the prisoner in writing, that he might not reflect on the charges in
prison and prepare his replies. The prisoner is conducted to the
audience-chamber, where a secretary reads the charges, in the presence
of the inquisitors and the fiscal: between each article he calls upon
the prisoner to reply to it instantly, and declare if it is true or
false.

It is evident that this proceeding is intended to embarrass the
prisoner, by compelling him to reply without previous reflection. Such
stratagems are allowed in other tribunals where the prisoners are guilty
of homicide, theft, or other offences against society; but it must be
allowed that it is against the spirit of Christianity to employ them
where zeal for religion and the salvation of others seem to be the
motives for acting.


_Defence._

When the charges and the _accusation_ have been read, the inquisitors
ask the prisoner if he wishes to make a defence; if he replies in the
affirmative, a copy of the _accusation_ and the replies is taken. He is
then required to select the lawyer whom he wishes to employ for his
defence, from the list of those belonging to the holy office. Some
prisoners required permission to seek a defender out of the tribunal, a
pretension which is not contrary to any law, particularly if the lawyer
has taken an oath of secrecy; yet this simple and natural right has
seldom been granted by the inquisitors.

It is of little consequence to the accused to be defended by an able
man, as the lawyer is not allowed to see the original process, or to
communicate with his client. One of the notaries draws up a copy of the
result of the _preliminary instruction_, in which he reports the
deposition of the witnesses, without mentioning their names, or the
circumstances of time or place, and (what is more extraordinary) without
stating what has been said in defence of the prisoner. He entirely omits
the declarations of the persons who, having been summoned and
interrogated by the tribunal, have persisted in affirming that they knew
nothing of the subject on which they were examined. This extract is
accompanied by the censure of the _qualifiers_, and the demand of the
fiscal for the examination, and the accusation, and the replies of the
accused. This is all that is given to the defender in the
audience-chamber, where the inquisitors have commanded him to attend. He
is then obliged to promise to defend the prisoner if he thinks that it
is just to do so; but, in the contrary case, that he will use all the
means in his power to persuade him to solicit his pardon of the
tribunal, by a sincere confession of his sins, and a demand to be
reconciled to the church.

Those who have acquired any experience in criminal proceedings, are
aware of the great advantages which may be derived from the comparison
of the testimony of the witnesses in the defence of the accused; but the
direction given to the proceedings by the Inquisition is such, that the
lawyer can rarely find any means of defence but that which arises from
the difference and variations in the depositions on the actions and
words imputed to the prisoner.

As this is not sufficient, (because the semi-proof exists,) the defender
generally demands to see the prisoner, that he may inquire if it is his
intention to challenge the witnesses, to destroy, either in part, or
entirely, the proof established against him. If he replies in the
affirmative, the inquisitors order proceedings to prove the irregularity
of the witnesses.


_Proof._

It is then necessary to separate all the original declarations of the
witnesses from the process, and send them to the places which they
inhabit to receive a _ratification_. This takes place without the
knowledge of the prisoner, and as he is not represented by any person
during this formality, it is impossible that the challenge of a witness
should succeed, even if he was the greatest enemy of the prisoner. If
the witness was at Madrid at the time of the instruction, and afterwards
went to the Philippine Isles, the course of the trial was suspended, and
the prisoner was obliged to wait till the ratification arrived from
Asia. If he demanded an audience, to complain of the delay, he was
answered with ambiguity, that the tribunal could not proceed with
greater haste, as it was occupied with particular measures.

The prisoner made his challenge of the witnesses by naming those whom he
considered as his enemies, giving his reasons for mistrusting them, and
writing on the margin of each article the names of those persons who
could attest the facts which are the causes of the challenge. The
inquisitors decree that they shall be examined, unless some motive
prevents it.

As the prisoner is not acquainted with the proceedings, he often accuses
persons who have not been summoned as witnesses. The article in which
they are mentioned is passed over with those of the witnesses who have
not deposed against him, or who have spoken in his favour. Thus he
encounters his accusers only by chance.

It sometimes happens that the procurator-fiscal secretly obtains the
proof of the morality of the witnesses, in order to destroy the effect
of the challenge; and as this is more easy to accomplish than the
measures taken by the prisoner, they are generally rendered useless,
because in doubtful cases the inquisitors are always disposed to depend
upon the witness, if he is not known to be the declared enemy of the
accused.


_Publication of the Proofs._

When the proof is established, the tribunal publishes the state of the
trial, the depositions, and the act of judgment. But these terms are not
to be understood in the common sense, since the publication was only an
unfaithful copy of the declarations and other facts contained in the
extract formed for the use of the defender. A secretary reads it to the
prisoner in the presence of the inquisitors; after each article he asks
him if he acknowledges the truth of what he has just heard; he then
reads the declarations, and if the prisoner has not yet alleged any
thing against the witnesses, that privilege is given him, because, after
hearing the deposition, he is generally able to designate the person who
has made it.

This reading is only a fresh snare; for if the least contradiction is
perceived, he may be considered guilty of duplicity, concealment, or a
false confession, and the tribunal may refuse to grant the
reconciliation, although he demand it, and even condemn him to
_relaxation_.


_Definitive Censure of the Qualifiers._

After this ceremony the _qualifiers_ are summoned, who receive the
original writing of the sentence passed in the _summary_ instruction,
with the extract of the replies of the prisoner in his last examination,
and the declarations of the witnesses which were communicated to him.
They are commissioned to qualify the propositions a second time, to
examine his explanation, and to decide if his replies have destroyed the
suspicion of heresy which he had incurred, or if he had confirmed it,
and was to be looked upon as a _formal_ heretic.

Every one must be sensible of the importance of this censure, since it
led to the definite sentence; yet the _qualifiers_ scarcely took the
trouble to hear a rapid perusal of the proceedings; they hastily gave
their opinion, and this was the last important act in the proceedings,
as the rest was a mere formality.


_Sentence._

The trial was then considered as finished. The diocesan in ordinary was
convoked, that with the inquisitors he might decide upon the proper
sentence. In the first ages of the holy office these functions were
confided to _consultors_: these were doctors of law, but as they could
only give their opinion, and as the inquisitors pronounced the
definitive sentence, the latter always prevailed if they chanced to
differ. The accused had the right of appealing to the _Supreme_ Council,
but appeals to Rome were more frequent. The inquisitors of the provinces
were afterwards obliged to submit their opinion to the council before
they pronounced the definitive sentence; the council modified and
reformed it; their decision was sent to the inquisitors, who then
established the judgment in their own names, although it might be
contrary to their previous opinion. This proceeding rendered the office
of the consultors useless, and it was discontinued.

Although the prisoner was acquitted, he was not acquainted with the
names of his denouncers and the witnesses. He rarely obtained a more
public reparation than the liberty of returning to his house with a
certificate of absolution.


_Execution of the Sentence._

The nature of the punishments inflicted by the Inquisition has been
already described; it is, therefore, only necessary to remark that the
sentences were not communicated to the victims until the commencement of
the execution, since the condemned were sent to the _autos-da-fé_,
either to be reconciled or given over to secular justice; on leaving
prison the _familiars_ attired them in the _san-benito_, with a paper
mitre on their heads, a cord round their necks, and a wax taper in their
hands.

When the prisoner arrives at the place of execution, his sentence is
read, and he is then reconciled or _relaxed_, which means, that he is
condemned to be burnt by the justice of the king.


_San-benito._

The _San-benito_ was a species of _scapulary_, which only descended to
the knees, that it might not be confounded with those worn by some
monks: this motive also made the inquisitors prefer common woollen stuff
of a yellow colour with red crosses for the _San-benito_. Such were the
penitential habits in 1514, when Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros altered
the common crosses for those of St. Andrew. The inquisitors afterwards
had a different habit for each class of penitents.

Those who abjured as _slightly_ suspected of heresy, wore the scapulary
of yellow stuff without the cross. If he abjured as _violently
suspected_, he wore half the cross; if he was a _formal heretic_, he
wore it entire. There were also three different kinds of garments for
those who were condemned to death. The first was for those who repented
before they were sentenced. It was a simple yellow scapulary with a red
cross, and a conical cap, denominated _Caroza_, which was formed of the
same stuff as the _San-benito_, and decorated with similar crosses.

The second was destined for those who had been condemned to be burnt,
but who had repented after their sentence, and before they were
conducted to the _autos-da-fé_. The _San-benito_ and the _Caroza_ were
made of the same stuff. On the lower part of the scapulary a bust was
painted, in the midst of a fire, the flames of which were reversed, to
show that the culprit was not to be burnt until he had been strangled.
The _Caroza_ was painted in the same manner.

The third was for those who were impenitent. It was similar to the
others, with a bust, and the flames in the natural direction, to show
that the person who wore it was to be burnt alive; grotesque figures of
devils were also painted on the _San-benito_ and _Caroza_.




CHAPTER X.

OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE INQUISITORS DEZA AND
CISNEROS.


The new inquisitor-general was scarcely in possession of his office,
when he began to establish regulations to increase the activity of the
Inquisition. In 1500 he published a constitution in seven articles; and
in 1504 four new articles relative to the confiscations.

To prove his zeal, Deza proposed to Ferdinand that the Inquisition
should be introduced into Sicily and Naples in its present form, and
that it should be under the authority of the Spanish inquisitor-general,
instead of being dependent on the Court of Rome. The king undertook to
introduce it into Sicily by a decree in 1500; but the inhabitants made
great resistance, and he was obliged to pursue the plan which had
succeeded in Aragon, by commanding the viceroy and other magistrates to
assist the inquisitors. Several seditions were quelled before the
sub-delegated inquisitor-general, Don Pedro Velorad, Archbishop of
Messina, could enter upon his office.

In 1516 the Sicilians, weary of the proceedings of the Inquisition,
revolted and set all the prisoners at liberty. Melchior de Cervera, the
inquisitor, only escaped death by a concurrence of extraordinary
circumstances; the viceroy was also in the greatest danger. The
islanders were thus freed from the yoke of this detested tribunal; but
they did not long enjoy liberty, for they were not able to resist the
power of Charles V., who obliged them to receive it a second time.
Naples was more fortunate. Ferdinand, in 1504, commanded the viceroy,
Gonzales Fernandez de Cordova, surnamed _the Great Captain_, to assist
the Archbishop of Messina with all his power, in establishing the
Inquisition; but the Neapolitans opposed it so obstinately, that the
viceroy judged it prudent to desist, and informed the king that it would
be extremely dangerous to combat so decided a resistance.

In 1510 Ferdinand again attempted to introduce the new Inquisition; but
his efforts were unavailing, and he was obliged to declare that he would
be satisfied if the Neapolitans would banish all the _New Christians_
who had taken refuge in their towns when they were driven from Spain.

Deza persuaded Ferdinand and Isabella to introduce the Inquisition into
the kingdom of Grenada, although a promise to the contrary had been made
to the baptized Moors. The queen rejected the proposition, but granted
one that differed little from it, namely, that the jurisdiction of the
inquisitors of Cordova should extend over Grenada, but permitting them
to prosecute only in cases of actual apostasy. From that period the
Moors have been known in history by the name of _Morescoes_.

The principal inquisitor of Cordova was Don Diego de Lucero; the
severity of his character caused great misery throughout the kingdom of
Cordova.

The moderation and exhortations of Ximenez de Cisneros, Archbishop of
Toledo, and Don Ferdinand de Talavera, had converted more than 50,000
Moors, and the conversions would have been still more numerous, if some
priests had not treated the Moors with severity, and excited a general
revolt.

In 1501 the sovereigns declared in an edict, that by the grace of God,
there were no infidels in the kingdom of Grenada, and to render the
conversions more secure, they forbade any Moors to enter the territory;
they also prohibited the slaves of that nation from holding any
communication with others, that their conversion might not be retarded,
or with those who had been baptized, as they might induce them to
apostatize. All who did not conform to these laws incurred the
punishment of death.

In February, 1502, Ferdinand and Isabella commanded all the free Moors
of both sexes, above fourteen and twelve years of age, to quit the
kingdom of Spain before the month of May following: they were allowed to
sell their goods as the Jews had been; but were prohibited from going to
Africa, which was then at war with Spain. The states of the Grand
Seignior and other countries were assigned to them as places of refuge:
as several baptized Moors sold their property and went to Africa, a
royal ordinance was published, importing that, for the space of two
years, no person could sell his property, or leave the kingdom of
Castile, except to go into Aragon or Portugal, without a permission,
which would only be granted to those who gave a security for their
return when they had terminated their affairs.

Deza was not contented with exciting the zeal of Ferdinand and Isabella
against the Moors; he also proposed measures against the Jews on the
occasion of the arrival of different strangers in Spain, but who were
not of those expelled in 1492. He obtained a royal ordinance in 1499,
which applied those measures to them which had been established against
the first Jews. The council of the Inquisition had already decreed that
the converted Jews should be obliged to prove their baptism, and that
they lived with the other Christians; that those who had been rabbins or
masters of the law should be obliged to change the place of their
residence; that they should appear every Sunday and on festival days in
the churches, and be carefully instructed in the christian doctrine.
Ferdinand permitted the inquisitors of Aragon to take cognizance of
usury and other crimes foreign to their jurisdiction, contrary to the
oath which he had taken to observe the laws of that kingdom, which
ordained that they should be punished by the secular judge.

Deza was at the head of the Inquisition eight years. If the calculation
of his victims is formed after the inscription at Seville, we shall find
that 38,440 persons were punished during that time, of whom 2592 were
burnt in person, 896 in effigy, and 34,952 condemned to different
penances. Among this crowd of persons who were persecuted by the
Inquisition, there were many distinguished by their birth, their
learning, their fortunes, and their offices. The sanguinary inquisitor,
Lucero, made the venerable Don Ferdinand de Talavera, first Archbishop
of Grenada, the object of a shameful persecution. He became jealous of
the reputation for sanctity and charity which this prelate had acquired,
and raised doubts of his faith, by reminding Isabella, that he had
opposed the establishment of the Inquisition in 1478, and the following
years; and by publishing that, although his father was noble, and of the
illustrious family of Contreras, yet he was of Jewish origin by the
mother's side. The inquisitor concluded from these circumstances that he
could commence a _secret instruction_ against the holy prelate. Deza
commissioned the Archbishop of Toledo, Ximenez de Cisneros, to receive
the preparatory informations on the faith of the Archbishop of Grenada;
Cisneros informed the Pope of the commission which he had received, and
the pontiff commanded his apostolical nuncio, the Bishop of Bristol, to
take the affair under his direction, and prohibited Deza and the
Inquisitors from pursuing it. The Pope, in a Council of Cardinals and
Bishops, acquitted the Archbishop of Grenada, who died in 1507, some
months after this judgment, after three years of the greatest anxiety,
as the inquisitor Lucero had caused many of his relations to be
arrested, although they were all innocent.

The persecution suffered by the learned Antonio Lebrija was not less
cruel. He had been tutor to Isabella, and was honoured by the friendship
and protection of Ximenez de Cisneros: he was well acquainted with the
Greek and Hebrew, and discovered and corrected in the Latin text of the
Vulgate some errors which had been committed by the transcribers before
the invention of printing. He was accused by some scholastic
theologians; his papers were seized, and after being treated with the
greatest cruelty, he had the grief of seeing the suspicion of heresy
established against him, and was obliged to live in that species of
disgrace until he could write his apology under the protection of
Ximenez de Cisneros.

The inhumanity of the inquisitor Lucero had still more serious
consequences: as he declared almost all the accused persons guilty of
concealment, and condemned them as _false penitents_, some persons added
imaginary circumstances to their confessions, and declared that
synagogues were held in different houses in Cordova, Grenada, and other
towns; they added, that even monks and nuns attended at them, and went
in procession from all parts of Castile; they also affirmed that many
Spanish families of _Old Christians_, whom they named, assisted at the
Jewish feasts. In consequence of these declarations, Lucero arrested
such an immense number of persons, that Cordova was on the point of
revolting against the Inquisition. The municipality, the bishop, the
chapter of the cathedral, and all the nobility sent deputies to the
inquisitor-general, to demand that Lucero should be recalled. Deza
refused to listen to their claim, until the cruelties of which Lucero
was accused were proved. Lucero had then the audacity to note down as
favourers of Judaism, knights, ladies, canons, monks, nuns, and
respectable persons of every class.

At this period, 1506, Philip I. ascended the throne of Castile; the
Bishop of Cordova informed him of what was passing, and the relations of
the prisoners demanded that they should be tried by another tribunal.
Philip commanded Deza to retire to his archbishopric of Seville, and to
invest Don Diego Ramirez de Guzman, Bishop of Catania, with the powers
of inquisitor-general; at the same time all the papers relative to this
affair were submitted to the Supreme Council of Castile. Ramirez de
Guzman suspended Lucero, and the other inquisitors of Cordova, from
their functions. The affair would have terminated happily, but for the
death of the king in the same year.

Deza was no sooner informed of that event than he again resumed his
office of inquisitor-general, and annulled all that had been done during
his retirement. Ferdinand V. resumed the government of the kingdom, as
father of Queen Joanna, widow of Philip I., as her mind was disordered.
Some time elapsed, however, before he began to reign, as he was at
Naples at the time of the death of the King of Spain. At this period,
all the inhabitants of Cordova, and some members of the Council of
Castile, declared against Deza, and published that he was of the race of
_Marranos_, that is, a descendant of the Jews.

The Marquis de Priego excited the Cordovans to a revolt; they forced the
prisons of the holy office, and liberated an immense number of
prisoners. They seized the persons of the procurator-fiscal, one of the
notaries, and several other officers of the tribunal; Priego would also
have arrested Lucero, but he escaped by means of an excellent mule.
These events alarmed the inquisitor-general to such a degree, that he
resigned his office, and retired to his diocese with the greatest
precaution. This proceeding restored tranquillity in Cordova, but did
not terminate the trials.

When the Regent of Spain arrived in that kingdom, he named Don Francisco
Ximenez de Cisneros inquisitor-general for the crown of Castile, and Don
Juan Enguera, Bishop of Vic, for that of Aragon. The Pope expedited
their bulls in 1507, and made Cisneros a cardinal.

Ximenez de Cisneros began to exercise his new employment on the 1st
October, when the conspiracy against the holy office had become almost
general, on account of the events at Cordova, of which the Council of
Castile took cognizance. All its members who had been of the party of
Philip I. signalized themselves by their hatred against the Inquisition.
This aversion made Ximenez de Cisneros feel the necessity of conducting
himself with extreme caution, that he might not give occasion for a
general convocation of the Cortes, which would have deprived him of the
high office of governor of the kingdom, which he then possessed.

The events at Cordova forced a great number of persons to appeal to
Rome. The Pope appointed two prelates to examine the trials, and made
Cardinal Cisneros judge of appeals, with the power of bringing all the
trials begun by the apostolical commissioners before him.

The cardinal immediately suspended the inquisitor Lucero, and sent him
prisoner to Burgos; he also imprisoned all those witnesses who were
suspected of having made false depositions, because some of the charges
were so absurd that no one could believe them. The examination of the
trials made the cardinal perceive, that an affair which implicated some
of the most illustrious families of Spain could not be treated with too
much delicacy:--he therefore obtained the king's permission to form a
junta, which he named the _Catholic Congregation_: it was composed of
twenty-two respectable persons, namely, the inquisitor-general (who was
the president); the inquisitor-general of Aragon; the Bishop of Ciudad
Rodrigo; those of Calahorra and Barcelona; the mitred abbot of the
Benedictines at Valladolid; the president of the Council of Castile, and
eight of its members; the vice-chancellor and the president of the
Chancery of Aragon; two counsellors of the _Supreme_; two provincial
inquisitors, and an auditor of the Chancery of Valladolid.

Their first assembly was held at Burgos, on Ascension-day, in 1508, and
on the 9th of July they decreed that the characters of the witnesses
were vile, contemptible, and unworthy of confidence; that their
declarations were full of contradictions; that they contained things
unworthy of belief, and contrary to common sense; that the prisoners
were consequently at liberty; that their honour, and that of the
prisoners who had died, was re-established; that the houses which had
been destroyed, as having been used for synagogues, should be rebuilt;
and that the judgment and the notes in the register should be erased.

This decision of the _Catholic junta_ was proclaimed at Valladolid on
the 1st August, in the same year, in the presence of the king, and a
multitude of nobles, and other inhabitants of all classes.

Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros had genius, knowledge, and was just, which
he proved in the affair of Cordova, and in the protection which he
granted to Lebrija and other learned men on different occasions. I shall
here remark the error into which several writers have fallen, in
accusing Cisneros of having taken a great part in the establishment of
the holy office, when it is certain that, in concert with Cardinal
Mendoza and Talavera, he endeavoured to prevent it. When he was chosen
as chief of an institution which had more power and was better obeyed
than many sovereigns, circumstances made it a duty to uphold and defend
it, and he was obliged to oppose innovations in the manner of
proceeding, although the events at Cordova had shown him the
inconveniences of the secrecy preserved by the tribunal.

The division of the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, which took place at
this time, and the idea that it was no longer necessary to have as many
inquisitorial tribunals as bishoprics, were the reasons that induced
Cisneros to distribute them by provinces. He established the holy office
at Seville, Cordova, Jaen, Toledo, in Estremadura, at Murcia,
Valladolid, and Calahorra, and determined the extent of territory for
the jurisdiction of each tribunal: at this time he also sent inquisitors
to the Canary isles. In 1513, the inquisition was introduced at Cuença;
in 1524, at Grenada; under Philip II., at Santiago de Galicia; and under
Philip IV., at Madrid. Cisneros also judged it necessary, in 1516, to
have a tribunal at Oran, and soon after in America.

The inquisitor-general of Aragon adopted the same system, and sent
inquisitors to Saragossa, Barcelona, Valencia, Majorca, Sardinia, and
Sicily; and, at a later period, to Pampeluna, after the conquest of
Navarre: but this kingdom being united in 1515 to that of Castile, its
tribunal was subjected to the inquisitor-general of that kingdom, who
suppressed it some time after, and transferred the territory to that of
Calahorra.

During the eleven years of his ministry, (which ended by his death in
1517,) Cisneros permitted the condemnation of 52,855 individuals, 3564
were burnt in person, 1232 in effigy, and 4832 suffered different
punishments. Although this number of executions is immense, yet it must
be acknowledged that Cisneros had taken measures to relax the activity
of the Inquisition; the most important was, that he assigned particular
churches to the _New Christians_, and charged the curates to increase
their zeal in instructing them, and to visit them often in their own
houses.


_Offer made to the King to obtain the publicity of the Proceedings._

In 1512, a report being spread among the _New Christians_ that Ferdinand
intended to make war against his nephew, the King of Navarre, they
offered him 600,000 ducats of gold towards the expenses of the war if he
would consent to make a law that the trials of the Inquisition should be
public: the king was on the point of treating with the _New Christians_,
when Cisneros placed a large sum of money at his disposal; the king
accepted it, though it was less than the first, and abandoned the idea
of a reform.

After the death of that prince, and while Charles V. was in Flanders, in
1517, the _New Christians_ again offered, on the same conditions,
800,000 ducats for the expenses of his journey to Spain. William de
Croy, Duke d'Ariscot, the favourite governor of the young monarch,
persuaded him to consult the colleges, universities, and learned men of
Spain and Flanders; they all replied that the communication of the names
and the entire depositions of the witnesses was consonant to all rights
natural, human, and divine. When the cardinal-inquisitor was informed of
this decision, he sent deputies, and wrote to the king to combat it; he
reminded him that a similar proposal had been refused by his
grandfather; but he did not tell him the most important circumstance,
that he had refused it for a sum of money. Charles V. left the affair
undecided until his arrival in Spain, but he terminated it according to
the general hopes after the death of Cisneros, in 1518.

The particular favour which Ferdinand granted to the Inquisition did not
prevent him from maintaining the rights of his crown. In 1509, he
published a law which prohibited, on pain of death, any person from
presenting to the inquisitors any bull, or writing of that nature,
obtained from the Pope, or his legates, without first applying to the
king that it might be examined by his council.

This right of the crown of Spain over the decisions of the Pope has been
lately renewed by a law of Charles III.; yet the law has often been
impotent against the enterprises, the decisions, and the briefs of the
Popes.

Ferdinand named Don Louis Mercader inquisitor-general for the kingdom of
Aragon, after the death of the Bishop of Vic. Mercader died in 1516,
while the government was in the hands of Charles of Austria, the
grandson of Ferdinand, who died in the same year, leaving no children by
his second marriage.

Charles, his grandson, resided in Flanders, but he sent into Spain
several men who enjoyed his confidence: amongst them were his governor,
the Duke d'Ariscot, and Adrian de Florencio, who was Dean of Louvain,
and born at Utrecht. As the two sovereignties of Castile and Aragon were
now united, it appeared natural that there should be but one
inquisitor-general for the monarchy, but Cisneros had too much
penetration to omit this opportunity of recommending himself to the
favorite, and, consequently, to the prince. Instead of demanding this
union, he wrote to the king to represent that it appeared to him
expedient to bestow the bishopric of Tortosa and the office of
inquisitor-general of Aragon on the Dean of Louvain, and it was easy to
obviate the difficulty of his being a foreigner by giving him letters of
naturalization. This plan was executed; the double nomination was sent
to Rome, and the Pope granted the bulls. Adrian took possession of
Majorca on the 7th of February, 1517: this nomination was followed by
one to the office of Cisneros, who died on the 6th of November
following. Although he was elected Pope on the 9th of January, 1522, he
continued in his office until the 10th of September in the following
year, when he signed the bulls of his successor, Don Alphonso Manrique
de Lara, Archbishop of Seville.

During the period that the Inquisition remained separate from that of
Castile, it was often violently attacked, and more than once was on the
point of being abolished, or at least subjected to a reform, which would
have left it without the power of exciting terror. Ferdinand having
assembled the Cortes of the kingdom at Monzon, in 1510, the deputies of
the towns and cities loudly complained that the inquisitors abused their
powers, not only in matters of faith, but in several points which were
not in their jurisdiction. The deputies also represented, that they
interfered in the regulation of the contributions, and that the taxes
were shamefully diminished by the reductions which they made in the
lists; that their authority had made them so bold and insolent, that
they created themselves judges in all doubtful cases; and where their
competence was denied, they had recourse to excommunication; that they
oppressed the magistrates, who feared that they should be obliged to do
public penance in an _auto-da-fé_; that this misfortune had already
happened to the viceroys and governors of Barcelona, Valencia, Majorca,
Sardinia, and Sicily, and to several persons of high rank; in
consequence, they entreated his Majesty to maintain the execution of the
laws and statues of the kingdom of Aragon, and to oblige the officers of
the Inquisition to confine themselves to matter of faith, and to pursue
them according to the rules of common law, in giving them the publicity
of criminal proceedings.

This representation of the Cortes acquainted the king with the
disposition of the public; yet he avoided giving a direct reply, and
said that it was impossible to decide upon so important an affair
without having acquired a profound knowledge of facts; that he requested
them to collect all that came to their knowledge, and to lay them before
him in the first assembly. This took place in the same town, in 1512.
The resolutions which were then adopted form a treaty between the
sovereign and his people: it contains twenty-five articles, all tending
to restrain the extent of the jurisdiction of the inquisitors.

It was there stated that they could not interfere in trials for bigamy
and usury, unless the culprits had fallen into the crime of heresy in
asserting that these offences were not sinful; nor in the proceedings
instituted against blasphemers by other tribunals, unless the blasphemy
was heretical: they were also prohibited from proceeding in a trial
without the concurrence of the _ordinaire diocesan_: the
inquisitor-general was likewise restrained from pronouncing judgment in
cases of appeal without the consent of his counsellors; and that the
execution of the sentence which had caused it should be delayed. No
measures were taken for the publicity of the proceedings, or with regard
to the confiscations; but it was agreed that the contracts and other
engagements, signed by one who had the reputation of a good catholic,
should be valid, although he should be afterwards proved to have been a
heretic at the time of the transaction.

The king soon repented of having given his word to the Cortes; and,
seconded by the intrigues of the inquisitors, he solicited and obtained
a dispensation from his promise, on the 30th of April, 1513. One of the
clauses of the dispensation reinstates the tribunals of the holy office
in all the privileges which they had formerly possessed. This conduct
of the king caused a general revolt; and he was obliged to request the
Pope to confirm the regulations of the Cortes, and subject those who did
not conform to them to the censure of the church. The Pope saw the
necessity of compliance, and granted the bull in 1515.




CHAPTER XI.

AN ATTEMPT MADE BY THE CORTES OF CASTILE AND ARAGON TO REFORM THE
INQUISITION.--OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS UNDER ADRIAN, FOURTH
INQUISITOR-GENERAL.


The Inquisition was never in so much danger as during the first year of
the reign of Charles V. When the young monarch arrived in Spain, he was
disposed to abolish the Inquisition, or at least to regulate the
proceedings according to those of other tribunals. In 1518 a general
assembly of the Cortes was held at Valladolid, when the representatives
solicited that his highness would command the office of the holy
Inquisition to conform to the rules of the canons and the common law.
The Cortes likewise sent ten thousand pieces of gold to the chancellor
Selvagio, and promised the same sum when the decree which they solicited
should be put in execution. The king replied that he would take proper
measures to remedy the evil of which they complained: in consequence, he
engaged the Cortes to publish the abuses which had been introduced, and
to indicate the means of abolishing them.

When the assembly at Valladolid had terminated their labours, Charles
convoked the Cortes of Aragon at Saragossa, where he was accompanied by
the chancellor Selvagio, who had prepared a royal ordinance, to be
published according to the demand of the Cortes of Castile. It was
composed of thirty-nine articles: the proceedings of the tribunal were
regulated in it, with the ages, the rank, and salaries of the judges and
subaltern officers.

The result of this new code was, that the inquisitors could not question
a witness to obtain information on any subject but that for which he was
summoned.

That each denouncer should be subject to a strict examination, to
discover his motives for the accusation.

That the order for imprisonment could not be given without the
concurrence of the diocesan in ordinary, or until they had examined each
witness a second time.

That the prisons should be public, neat, and convenient.

That the prisoners should be allowed to see their relations, their
friends, and their counsel.

That they might choose a lawyer or procurator in whom they placed
confidence.

That the accusation should be immediately communicated to them, with the
name of the place where, and the time when, the witnesses had declared
the crime to have been committed.

That if the accused demanded a copy of the accusation and the
examination, it should be given to him.

That when the proofs and the depositions were all received, they should
be communicated entirely to the prisoner, _as in the present time there
are no persons powerful enough to inspire the witnesses with fear,
except in cases where the prisoner is a duke, marquis, count, bishop, or
in possession of some other dignity of the church_.

That in this case, in order to conceal the names of the witnesses, the
judge shall draw up a writing, declaring upon oath, that he believes
this measure to be necessary for the preservation of the lives of the
witnesses; that this act shall deprive the prisoner of his right of
appealing against it.

That if it is considered absolutely necessary to make use of the
torture, it shall only be administered in moderation, and without
recurring to the cruel inventions hitherto employed.

That it shall only be employed once for what personally concerns the
accused; never to obtain from him information of other individuals; and
only in the case of persons mentioned in the law.

That the definitive sentences, and even the interlocutory orders, shall
be subject to the right of appeal, as to their double effect.

That when the preparatory examination of the judgment is commenced, the
parties and their counsel may attend at this revision of the process,
and demand that the reading may be made in their presence.

That if the proof of the crime is not then established, the prisoner
shall be acquitted, without being liable to a punishment as being still
suspected.

That if the accused desires to clear himself, on oath, he shall be
allowed to seek witnesses, and to converse with them in private; and
that their being descendants of the Jews shall not prevent their
admission.

That the challenge of witnesses shall be permitted; and if one of those
called by the procurator-fiscal is convicted of giving false testimony,
he shall be subject to the punishment of retaliation, according to a law
of Ferdinand and Isabella, in the beginning of their reign.

That when an accused person has been reconciled, he shall not be
arrested for things which he has not confessed, because it is to be
supposed that he forgot them.

That no persons shall be molested or imprisoned for a simple presumption
of heresy, arising from their having been brought up among Jews or
heretics.

That the San-benitos shall be taken out of the churches, and that they
no longer be worn in the streets.

That the punishment of perpetual imprisonment shall be abolished,
_because the prisoners die of hunger, and cannot serve God_.

That the statutes recently established to prevent _New Christians_ from
being admitted into convents, shall be considered as null and void,
because they are contrary to all laws, human and divine.

That where an individual is sentenced to imprisonment, an inventory
shall be taken of his property, and they shall not be sequestrated or
sold.

That he, and his wife, and children, shall possess his revenues during
his detention, and shall be allowed to employ them to prepare his means
of defence against the Inquisition.

That when a man is condemned, his children shall inherit his property.

That no donation shall be made on their property, until it has been
definitively confiscated.

That the spirit and letter of the canons shall be complied with in all
things, without regard to any particular custom previously in use.

That the king shall be supplicated to obtain a bull from the Pope to
ratify these measures.

That until this bull is obtained, the king shall be requested to command
the inquisitors to conform to these regulations, in the trials already
commenced, and in those which may begin from this time.

This excellent code of laws was never put in execution, because the
chancellor Selvagio, who framed it, died before its publication; and
Cardinal Adrian so totally changed the ideas and inclinations of Charles
V. that he became an ardent defender of the Inquisition.

Charles V. had sworn at Saragossa, in 1518, to respect the privileges
and customs of the Aragonese, particularly the resolutions of the Cortes
at Saragossa, Tarazona, and Monzon, and consequently that he would not
suffer the inquisitors to commence any trials for usury.

But a new assembly of the Cortes having been convoked at Saragossa,
towards the end of the year 1518, the deputies of Aragon represented to
the king, that the agreement of the Cortes at Monzon, in 1512, was not
sufficient to remedy the abuses which the inquisitors had introduced;
they therefore entreated his Majesty to add to it thirty-one articles
which they had adopted. These articles differed little from those of the
Cortes of Castile.

The king, after having consulted his council, replied, "_that it was his
pleasure that the holy canons, and the decrees of the holy see, should
be conformed to in regard to all the articles which had been presented
to him. That if difficulties or doubts should occur, which required
explanation, they should apply to the Pope_; that if any person wished
to accuse an inquisitor of abuse in the exercise of his office, he might
do so by applying to the inquisitor-general, who would pronounce
sentence according to equity; and that the king would cause them to be
punished as an example; _that he engaged by oath to observe himself, and
cause others to observe, the order and declaration which he addressed to
the assembly, as well as the articles which the Pope might add to those
of the Cortes_; that he also promised, upon oath, never to demand a
dispensation from his promise; and that if one was addressed to him he
would never make use of it, as he at that time renounced all the rights
which might arise from it."

This reply induced the Cortes to believe that the king had granted all
their requests; they considered that the trials would be there conducted
as before other ecclesiastical tribunals. Persuaded that this was the
king's intention, the Cortes resolved to show their gratitude by a
voluntary contribution of money.

Some time elapsed before the agreement was approved by the Pope. The
Emperor wrote the following letter from Cologne, in 1520, to his
ambassador at Rome:--"In regard to the transactions of the Cortes, it
will be sufficient if his Holiness will approve an act sent to Don Louiz
Carroz, and afterwards to Don Jerome Vich, which is written by the hand
of the venerable Cardinal of Tortosa, and that of the great chancellor,
without any extension or interpretation, as I have often demanded
earnestly."

The Aragonese, who did not even believe it possible to obtain this last
point, entreated the inquisitor-general to command the inquisitors of
Saragossa to conform immediately to the regulations of the agreement,
without waiting for the confirmation of the Pope, because almost all the
articles were the same as those in the convention of 1512, which the
Pope had approved.

Cardinal Adrian complied with the request, and wrote to the inquisitors.
They replied, that they thought themselves obliged to take the orders of
the king before they obeyed him. Charles addressed an ordinance to them,
in which he commanded them to execute all that he had promised and sworn
in the preceding year.

At last the Pope confirmed the resolutions by a bull, which was
proclaimed with great solemnity. However, it soon appeared that this
publication would have no effect, because the promise of the king was,
that the canons and apostolical ordinances should be strictly observed
in regard to the articles; and in conforming to this they only executed
the bull of 1515.

On the 21st of January, 1521, the Emperor ordered the secretary of the
Cortes to be set at liberty; for although the inquisitor-general, in
1520, had decreed that he should be _relaxed_, and the prisoner had been
informed of it, yet he refused to quit the prison, affirming that the
decree which set him at liberty, tended more to make him appear guilty
than innocent, by the use of the word _relaxed_.

Similar debates took place in Catalonia, where the king convoked a
Cortes at Barcelona, in 1519, to take the oath of maintaining the
privileges of the province. The Catalans, informed of the effect
produced by the representations of the Cortes of Aragon, likewise
demanded a reform of several abuses of their Inquisition relative to the
taxes, as well as usury, bigamy, and other crimes of that class. The
king, after having heard their remonstrances, made nearly the same reply
as to the Cortes of Saragossa, and wrote to the Pope to demand a
ratification of the articles. The Pope approved them in a bull in 1520;
but Charles did not wait for its arrival to enforce the execution of his
promise, which is proved by his order to Don Diego de Mendoza, his
lieutenant-general in Catalonia. Yet he declares in his letter to his
lieutenant, that he only made these promises _on account of the
importunities of some representatives_ of towns, and some _men who were
among the members of the Cortes_.

In consequence of some events in Aragon, during the period which elapsed
before the bull of confirmation was issued, Leo X. was on the point of
destroying the Inquisition; but intimidated by the policy of Charles V.,
he left the hydra in the same state.

John Prat, the secretary of the Cortes of Aragon, drew up the
proposition of the representatives, and the reply of the king, to be
addressed to the Pope; the chancellor of the king had done the same.
This proceeding particularly displeased the inquisitors of Saragossa;
and to avoid the danger which they believed themselves to be in, they
began to intrigue at court, and soon succeeded in rendering the king
averse to the cause of the deputies of Aragon. They insinuated that Prat
had drawn up the act which was to be sent to Rome, in such a manner, as
to represent the reply of the king as obligatory, not only in the
literal sense of the words, but in supposing that he had admitted the
articles as being conformed to the common law; and that they,
consequently, only wanted the ratification of the Pope, which there was
no doubt of obtaining, as it was known that the deputies of Aragon were
supported by several cardinals, and had sent them considerable sums of
money.

The papers which contained these details were sent to Cardinal Adrian,
who communicated them to the king, and obtained permission to order the
inquisitors of Saragossa to make an inquiry if this recital was true,
when they would be authorized to arrest Prat. Everything happened
according to the hopes of the inquisitors.

Prat was arrested on the 5th of May, 1509, and the next day the king
wrote to the Pope, to request that he would not expedite the bull. It
was intended that the prisoner should be transferred to Barcelona, but
the _permanent deputation_ (who then represented the Aragonese during
the intervals of the assembling of the Cortes) wrote to the king, that
this proceeding was contrary to the statutes which he had sworn to
maintain. The deputation also judged it necessary to convoke a new
Cortes, who represented to the king the dangerous consequences of the
removal of Secretary Prat, whose fidelity had been particularly remarked
during the reign of Ferdinand; and entreated him to set Prat at liberty,
not only because they believed him to be just, faithful, and loyal, but
that it was impossible to levy the supply which had been offered to the
king, unless this request was granted. The king prevented the removal of
the prisoner, but would not liberate him.

The deputation of the Cortes sent commissioners to Barcelona, to say
that the sum of money offered to the king was conditional, and at the
same time convoked the _tiers-état_. Charles being informed of it,
commanded the dissolution of the assembly, which replied, that the kings
of Aragon had no right to use so violent a measure, without the consent
of the people; it decreed that the levy should not be raised, and
applied to the Court of Rome for the ratification of the articles of
Saragossa.

Leo X. was at that time displeased with the Inquisition of Spain, on
account of its refusal to admit certain briefs of inhibition in the
tribunals of Toledo, Seville, Valencia, and Sicily; and forgetting the
consideration which he owed to Charles (who was then emperor of
Germany), he resolved to reform the holy office, and to compel it to
submit to the rules of common law.

In consequence of this resolution he expedited three briefs addressed to
the king, the cardinal inquisitor-general, and the inquisitors of
Saragossa, in which, after explaining his intention, he decrees that the
inquisitors shall be deprived of their offices, and that the bishops and
their chapters should present two canons to the inquisitor-general, who
should appoint one: he added that this choice should be confirmed by the
holy see, and that these new inquisitors should be subjected every two
years to a judicial censure.

The deputies received these briefs, and immediately required the
inquisitors to conform to them; they replied that they would await the
orders of their immediate chief. The king wrote to his uncle Don
Alphonso of Aragon, Archbishop of Saragossa, to enter into an agreement
with the deputies, and at the same time he sent an
ambassador-extraordinary to Rome to demand a revocation of the briefs.
The Aragonese then promised to levy the supply if the secretary Prat was
liberated, but protested that they would not admit any proposition
contrary to the promise which the king had made.

This prince instructed his ambassador to inform the Pope of all that had
passed in the Cortes of Castile, but to keep silence on the most
important circumstances, and to assure his Holiness that no complaints
had been made of the Inquisition since Cardinal Adrian had been
inquisitor-general. Charles also required that no brief should be
expedited to cause the _San-benitos_ to be removed from the churches, or
to prohibit them from being worn in the streets.

The Pope, seeing the importance which Charles attached to these things,
wrote to Cardinal Adrian, that although he was perfectly informed of all
that was passing, and that he had resolved to do justice to the claims
of the Cortes, yet he would not carry the affair further without the
consent of the King, to whom he promised to make no innovations; but he
requested him to pay great attention to what was passing, as he heard
serious complaints every day from all parts of the kingdom, of the
avarice and injustice of the inquisitors.

This brief offended the deputies, but they continued their importunities
at the Court of Rome with so much ardour, that their credit balanced the
power of Charles V.; and though they did not obtain the extension of the
articles, they prevented the revocation of the reforming briefs, and
Charles was obliged to be satisfied with that addressed to Cardinal
Adrian.

Leo X. died on the 1st of December, 1521, and Cardinal Adrian succeeded
him on the 9th of January, 1522: he did not quit his office of
inquisitor-general until the 10th of September, 1523, when he bestowed
it on Don Alphonso Manrique, Archbishop of Seville.

According to the most moderate calculation from the inscription at
Seville, it appears that 240,025 persons were condemned by the
Inquisition during the five years of the ministry of Adrian; 1620 were
burnt in person; 560 in effigy; and 21,845 subjected to different
penances. If the year 1523, which may be considered as an interregnum
until the inscription of Seville, which is of the year 1524, is added to
this, the number of victims sacrificed by the Inquisition may be
estimated at 234,526 persons, an immense number, though it is far below
the truth.




CHAPTER XII.

CONDUCT OF THE INQUISITORS TOWARDS THE MORESCOES.


The New Christians of Jewish origin flattered themselves, at the
commencement of the ministry of Don Alphonso Manrique, that they should
obtain the publication of the names and charges of the witnesses, as he
had supported their request in 1516: but the inquisitors persuaded him
that such a proceeding tended to the destruction of the holy office, and
the triumph of the enemies of the faith; and that the appearance of two
new sects of _Morescoes_ and _Lutherans_ rendered a great degree of
severity indispensable.

It has been already stated, that an order from Ferdinand and Isabella,
in 1502, had compelled all those Moors who refused to become Christians,
to quit Spain. Although this law was executed in Castile, it did not
affect the Moors of Aragon, as the King had yielded to the solicitations
of the nobles, who represented the immense injury which it would do
them, in destroying the population of their domains, where there were
scarcely any baptized inhabitants.

The two sovereigns renewed their promise in 1510, and Charles V. took an
oath to the same effect in the Cortes of Saragossa in 1519.

A civil war soon after broke out in Aragon, similar to one in Castile,
about the same time. The factious were almost all common people, who
hated the nobles: they endeavoured to injure them as much as possible;
and knowing that the Moors, who were their vassals, were obliged to
serve them in a more laborious manner, on account of the difference of
their religion, they baptized all the Moors who fell into their hands.
Above sixteen thousand thus received baptism; but as they were forced to
it, many afterwards returned to their former creed. The emperor
punished the chiefs of the insurrection, and many Moors, fearing the
same fate, quitted Spain, and retired to the kingdom of Algiers; so that
in 1523, more than five thousand houses were left without inhabitants.

Charles V., irritated at this conduct, persuaded himself that he ought
not to suffer any Moors to remain in his dominions, and demanded a
dispensation from his oath to the Cortes of Saragossa. The Pope at first
refused, on account of the scandal of such a proceeding; but the emperor
insisted, and it was granted in 1524: the Pope, however, engaged him, at
the same time, to charge the inquisitors to accelerate the conversion of
the Moors, by announcing, that if they did not become Christians within
a certain period, they would be obliged to quit Spain, on pain of being
reduced to slavery. Doubts were afterwards raised, of the validity of
the baptism administered to the Moors in Valencia by the rebels; but
Charles assembled a council, which, after many debates, decided, on the
23d of March, 1525, that it was valid, as the infidels had not offered
any resistance.

The greatest part of the Moorish people fled to the mountains and the
Sierra de Bernia, and resisted the arms of Charles, until the month of
August, when they surrendered, after obtaining an amnesty. The Moors of
Almonacid refused baptism, and took up arms; their town was taken, and
several put to death, and the rest became Christians.

In the borough of Correa, the Moors assassinated the lord of the
district, and seventeen Christians, who endeavoured to compel them to
embrace Christianity. At last the revolt became general throughout the
kingdom of Valencia, where they formed nearly twenty-six thousand
families; they fortified themselves in the town of the Sierra d'Espadan,
and a considerable period elapsed before they were reduced by the royal
army. They then implored the protection of Germaine de Foix, second wife
to Ferdinand V., and who was then married to Don Ferdinand of Aragon,
Duke of Calabria. This princess granted a passport to twelve of their
deputies, whom they sent to court to learn the real intentions of the
emperor. They demanded a delay of five years before they became
Christians, or left Spain by the port of Alicant. These demands being
refused, they offered to become Christians, on condition that the
inquisitors should not be permitted to prosecute them for the space of
forty years; this was also cruelly refused them.

They then applied to the inquisitor-general Manrique, who received them
graciously, and supposing that they would freely consent to receive
baptism, he offered to employ his influence with the emperor. On the
16th of January, 1526, they remitted a memorial to him, in which they
demanded, 1st, that during forty years they should not be liable to be
prosecuted by the holy office; 2ndly, that they might be allowed to
preserve their language, and their manner of clothing themselves; 3rdly,
that they might have a cemetery separate from that of the old
Christians; 4thly, that they might be able to marry their relations
during the space of forty years, and that the marriages already
contracted should not be interfered with; 5thly, that the ministers of
their religion should continue to receive the revenues of the mosques
converted into churches; 6thly, that they might be allowed the use of
arms like other Christians; 7thly, that the charges and rents which they
paid to their lords should not be more burdensome than those of other
Christians; 8thly, that they should not be obliged to pay the municipal
expenses of royal towns, unless they were allowed to hold offices, and
enjoy the honours depending on them.

These articles being submitted to the emperor, they were granted, with a
few restrictions, and the Moors were all baptized, with the exception of
some thousands who fled to the mountains, and resisted the royal force
during the year 1526. When they were reduced, they received baptism,
and the punishment of slavery which they had incurred was commuted for
a fine of twelve thousand ducats.

The Aragonese, fearing that the Moors dispersed among them would be
subjected to the same laws as those of Valencia, represented to the
emperor, through the medium of his relation the Count de Ribagorza, that
they had never caused any trouble either in politics or religion; that
they could not have any communication with Africa, on account of the
distance of the countries; and that many of them were excellent workmen
in the fabrication of arms, and, consequently, their banishment would
occasion great loss to the kingdom of Aragon. The representations of the
Aragonese were unavailing: the emperor commanded the inquisitors to
subject the Moors of Aragon to the same laws as those of Valencia, and
they were baptized without resistance in 1526.

In 1530 the Pope gave the inquisitor-general, the necessary power to
absolve all the Moors of Aragon as often as they should relapse into
heresy and repent, without inflicting any public penance or infamous
punishments. The motives expressed in the bull for this conduct were,
that they were much sooner converted by gentle means than severity. It
is natural to inquire why a different policy was adopted with respect to
the Jews; they were all rich merchants, while scarcely one in five
thousand was found among the Moors. Occupied in the cultivation of the
ground and the care of their flocks, they were always poor; sometimes
workmen of singular intelligence, talent, and address were found among
them.

The Morescoes of Grenada also occupied the attention of the emperor,
although the events which passed among them were of less importance.

When the emperor was at Grenada in 1526, a memorial from the Morescoes
was presented to him, by Don Ferdinand Benegas, Don Michael d'Aragon and
Diego Lopez Benaxara; they were all members of the municipality, and
illustrious nobles, as they were descended in the direct male line from
the Moorish kings of Grenada. They represented that the Moors suffered
much from the priests, judges, notaries, alguazils, and other Old
Christians. The emperor appeared touched by the recital, and
commissioned a bishop to go into the countries inhabited by the Moors
and examine into the state of religion. The bishop visited the kingdom
of Grenada, and found that the Moors had reason to complain; but he also
discovered that there were scarcely seven Catholics among all these
people; all the others had returned to Mahometanism, either because they
had not been properly instructed, or because they were permitted to
exercise their old religion in public.

The emperor convoked a council, which decreed that the inquisitorial
tribunal of Jaen should be transferred to Grenada. Several other
measures were adopted and approved by the emperor; the most important
was a promise of pardon to the Moors for all that had passed, and a
notice that they would be treated with the utmost severity, if they
again relapsed into heresy. The Morescoes submitted, and obtained for
eighty thousand ducats the privileges of wearing the costume of their
nation, and that the Inquisition should not be allowed to seize their
property if they relapsed.

The inquisitors of Grenada celebrated an _auto-da-fé_ in 1528 with the
greatest ceremony, in order to inspire the Moors with more respect and
fear. However no Moors were burnt, but only baptized Jews who had
returned to Judaism.

The Moors still continued to emigrate to Africa, although they were
treated with moderation. Philip II. obtained a brief from Paul IV., by
which the confessors were authorized to absolve the Moors secretly,
without imposing any penance or pecuniary penalty, on the condition that
they demanded absolution voluntarily. The system of indulgence which bad
been adopted did not prevent Louis Albosein from being condemned to the
flames. After emigrating to Africa, he returned to Valencia with several
other renegadoes, with the intention of exciting the Morescoes to a
revolt; the plot was discovered, the conspirators disarmed, and Louis
was burnt in 1562.

In 1567 the Pope expedited a brief in favour of the Morescoes of
Valencia, but those of Grenada revolted, and elected for their king Don
Ferdinand Valor, a descendant of their former sovereigns of the dynasty
of Abenhumeyas. This rebellion continued for some time; and Philip II.
endeavoured to quell it by issuing edicts of pardon even for those
crimes which came under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. An amnesty
was granted to the Moors on condition that they came to solicit it, and
many took advantage of the permission. To prevent emigration, the king
remitted the penalty of confiscation, but the inquisitors, by means of
the impenetrable secrecy which they always preserved, rendered the
benevolent intentions of the sovereign of no avail. They did not publish
the briefs of indulgence granted by the Court of Rome, knowing that a
great number of the _relapsed_ would take advantage of them; these
people, not being aware of their privileges, were condemned and burnt.
These examples of cruelty increased the hatred of the Moors for this
sanguinary tribunal, and were the cause of many seditions, which, in
1609, led to the entire expulsion of the Moors, to the number of a
million souls; so that in the space of an hundred and thirty-nine years
the Inquisition deprived the kingdom of Spain of three millions of
inhabitants, Jews, Morescoes, and Moors.




CHAPTER XIII.

OF THE PROHIBITION OF BOOKS AND OTHER ARTICLES.


The opinions of Luther, Carolstadt, Zuingle, OEcolampadius,
Melancthon, Muncer, and Calvin, were first promulgated during the
ministry of Don Alphonso Manrique, the fifth inquisitor-general. These
reformers were called _Protestants_ after the imperial diet at Spire, in
1529.

Leo the Xth had already condemned the opinions of Luther as heretical,
which induced Manrique to enact severe punishments for those who should
openly maintain or write in favour of them.

In 1490 several Hebrew bibles and books written by Jews were burnt at
Seville; at Salamanca more than six thousand volumes of magic and
sorcery were committed to the flames. In 1502 Ferdinand and Isabella
appointed the presidents of the Chanceries of Valladolid and Ciudad
Real, the Archbishops of Seville, Toledo, Grenada, the Bishops of
Burgos, Salamanca, and Zamora, to decide on all affairs relating to the
examination, censure, printing, introduction, or sale of books. In 1521
the Pope wrote to the governors of the provinces of Castile during the
absence of Charles V., recommending them to prevent the introduction of
the works of Luther into the kingdom; and Cardinal Adrian, in the same
year, ordered the inquisitors to seize all books of that nature: this
order was repeated in 1523.

In 1530 the _Supreme_ Council wrote to the inquisitors during the
absence of Cardinal Manrique, on the necessity of executing the measures
which had been ordained; adding, that information had been received that
the writings of Luther had been introduced into the Kingdom under
fictitious titles, or as works entirely composed by Catholics authors;
and in order to repress this intolerable abuse, they were commanded to
visit all public libraries for those books, and to add to the edict of
denunciation, a particular article, to oblige all Catholics to denounce
any person who might read or keep them in their houses. In 1535 Cardinal
Manrique addressed an order to the inquisitors, and another in the same
year prohibiting the universities of the kingdom from explaining,
reading, or even selling the _Colloquies of Erasmus_. In 1528 he
anathematised some other works of the same author, although he had
defended him in 1527, in an assembly which met to examine his writings.

Erasmus was considered in Spain as a supporter of the Catholic faith
against the doctrine of Luther, and his enemies were only a few
scholastic theologians, who were not acquainted with the Greek and
Hebrew tongues. The Spanish theologians who wrote against him were,
Diego Lopez de Zuñiga, Sancho de Carranza, professor of theology in the
university of Alcala de Henarés, Brother Louis de Carjaval, a
Franciscan, Edward Lee, the English ambassador, and Pedro Vittoria, a
theologian of Salamanca.

After this first attack, in the Lent of the year 1527, two monks
denounced several propositions in the works of Erasmus, as heretical.
Alphonso Manrique (although he was then the friend of Erasmus) was
obliged to submit these propositions to the examination of qualifiers;
but he appointed the most learned men of the kingdom to that office.

This assembly of doctors lasted two months, when the plague, which then
desolated some parts of the kingdom, obliged them to separate, before
they had decided on the judgment to be pronounced; it appears from
several letters written by Erasmus about that time that he hoped it
would be favourable to him.[4]

But the Supreme Council qualified his _Colloquies_, his _Eulogy of
Folly_, and his _Paraphrase_, and prohibited them from being read. In
later times, this prohibition was extended to several other books of the
same author, and the Inquisition recommended in its edicts that the
works of Erasmus should be read with caution.

The emperor Charles V. commissioned the University of Louvain to form a
list of dangerous books, and in 1539 he obtained a bull of approbation
from the Pope. The index was published in 1546 by the university in all
the states of Flanders, six years after a decree had been issued to
prohibit the writings of Luther from being read or bought on pain of
death.[5]

This severe measure displeased all ranks. The princes of Germany openly
complained of it, and offered to assist Charles in his war against the
Turks, if he would allow the people liberty in matters of religion.
Charles paid no attention to their remonstrances, and this bad policy
accelerated the progress of Lutheranism.

In 1549, the inquisitor-general, with the approbation of the Supreme
Council, added some new works to the list of those which had been
prohibited, and addressed two ordinances to the inquisitors, enjoining
them in the first, not to allow any person to possess them, and in the
second, commanding the consultors of the holy office neither to read nor
keep them, though the execution of the decrees might throw them into
their hands.

In 1546 the emperor commanded the University of Louvain to publish the
index, with additions. This work appeared in 1550, and the prince
remitted it to the inquisitor-general, and it was printed by the order
of the Supreme Council, with a supplement composed of books prohibited
in Spain; some time after the council framed another index, which was
certified by the secretary.

All the Inquisitions received copies, and a bull from Julius III., which
renewed the prohibitions and revoked the permissions contrary to the new
bulls: he charged the inquisitors to seize as many books as they could;
to publish prohibitory edicts, accompanied by censures; to prosecute
those who did not obey them, as suspected of heresy; and to give an
account of the books which they had read and preserved.

The Pope added, that he was informed that a great number were in the
possession of librarians and private persons, particularly the Spanish
Bibles mentioned in the catalogue, and the Missal and Diurnal in the
supplement.

The Council of Trent, after acknowledging the necessity of treating the
writings of heretics with great severity, commissioned the celebrated
Carranza to compose the catalogue. After having examined the great
number of books submitted to the council, he sent all those which did
not contain any thing reprehensible to the Dominican convent in the city
of Trent, and caused the rest to be burnt, or torn, and thrown into the
Adige.[6] Carranza soon after accompanied Philip II. to England, where
he not only converted many Lutherans, but caused many bibles which had
been translated to be burnt.

Some bibles, which had been introduced into Spain, and were not upon the
list, were also prohibited; and the inquisitors were commanded to
publish the interdict, and to employ severe measures against those who
refused to obey it. The ordinances of the Council of Castile, composed
by the order of the king, and approved by him, were published in the
same year; they gave the council the privilege of permitting books to be
printed, on the condition that they should be examined previously, if
the subject of which they treated was important.

Charles V. and Philip II. had regulated the circulation of books in
their American states. In 1543 the viceroys and other authorities were
commanded to prevent the introduction or printing of tales and romances.

In 1550 a new decree obliged the tribunal of the commerce of Seville to
register all the books destined for the colonies, to certify that they
were not prohibited.

In 1556 the government commanded that no work relating to the affairs of
America should be published without a permission from the council of the
Indies, and that those already printed should not be sold unless they
were examined and approved, which obliged all those who possessed any to
submit them to the council. The officers of the customs in America were
also obliged to seize all the prohibited books which might be imported,
and remit them to the archbishops and bishops, who, in this case,
possessed the same powers as the inquisitors of Spain.

Lastly, Philip II. in 1560 decreed new measures, and the _surveillance_
was afterwards as strictly observed in the colonies of the New World as
in the Peninsula.

Although Charles V. and Philip II. neglected nothing that could prevent
the introduction of prohibited books into Spain, several which were
favourable to the Lutheran heresy penetrated into the kingdom. In 1558
the inquisitor-general published an edict more severe than any of the
preceding; and also drew up an instruction for the use of the
inquisitors; importing, that all books mentioned in the printed
catalogue should be seized; that a public _auto-da-fé_ should be made of
those tending to heresy; that the commentaries and notes attributed to
Melancthon should be suppressed in all the treatises on grammar where
they were introduced; that the bibles marked as being suspected should
be examined; that no books should be seized except those mentioned in
the list; that all the books printed in Germany since 1519 without the
name of the author should be examined; that the translation of
_Theophylact_ by _OEcolampadius_ should be seized; likewise some
volumes of the works of St. John Chrysostom, which had been translated
by that arch-heretic and _Wolfang Nusculus_; that the commentaries by
heretics on works composed by catholics should be suppressed; and that a
book on medicine might be seized, although it was not mentioned in the
index.

When this edict was published, Francis Sanchez, professor of theology in
the university of Salamanca, wrote to inform the Supreme Council, that
he had occupied himself for several years in examining dangerous books,
and gave his opinion on the course which ought to be pursued.

The council, in consequence, decreed that those theologians in the
university who had studied the Oriental languages, should be obliged, as
well as other persons, to give up their Hebrew and Greek Bibles to the
commissaries of the holy office, on pain of excommunication; that the
proprietors of Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew books, not mentioned in the
list, should not be molested; that the order concerning the books
printed without the name of the author, related only to modern
productions; that the request made by some persons to be allowed to keep
_Pomponius Mela_, with the commentary of _Nadicano_, should be refused;
that these books should be remitted to the council to be examined; that
the order to seize all works containing errors should only be applied to
modern books; and that the _Summa Armata_ of Durand, of Cajetan, Peter
Lombard, Origen, Theophylact, Tertullian, Lactantius, Lucian, Aristotle,
Plato, Seneca, and other authors of that class, should be allowed to
circulate; that the council, being informed that several catalogues of
prohibited books existed, would unite them, and compose one general
catalogue.

In the year 1558 the terrible law of Philip II. was published, which
decreed the punishments of death and confiscation for all those who
should sell, buy, keep, or read, the books prohibited by the holy
office; and, to ensure the execution of this sanguinary law, the index
was printed, that the people might not allege ignorance in their
defence.

A bull of 1559 enjoins confessors to interrogate their penitents on this
subject, and to remind them that they were obliged to denounce the
guilty on pain of excommunication. A particular article subjects the
confessors to the same punishment if they neglected this duty, even if
their penitents were of the highest rank.

This severe law was however mitigated in 1561, when the Cardinal of
Alexandria, inquisitor-general of Rome, published a decree, announcing,
in the name of Pius. IV., that some of the prohibitions of books had
been withdrawn. This decree also granted permission to read and possess
some books which had been suppressed only because they were written by
heretics.

Valdes, the inquisitor-general of Spain, immediately wrote to the
inquisitors of the provinces, to suspend the execution of the edict,
until he had received the orders of the king, to whom he had represented
the danger arising from a measure which annulled the punishment of
excommunication; but Valdes had another motive in the proceeding.

In 1559, this inquisitor had published a printed catalogue of prohibited
books, which was much more extended than that of 1558, and in which,
according to the advice of Francis Sanchez, he had introduced all the
works mentioned in the catalogues of Rome, Lisbon, Louvain, and those of
Spain of an earlier date. He divided them into six classes. The first
consisted of Latin books; the second of those written in Castilian; the
third of those in the Teutonic language; the fourth of German books; the
fifth of French; and the sixth of Portuguese. Valdes, in a note at the
end of his index, gave notice that there were many books subject to the
prohibition, not mentioned in the list, but that they would be added.
He appointed the punishment of excommunication, and a penalty of two
hundred ducats, for those persons who should read any of these books,
and in this number were included some which were permitted to be read by
the last edict of the Pope.

Valdes had inserted in his catalogue some books which had not only been
considered catholic, but were in the hands of everybody and full of true
piety, particularly some works of Don Hernand de Talavera, the venerable
Juan d'Avila, Bartholomew Carranza de Miranda, Archbishop of Toledo;
Hernand de Villegas, Louis de Granada, a Dominican; and St. Francis
Borgia.

The catalogue of Valdes contained other general prohibitions. This
proscription included all Hebrew books, and those in other tongues which
treated of the Jewish customs; those of the Arabs, or those which in any
way treated of the Mahometan religion; all works composed or translated
by an heretic, or a person condemned by the holy office; all treatises
in the Spanish language with a preface, letter, prologue, summary,
notes, additions, paraphrase, explanation, glossary, or writing of that
nature added by an heretic; all sermons, writings, letters, discourses
on the Christian religion, its mysteries, sacraments, or the Holy
Scriptures, if these works were inedited manuscripts.

Lastly, the same prohibition was extended to a multitude of translations
of the Bible, and other books which had been written by men of great
piety, and had always been considered at proper guides to virtue: of
this number were the works of Denis, _the Carthusian_; the author known
by the same of _the Idiot_; the Bishop Roffense, and many other writers.

In the eighteenth session of the Council of Trent (which began on the
26th February, 1562), the bishops found that it was necessary to examine
the books which were denounced as suspicions, on account of the
complaints which had been made on the prohibition of the great number
of works which had been unjustly enrolled in the decree of Paul IV. The
council appointed commissioners to examine them, and they made a report
of their labour in the last session in 1563: they had drawn up a
catalogue of the works which they considered necessary to be prohibited.
It was submitted to Pius V., who published it in 1564, with ten general
rules for the solution of any difficulties which might be discovered. A
great number of books, which had been unjustly condemned by Valdes, were
omitted in this index, and the Catechism of Carranza was declared to be
orthodox by an assembly of theologians who had been appointed to examine
it.

In 1565 the Doctor Gonzales Illescas published the first part of his
_Pontifical History_. It was immediately seized by the holy office, and
the second part, printed at Valladolid in 1567, shared the same fate. A
short time after, Illescas was persecuted by the inquisitors of
Valladolid; and, to preserve himself from becoming their victim, was
obliged to suppress his work and write another, omitting the articles
against some of the popes: this work appeared in 1574. Although the holy
office had so carefully suppressed the first edition, it was inserted in
the index of 1583, as if some copies had been still in existence.

In 1567 the council commanded the theological works of Brother John
Fero, a Franciscan of Italy, to be seized, with the notes and
corrections of Brother Michael de Medina, and some other works of the
same author, who ended his days in the dungeons of the Inquisition in
1578, before his sentence had been pronounced. After his death, his
_Apology for John Fero_ was inserted in the expurgatory index.

In 1568 the Supreme Council charged the officers of the Inquisition to
watch the frontiers of Guipuscoa, Navarre, Aragon, and Catalonia, with
the greatest vigilance, to prevent the introduction of prohibited books.
This resolution was adopted, because information had been received that
a great number of Lutheran books in the Castilian tongue were packed and
sent in hogsheads of the wines of Champagne and Burgundy, with so much
art, that the officers of the customs could not discover the deception.

In 1570 the council prohibited a work on the Pentateuch by Brother
Jerome de Holcastro; and the _Petit Office_, printed at Paris in 1556.
The motive for this suppression was singular: the frontispiece was
decorated with a cross and a swan, with the motto, "IN HOC CIGNO
VINCES." It is plain that the _Petit Office_ was prohibited, because a C
was used instead of the S in the word _signo_. The same severity was
shewn in all cases where the books had this symbol, or any allegories of
that nature.

In 1571 the inquisitors caused a Spanish Bible, printed at Baste, to be
seized, and Philip II. wrote to the Duke of Alva, the governor of the
Low Countries, to compose an index for the use of the Flemish people,
with the assistance of the learned Arias Montanus. He presided in an
assembly of theologians, who judged that the new index should only
consist of the Latin prohibited by the Inquisition, or which it was
necessary to correct. This measure was applied only to some well-known
authors who were dead, and to some others, still living; but more
particularly to the works of Erasmus, and with circumstances which might
lead to the supposition, that his books were the principal objects of
the prohibition, and that of the other authors merely a pretext to
conceal the injury done to him. This catalogue was printed at Antwerp in
1571, with a preface by Arias Montanus, a royal decree and a
proclamation of the Duke of Alva enforcing the execution of it. This
list is known by the name of the _Expurgatory Index of the Duke of
Alva_. The holy office had no part in this affair, as the Flemings had
refused to recognise their authority.

In 1582 the inquisitor-general, Don Gaspard de Quiroga, published a new
_Prohibitory Index_. It is remarkable _that the Index of his predecessor
Valdes is mentioned in this list_.

That which was published in 1584 was drawn up by Juan de Mariana, who
soon after had some of his own works prohibited. In 1611, a new index
was formed under the inquisitor-general Don Bernard de Roxas de
Sandoval.

The Cardinal Zapata, who succeeded Roxas, adopted one more extended in
1620, and it was used by his successor, Don Antonio de Sotomayer, in
1630. This catalogue was the first which the inquisitors presumed to
publish from their own authority, and without being commissioned by
government. Don Diego Sarmiento Valladares, inquisitor-general, in 1681,
began to reprint it with additions, and it was finished by Don Vidal
Marin, who published it in 1707.

Don Francis Perez del Prado, another inquisitor-general, commissioned
the Jesuits Casani and Carrasco to compose a new catalogue. Although
these monks were not authorized by the Supreme Council, they inserted in
the list all the books which they supposed to be favourable to the
Jansenists, Baius and Father Quesnel. Their conduct was denounced to the
Supreme Council by the Dominican Concina, and some other monks; the
Jesuits were examined, and defended themselves: the council, though it
could not approve, did not carry the affair further; it had not
sufficient power to balance the influence of the Jesuit Francis Rabago,
who was confessor to Ferdinand VI.

Among the books which they prohibited were the works of Cardinal
_Norris_, which were held in general estimation by the learned
throughout Christendom. Benedict XIV., in 1748, addressed a brief to the
inquisitor-general, commanding him to revoke the prohibition; as this
order was not obeyed, the Pope complained to the king, but was unable to
obtain his request until ten years after, when the Jesuit Rabago no
longer directed the conscience of the monarch.

The index of the Jesuits also contained several treatises of the
venerable Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, Archbishop and Viceroy of
Mexico. The congregation of rites afterwards declared that there was
nothing in them worthy of censure, and the inquisitor-general was
obliged to revoke the prohibition in an edict, the copies of which were
immediately bought up by some friends of the Jesuits. To give an idea of
the criticism of Perez del Prado, it is sufficient to say that he
bitterly lamented the misfortunes of the age he lived in, saying, "_That
some individuals had carried their audacity to the execrable extremity
of demanding permission to read the Holy Scriptures in the vulgar
tongue_, without _fearing to encounter mortal poison therein_."

In 1792 a new index was published, without the consent, and even in
opposition to the Supreme Council, by Don Augustine Rubin de Cevallos,
inquisitor-general. It is this index which is still in force, but the
prohibitions and expurgatory measures have since been multiplied.

The prohibitory decrees are preceded by _qualification_. The process is
instituted before the supreme council; but as the information is
generally laid before the inquisitors of the court, they appoint the
qualifiers who censure the book. A copy of the work and the denunciation
is sent to the first qualifier, and afterwards to the second, unsigned
by the opinion of the first; if they do not accord, copies are sent a
third time before it is submitted to the Supreme Council. The
inquisitors of the provinces have likewise the privilege of receiving
informations: they proceed in the same manner; but the council always
commission the inquisitors of the court to censure books, because they
were more sure of their qualifiers.

If any person presumed to buy, keep, or read prohibited books, he
rendered himself liable to be suspected of heresy by the inquisitors,
although it might not be proved that he became an heretic from such
reading; he incurred the punishment of major excommunication, and was
proceeded against by the tribunal: the result of this action was the
absolution _ad cautelam_.

During the last years of the eighteenth century, no person has been
imprisoned for reading prohibited books, unless he was convicted of
having advanced or written heretical propositions. The punishment
inflicted was merely a pecuniary penalty, and a declaration that the
individual was slightly suspected of heresy; it must be acknowledged
that this qualification was omitted, if there was any reason to suppose
that the accused had erred from motives of curiosity, and not from a
tendency to false doctrine. Nevertheless all these proceedings are
arbitrary, and the inquisitors have the power of pursuing the infringers
of this law as if they were heretics.

The permission to read prohibited books, rendered all actions instituted
against those who violated the law ineffectual. The Pope granted it for
a sum of money, without inquiring if the person who demanded it was
capable of abusing the permission. The inquisitor-general of Spain acted
with more prudence; he took secret informations on the conduct of the
solicitor, and required him to state in writing the object of his
demand, and the subject on which he wished to consult the prohibited
books. Where the permission granted was general, the books mentioned in
the edicts were excepted. In this sense the works of Rousseau,
Montesquieu, Mirabeau, Diderot, d'Alembert, Voltaire, and several other
modern philosophers, among whom was Filangieri, were excepted from the
privilege. During the last years of the Inquisition, the permissions
granted by the Court of Rome did not defend the persons who received
them from the inquisitorial actions; they were subject to revision, and
the inquisitor-general did not authorize the use of them without great
difficulty, and as if the Court of Rome had never granted them.

The Inquisition also prohibited pictures, medals, prints, and a number
of other things, with as much severity as books. Thus fans, snuff-boxes,
mirrors, and other articles of furniture, were often the cause of great
troubles and difficulties to those who possessed them, if they happened
to be adorned with the mythological figure which might be considered as
indecent.




CHAPTER XIV.

PARTICULAR TRIALS FOR SUSPICION OF LUTHERANISM, AND SOME OTHER CRIMES.


_Edicts against Lutherans, Illuminati, &c._

The inquisitor-general, who perceived the necessity of arresting the
progress of Lutheranism in Spain, decreed, in concert with the Council
of the Inquisition, several new articles in addition to the annual
edict. These articles oblige every Christian to declare, if he knows or
has heard of any person who has said, maintained, or thought that the
sect of Luther is good, or that his partisans will be saved, and
approved nor believed any of his condemned propositions: for example,
that it is not necessary to confess sins to a priest, and that it is
sufficient to confess to God; that neither the Pope nor the priests have
the power of remitting sins; that the body of Jesus is not actually
present in the consecrated host; that it is not permitted to pray to
saints, or expose images in churches; that faith and baptism are
sufficient for salvation, and that good works are not necessary; that
every Christian may, although not of the priesthood, receive the
confession of another Christian, and administer the sacrament to him;
that the Pope has not the power of granting indulgences; that priests
and monks may lawfully marry; that God did not establish the regular
religions orders; that the state of marriage is better and more perfect
than that of celibacy; that there ought to be no festivals but the
sabbath, and that it is not sinful to eat meat on Friday, in Lent, or on
other fast-days.

Alphonso Manrique also gave permission to the inquisitors of the
provinces to take any measures they might think proper, to discover
those persons who had embraced the heresy of the _illuminati_,
(_alumbrados_.) These people, who were also called _dejados_
(_quietists_), formed a sect whose chief, it is said, was that _Muncer_
who had already established that of the Anabaptists. Some time after,
the Council of the Inquisition added several articles relative to the
_illuminati_ to those already mentioned.

I am of opinion, that the first Spaniards who followed the doctrines of
Luther were Franciscan monks; for Clement VII., in 1526, authorized the
general and provincials of the order of Minor Friars of St. Francis
d'Assiz, to absolve those of the community who had fallen into that
heresy, after they had taken an oath to renounce it for ever. Several
monks of the same order had already represented to the Pope, that by the
privileges granted to them in the bull _mare magnum_, and confirmed by
other decrees of the holy see, no stranger had a right to interfere in
their affairs, and that they did not recognize any judge but the judge
of their institution, even in cases of apostasy.

Manrique, embarrassed in his ministry by the pretensions of the
Franciscans, wrote to the Pope, who expedited, in 1525, a brief, by
which the inquisitor-general was empowered to take cognizance of these
affairs, assisted by a monk named by the prelate of the order, and that,
in cases of appeal from judgment, the Pope should be applied to: but
these appeals were afterwards ordered to be made before the
inquisitor-general.


_Trials of Several Persons._

During the ministry of the inquisitor-general Manrique, history points
out several illustrious and innocent victims of the tribunal, who were
suspected of Lutheranism: such was the venerable Juan d'Avila, who would
have been beatified, if he had been a monk, but he was only a secular
priest: he was called, in Spain, the _Apostle of Andalusia_, on account
of his exemplary life and his charitable actions. St. Theresa de Jesus
informs us, in her works, that she derived much assistance from his
counsels and doctrine. He preached the gospel with simplicity, and never
introduced into his discourses those questions which at that time so
disgracefully agitated the scholastic theologians. Some envious monks,
irritated at his aversion for disputes, united to plan his ruin. They
denounced some of his propositions to the Inquisition, as tending to
Lutheranism and the doctrines of the _illuminati_. In 1534, Juan d'Avila
was confined in the secret prison of the holy office, by an order of the
inquisitors; they did not make their resolution known to the Supreme
Council or to the ordinary, on the pretence that this measure was only
ordained in case of a difference of opinion. Although this proceeding
was contrary to the laws of the Inquisition, to the royal ordinances,
and those of the Supreme Council, yet they contemned these violations,
and even tacitly approved them, as no reprimand was addressed to the
offenders. This act of the Inquisition, which took place at Seville,
much affected the inquisitor-general: he occupied the see of that city,
and had the greatest esteem for Juan d'Avila, whom he regarded as a
saint, which was a fortunate circumstance for him, as the protection of
Manrique, as chief of the Inquisition, greatly contributed to prove his
innocence; d'Avila was acquitted, and continued to preach with the same
zeal and charity until his death.

This year was more fatal to two men, who are celebrated in the literary
history of Spain--Juan de Vergara, and Bernardin de Tobar, his brother:
they were arrested by the Inquisition of Toledo, and were not released
from its dungeons, until they had been subjected to the abjuration (_de
levi_) of the Lutheran heresy, to receive the absolution of censures _ad
cautelam_, and to several penances. Juan de Vergara was a canon of
Toledo, and had been secretary to Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros, and to
Don Alphonso de Fonseca, his successor in the see of that city. Nicholas
Antonio has inserted, in his library, a notice of the literary
productions of this Spaniard, and does justice to his virtue and merit.
His profound knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew languages was the cause
of his misfortune; he had remarked some faults in the translation of the
Vulgate, and thus gave the signal for persecution to some monks who had
only studied Latin and the jargon of the schools. The chapter of Toledo
honoured his memory in placing on his tomb an epitaph, which is
preserved by the author I have cited. Vergara had a claim on the
gratitude of this community, for having composed the inscriptions which
decorate the choir of their church.

Bernardin de Tobar is less known, but Peter Martyr d'Angleria mentions
him among the learned men of the sixteenth century, and John Louis
Vives, a learned man of that age, says, in writing to Erasmus: "We live
in a difficult time; it is dangerous either to speak or be silent;
Vergara, his brother Bernardin de Tobar, and several other learned men,
have been arrested in Spain[7]."

Among this number was one of whom Vives could not give a particular
account. I speak of Alphonso Virues, a Benedictine, born at Olmedo, and
one of the best theologians of his time. He had a profound knowledge of
the oriental languages, and had composed several works. He was a member
of the commission which judged the works of Erasmus in 1527, and
preacher to Charles V., who listened to his discourses with so much
pleasure that he took him to Germany, and on his return to Spain would
not hear any other person. These distinctions excited the envy of the
monks, and they would have succeeded in their endeavours to ruin him,
but for the firmness and constancy of the emperor in protecting him.

Virues was suspected of being favourable to the opinions of Luther, and
thrown into the secret prisons of the holy office at Seville. The
emperor, who knew him well, both from his sermons, and the intercourse
which took place during their travels in Germany, felt this blow
acutely, and not doubting that Virues was the victim of an intrigue
which the inquisitor-general ought to have prevented, he exiled
Manrique, who was obliged to retire to his archbishopric of Seville,
where he died in 1538. Not content with this, Charles commanded the
Supreme Council to address an ordinance to all the tribunals of the
Inquisition, importing, that in case of a preliminary instruction
sufficiently serious to cause the arrest of a monk, the decree of
imprisonment should be delayed, and that the inquisitors should send an
entire and faithful copy of the commencement of the proceedings to the
Supreme Council, and wait for the orders which would be sent them after
the examination of the writings.

The unfortunate Virues, nevertheless, suffered all the horrors of a
secret imprisonment for four years. During this period, as he writes to
Charles V., "he was scarcely allowed to breathe, or to occupy himself
with anything but charges, replies, testimonies, defences, libels,
means, acts (_nomina quæ et ipso poene timendo sono ... words which
cannot be heard without terrors_), or with heresies, blasphemies,
errors, anathemas, schisms, and other monsters, which, with labour that
may be compared to those of Hercules, I have at last conquered with the
aid of Jesus Christ, so that I am now justified through your majesty's
protection[8]."

One of the means employed by Virues for his defence, was to demand that
the tribunal should pay attention to the points of doctrine which he had
established, and prepared to attack Melancthon and other Lutherans
before the diet of Ratisbon; but this demand did not gain the object
which he had in view, which was a complete absolution, because his
enemies had denounced propositions advanced in public. Although he
proved that they were extremely Catholic, when examined with the text,
yet he could not prevent them from incurring the theological censure in
the form given by the denunciation: he was obliged to submit to an
abjuration of all heresies, particularly that of Luther and his
adherents. The definitive sentence was pronounced in 1537: he was
declared to be suspected of professing the errors of Luther, and
condemned to be absolved from the censures _ad cautelam_; to be confined
in a monastery for two years, and prohibited from preaching the word of
God for two years after his release.

The emperor, when informed of these transactions, complained to the
Pope, who, in 1538, addressed a brief to Virues, which contained a
dispensation from the different penances to which he had been condemned:
it also re-instated him in his office of preacher; and declared, that
what had passed could not exclude him from any office, not even from
episcopacy.

It is surprising that the affair of Virues, and many others, did not
make Charles V. perceive the nature of the Inquisition, and that he
still continued to protect that institution. However, the trial of his
preacher, and several other crosses which he experienced about that
time, were the reasons why he deprived the holy office of the royal
jurisdiction in 1535, and it was not restored until the year 1545. This
favour for Virues was so constant, that he soon after presented him to
the Pope for the bishopric of the Canaries; but the Pope refused him,
alleging that the suspicions raised against the purity of his faith
rendered him improper to be invested with the dignity of a bishop,
although the bull had declared him to be eligible. The emperor insisted,
and the Pope at length yielded to his pressing solicitations. Virues was
made Bishop of the Canaries in 1540.

In 1527 the Inquisition of Valladolid was occupied by an affair, of
which it is necessary to give an account, that the compassion and
indulgence which the inquisitors always professed in their acts, and
other forms of justice, may be justly appreciated.

One Diego Vallejo, of the village of Palacios de Meneses, in the diocese
of Palencia, having been arrested for blasphemy by the Inquisition,
declared, among other things, that two months before, on the 24th of
April, 1526, two physicians, named Alphonso Garcia and Juan de Salas,
were disputing on the subject of medicine, before him and Ferdinand
Ramirez, his son-in-law: the first maintained his opinion on the
authority of certain writers; Salas affirmed that these writers were
deceived; Garcia replied that his opinion was proved by the text of the
evangelists, which caused Salas to say _that they had lied as well as
the others_. Ferdinand Ramirez (who had also been arrested upon
suspicion of Judaism) was examined the same day; his deposition was the
same as that of Vallejo, but he added, that Salas returned to his house
some hours after, and in speaking of what had passed, said, "_What folly
I have asserted!_" When the tribunal had finished the affair of Ramirez
and Vallejo, they arrested Juan de Salas.

The inquisitors (without the concurrence of the diocesan, without
consultors or qualifiers, and without communicating with the Supreme
Council) decreed the arrest of Juan de Salas on the 14th of February,
1527, as if the declarations of Ramirez and Vallejo had been sufficient.
The audiences of _admonition_ were granted, and the depositions were
communicated without the names of the persons or place. He replied that
the circumstances were not correctly stated. The other physician was
then called, who declared, that in conversing with Salas on the
evangelists, he heard him say, _that some of them had lied_. He was
asked if any one had reproached Salas for this expression; Garcia
replied, that an hour after he had advised him to give himself up to the
Inquisition, and that he had promised to do so. The inquisitor then
asked if he was inimical to the accused; the witness replied in the
negative. On the 16th of April the ratification of Ramirez and Garcia
took place. On the 6th of May the prisoner presented two requisitions or
means of defence: in the first he protested against all that had been
said contrary to his declaration, and pointed out the differences in the
depositions of the witnesses; the second was an _interrogatory_ in
thirteen questions, two of which tended to prove his orthodoxy, and the
others to justify the motives of the challenge which he had presented
against certain persons who had been called upon to depose in his trial.
This piece contains, in the margin, the witnesses to be consulted for
each question. It will be seen that the prisoner took advantage of the
laws of the holy office in his defence; but the inquisitors, instead of
conforming to their own regulations, erased the names of several persons
designated in the list of the accused witnesses on his side, and would
not hear them. Nevertheless, the facts mentioned in the interrogatory
were proved by fourteen witnesses, and on the 25th of May the fiscal
gave his conclusions.

The fact related by Ramirez, the contradictions in the depositions of
the witnesses; the difference in the report of both, from that of the
accuser; the important advantages gained by the prisoner in justifying
his challenge, in only having two witnesses against him (who had both
been prosecuted, one for blasphemy, the other for Judaism), and in being
accused of only one proposition; lastly, the possibility that the
accused had forgotten many things during the space of a year, are
circumstances which would make any one suppose that Juan de Salas would
have been acquitted, or that they would, at least, (if they supposed
that he had denied the truth,) have contented themselves with imposing
the penance of the suspicion _de levi_ upon him; but instead of this,
the inquisitor Moriz, without the concurrence of his colleague Alvarado,
decreed that Salas should be tortured, as guilty of concealment. In this
act the following deposition is found:--"We ordain that the said torture
be employed in the manner and during the time that we shall think
proper, after having protested as we still protest, that, in case of
injury, death, or fractured limbs, the fault can only be imputed to the
said licentiate Salas." The decree of Moriz took effect: I subjoin the
verbal process of the execution.

"At Valladolid, on the 21st of June, 1527, the licentiate Moriz,
inquisitor, caused the licentiate Juan de Salas to appear before him,
and the sentence was read and notified to him. After the reading, the
said licentiate Salas declared, that _he had not said that of which he
was accused_; and the said licentiate Moriz immediately caused him to be
conducted to the chamber of torture, where, being stripped to his shirt,
Salas was put by the shoulders into the _chevalet_, where the
executioner, Pedro Porras, fastened him by the arms and legs with cords
of hemp, of which he made _eleven turns_ round each limb; Salas, during
the time that the said Pedro was tying him thus, was warned to speak the
truth several times, to which he always replied, _that he had never said
what he was accused of_. He recited the creed, "Quicumque vult," and
several times gave thanks to God and our Lady; and the said Salas being
still tied as before mentioned, a fine wet cloth was put over his face,
and about a pint of water was poured into his mouth and nostrils, from
an earthen vessel with a hole at the bottom, and containing about two
quarts: nevertheless, Salas still persisted _in denying the
accusation_. Then Pedro de Porras _tightened the cords_ on the right
leg, and poured a second measure of water on the face; the cords _were
tightened a second time_ on the same leg, but Juan de Salas still
persisted in _denying that he had ever said any thing of the kind_; and
although pressed to tell the truth several times, _he still denied the
accusation_. Then the said licentiate Moriz, having declared that _the
torture was_ BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED, commanded that it should cease. The
accused was withdrawn from the chevalet or rack, at which execution, I,
Henry Paz, was present from the beginning to the end.--Henry Paz,
notary."

If this execution was but the beginning of the torture, how was it to
finish? By the death of the sufferer? In order to understand this
statement, it is necessary to know that the instrument, which in
Castilian is called _escalera_ (and which has also the name of _burro_,
and is translated into French by the word _chevalet_), is a machine of
wood, invented to torture the accused. It is formed like a groove, large
enough to hold the body of a man, without a bottom, but a stick crosses
it, over which the body falls in such a position, that the feet are much
higher than the head; consequently, a violent and painful respiration
ensues, with intolerable pains in the sides, the arms, and legs, where
the pressure of the cords is so great, even before the _garot_ has been
used, that they penetrate to the bone.

If we observe the manner in which the people who carry merchandise on
mules or in carts tighten the cords by means of sticks, we can easily
imagine the torments which the unfortunate John de Salas must have
suffered. The introduction of a liquid is not less likely to kill those
whom the inquisitors torture, and it has happened more than once. The
mouth, during the torture, is in the most unfavourable position for
respiration, so much so, that a person would die if he remained several
hours in it; a piece of fine wet linen is introduced into the throat, on
which the water from the vessel is poured so slowly, that it requires
an hour to consume a pint, although it descends without intermission. In
this state the patient finds it impossible to breathe, as the water
enters the nostrils at the same time, and the rupture of a blood-vessel
in the lungs is often the result.

Raymond Gonzales de Montes (who, in 1558, was so fortunate as to escape
from the prisons of the holy office at Seville) wrote a book in Latin,
on the Inquisition, under the name of _Reginaldus Gonsalvius
Montanus_[9]. He informs us that the cord was wound eight or ten times
round the legs. Eleven turns were made round the limbs of Salas, besides
those of the _garot_. We may form an idea of the humanity of the
Inquisition of Valladolid, from the definitive sentence pronounced by
the licentiate Moriz and his colleague, Doctor Alvarado, without any
other formality, after they had taken (if we may believe them) the
advice of persons noted for their learning and virtue, but without the
adjournment which ought to have preceded it, and without the concurrence
of the diocesan in ordinary. They declared that the fiscal had not
entirely proved the accusation, and that the prisoner had succeeded in
destroying some of the charges; but that on account of the suspicion
arising from the trial, Juan de Salas was condemned to the punishment of
the public _auto-da-fé_, in his shirt, without a cloak, his head
uncovered, and with a torch in his hand; that he should abjure heresy
publicly, and that he should pay ten ducats of gold to the Inquisition,
and fulfil his penance in the church assigned. It is seen, by a
certificate afterwards given in, that Juan de Salas performed his
_auto-da-fé_ on the 24th of June, 1528, and that his father paid the
fine: the trial offers no other peculiarity. This affair, and several
others of a similar nature, caused the Supreme Council to publish a
decree in 1558, commanding that the torture should not be administered
without an order from the council.


_Letter-Orders, relating to the Proceedings._

The abuse of the secrecy of the proceedings caused a number of
complaints to be addressed to the inquisitor-general. He usually
referred them to the Supreme Council, which, during the administration
of Manrique, addressed several circulars to the provincial tribunals: it
is necessary to make known the most important.

In one of these writings, dated March 14th, 1528, it is said, that if an
accused person (when asked a general question) declares at first that he
knows nothing on the subject, and afterwards, when questioned on a
particular fact, confesses that he is acquainted with it (in case the
inquisitors think proper to take down the second declaration, to make
use of it against a third), they should insert the first question and
the answer of the accused in the same verbal process, because it might
assist in determining the degree of confidence to be placed in his
declarations.

On the 16th of March, 1530, another instruction of the council appeared.
It directed that the facts related by the witnesses in favour of the
prisoner should be mentioned as well as those against him. This
direction, however just, has not been strictly followed, since it was
never observed in the extract of the publication of the depositions
given to the accused and his defender; consequently, no advantage could
be derived by the prisoner from the declarations in his favour.

Another circular of the 13th of May in the same year, says, that if an
accused person challenges a witness, he must be interrogated on the
foundation of the proceedings, as he might have facts to depose against
the accused.

On the 16th June, 1531, the council wrote to the tribunals, that if the
accused challenged several persons, on the supposition that they will
depose against him, the witnesses whom he calls to prove the facts which
caused the challenge, shall be examined on each individual, although
they have not made any deposition, in order that the accused may not
suppose at the time of the publication of the depositions, from an
omission (if there should be any), that some have deposed against him,
and that the others are not mentioned, or have not said anything.

Another instruction on the 13th of May, 1532, directs, that the
relations of the accused shall not be admitted as witnesses in the proof
of the challenge.

In another decree of the 5th March, 1535, it is ordained that the
witness shall be asked if there is any enmity between them and the
accused.

On the 20th of July, the council obliged the tribunals to insert in the
extract of the publication of the depositions, the day, the month, and
the hour when each witness gave his evidence.

In March, 1525, it was decreed, that when the extract was given to the
accused, he was not to be informed that any witness had declared the
fact to be known to others, because if they said nothing against him, it
was not proper to inform the accused of it, as he would learn, from that
circumstance, that some persons had spoken in his favour, or at least
had declared that they knew nothing against him.

Another regulation of the 8th of April, 1533, prohibited the inquisitors
from communicating the extract of the publication of the depositions to
the accused, before the ratification of the declarations.

The council decreed, on the 22d December, 1536, that in transacting any
business relating to circumstances which took place in the house of a
person deceased, so that the corpse was still exposed to view, and that
its position, figure, or other circumstance, might tend to discover if
he died a heretic or not, the name of the defunct, his house, and other
details, should be communicated to the witnesses, that they might be
enabled to recollect the event, and to assist them in making their
declaration.

Yet the council, on the 30th August, 1537, decreed that the time and
place of the events should be inserted in the extract of the publication
of the depositions, because it was of consequence to the interests of
the accused; it would be done even in supposing that he would learn from
it the names of the witnesses.

This rule is too contrary to the inquisitorial system, not to inspire a
wish to seek for the principle and the cause; it may be found in the bad
reputation which the Inquisition had acquired by the proceedings against
Alphonso Virues, which induced Charles V. to deprive it of the royal
jurisdiction: but although the council registered the order of the
sovereign, he decreed, on the 15th of December, in this year, and on the
22nd of February, 1538, that the extract should not contain any article
which could make known the witnesses; thus annulling the order imposed
in the preceding year. During the last years of the Inquisition, neither
the time nor place were indicated in the act of the publication of the
depositions.

In June, 1537, the council being consulted by the Inquisition of Toledo,
decreed, as general rules--1st, that all who _calmly_ uttered the
blasphemies, _I deny God, I abjure God_, should be punished severely;
but those who uttered these words in anger, should not be subject to
prosecution: 2nd, to punish all Christians accused of bigamy, if the
guilty person supposed it permitted; and in the contrary case to abstain
from prosecution; 3rdly, to ascertain, in cases of sorcery, if there had
been any compact with the devil; if the compact had existed, the
Inquisition was directed to judge the accused--if it had not, they were
to leave the cause to the secular tribunals.

The second and third of these regulations are contrary to the system of
the holy office, which leads me to suppose that the temporary disgrace
and exile of Manrique contributed to this moderation, which could not
last long: the inquisitors have always proceeded against persons guilty
of these crimes, on the pretence of examining if any circumstance might
cause suspicion of heresy. The same spirit is found in another order of
the 19th February, 1533: it obliges the inquisitors to receive all the
papers which the relations of the accused wish to communicate to them.
The council made this rule, because these writings (though useless on
the trial) might yet be serviceable in proving the innocence or guilt of
the accused.

On the 10th May, 1531, the council decreed, that if bulls of
dispensation from the use of the _San-benito_, imprisonment, or other
punishments, were presented to the Inquisition, the procurator-fiscal
should demand that they should be suppressed, as well as those obtained
by the children and grandchildren of persons declared infamous by the
holy office: the council supported this rule by alleging that children
always followed the example of their heretical ancestors, and that it
was a scandal to see them occupying honourable employments.

On the 22nd of March in the same year the council wrote to the tribunal
of the provinces, that it had remarked, in one of the trials, that
certain writings had not been digested in the places where the facts
mentioned had happened; whence they concluded that these formalities had
not been fulfilled at the proper time, but at the moment when the
proceedings were to begin: the council then recommended them to avoid
these abuses, as contrary to the instructions. But the orders of the
council were not obeyed: the same irregularity was renewed, and produced
another still more dangerous, which during my time had the most serious
consequences. In order to supply what might be omitted in the course of
the trial, the inquisitors adopted the custom of writing each act,
declaration, and deposition, on separate sheets of paper. As in these
tribunals they did not make use of stamped paper, and as the pieces of
the process were not numbered, it often happened that those which they
wished to conceal from the council, the diocesan in ordinary, or other
interested parties, were changed or suppressed. This manoeuvre was
employed by the inquisitors in the affair of the Archbishop of Toledo,
Carranza, and I have myself seen several attestations of the secretary
changed at the request of the inquisitors of Madrid.

The circular of the 11th of July in the same year is more remarkable,
and had more success than the preceding. The inquisitors of the
provinces were directed to refer to the Supreme Council all sentences
pronounced without the unanimity of the inquisitors, the diocesan and
the consulters, even supposing that there was only one dissentient
voice. The inquisitors were afterwards obliged to consult the council on
all the judgments which they passed; and I must confess that this
measure was extremely useful, because, in a difference of opinion, the
decisions of the _supreme_ were much more just than those of the
tribunals of the provinces, from being composed of a greater number of
enlightened judges.

The council displayed the same love of justice in 1536, when it decreed
that those convicted of making use of gold, silver, silk, or precious
stones, should be punished by pecuniary fines, and not by fire, although
they had been prohibited from so doing on pain of being _relaxed_.

The decree most contrary to the wisdom which ought to have animated the
council, was that of the 7th of December, 1532, in which it was ordained
that each provincial Inquisition should state the number and rank of the
persons condemned to different punishments within their jurisdictions,
since their establishment, and to deposit in the churches those
_San-benitos_ which had not been placed there, without even excepting
those of persons who had confessed and suffered their punishment during
the term of grace. This direction was executed with a severity worthy of
the Inquisition; at Toledo those San-benitos were renewed which had been
destroyed by time, and they were likewise sent to the parishes of the
condemned persons. The consequences of these proceedings were the ruin
and extinction of many families, as the children could not establish
themselves according to the rank they had possessed; while the
condemnation of their ancestors by the Inquisition remained unknown. The
council discovered too late the injustice it had committed in respect to
the _San-benito_ since it revoked the decree seven years after, in 1539.

It is not necessary to give the history of the quarrels which took place
between the Inquisition and the different civil authorities, during the
administration of Manrique. A scandalous enterprise of the Supreme
Council ought nevertheless to be mentioned. In 1531, it presumed to
condemn the president of the royal court of appeals, in Majorca, to ask
pardon of the holy office, to attend mass (as a penitent), with a wax
taper in his hand, and to receive the absolution of censures, for having
defended the jurisdiction of the criminal tribunal in an affair which
involved several persons, among whom was one Gabriel Nebel, a servant of
the summoner of the holy office.




CHAPTER XV.

PROSECUTIONS OF SORCERERS, MAGICIANS, ENCHANTERS, NECROMANCERS, AND
OTHERS.


Under the administration of the inquisitor-general, Manrique, the
Inquisition was particularly occupied by the sect of sorcerers.

Pope Adrian VI. (who had been inquisitor-general in Spain), published a
bull on the 20th July, 1523, in which he says, that in the time of his
predecessor Julius II. a numerous sect had been discovered in Lombardy,
which abjured the Christian faith, and abused the ceremonies of religion
and the eucharist. These sectarians acknowledged the devil as their
patron, and promised obedience to him.

They sent maladies to animals and destroyed the fruits of the earth by
their enchantments. An inquisitor having attempted to arrest and bring
them to punishment, the ecclesiastical and secular judges opposed him,
which led Julius II. to declare that these crimes were within the
jurisdiction of the Inquisition, as well as all other heresies. In
consequence Adrian VI. reminded the different Inquisitions of their duty
in this respect.

This bull was not necessary in Spain, as the Inquisition of Aragon had
taken cognizance of magic and sorcery, since the pontificate of John
XXII.

It appears that the Inquisition of Calahorra, burnt more than thirty
women as sorceresses and magicians in the year 1507. In 1527, a great
number of women who practised magic were discovered in Navarre.

These crimes increased so much in the province of Biscay, that Charles
V. found it necessary to notice it. Persuaded that the ignorance in
which the people were left by the priests was the cause of these
superstitions, he wrote in December, 1527, to the Bishop of Calahorra,
and to the provincials of the Dominicans and Franciscans, to select a
number of able preachers from their communities, to teach the doctrine
of the Christian religion on this point. But these ministers of the
gospel, even those who had acquired a reputation for learning, believed
as well as the enchanters in these illusions.

Nevertheless, Father Martin de Castañaga, a Franciscan monk, composed in
that time, a book in Spanish, entitled, _A Treatise on Superstitions
and Enchantments_. I have read this work, and I acknowledge (with the
exception of a few articles, in which the author appears too credulous,)
that it would be difficult even in the present time to write with more
moderation or discernment. The Bishop of Calahorra, Don Alphonso de
Castilla, having read this treatise, had it printed in quarto, and sent
it to the priests in his diocese, with a pastoral letter, in 1529.

The Inquisition of Saragossa condemned several sorceresses who had
formed part of the association in Navarre, or had been sent into Aragon
to gain disciples. The inquisitors, the ordinary, and the consulters,
were not of the same opinion; the greatest number voted for the
execution of the sorceresses, the others for reconciliation and
perpetual imprisonment. The minority gave up their opinion in deference
to the greater number, and thus relaxation was pronounced unanimously,
without any of the formalities prescribed, and the unfortunate women
perished in the flames. The _Supreme_ Council which was informed of this
event by one of its members, who had learnt it from an inquisitor of
Saragossa, addressed a circular on the 23rd of March, 1536, to all the
tribunals, stating the Inquisition of Saragossa had failed in its duty,
in not having consulted the council, after having found that the
opinions of its members were different.

The inquisitor-general Manrique, being informed that the sect of
sorcerers made great progress in different parts of the Peninsula, added
several articles to the edict of denunciation: the substance of them
was, that all Christians were obliged to declare to the Inquisition:

First, If they had heard that any person had familiar spirits, and that
he invoked demons in circles, questioning them and expecting their
answer, as a magician, or in virtue of an express or tacit compact; that
he had mingled holy things with profane objects, and worshipped in the
creature that which belongs only to the Creator.

Secondly, If he had studied judicial astrology to discover the future,
by observing the conjunction of the stars at the birth of persons.

Thirdly, If any person in order to discover the future, had employed
_geomancy_, _hydromancy_, _aëromancy_, _piromancy_, _onomancy_,
_necromancy_, or sorceries by beans, dice, or wheat.

Fourthly, If a Christian had made an express compact with the devil,
practised enchantments by magic, with instruments, circles, characters,
or diabolical signs; by invoking and consulting demons, with the hope of
a reply, and placing confidence in them; by offering them incense, or
the _smoke_ of good or bad substances; by offering sacrifices to them;
in abusing sacraments or holy things; by promising obedience to them,
and adoring or worshipping them in any manner.

Fifthly, If any one constructed, or procured mirrors, rings, phials, or
other vessels, for the purpose of attracting, enclosing, and preserving
a demon, who replies to his questions, and assists him in obtaining his
wishes; or who had endeavoured to discover the future, by interrogating
the demons in possessed people; or tried to produce the same effect by
invoking the devil under the name of _holy angel_ or _white angel_, and
by asking things of him with prayers and humility; by practising other
superstitious ceremonies with vases, phials of water, or consecrated
tapers; by the inspection of the nails, and of the palm of the hand
rubbed with vinegar; or by endeavouring to obtain representations of
objects by means of phantoms, in order to learn secret things, or which
had not then happened.

Sixthly, If any one had read or possessed, or read or possessed at
present, any manuscript or book on these matters, or concerning all
other species of divination, which is not performed by natural and
physical effects.

Although the edicts and punishments for sorcery were extremely severe,
they have appeared from time to time in different parts of Spain. The
history of the sorceresses of the valley of Bastan, in Navarre, has been
particularly celebrated. These women were taken before the Inquisition
of Logroño, and confessed the greatest extravagancies. They were
condemned to an _auto-da-fé_, in 1610; their history was published at
Madrid, in 1810, with very pleasant remarks by the Moliere of Spain, Don
Leandro de Moratin, who deserves a better fate than he experiences.


_History of a famous Magician._

The history of Doctor Eugene Torralba, a physician of Cuença, ought not
to be passed over, as it offers several remarkable events, and is
mentioned in the _History of the famous knight, Don Quixote de la
Mancha_. This person is also introduced in different parts of a poem,
entitled, _Carlos Famoso_[10], composed by Louis Zapata, dedicated to
Philip II., and printed at Valencia, in 1556.

The author of _Don Quixote_, in the adventure of the Countess Trifaldi,
represents that famous knight, as mounted upon _Clavileno_, with Sancho
Panza behind him, having their eyes covered; the squire wishes to
uncover his eyes to see if they had arrived at the region of fire. Don
Quixote says, "Take care not to do it, and remember the true history of
the licentiate Torralba, who being mounted on a cane, with his eyes
covered, was conveyed through the air by devils, and arrived at Rome in
twelve hours, and descended on the tower of Nona, which is in a street
of that city, where he saw the tumult, assault, and death of the
Constable de Bourbon, and returned to Madrid before morning, where he
gave an account of what he had seen. He also related that while he was
in the air, the devil told him to open his eyes, and that he saw himself
so near the moon that he might have touched it with his hand, and that
he did not dare to look towards the earth for fear of fainting."

The Doctor Eugene Torralba was born in the town of Cuença. In an
examination he stated, that at the age of fifteen he went to Rome, where
he was made a page of Don Francis Soderini, Bishop of Volterra, who was
made a cardinal in 1503. He studied medicine under several masters, who
in their disputes attacked the immortality of the soul, and though they
did not succeed in convincing him, caused him to incline to pyrrhonism.
Torralba was a physician in 1501, at which period he became intimately
acquainted with Master Alphonso of Rome, who had renounced the law of
Moses for that of Mahomet, which he quitted for the Christian doctrine,
and finished by preferring natural religion. Alphonso told him that
Jesus Christ was only a man, and supported his opinion with several
arguments: this doctrine did not entirely eradicate the faith of
Torralba, but he no longer knew on which side the truth lay.

Among the friends he acquired at Rome, was a monk of St. Dominic, called
Brother Peter. This man told him one day that he had in his service one
of the good angels, whose name was _Zequiel_, so powerful in the
knowledge of the future, that no other could equal him; but that he
abhorred the practice of obliging men to make a compact with him; that
he was always free, and only served the person who placed confidence in
him through friendship, and that he allowed him to reveal the secrets he
communicated, but that any constraint employed to force him to answer
questions made him for ever abandon the society of the man to whom he
had attached himself. Brother Peter asked him if he would not like to
have _Zequiel_ for his friend, adding that he could obtain that favour
on account of the friendship which subsisted between them; Torralba
expressed the greatest desire to become acquainted with the spirit of
Brother Peter.

_Zequiel_ soon appeared in the shape of a young man, fair, with flaxen
hair, dressed in flesh colour, with a black surtout; he said to
Torralba, _I will belong to thee as long as thou livest, and will follow
thee wherever thou goest_. After this promise _Zequiel_ appeared to
Torralba at the different quarters of the moon, and whenever he wished
to go from one place to another, sometimes in the figure of a traveller,
sometimes like a hermit. _Zequiel_ never spoke against the Christian
religion, or advised him to commit any bad action; on the contrary, he
reproached him when he committed a fault, and attended the church
service with him: he always spoke in Latin or Italian, although he was
with Torralba in Spain, France, and Turkey: he continued to visit him
during his imprisonment but seldom, and did not reveal any secrets to
him, and Torralba desired the spirit to leave him, because he caused
agitation and prevented him from sleeping; but this did not prevent him
from returning and relating things which wearied him.

Torralba went to Spain in 1502. Some time after he travelled over all
Italy, and settled at Rome under the protection of Cardinal Volterra; he
there acquired the reputation of a good physician, and engaged the
favour of several cardinals. He studied chiromancy, and acquired some
knowledge of the art. _Zequiel_ revealed to Torralba the secret virtues
of several plants in curing certain maladies; having made use of this
information to procure money, _Zequiel_ reproached him for it, saying,
that as these remedies had cost him no labour, he ought to bestow them
gratuitously.

Torralba having appeared sad sometimes because he was in want of money,
the angel said to him, _Why are you sad for want of money?_ Some time
after, Torralba found six ducats in his chamber, and the same thing was
repeated several times, which made him suppose that _Zequiel_ had placed
them there, although he would not acknowledge it when questioned.

The greatest part of the information which _Zequiel_ communicated to
Torralba related to political occurrences. Thus, when Torralba returned
to Spain in 1510, being at the court of Ferdinand the Catholic,
_Zequiel_ told him that this prince would soon receive disagreeable
news. Torralba hastened to inform the Archbishop of Toledo, Ximenez de
Cisneros, and the great captain Gonzales Fernandez de Cordova; and the
same day a courier brought letters from Africa, which announced the
failure of the expedition against the Moors, and the death of Don Garcia
de Toledo, son of the Duke of Alva, who commanded it.

Ximenez de Cisneros having learnt that the Cardinal de Volterra had seen
_Zequiel_, expressed a wish to see him also, and to become acquainted
with the nature and qualities of this spirit. Torralba, to gratify the
archbishop, entreated the angel to appear to him under any human form:
_Zequiel_ did not think proper to do so; but to soften the severity of
his refusal, he commissioned Torralba to inform Ximenez de Cisneros that
he would be a king, which was in a manner verified, as he became
absolute governor of the Spains and the Indies.

Another time when he was at Rome, the angel told him that Peter Margano
would lose his life if he went out of the city. Torralba had not time to
inform his friend; he went out, and was assassinated.

_Zequiel_ told him that Cardinal Sienna would come to a tragical end,
which was verified in 1517, after the sentence which Leo X. pronounced
against him.

When he returned to Rome in 1513, Torralba had a great desire to see his
intimate friend Thomas de Becara, who was then at Venice. _Zequiel_, who
knew his wish, took him to that city, and brought him back to Rome in so
short a time, that the person with whom he was in the habit of
associating did not perceive his absence.

The Cardinal de Santa Cruz, in 1516, commissioned Torralba to pass a
night with his physician, Doctor Morales, in the house of a Spanish lady
named _Rosales_, to ascertain if what this woman related of a phantom
which she saw every night in the form of a murdered man, was to be
believed; Doctor Morales had remained a whole night in the house, and
had not seen anything when the Spanish lady announced the presence of
the ghost, and the Cardinal hoped to discover something by means of
Torralba. At the hour of one the woman uttered her cry of alarm; Morales
saw nothing, but Torralba perceived the figure, which was that of a dead
man; behind him appeared another phantom with the features of a woman.
Torralba said to him with a loud voice, _What dost thou seek here?_ The
phantom replied, _A treasure_, and disappeared. _Zequiel_, on being
questioned, replied that under the house there was the body of a man who
had been assassinated with a poignard.

In 1519, Torralba returned to Spain, accompanied by Don Diego de Zuñiga,
a relation of the Duke de Bejar, and brother to Don Antonio, grand prior
of Castile, who was his intimate friend. At Barcelonetta, near Turin,
while they were walking with the secretary Acebedo (who had been marshal
of the camp in Italy and Savoy), Acebedo and Zuñiga thought they saw
something pass by Torralba which they could not define; he informed them
that it was his angel _Zequiel_, who had approached to speak to him.
Zuñiga wished much to see him, but _Zequiel_ would not appear.

At Barcelona, Torralba saw, in the house of the Canon Juan Garcia, a
book on chiromancy, and in some notes a process for winning money at
play. Zuñiga wished to learn it, and Torralba copied the characters, and
told his friend to write them himself on paper with the blood of a bat,
and keep them about his person while he played.

Being at Valladolid in 1520, Torralba told Don Diego that he would
return to Rome, because he had the means of getting there in a short
time, by being mounted on a stick and guided through the air by a cloud
of fire. Torralba really went to that city, where Cardinal Volterra and
the grand prior requested him to give up his _familiar spirit_ to them.
Torralba proposed it to _Zequiel_, and even entreated him to consent,
but without success.

In 1525 the angel told him that he would do well if he returned to
Spain, because he would obtain the place of physician to the infanta
Eleonora, queen dowager of Portugal, and afterwards married to Francis
I., King of France. The doctor communicated this affair to the Duke de
Bejar, and to Don Stephen-Manuel Merino, Archbishop of Bari; they
solicited and obtained for him the place which he aspired to.

Lastly, on the 5th of May in the same year, _Zequiel_ told the doctor
that Rome would be taken by the imperial troops the next day. Torralba
entreated his angel to take him to Rome to witness this important event;
he complied, and they left Valladolid at the hour of eleven at night:
when they were at a short distance from the city, the angel gave
Torralba a knotted stick, and said to him, _Shut your eyes, do not fear,
take this in your hands, and no evil will befal you_. When the moment to
open his eyes arrived, he found himself so near the sea, that he might
have touched it with his hand; the black cloud which surrounded them was
succeeded by a brilliant light, which made Torralba fear that he should
be consumed. _Zequiel_ perceiving his fear, said, _Reassure yourself,
fool!_ Torralba again closed his eyes, and when _Zequiel_ told him to
open them, he found himself in the tower of Nona in Rome. They then
heard the clock of the Castle St. Angelo sound the fifth hour of the
night, which is midnight according to the manner of computing time in
Spain, so that they had been travelling one hour. Torralba went all over
Rome with _Zequiel_, and afterwards witnessed the pillage of the city:
he entered the house of the Bishop Copis, a German, who lived in the
tower of St. Ginia; he saw the Constable de Bourbon expire, the Pope
shut himself up in the Castle of St. Angelo, and all the other events of
that terrible day. In an hour and a half they had returned to
Valladolid, where _Zequiel_ quitted him, saying, _Another time you will
believe what I tell you_. Torralba published all that he had seen; and
as the court soon received the same news, Torralba (who was then
physician to the Admiral of Castile) was spoken of as a great magician.

These rumours were the cause of his denunciation; he was arrested at
Cuença by the Inquisition in the beginning of the year 1508. He was
denounced by his intimate friend Diego de Zuñiga, who, after having been
as foolishly captivated as Torralba, with the miracles of the good
angel, became fanatical and superstitious. Torralba at first confessed
all that has been related of _Zequiel_, supposing that he should not be
tried for the doubts he had expressed of the immortality of the soul and
the divinity of our Saviour. When the judges had collected sufficient
evidence, they assembled to give their _votes_, but as they did not
accord, they applied to the council, which decreed that Torralba should
be tortured, _as much as his age and rank permitted_, to discover his
motives in receiving and keeping near him the spirit _Zequiel_; and if
he believed him to be a bad angel, as a witness declared that he had
said so; if he had made a compact with him; what had passed at the first
interview; if at that time or afterwards he had employed conjurations to
invoke him; immediately after this the tribunal was to pronounce the
definitive sentence.

Torralba had never varied, until that time, in his account of his
familiar spirit, whom he always affirmed to be of the order of good
angels, but the torture made him say, that he now perceived him to be a
bad angel, since he was the cause of his misfortune. He was asked if
_Zequiel_ had told him that he would be arrested by the Inquisition; he
replied that he had told him of it several times, desiring him not to
go to Cuença, because he would meet with a misfortune there, but that he
thought he might disregard this advice. He also declared that there was
no compact between them, and that every circumstance had passed as he
had related it.

The inquisitors considered all these details to be true; and after
taking a new declaration from Torralba, they suspended his trial for the
space of one year, from motives of compassion, and with the hope of
seeing if this famous necromancer would be converted, and confess the
compact and sorcery which he had constantly denied.

A new witness recalled the memory of his dispute, and his doubts of the
immortality of the soul, and the divinity of Jesus Christ, which caused
another declaration of the Doctor in January, 1530. The council being
informed of it, commanded the Inquisition to commission some pious and
learned persons to endeavour to convert the accused. Francisco Antonio
Barragan, prior of the Dominican Convent at Cuença, and Diego Manrique,
a canon of the cathedral, undertook this task, and exhorted him
vehemently. The prisoner replied that he sincerely repented of his
faults, but that it was impossible for him to confess what he had not
done, and that he could not follow the advice given him, to renounce all
communication with _Zequiel_ because the spirit was more powerful than
he was; but he promised that he would not desire his presence, or
consent to any of his propositions.

On the 6th of March, 1531, Torralba was condemned to the usual
abjuration of all heresies, and to suffer the punishment of imprisonment
and the _San-benito_ during the pleasure of the inquisitor-general; to
hold no further communion with the spirit _Zequiel_, and never to attend
to any of his propositions: these conditions were imposed on him for the
safety of his conscience and the good of his soul.

The inquisitor soon put an end to the punishment of Torralba, in
consideration, as he said, of all that he had suffered during an
imprisonment of four years: but the true motive of the pardon granted to
Torralba was the interest which the Admiral of Castile took in his fate;
he retained him as his physician for several years after his judgment.

The truth of the marvellous facts related by Torralba rests solely upon
his confession, and the report of the witnesses whom he had induced to
believe all that he had told them. Torralba cited none but deceased
persons in eight declarations which he made, except Don Diego de Zuñiga.
It was necessary to remark this to show the degree of confidence to be
placed in some parts of his narration. It may be supposed that a great
number of different accounts of this affair were spread, to which I
attribute the additions and alterations in some circumstances which
Louis Zapata introduced into his poem of _Carlos Famoso_, thirty years
after the sentence passed on Torralba, and of those details which
Cervantes eighty years later thought proper to put in the mouth of Don
Quixote.

I terminate, by this account of Doctor Torralba, the history of the
administration of Cardinal Don Alphonso Manrique, Archbishop of Seville,
who died in that city on the 28th of September, 1538, with the
reputation of being a friend and benefactor to the poor. His charity and
some other qualities worthy of his birth have gained him a place among
the illustrious men of his age. He had several natural children before
he entered into orders: Don Jerome Manrique is cited as having been most
worthy of his father; he successively attained the dignities of
Provincial Inquisitor, Counsellor of the _Supreme_, Bishop of Carthagena
and Avila, president of the Chancery of Valladolid, and, lastly,
Inquisitor-general.

At the death of Don Alphonso Manrique, there were nineteen provincial
tribunals; they were established at Seville, Cordova, Toledo,
Valladolid, Murcia, Calahorra, Estremadura, Saragossa, Valencia,
Barcelona, Majorca, in the Canaries, at Cuença, in Navarre, Grenada,
Sicily, Sardinia, in Tierra Firma, and the isles of the American Ocean.
The Inquisition of Jaen had been united to that of Grenada.

The Inquisition had afterwards three tribunals in America, at Mexico,
Lima, and Carthagena. In the Indies they had been decreed but not
organized.

By omitting the tribunals of America, Sardinia, and Sicily, we shall
find that there were fifteen in Spain, which respectively burnt,
annually, about ten individuals in person, five in effigy, and subjected
fifty to different penances: so that in all Spain one hundred and fifty
persons were burnt every year; sixty-five in effigy, and seven hundred
and fifty suffered different canonical penances, which, multiplied by
the fifteen years of the administration of Manrique, shows that two
thousand two hundred and fifty individuals were burnt, one thousand one
hundred and twenty-five in effigy, and eleven thousand two hundred and
fifty condemned to penances; in all, fourteen thousand, six hundred and
twenty-five condemnations. This number scarcely deserves to be mentioned
in comparison with those of preceding times; but still it appears
enormous, particularly if the excessive abuse of the secret proceedings
is considered.




CHAPTER XVI.

OF THE TRIAL OF THE FALSE NUNCIO OF PORTUGAL, AND OTHER IMPORTANT EVENTS
DURING THE TIME OF CARDINAL TABERA, SIXTH INQUISITOR-GENERAL.


_Quarrels of the Inquisition with the Court of Rome._

Charles V. appointed Cardinal Don Juan Pardo de Tabera, Archbishop of
Toledo, to succeed Cardinal Manrique, in the office of
inquisitor-general; his bulls of institution were expedited in September
1539, and a month after he entered upon his office, so that the
_Supreme_ Council governed the Inquisition for the space of one year.

It was under the inquisitor Tabera, that the congregation of the holy
office was founded at Rome, on the 1st of April, 1543. It gave the title
and privilege of inquisitors-general of the faith, for all the Christian
world, to several cardinals; two of the number were Spaniards, Don Juan
Alvarez de Toledo, Bishop of Burgos, a son of the Duke of Alva, and Don
Thomas Badia, cardinal-priest of the title of St. Silvestre, and master
of the sacred palace. These two cardinals were of the order of St.
Dominic.

This new creation alarmed the Inquisition of Spain for its supremacy;
but the Pope formally declared that it was not his intention to alter
anything that had been established, and the institution of the
inquisitors-general would not interfere with the privileges of the other
inquisitors. Yet the general Inquisition attempted several times to give
laws to that of Spain, particularly in the prohibition of some writings
which had been proscribed at Rome. The inquisitors-general wrote to
those of Spain, to register the censure of the theologians, because they
were to be looked upon as the most learned of the Catholic church, and
because their opinion was supported by the confirmation of the supreme
head of the church, whom the cardinals asserted to be infallible when he
acted (as in this case) as sovereign pontiff. He approved and commanded
the decrees of the congregation of cardinals, to be received and
executed with submission.

These pretensions of the Court of Rome did not inspire the inquisitors
of Spain with any awe; they have always defended their privileges with
so much vigour, that they often refused to execute the apostolical
briefs, when they were contrary to the decisions they had made
conjointly with the _Supreme_ Council. We find examples of this
resistance under Urban VIII., in the condemnation of the works of the
Jesuit, John Baptist Poza, which had been pronounced at Rome; and under
Benedict XIV., when the inquisitor-general, Don Francis Perezdel Prado,
Bishop of Teruel, refused to enter upon the _prohibitory index_ the
works of Cardinal Noris, in opposition to the request, and even the
formal demand, of that great Pope.

Although the inquisitors of Spain pretended that their authority was
canonical and spiritual, and had been delegated to them by the sovereign
pontiff, who is infallible when he pronounces _ex cathedrâ_, yet they
always opposed this infallibility in fact, and refused to submit to his
decrees, when contrary to their particular system. The inquisitors would
have acted differently, if they had not been certain that by applying to
the king and interesting his policy, they would force the royal
authority to take a part in their quarrels, and oppose the measures of
the pontiff, who, if they had not possessed that powerful support, would
have treated them as rebels, and degraded them to the rank of simple
priests by depriving them of their employments.


_History of the Viceroys of Sicily and Catalonia._

In 1535, Charles V. had deprived the Inquisition of the right of
exercising the royal jurisdiction, and it was not restored to them till
1545; consequently, in 1543, they had not the privilege of trying their
officers, familiars, or other secular attendants of the holy office, for
matters not relating to religion. This royal decree was known to the
Captain-general of Catalonia, Don Pedro Cardona, when he commenced
proceedings against the gaoler, a familiar and a servant of the
grand-serjeant of the Inquisition of Barcelona, for carrying arms, which
was prohibited in his government.

The inquisitors of Barcelona had become insolent, from having always
prevailed in affairs of this nature, and they instituted proceedings
against Don Pedro Cardona, as a rebel against the holy office; without
respecting his high situations of captain-general, and military governor
of the province, or the rank and name of his illustrious family. Being
informed that the emperor was only nine leagues from Barcelona, they
denounced the act of his lieutenant to him, and represented, through
Cardinal Tabera, that if Cardona was not condemned to make a public
reparation, the people would lose all respect for the Inquisition, and
an incalculable injury be done to the Catholic religion throughout the
kingdom.

The emperor, blinded by fanaticism, not only favoured the inquisitors
against all justice, and in contempt of his own ordinance of 1535; but
he wrote to Cardona, that the interests of the faith required that he
should submit to receive the absolution _ad cautelam_. This order deeply
afflicted Don Pedro, but he resolved to obey his master, and demanded
absolution. The inquisitors, to render their triumph greater, celebrated
an _auto-da-fé_, in the cathedral of Barcelona, where Cardona was
compelled to attend, standing without a sword, and with a taper in his
hand, during the celebration of mass, and the ceremony of his
absolution.

Charles V. had also deprived the Inquisition of Sicily of the royal
jurisdiction, for the space of five years, and afterwards prolonged it
to ten; but the inquisitors represented, through Cardinal Tabera, that
the inconveniences arising from this measure were so great, that Don
Ferdinand Gonzaga, Prince de Malfeta, the viceroy and captain-general of
the island, was informed that the suspension was to be revoked at the
expiration of the tenth year, without a particular order. The Marquis de
Terranova had been viceroy and governor-general; he was constable and
admiral of Naples, a grandee of Spain of the first class, and related to
the emperor through the house of Aragon. Two familiars of the
Inquisition had been taken before the civil tribunal, by his orders, for
some crimes which they had committed. Philip of Austria, Prince of
Asturias, the eldest son of Charles V., then aged sixteen, governed the
Spanish dominions during the absence of his father; and as he was not
less superstitious, his conduct towards the Marquis de Terranova was the
same as that of the emperor to Don Pedro Cardona. I consider it
necessary to give the letter of the Prince to the Marquis de Terranova;
it was as follows:--

"I, the Prince, Honourable marquis, admiral and constable, our dear
counsellor: you know what happened when you commanded two familiars of
the holy office to be whipped (while you were governor of this kingdom,
and not well informed of the affair). So great a contempt for that holy
tribunal has been the result, that it has been impossible for it to
command anything with the success which it formerly obtained. On the
contrary, several persons of this kingdom have presumed to insult and
use violence towards the officers of the Inquisition, and to prevent and
disturb them in the exercise of their office, according to the
complaints and informations which we have received on this affair. The
reverend Cardinal of Toledo, inquisitor-general, and the members of the
council of the general Inquisition, have deliberated with his majesty,
and it has been found proper and convenient that you should do penance
for the fault you have committed; saying that it should be gentle and
moderate, in consideration of the services you have rendered his
majesty. In consequence, the inquisitor-general and the council, guided
by their esteem for your person, have commanded the inquisitor Gongora
to speak to you, and represent your fault, that you may accomplish the
penance imposed, which (according to the nature of the fact, and the
evil which has been the result) ought to have been much more severe, as
you will learn from what the inquisitors have been commanded to say to
you. As to the rest, this has only been decreed for the glory of God,
the honour of the holy office, and the good of your conscience. We
require and charge you, for the sake of the good example which you owe
to others, to accept and accomplish this penance, with the submission
which is due to the church, and without waiting to be compelled by means
of excommunication and ecclesiastical censures; the submission which we
ask of you will not affect your honour, but will be profitable to you in
freeing you from all inquietude and vexation; it is approved by his
majesty, will give us pleasure, and we undertake to treat you in all
that concerns you with the favour that we have used towards you, and
which we will show whenever there is an opportunity. Given at
Valladolid, 15th December, 1543. I, the Prince." This letter is marked
by several members of the council, and countersigned _Juan Garcia,
pro-secretary_.

The silence which is observed on the nature of the penance imposed on
the viceroy is remarkable; but whatever gentleness and moderation was
affected, it was the same as that of Don Pedro Cordona. The only
difference to be observed was, that it did not take place in the
cathedral, but in the church of the Dominican convent; it was also
thought necessary, by way of compensation, to prevent the Marquis from
kneeling, except during the elevation of the host, that he might be more
exposed to the sight of the people, and to condemn him to pay an hundred
ducats to the familiars whom he had punished.


_History of the False Nuncio of the Pope in Portugal._

The history of the quarrels of the Inquisition with the royal authority
affords another conflict of jurisdiction. I speak of the affair of the
famous Juan Perez de Saavedra mentioned in histories, romances, and
dramatic pieces, under the name of _the False Nuncio of Portugal_, and
who generally passes for the founder of the Inquisition in that kingdom.
The critic Feijoo has supposed that the history of this affair was
fabulous. The narration of Saavedra, which Feijoo quotes, contains
fables, but it also contains truths belonging to the history of the
Inquisition. It is necessary to enter into the details of this history:
I shall first relate the facts according to the narrative which Saavedra
wrote for the Cardinal Espinosa in 1567; I shall afterwards establish
the truth on some points which that impostor contrived to obscure.

Juan Perez de Saavedra was born at Cordova. His father was a captain in
a regiment of infantry, and a perpetual member of the municipality of
that city, from a privilege acquired by his family; his mother, Anne de
Guzman, was descended from a family as noble as that of her husband.
Saavedra, who was possessed of great talents and information, employed
himself for some time in forging apostolical bulls, royal ordinances,
regulations of councils and tribunals, letters of change, and the
signatures of a great number of persons: he imitated them so perfectly,
that he made use of them without exciting any doubts of their
authenticity, and passed for a knight commander of the military order of
St. Jago, and received the salary, which was three thousand ducats, for
the space of a year and a half. In a short time, by means of the royal
orders which he counterfeited, he acquired three hundred and sixty
thousand ducats, and the secret of this great fortune would never have
been revealed (as he expresses himself in his confession) _if he had not
clothed himself in scarlet_, that is, if he had not taken it into his
head to feign himself a cardinal, in order to exercise the functions of
a legate _à latere_.

He says, that being in the kingdom of Algarves, a short time after the
institution of the Jesuits had been confirmed by Paul III., a priest of
that society arrived in the country, furnished with an apostolical
brief, which authorized him to found a college of the order in the
kingdom of Portugal; that having heard him preach on St. Andrew's Day,
he was so pleased with him, that he invited him to dinner, and kept him
several days in his house. The jesuit, having discovered his talent
during this period, expressed a wish to have a _fac-simile_ of his
brief, containing an eulogy on the Society of Jesus. He performed this
task with so much success, that the brief might have been taken for the
original; and they at last agreed that, to complete the good which would
accrue to Portugal from the establishment of the Society of Jesus, it
would be proper to introduce the Inquisition on the same plan as that of
Spain. Saavedra then went to Tabilla, a town in the same province,
where, with the assistance of the jesuit, he made the apostolical bull
which was necessary for their purpose, and forged letters from Charles
V. and Prince Philip his son, to the King of Portugal, John III. This
bull was supposed to have been sent to Saavedra, as legate, to establish
the Inquisition in Portugal, if the king consented.

Saavedra afterwards passed the frontier, and went to Ayamonte, in the
kingdom of Seville. The Provincial and Franciscan monks of Andalusia had
lately arrived there from Rome. Saavedra thought he would try if the
bull would pass as authentic: he told the Provincial that some
individual going to Portugal had dropped a parchment on the road, which
he showed him, and begged to know if it was of importance, as, in that
case, he would lose no time in restoring it to the person who had
dropped it. The Provincial took the parchment for an original writing
and true bull; he made the contents known to Saavedra, and expatiated on
the advantages which Portugal would derive from it.

Saavedra went to Seville, and took into his service two confidants, one
of whom was to be his secretary, the other his major-domo; he bought
litters and silver-plate, and adopted the dress of a Roman cardinal; he
sent his confidants to Cordova and Grenada to hire servants, and
commanded them to go with his suite to Badajoz, where they gave out
that they were the familiars of a Cardinal from Rome, who would pass
through the city in his way to Portugal, to establish the Inquisition by
the order of the Pope; they also announced that he would soon arrive, as
he travelled post.

At the appointed time Saavedra appeared at Badajoz, where his servants
publicly kissed his hand as the Pope's Legate. He left Badajoz for
Seville, where he was received into the archiepiscopal palace of
Cardinal Loaisa, who resided at Madrid in the quality of apostolical
commissary-general of the holy crusade. He received the greatest marks
of respect and devotion from Don Juan Fernandez de Temiño, the
vicar-general. He remained eighteen days in this city, and during that
time obtained, by false obligations, the sum of eleven hundred and
thirty ducats from the heirs of the Marquis de Tarifa. He afterwards
took the road to Llerena (where the Inquisition of Estremadura had been
established), after going to different towns in the province; he was
lodged in part of the buildings of the Inquisition, which was then
occupied by the Inquisitors Don Pedro Alvarez Becerra and Don Louis de
Cardenas, to whom he said that he meant to visit the Inquisition of
Llerena in his quality of legate; and, after having fulfilled that part
of his mission, he should proceed to Portugal, where he should establish
the holy office on the plan of that of Spain.

Saavedra then returned to Badajoz, from whence he sent his secretary to
Lisbon with his bulls and papers, that the court being informed of his
arrival, might prepare to receive him. The mission of this agent caused
great doubts and agitation at the court, where such a novelty was little
expected: nevertheless, the king sent a nobleman to the frontier to
receive the Cardinal Legate, who made his entry into Lisbon, where he
passed three months, and was treated with every mark of respect: he then
undertook a long journey into different parts of the kingdom, going over
the dioceses, and taking a detailed account of them; it would have been
difficult to discover the aim of his apostolical solicitude, if some
unforeseen circumstances had not put an end to his imposture.

The Inquisition of Spain discovered this intrigue through the address of
Cardinal Tabera, who shared the cares of government with the Prince of
Asturias, at the time when Charles V. was absent in France. In
consequence of the measures concerted between the cardinal and the
Marquis de Villaneuva de Barcarrota, the governor of Badajoz, Saavedra
was arrested at Nieva de Guadiana in the Portuguese territory, on the
23rd of January, 1541, where he was at table with the curate of the
village, who had entreated that he would do him the honour of visiting
his parish, as he had the others in the diocese. This request was only a
snare, in order to arrest the impostor with more safety.

Saavedra says that, when he was arrested, three treasures which he had
with him were seized; one of twenty thousand ducats, the produce of the
fines of the condemned, destined for the holy office; the second of a
hundred and fifty thousand ducats, which, he said, he intended to apply
to the use of the church, and other good works; the third of ninety
thousand ducats, which belonged to himself. Saavedra was taken to Madrid
by the order of the procurator-general of the kingdom, and there
imprisoned. The alcaldes of the court went to him, and received his
declaration, which was necessary to the trial. The tribunal of the
Inquisition had not then been established at Madrid, which was subject
to that of Toledo. The inquisitors pretended that this affair ought to
come before them, because it was to be presumed that the prisoner had
renounced the Catholic religion, from the fictions which he had invented
to procure money; as if Catholics did not commit greater crimes every
day!

As the inquisitor-general was the lieutenant of the prince, the holy
office was sure to prevail. Tabera, wishing to satisfy both parties,
decreed that the alcaldes should remain in possession of the person of
Saavedra, and proceed against him for his exactions, forgeries, and
other political crimes, and that the holy office should take cognizance
of the crimes against the faith which he had been guilty of, under the
title of a cardinal.

The inquisitor reflected that Saavedra was a man of great talent, and
that he therefore should be treated with moderation; besides that, he
had always conducted himself like a real judge, except that he only
condemned the accused to pay fines.

Saavedra declared that these reasons made the inquisitor-general wish to
be personally acquainted with him; that he caused him to be brought
before him, heard him with interest, and offered to protect him,
promising to give him for a judge any one that he named: that he then
expressed a wish to be judged by Doctor Arias, inquisitor at Llerena;
this was granted, and caused great murmurs against the cardinal and the
court at Madrid, where it was whispered that Tabera had appropriated the
ninety thousand ducats which had been taken from Saavedra: that Doctor
Arias condemned him to serve ten years in the king's galleys; that,
after a detention of two years, the alcaldes of Madrid pronounced his
definitive sentence, one of the principal parts of which was, that after
having fulfilled the inquisitorial sentence, he could not be set at
liberty, or quit the galleys without the permission of his majesty, on
pain of death; that he was sent to the galleys in 1544; that in 1554,
although the period of his punishment had expired, he could not obtain
his liberty: then, persuaded that his affair depended more on the
Inquisition than the alcaldes of the court, he endeavoured to interest
the Pope in his fate, representing that he had done several things
extremely useful to religion and the state, in the exercise of his false
legation; that Paul IV. sent him a brief, which was addressed to the
inquisitor-general Don Ferdinand Valdes, whom his holiness charged to
obtain Saavedra's liberty; that he received this brief when the king's
galleys were in the port of St. Mary; that he immediately forwarded it
to the bishop coadjutor of Seville, and he sent it to the
inquisitor-general, who was his archbishop. Valdes having communicated
the affair to Philip II., that prince gave orders that Saavedra should
be set at liberty, that he might immediately repair to court. Saavedra
arrived there in 1562, after having passed nineteen years in the
galleys. He was presented to the king, who desired to hear his history
from his own lips, and to have it in writing; while Saavedra related it
to the king, Antonio Perez wrote down the singular events of his life:
lastly, Saavedra himself wrote it in 1567, for the inquisitor-general,
Don Diego Espinosa.

The history of Saavedra has furnished the subject for a Spanish comedy,
entitled the "_False Nuncio of Portugal_," in which not only all the
unities of time, place, and action are wanting, but the rule which only
admits probable events is infringed; but this ought not to surprise in
poets, since the hero himself has taken the same liberty in the
narrative which he composed for the amusement of Cardinal Espinosa. It
is certain that he was imprisoned on the 25th of January, 1541, as he
states in his history. But this point, so well established, proves that
he imposed in other circumstances; for example, if what he relates of
the Jesuit in Algarves is true, it could not have happened until the
year 1540, because Paul III. only expedited his bull of approval for the
_Society of Jesus_, on the 27th of September, 1540; now the sermon
preached by the Jesuit on St. Andrew's day corresponds with the 30th of
November in the same year, that is, on the fifty-second day before his
imprisonment; this interval would not be sufficient for his journeys to
Ayamonte, Llerena, Seville, Badajoz, and in Portugal. Thus Saavedra did
not speak truth, either in stating the period of his appearing to the
world as a Cardinal, and the motives which induced him to enter into
the intrigue with the Jesuit; or when he said that he sustained his part
for three months at Lisbon, and during three months which he employed in
visiting different towns in the kingdom.

Besides, the number and names of the disciples of St. Ignatius were
known at that period; and it is certain that before the bull of
approbation was obtained, the founder of the order had appointed St.
Francis Xavier and Simon Rodriguez, a Portuguese, to preach in Portugal;
and that these monks left Rome on the 15th of March, 1540, with the
Portuguese ambassador; that on their arrival at Lisbon, John III. wished
to receive them into his palace; that they refused that honour, and
lodged in the hospital; that St. Francis Xavier embarked for the East
Indies, with the new governor, on the 8th of April, 1541, and that
Rodriguez remained in Portugal to preach, as he had already done, to the
great satisfaction of the inhabitants, who had a high opinion of his
virtues: these circumstances render it improbable that the Jesuit would
ask for a forged brief, and enter into an intrigue with a layman.

Saavedra says, that the court of Lisbon was disturbed at the news of the
arrival of a nuncio in Portugal. This would not be extraordinary, as
neither the Pope nor any other person had written to the court on the
subject, and as the Pope had appointed Don Henry, archbishop of Braga,
the king's brother, inquisitor-general in the preceding year. But if the
arrival of the legate caused so much surprise, it was natural that the
king should write to the Pope, whose answer would have arrived two
months afterwards, and Saavedra would have been detected before the end
of the third month, and thus there would have been no necessity for the
king of Spain to arrest him.

It is not more certain that Saavedra established the Inquisition in
Portugal. The expulsion of the Jews took place in 1492; many of them
retired to Portugal: among them were some that had been baptized, and
John II. consented to receive them into his states, if they would behave
like faithful Christians. King Manuel ordered them to quit the kingdom,
and to leave all their children under the age of fourteen, who were to
be made Christians; they offered to receive baptism, if the king would
promise not to establish the Inquisition for twenty years; the king
granted their request, and also that the names of the witnesses should
be communicated to them, if they were accused of heresy after that
period, besides the power of bequeathing their effects if they were
condemned. In 1507, Manuel confirmed these privileges, prolonging the
first twenty years, and rendering the others perpetual: in 1520, John
renewed the first concession for another twenty years.

Clement VII., being informed that the baptized Jews in Portugal did not
show much attachment to the Christian religion, and that the Protestant
and Lutheran heresies made great progress in the kingdom, appointed
Brother Diego de Silva inquisitor for that country. He attempted to
exercise his functions, but the new Christians claimed their rights,
which were to last for several years; a trial was the result of this
opposition. Clement VII. died, and his successor, Paul III., granted to
the New Christians a privilege which they could not obtain in Portugal;
that they might confide, to persons chosen by themselves, their defence
before the prince of the sense to be given to the dispositions of their
privileges, which had been interpreted to their prejudice. In the same
year, the Pope granted them a pardon for all that had passed.

The king afterwards represented that the converted Jews abused their
privileges, some returning to Judaism, and others adopting the errors of
the Protestants. This circumstance induced the Pontiff to publish
another bull on the 25th of March, 1536, which is considered as the
foundation of the Inquisition in Portugal. The Pope appointed as
inquisitors, the Bishops of Coïmbra, Lamego, and Ceuta; and decreed at
the same time, that another bishop or priest of the king's nomination
should be associated with them. The Pope granted to each inquisitor the
power of proceeding against heretics and their adherents, in concert
with the diocesan in ordinary, or alone, if he refused to assist; they
were likewise obliged for the first three years, in the proceedings
against heretics, to conform to the manner of proceeding in cases of
theft or homicide, and after that period to the rules of common law; the
practice of confiscation was abolished, and the heirs of the condemned
could inherit as if he died intestate. Lastly, the Pope commanded that a
sufficient number of tribunals should be instituted, for the execution
of these measures[11]. The king appointed Don Diego de Silva, bishop of
Ceuta, first inquisitor-general.

Such was the origin of the Inquisition in Portugal, four years before
Saavedra arrived in that country. In 1539, the Pope appointed Don Henry,
archbishop of Braga, to succeed the first inquisitor-general. The third
grand inquisitor was Don George de Almeida, archbishop of Lisbon.

All that I have now stated is taken from authentic documents. I conclude
from them that Juan Perez de Saavedra forged his brief of cardinal _à
latere_, presented it in December, 1540, and succeeded in concealing his
forgery; that what he related of the Jesuit was not true, or happened
differently; that seeing the Inquisition established in a manner
contrary to his opinions, he insinuated that it would be better to take
that of Spain as a model, which was well known to the inquisitors of
Llerena, and that he would visit the different parts of the kingdom to
facilitate this design; that he travelled through part of the kingdom in
the month of December, and continued his journeys in January in the
following year, when he was arrested, before the court of Lisbon
received information of his imposture. I have no doubt that Saavedra
amassed great sums, but I am far from thinking that they were as
considerable as he affirmed them to be.

Cardinal Tabera, sixth inquisitor-general, died on the 1st of August,
1545: at his death the number of tribunals was the same as when he was
placed at the head of the Inquisition: he had re-established that of
Jaen, but the tribunal of Navarre was united with that of Calahorra.

The number of victims, calculated as it was for the time of Manrique,
affords, for the seven years of Cardinal Tabera's ministry, seven
thousand seven hundred and twenty individuals condemned and punished;
eight hundred and forty were burnt in person, four hundred and twenty in
effigy; the rest, in number five thousand, four hundred, and sixty, were
subjected to different penances. I firmly believe that the number was
much more considerable; but faithful to my system of impartiality, I
have stated the most moderate calculation.




CHAPTER XVII.

OF THE INQUISITIONS OF NAPLES, SICILY, AND MALTA, AND OF THE EVENTS OF
THE TIME OF CARDINAL LOAISA, SEVENTH INQUISITOR-GENERAL.


_Naples._

Charles V. appointed, to succeed Cardinal Pardo de Tabera, Cardinal Don
Garcia de Loaisa, Archbishop of Seville, who was the seventh
inquisitor-general. This prelate had arrived at a great age, since he
had signed different ordinances of the Supreme Council in 1517. He had
been the confessor of Charles V., prior-general of the order of St.
Dominic, Bishop of Osma and Siguenza, and apostolical commissary of the
Holy Crusade. The Court of Rome expedited his bulls of confirmation on
the 18th of February, 1546, and he died on the 22nd of April, in the
same year.

In 1546, Charles V. resolved to establish the Inquisition at Naples,
although his grandfather had failed in the attempt in 1504 and 1510. He
commissioned his viceroy, Don Pedro de Toledo, Marquis of Villa Franca
del Bierzo, to select inquisitors and officers from among the
inhabitants, to send to the government a list of the persons chosen, and
all the necessary documents, that the inquisitor-general might be able
to delegate the necessary powers to the new inquisitors: when these
measures had been taken, the tribunal was to be established with all the
forms of the inquisitorial jurisdiction.

Frederic Munter, professor of theology in the literary academy at
Copenhagen, has supposed that the intrigues of Don Pedro de Toledo were
the causes of the introduction of the Inquisition; but he was not able
to consult the original documents, which are now in my hands, and this
impossibility was the cause of his errors in his history of the Sicilian
Inquisition.

The efforts of Charles V., to establish the Inquisition at Naples, arose
from the progress which Lutheranism made in Germany, and his fear that
it would penetrate into other countries. His inclinations were fostered
by Cardinal Loaisa, and the councillors of the Inquisition: the only
part that Don Pedro took in this affair, was, that he was the first
person to whom the emperor confided his intentions, and the only one who
had sufficient wisdom to advise his master to relinquish his designs,
when he found the evil they would cause. The orders of the emperor were
executed without meeting any opposition; but scarcely was it known that
some persons had been arrested by the new Inquisition, than the people
rebelled, crying, "_Long live the Emperor! Perish the Inquisition!_" The
Neapolitans flew to arms, they compelled the Spanish troops to retire to
the fortresses, and Charles V. was obliged to abandon his enterprise.

It is worthy of remark, that Paul III. openly protected the Neapolitan
rebels; being displeased that the Inquisition of Naples should depend on
that of Spain, he complained that his predecessors, Innocent VIII.,
Alexander VI., and Julius II., had done much evil in not making the
inquisitors entirely dependant on the Popes, and in allowing an
intermediate authority, which rendered that of the holy see of no
effect.

Paul III., without communicating these motives to the Neapolitans, told
them that they were right in resisting the will of their master, since
the Spanish Inquisition was extremely severe, and did not follow the
example of that of Rome, which had been established three years, and of
which no complaints had been made.

In 1563, Philip II. attempted to introduce his favourite tribunal at
Naples, but the inhabitants had recourse to their usual method, and the
despot was obliged to yield.


_Sicily and Malta._

The holy office of Sicily triumphed in the same year still more
completely than it had done in 1543. In 1500, Ferdinand V. endeavoured
to establish the Spanish Inquisition in that kingdom, after having
suppressed that of the Pope's, which was confided to the monks of St.
Dominic; but all his efforts failed, until the year 1503. In 1520,
Charles V. wrote to the Pope to request that he would not admit any
appeals from persons condemned by the Sicilian Inquisition, because they
could apply for that purpose to the inquisitor-general of Spain, in
virtue of apostolical concessions granted by his predecessors, and
confirmed by himself.

This proceeding, and the particular favour which the emperor bestowed on
the holy office, singularly increased the pride of the inquisitors, and
their audacity in abusing the secrecy of their trials. But the hatred of
the people for the Inquisition, and their rebellion in 1535, compelled
Charles V. to revoke the privileges which he had granted, and deprive it
of the royal jurisdiction for five years.

This measure humiliated the inquisitors, but they contrived to
re-establish their authority in 1538, when the inquisitor Don Arnauld
Albertius was viceroy _ad interim_: his presence emboldened them to
persecute all who offended them; but their despotism was not of long
duration. The viceroy returned to Sicily; and finding that the aversion
of the inhabitants for the Inquisition was still the same, he
communicated it to the emperor, who, as an indispensable measure,
prolonged the suspension of their privileges for a fresh term of five
years. The aversion inspired by the holy office was not without a cause,
as will be seen in the following affair, which happened in 1532.

Antonio Napoles, a rich inhabitant of the island, had been thrown into
the secret prisons of the Inquisition: Francis Napoles, his son, applied
to the Pope, and described this act of authority as the result of a
miserable intrigue of some men of the lowest class, of whom the
inquisitors had been the dupes, and had granted them a degree of
confidence which nothing could justify, since his father had acted like
a good Catholic from his infancy. He represented that the dean of the
inquisitors had leagued with his father's enemies, and detained him in
prison five months, to the scandal and discontent of the inhabitants of
Palermo, and without affording him any means of defence; Francis
entreated his holiness not to allow the inquisitor to judge his father.
The Pope referred the affair to his commissioners in Sicily, Don Thomas
Guerrero and Don Sebastian Martinez. Scarcely had the inquisitors of
Madrid received information of this event, than they pressed the emperor
and Cardinal Manrique to write to the Pope, and represent to him that
the existence of this commission destroyed the privileges of the Spanish
Inquisition, on which that of Sicily depended. The weak Clement VII.
hastened to suppress the commission, and caused Guerrero to send all the
writings of the process to the Spanish inquisitor-general. He appointed
Doctor Don Augustin Camargo, inquisitor of Sicily, to continue the
trial, or in his place any other inquisitor, so that Antonio Napoles
fell into the hands of his enemy. He was condemned as an heretic, his
property confiscated, (although he was admitted to reconciliation,) and
to be imprisoned for life. What can justify the conduct of the Pope, the
cardinal, and the judges?

The inquisitors of Sicily depended on the protection of the court of
Madrid, and supposed, that when all fear of rebellion had ceased, their
privileges would be restored: this was really the case; the emperor, in
1543, signed a royal ordinance, which annulled the suspension at the end
of the tenth year. This event inspired the inquisitors with the boldness
to signify to the Marquis de Terranova, that he must accomplish the
penance to which he had been condemned.

An act appeared on the 16th of June, 1546, renewing the former
concessions, and granting new ones. The Inquisition resolved to
celebrate its victory; a solemn _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated, in which
four contumacious persons were burnt in effigy. Similar ceremonies took
place in 1549 and 1551. The inquisitors now became as insolent as
formerly, treated the Sicilians of all classes with so much severity,
that a new sedition was excited in Palermo against the holy office, at
the time when the edict _of the faith_ was about to be published. The
viceroy succeeded in restoring tranquillity, and the inquisitors
appeared more moderate, at least while they were under the influence of
fear, and instead of the solemn _autos-da-fé_ which had caused so much
indignation, satisfied themselves with celebrating them, from time to
time, privately in the hall of the tribunal; but in 1569 they ordained
one which was general, and gave rise to a circumstance which deserves to
be recorded.

Among the prisoners of the Inquisition, was an unfortunate creature who
had inspired the Marchioness of Pescari, the wife of the viceroy, with
some interest. The inquisitors, thinking it necessary to conciliate the
first magistrate of the island, remitted his punishment at the request
of the marchioness, but at the same time informed the inquisitor-general
of the circumstance, to avoid all reproach. The Supreme Council having
deliberated on the affair, addressed a severe reprimand to the
inquisitors, for having assumed a right which they did not possess,
_because, in affairs of that nature, intercession could not be
admitted_.

When the island of Malta belonged to the Spanish monarchy, it was
subject to the Inquisition of Sicily; but when it was given to the
knights of St. John of Jerusalem, it would have been contrary to the
dignity of the grand-master to permit the exercise of foreign
jurisdiction in it, after having received that of ecclesiastical power
from the Pope.

A man was arrested in the island as an heretic, and the Inquisition of
Sicily took informations on the affair. The grand-master wrote to demand
them; the inquisitors consulted the council, which directed them, in
1575, not only to refuse them, but to claim the prisoner. The
grand-master, resolved to defend his privileges, caused the man to be
tried in the island, and he was acquitted. This act displeased the
inquisitors, who, to revenge themselves, took advantage of an occurrence
which took place in the following year.

Don Pedro de la Roca, a Spaniard, and a knight of Malta, killed the
first alguazil of the Sicilian Inquisition in the city of Messina. He
was arrested and conducted to the secret prisons of the holy office. The
grand-master claimed his knight, as he alone had a right to try him. The
council being consulted, commanded the inquisitors to condemn and punish
the accused as an homicide. The inquisitor-general communicated this
resolution to Philip II., who wrote to the grand-master to terminate the
dispute.

The quarrels between the secular powers and the Inquisition were not
less violent in Sicily: in 1580 and 1597 attempts were made to appease
them, but without success; and in 1606 the Sicilians had the
mortification of seeing their viceroy, the Duke de Frias, constable of
Castile, prosecuted and subjected to their censures.

In 1592 the Duke of Alva, who was then viceroy, endeavoured by indirect
means to repress the insolence of the inquisitors. Perceiving that the
nobility of all classes were enrolled among the _familiars_ of the holy
office, in order to enjoy its privileges, and to keep the people in
greater order, he represented to the king that the power of the
sovereign and the authority of his lieutenant were almost null, and
would be entirely so in time, if these different classes continued to
enjoy privileges which had the effect of neutralizing the measures of
government. Charles II. acknowledged that this state of things was
contrary to the dignity of his crown; and he decreed that no person
employed by the king should possess those prerogatives, even if he was a
_familiar_ or officer of the Inquisition. The people then began to feel
less respect for the tribunal; and this was the commencement of its
decline.

In 1713, Sicily no longer formed a part of the Spanish dominions, and
Charles de Bourbon in 1739 obtained a bull, which created an
inquisitor-general for that country, independent of Spain; and in 1782,
Ferdinand IV., who succeeded Charles, suppressed this odious tribunal.
During the two hundred and seventy-nine years of its existence, the
solemn and general _autos-da-fé_ were celebrated of which Munter speaks,
and several others which were performed in the hall of the tribunal.

In the year 1546, which corresponds with the administration of Cardinal
Loaisa, the number of condemned in the fifteen Spanish tribunals
amounted to seven hundred and eighty individuals.




CHAPTER XVIII.

OF IMPORTANT EVENTS DURING THE FIRST YEARS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
EIGHTH INQUISITOR-GENERAL; RELIGION OF CHARLES V. DURING THE LAST YEARS
OF HIS LIFE.


_Trials during the first years of the ministry of Valdés._

Don Ferdinand Valdes was the successor of Cardinal Loaisa in the
archbishopric of Seville, and the office of inquisitor-general. At the
time of his appointment he was bishop of Siguenza, and president of the
royal Council of Castile, after having been successively a member of the
grand College of St. Bartholomew de Salamanca, of the Council of
Administration for the archbishopric of Toledo, for the Cardinal Ximenez
de Cisneros, visitor of the Inquisition of Cuença and of the Royal
Council of Navarre, a member of the Council of State, canon of the
metropolitan church of Santiago de Galicia, counsellor of the Supreme
Inquisition, bishop of Elna, Orensa, Oviedo and Leon, and president of
the Royal Chancery of Valladolid. So many honours could not render him
insensible to the mortification of not being a cardinal like his
predecessors, and of seeing Bartholomew Carranza elevated to the see of
Toledo. This was the true cause of his cruel persecution of Carranza.

The Pope approved the nomination of Valdés in January, 1547, and he took
possession of his office in the following month. Valdés displayed an
almost sanguinary disposition during his administration. It led him to
demand from the Pope the power of condemning Lutherans to be burnt, even
though they had not relapsed, and had desired to be reconciled. I shall
here make known the most illustrious of the victims sacrificed before
the abdication of Charles V., as it is necessary to make a separate
article for the events of that nature under the reign of Philip II.

Among the condemned persons who appeared in the _auto-da-fé_ of Seville
in 1552, was Juan Gil, a native of Olvera, in Aragon, and a canon in the
metropolitan church of that city; he is better known by the name of
Doctor _Egidius_. He was first condemned, as violently suspected, to
abjure the Lutheran heresy, and to be subjected to a penance; but four
years after his death, in 1556, he was condemned, and, as having
relapsed, his body was disinterred, and burnt with his effigy; his
memory was declared infamous, and his property confiscated, for having
died as a Lutheran. Raymond Gonzales de Montes was his companion in
prison, but succeeded in escaping, and was burnt in effigy. In a work
written on the Spanish Inquisition, he has introduced several
particulars relating to the life of _Juan Gil_. He informs us that
Egidius studied theology at Alcala de Henares, and there obtained the
title of Doctor. He acquired so great a reputation, that he was compared
to Peter Lombard, to St. Thomas d'Aquinas, to John Scott, and other
theologians of the greatest merit. His talents induced the chapter of
Seville to offer him unanimously the office of preacher to the
cathedral. Egidius had very little talent for preaching, and the canons
soon repented of having appointed him.

Rodrigo de Valero told Egidius that the books from which he derived his
knowledge were worth nothing, and that his preaching would never be
admired, if he did not study the Bible. Egidius took his advice, and in
time acquired a style of preaching extremely agreeable to the people,
but his success raised him many enemies.

The emperor gave him the Bishopric of Tortosa in 1550, which increasing
the envy and hatred of his enemies, they denounced him to the
Inquisition of Seville as a Lutheran heretic, for some propositions
which he had advanced in his sermons, and which they separated from the
other parts, to give them a different sense from what they would
otherwise have had; they took advantage of the favour he showed to
Rodrigo Valero in 1540 during his trial, and of some other
circumstances, to injure him.

Egidius was taken to the secret prisons of the holy office in 1550: he
made use of this opportunity to compose his apology, which rendered the
storm his enemies had raised still more violent. His simplicity had made
him, in his apology, establish as certain principles, some propositions
which the scholastic theologians looked upon as erroneous, and tending
to heresy. The conduct and morals of Egidius were so pure, that the
emperor wrote in his favour, the chapter of Seville followed his
example, and (what is still more remarkable) the licentiate, Correa,
Dean of the inquisitors, was touched by his innocence, and undertook to
defend him against his colleague, Pedro Diaz, who bore the greatest
hatred to the accused. This circumstance was particularly mortifying to
Egidius, as his enemy formerly held the same opinions, and had likewise
studied in the school of Rodrigo Valero.

The interest which Egidius had inspired induced the inquisitors to
accede to his proposal of a discussion between him and some learned
theologians. Brother Garcia de Arias, of the convent of St. Isidore of
Seville, was chosen; but his opinion was not deemed sufficient, and Juan
Gil demanded the Dominican friar, Dominic Soto, should be summoned to
the conference. This incidence retarded the trial, but Soto at last
arrived at Seville.

According to Gonzales de Montes, this theologian held the same opinions
as Egidius; but to prevent the suspicions which might arise from this
circumstance, he persuaded Egidius to draw up a sort of confession of
faith. They agreed that both should write their opinions, and only
communicate them to each other in public. This author states that these
confessions of faith were compared, and found to accord perfectly.

The inquisitors being informed of this arrangement, declared that, as
the reputation of a bishop was concerned, it was necessary to convoke a
public assembly, where Dominic Soto should explain the object of the
meeting in a sermon, and read his confession of faith; that Egidius
should afterwards read his, that the assembly might judge of the
conformity of their opinions. The inquisitors caused two pulpits to be
prepared, but, either by chance, or from a private order, they were so
far apart, that Egidius could not hear what Soto said.

Soto[12] read an exposition of his principles entirely different from
that on which they had agreed in their private conferences; and as
Egidius did not hear him, and supposed that he was reading the same
confession which he had approved, he consequently made signs with his
head and hands that be accorded with his propositions. Egidius then
began to read his confession of faith, but those who understood the
subject, soon perceived that there was not the slightest resemblance
between them, and that Egidius held several opinions entirely opposite
to some propositions advanced by Dominic Soto, and acknowledged as
dogmatical by _the tribunal of the faith_: this circumstance effaced the
favourable impressions produced by the gestures of Egidius. The
inquisitors added these writings to those of the trial, and passed
judgment upon Egidius according to the advice of Soto. He was declared
violently suspected of the Lutheran heresy, and condemned to three
years' imprisonment; he was prohibited from preaching, writing, or
explaining theology for the space of ten years, and never to leave the
kingdom on pain of being considered and punished as a formal heretic.

Egidius remained in prison until 1555; he was at first extremely
astonished at his situation, after having perfectly agreed with the
Dominican on all the points in question. He was not undeceived, until
some of his fellow-prisoners informed him of the difference of his
articles with those of Soto, and the treachery of that monk.

Egidius took advantage of the short interval of liberty which followed
his imprisonment to go to Valladolid, where he had an interview with
Doctor Cazalla and other Lutherans in that city: on his return to
Seville he fell sick, and died in 1556. The tribunal being informed of
his intercourse with heretics, instituted another trial, and pronounced
that he died an heretic; his body was disinterred, and burnt with his
effigy, in a solemn _auto-da-fé_, his memory declared infamous, and his
property confiscated: this sentence was executed in 1560.

It will be necessary here to quote a letter of Don Bartholomew Carranza
to Brother Louis de la Cruz, a Dominican, and his disciple. The
archbishop mentions as a well-known circumstance, that his catechism had
been presented to the holy office; Brother Melchior Cano and Dominic
Soto had been commissioned to censure it, and that they had judged
unfavourably of his work. He complained much of this conduct in Soto; he
said he could not comprehend such scruples _in a man who had been so
indulgent to the Doctor Egidius who was considered as an heretic, while,
on the contrary, the author of the Catechism had combated the opinions
of the heretics of England and Flanders_; that Soto had judged the book
of a Dominican monk no less favourably, while he treated an archbishop,
whom he was bound to respect, without consideration; that he would, in
consequence, write to Rome and Flanders, where he hoped that his
propositions would be more favourably received than at Valladolid; but
that, at all events, Pedro de Soto, confessor to the emperor, would
write to Dominic, and he hoped that the Almighty would allay the tempest
which had been raised around him.

Brother Pedro wrote to Dominic Soto, and a correspondence ensued between
him and the archbishop Carranza, on the censure of the catechism, and
other works. These letters were found among the papers of Carranza, when
he was arrested by the Inquisition. They proved that Dominic Soto had
violated the secrecy which he had sworn to maintain before the
Inquisition: some details were found in them relating to the violence
which had been used to make him condemn the catechism of Carranza; he
was arrested by the Inquisition of Valladolid, on account of these
expressions.

It appears from the archbishop's letter, that the censure of Brother
Dominic on Egidius was mild and conciliating, which does not accord with
the substitution of the false exposition of his principles mentioned by
Gonzales de Montes. I must observe that this author writes like a man
blinded by his hatred of his enemies, whom he calls papists, hypocrites,
and idolaters; he even carries his fanaticism so far as to look upon the
deaths of the three judges of Egidius during his lifetime as a
particular effect of divine justice.

As the affair of Juan Gil is connected with the history of Rodrigo
Valero, I shall here relate it. He was born of a good family in Lebrija.
In his youth, he was extremely irregular and dissipated, but all at once
he quitted society, and shut himself up to study the Scriptures with so
much ardour, that his conversation, and his contempt for food and
clothing, made him pass for a madman.

He endeavoured to persuade priests and monks, that the Roman church was
far from holding the pure doctrine of the Evangelists, and became one of
the sect of Luther. His attachment to their doctrine was so great, that
when he was asked from whom he held his mission, he replied from God
himself through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

This fanatic was denounced to the holy office, which paid no attention
to it, being persuaded that Rodrigo was mad. But as he continued to
preach in the streets in favour of Lutheranism, and as no part of his
conduct showed that he was deranged, he was arrested, and would have
been condemned to be delivered over to secular justice, if the
inquisitors had not persisted in believing him to be mad, and if his
disciple Egidius, whose opinions were not then known, had not undertaken
his defence. Nevertheless, he was condemned in 1540 as an heretic and
_false apostle_; he was admitted to reconciliation, deprived of his
property, condemned to the _San-benito_, to perpetual imprisonment, and
to assist on every Sunday at the grand mass of St. Saviour of Seville.

Several times, when he heard the preacher advance propositions contrary
to his own, he raised his voice, and reproached him for his doctrine:
this boldness confirmed the inquisitors in the opinion that he was
deprived of reason: he was shut up in a convent in the town of San Lucar
de Barrameda, where he died at the age of fifty. Gonzales de Montes
considers him as a man miraculously sent by God to preach the truth: he
adds, that his _San-benito_ was suspended in the metropolitan church of
Seville, where it excited great curiosity, as he was the first person
condemned as a _false apostle_.

Although, during the period of which I have related the history, there
were fewer Judaic heretics than in former times, yet there were many
more than might be supposed. Of this number was _Mary de Bourgogne_, who
was born at Saragossa: her father-in-law was a native of Burgundy, of
Jewish extraction. A _New Christian_ slave, (who had renounced the law
of Moses, to obtain his liberty, and was afterwards burnt for having
relapsed,) in 1552, denounced Mary de Bourgogne, who resided in the city
of Murcia, and had attained her eighty-fifth year. This man deposed
that, before his conversion, some person asked him if he was a
Christian; he replied that he was a Jew, and that Mary then said to him,
_You are right, for the Christians have neither faith nor law_. It will
no doubt appear incredible, but the trial proves that in 1557 she was
still in prison, waiting until sufficient proof was found to condemn
her. After having waited in vain, the inquisitors commanded that Mary
should be _tortured, though she was then ninety years old_, and the
council had decreed that in such cases the criminal should only be
intimidated by the preparations. The inquisitor Cano says, that the
_moderate_ torture was applied; but such were the effects of this gentle
application, that the unfortunate Mary ceased to live and suffer in a
few days after.

The inquisitors took advantage of some expressions which escaped from
the unfortunate woman during the torture, to condemn her as a Judaic
heretic, in order to confiscate her property, which was considerable.
Her memory, her children, and her descendants in the male line were
declared infamous, her bones and effigy were burnt, and her property
confiscated.

The Supreme Council showed a certain degree of moderation in another
affair, before the tribunal of Toledo. Michael Sanchez died in prison,
before his sentence, which was a pecuniary penalty, could be announced
to him: the inquisitors were uncertain if his property was liable for
this penalty; they applied to the council, which replied in the
negative.

I now terminate the history of the remarkable events of the reign of
Charles V. After a reign of forty years, this prince abdicated the crown
in favour of his son Philip II., on the 16th of January, 1556. He did
not long survive his abdication; he died in the convent of the
Jeronimites, at Yuste in the province of Estremadura, on the 21st of
September, 1558, aged fifty-seven years and twenty-one days. He had made
his will at Brussels on the 16th of June, 1554, and a codicil in the
monastery of Yuste, twelve days before his death.


_Religion of Charles V._

Some historians have asserted, that Charles V. adopted, in his retreat,
the opinions of the German protestants; that in his last illness he
confessed himself to Constantine Ponce de la Fuente, his preacher, who
was afterwards known to be a Lutheran; that after his death Philip II.
commissioned the inquisitors to examine the affair, and that the holy
office took possession of the emperor's will, to examine if it contained
anything contrary to the true faith. These statements compel me to enter
into some details which will elucidate this point of history.

To ascertain that the report on the religion of Charles V. is only an
invention of the protestants and the enemies of Philip II., it is
sufficient to read the life of that prince, and that of his father,
composed by Gregorio Leti. Although this historian has made use of the
least authentic documents, in his work, he is entirely silent on this
point. He enters into a minute detail of the life and occupations of
Charles V. in his retreat, and he relates many decisive proofs of his
attachment to the catholic faith, and his zeal in wishing that it might
triumph over the Lutheran heresy; and though no dependance can be placed
on what he says concerning the conversations of the emperor with the
Archbishop Carranza, (since there is nothing relating to them in his
trial, which I have read,) yet it must be confessed that his recital is
otherwise very exact.

It is not true that Constantine Ponce de la Fuente attended the emperor
in his last moments, either as his preacher, (which office he had filled
in Germany,) or as a bishop, since he did not possess that dignity, as
foreign authors have asserted without any foundation, or as his
confessor, since he had never directed his conscience, though the
emperor had always looked upon him as one of the most learned and
respectable priests in his kingdom. Lastly, Ponce de la Fuente could not
assist Charles V. in his last moments, since it appears from his trial
before the Inquisition of Seville, that he was in the secret prisons of
the holy office long before the illness of the emperor. Don Prudent de
Sandoval, Bishop of Tui and Pampeluna, speaking of the last
circumstances of the life of Charles V., relates that when that prince
heard of the imprisonment of Ponce, he said, _Oh! if Constantine is an
heretic, he is a great heretic_: an expression very different from that
which he used on hearing that a monk named Dominic de Guzman had been
arrested in the same city: _They might rather imprison him as a fool
than an heretic._

In his codicil, written twelve days before his death, Charles V. thus
expresses himself: "When I had been informed that many persons had been
arrested in some provinces, and that others were to be taken, as accused
of Lutheranism, I wrote to the princess my daughter, to inform her in
what manner they should be punished, and the evil remedied. I also wrote
afterwards to Louis Quixada, and authorized him to act in my name in the
same affair; and although I am persuaded that the king my son, the
princess my daughter, and the ministers, have already, and will always,
make every possible effort to destroy so great an evil, with all the
severity and promptitude which it requires; yet, considering what I owe
to the service of our Lord, the triumph of his faith, the preservation
of his church and the Christian religion, (in the defence of which I
have performed such painful labours at the risk of my life, as every one
knows;) and particularly desiring, above all, to inspire my son, whose
catholic sentiments I know, with the wish of imitating my conduct, and
which I hope he will do, from knowing his virtue and piety, I beg and
recommend to him very particularly, as much as I can and am obliged to
do, and command him moreover in my quality of father, and by the
obedience which he owes me, to labour with diligence, as in a point
which particularly interests him, that the heretics shall be prosecuted
and chastised with all the severity which their crimes deserve, _without
permitting any criminal to be excepted, without any respect for the
entreaties, or rank, or quality of the persons_: and that my intentions
may have their full and entire effect, I desire him to protect the holy
office of the Inquisition, for the great numbers of crimes which it
prevents or punishes, _remembering that I have charged him to do so in
my will_, that he may fulfil his duty as a prince, and render himself
worthy that the Lord should make his reign prosperous, conduct his
affairs, and protect him against his enemies, to my consolation[13]."

I have already stated, that no dependance can be placed on the account
given by Gregorio Leti of the conversations of the emperor with Don
Bartholomew Carranza de Miranda, archbishop of Toledo. It is certain
that the emperor had a great esteem for Carranza, which induced him to
give him the bishopric of Cusco in America, in 1542, and of the Canaries
in 1549; to send him as theologian of the emperor to the council of
Trent, in 1545 and 1551; and to London with his son Philip II., King of
Naples and England, in 1554, to preach against the Lutherans.
Nevertheless, when he was informed, in his retreat at Yuste, that
Carranza had accepted the archbishopric of Toledo, to which King Philip
had appointed him, he began to feel less esteem for him, because he did
not know that Carranza had refused that dignity, and named three persons
whom he considered more worthy to occupy it. Philip was not only
displeased at this refusal, but he commanded him to obey the will of his
sovereign, and wrote to the Pope, who supported his order by a
particular brief addressed to Br. Bartholomew.

Charles V., at this period, had Br. Juan de Regla, a Jeronimite, and a
learned theologian, for his confessor. He had assisted at the Council of
Trent with Carranza, whom he always treated as an enemy, because he was
jealous of his great reputation. I shall hereafter prove the disposition
of Juan de Regla towards Carranza; at present I shall only show that he
had great part in his disgrace with the emperor, for being suspected of
professing the same doctrines as Egidius, Constantine, Cazalla, and
others. Regla became more fanatic than charitable, during the
persecution which he suffered from the Inquisition of Saragossa, when he
was prior of the Convent of Santa Fè; he was condemned to abjure
eighteen Lutheran propositions, of which the inquisitors declared him to
be suspected. The emperor was also informed, through the private
correspondence of his children, that the Inquisition was occupied in
preparing the trial of the archbishop for heresy, when he came to visit
him in his last illness; and his presence was so disagreeable, that,
instead of conversing with him, as Leti affirms, he did not speak one
word. Sandoval, with more probability, thus expresses himself: "This
evening the archbishop of Toledo, Carranza, arrived, but he could not
see the emperor. This prince had waited for him with much impatience
since he had quitted England, because he wished to have an explanation
on certain things which had been reported of him, and seemed to show
that his faith was suspected; for that of the prince was extremely
lively, and anything which appeared contrary to sound doctrine gave him
great pain. The archbishop returned on another day; the emperor who
wished much to hear him, admitted him into his presence, and told him to
sit down, but did not talk to him, and on that night he became much
worse.[14]"

The animosity of Juan de Regla against the archbishop of Toledo, was
soon manifested in two voluntary informations before the
Inquisitor-General Valdes, on the 9th and 23rd of December, in 1558, at
Valladolid. I shall at a future period explain all the articles of the
denunciation of Juan de Regla, but it is necessary to anticipate the
order of time in affairs, to prove that Charles V. was not disposed to
favour Carranza in the latter part of his life.

The first denunciation took place on the 9th of December: it imported,
that on the day before the death of the emperor, the archbishop of
Toledo kissed his majesty's hand, and left the room; that he soon after
returned; and that he did so several times, _though the emperor showed
very little desire to see him_, and that he gave him absolution before
he confessed him; which Juan da Regla imputed to the archbishop as a
sign of contempt or neglect of the sacrament: that in one of these
visits he said to the emperor, _Your majesty may be full of confidence,
for there is not, nor ever has been any sin, the death of Jesus having
sufficed to efface it_; that this discourse appeared bad to him, and
that there were present Br. Pedro de Sotomayor and Br. Diego Ximenez,
Dominicans; Br. Marcos Oriols de Cardona and Br. Francis Villalba, monks
of St. Jerome: the last was his majesty's preacher; the Count de Oropesa
and Don Diego de Toledo his brother; Don Louis d'Avila Zuñiga, grand
commander of the military order of Alcantara, and Don Louis de Quixada,
major-domo to the emperor.

The inquisitor-general would not admit the Dominican monks as witnesses,
because he supposed them subject to the archbishop: the evidences of
Count Oropesa and his brother were likewise rejected, because they were
his friends. The monk of St. Jerome declared that the archbishop arrived
at Yuste on a Sunday, two days before the death of the emperor; that
this prince _would not see him or allow him to enter_, but his
major-domo, Don Louis de Quixada, undertook to introduce him; that
Carranza threw himself on his knees in the chamber, and that the
emperor, _without saying a word to him_, fixed his eyes upon him, like a
person who wishes to express himself by a look: that the persons who
were present retired: that when the archbishop came out of the chamber
he appeared discontented, and he the witness believed that he was so,
having heard from William, the emperor's barber, that on the day when
the news of the nomination of Carranza to the archbishopric of Toledo
arrived, his majesty said, _When I gave him the bishopric of the
Canaries he refused it; now he accepts the archbishopric of Toledo; we
shall see what we are to think of his virtue_; that their private
interview lasted a quarter of an hour, and the archbishop called in the
attendants. When they entered, the archbishop threw himself on his
knees, and his majesty made a sign for him to sit down, and repeat some
words of consolation; that the prelate again threw himself on his knees,
and repeated the four first verses of the psalm _De profundis_, not
literally, but paraphrasing the text. His majesty made him a sign to
stop, and Carranza then retired with the other attendants; that on
another day, about the hour of ten in the evening, just before the
emperor expired, Carranza visited him, because he had been informed of
his danger, and gave him the crucifix to kiss, and at the same time
addressed some words of consolation to him, at which the monks Juan de
Regla, Francis de Villalba, Francis Angulo, prior, and Louis de St.
Gregoria, were scandalized. These persons conversed together afterwards,
and said that the prelate ought not to have spoken thus; but the witness
could not recollect what the words were. They were repeated to him, and
he replied that he believed they might be the same, but that he could
not be certain, as he was reading the passion of our Saviour, _according
to St. Luke_, at the time; he only remarked that the monks looked at one
another with a kind of mystery.

Neither Francis Angulo, nor Louis de St. Gregoria were examined, perhaps
they were dead. Francis de Villalba, preacher to the emperor, declared,
that he had not heard anything in the emperor's apartment which was
worthy of being reported to the Inquisition. Being questioned as to what
he thought of the discourse which the archbishop had addressed to the
emperor, he replied that he was only present once, when the prelate
recited some verses of the _De profundis_; that Don Louis d'Avila
afterwards requested him to speak to the emperor, and that he made him
an exhortation. When examined on the subject of the words and the
scandal, he replied that he did not hear or see anything that could
offend him.

Don Louis d'Avila y Zuñiga cited the entrance of the prelate; and that
he took a crucifix and knelt down, saying with a loud voice, _behold him
who answers for all; there is no longer any sin, all is pardoned_. The
witness did not recollect if the archbishop said, _and however numerous
the sins may be, they are all pardoned_: that these words did not appear
proper to him, and he requested the emperor's preacher to make him an
exhortation, who afterwards told him that his majesty appeared
satisfied.

Don Louis de Quixada deposed that the archbishop was with the emperor,
three times before his death, that he saw him take a crucifix, and that
he pronounced some words on the subject of Jesus Christ dying for our
sins, but he could not recollect them, because his employment as
major-domo occupied him at the time.

These circumstances show that Charles V. was far from being inclined to
Lutheranism at his death. It is equally false that the inquisitors took
his will, to examine if it contained any sentiments tending to heresy. I
have read or consulted a multitude of books and papers in the archives
of the Inquisition, and could not discover anything to support the
opinion; so that nothing now remains but to seek the origin of this
fable.

A number of circumstances may have caused the Inquisition to be
mentioned in relating the death of Charles V. The first is, that
Carranza, who attended him at his death, was soon after arrested by the
holy office; the second, that his two preachers, Constantine Ponce and
Augustine Cazalla, were condemned by that tribunal; the third, that his
confessor, Juan de Regla, was obliged to abjure certain propositions;
the fourth, that the emperor himself had been threatened with
excommunication three years before, as a favourer of heretics, by Paul
IV.; the fifth, that Philip II. made use of the Inquisition in a variety
of circumstances entirely political.

Charles V. died a Catholic; and it is only to be regretted that he
associated so many superstitions with his Catholicism, and showed so
much attachment to the Inquisition during his life.




CHAPTER XIX.

OF THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST CHARLES V. AND PHILIP II.: AS SCHISMATICS AND
FAVOURERS OF HERESY.--PROGRESS OF THE INQUISITION UNDER THE LAST OF
THESE PRINCES.--CONSEQUENCES OF THE PARTICULAR FAVOUR WHICH HE SHOWED
TOWARDS IT.


_Trials of Charles V., Philip II., and the Duke of Alva._

In 1555, John Peter Carafa, a noble Neapolitan, and as such the subject
of Charles V. and Philip II., was elevated to the holy see, under the
name of Paul IV., at the age of seventy-nine years. Charles V. had then
renounced the crown of Sicily, in favour of Prince Philip, who was about
to marry the Queen of England. The new Pope mortally hated the emperor,
not only because he could not bear to be a subject to the house of
Austria, but because this prince and his son favoured the families of
_Colonna_ and _Sforza_, which he looked upon as the rivals of his house.
The kingdom of Naples passed at that time for a fief of the holy see.
Paul IV. undertook to deprive Charles of the imperial purple, and his
son of the crown of Sicily, and to dispose of it in favour of one of his
nephews, with the assistance of the King of France, or to give the
kingdom to some French prince. He commenced the proceedings against
Charles V. and Philip, by the preparatory instruction, to show that they
were enemies of the holy see, particularly in protecting the families of
_Sforza_ and _Colonna_, whose hatred for the Pontiff was well known.

To these reasons it was to be alleged that Charles V. was a favourer of
heretics, and suspected of Lutheranism, since the publication of the
imperial decrees at the diet of Augsburg, in 1554. The fiscal of the
apostolical chamber then demanded that the Pope should declare Charles
V. to be deprived of the imperial crown, and that of Spain and its
dependencies, and Philip of the throne of Naples; that bulls of
excommunication should be issued against them, and the people of
Germany, Spain, Italy, and particularly of Naples, released from their
oath of fidelity. Paul IV. suspended the trial at this stage of the
proceedings, to continue it when he judged it convenient. He revoked at
the same time all the bulls which his predecessors had expedited in
favour of the Spanish monarchs, for the collection of the annual subsidy
imposed on the clergy, and for the funds destined for the _holy
crusade_. The Pope was not content with this hostile measure; he entered
into an alliance with Henry II., King of France, to make war upon the
house of Austria, until its princes were deprived of their kingdoms.

Charles V. was then at Brussels, occupied in ceding the empire of
Germany to his brother Ferdinand, King of Hungary and Bohemia, and in
making over the crown of Spain and the countship of Flanders to his son.
This policy was useful to Charles V., as it threw the weight of the
embarrassment on Philip, who had just arrived from England to receive
his father's instructions how to govern Spain. The circumstances in
which they found themselves required the greatest prudence, for they not
only had to fear the abuse which the Pope might make of his apostolical
and temporal power, but also the consequences of the alliances which his
holiness had just signed with the King of France.

Besides the Council of State (which Charles and Philip always consulted
before they decided on any subject) they deemed it necessary to have
judgments of _conscience_, to balance the authority of the supreme head
of the Catholic Church. On the 15th of November, 1555, the famous
consultation of Brother Melchior Cano was framed at Valladolid, which
was published at Madrid in 1809, in my _collection of different papers,
ancient and modern, on matrimonial dispensations, and other
ecclesiastical dispensations_. The decision of Cano was, that in all
similar cases the only and proper remedy is not only to deprive the
temporal sovereign of Rome of the power of injuring, but to reduce him
to the necessity of accepting reasonable terms, and of acting with more
prudence in future. Other theologians decided that the concessions made
by the Court of Rome were irrevocable, and had the force of a true
contract passed for the benefit of an empire or kingdom.

The Pope, informed of these decisions, commanded the inquisitor-general
to punish the authors of it; he was supported by most of the prelates of
the kingdom, at the head of whom was the Cardinal Siliceo, Archbishop of
Toledo, who had been the king's preceptor. Philip, who had been King of
Spain from January, 1556, wrote from London, in the month of July
following, the letter to his sister, the governess of the kingdom, which
I have inserted in my diplomatic collection. It is as follows:--

"Since I informed you of the conduct of the Pope, and of the news
received from Rome, I have learnt that his holiness proposes to
excommunicate the emperor and me, to put my states under an interdict,
and to prohibit the divine service. Having consulted learned men on this
subject, it appears that it is not only an abuse of the power of the
sovereign pontiff, founded only on the hatred and passion, which,
certainly, has not been provoked by our conduct, but that we are not
obliged to submit to what he has ordained in respect to our persons, on
account of the great scandal which would be caused by our confessing
ourselves guilty, since we are not so, and the great sin which we should
commit in so doing. In consequence, it has been decided, that if I am
interdicted from certain things, I am not obliged to deprive myself of
them, as those do who are excommunicated, although a censure may be sent
to me from Rome, according to the disposition of his holiness. For after
having destroyed the sects in England, brought this country under the
influence of the church, pursued and punished the heretics without
ceasing, and obtained a success which has always been constant, I see
that his holiness evidently wishes to ruin my kingdom, without
considering what he owes to his dignity; and I have no doubt that he
would succeed if we consented to his demands, since he has already
revoked all the legations which Cardinal Pole received for this kingdom,
and which had produced so much benefit. These reasons, other important
considerations, the necessity of preparing for all events, and of
protecting our people from being surprised, have induced us to draw up,
in the name of his majesty, and in our own, an act of recusation in
form, of which I intended to send you a copy; but as this piece is very
long, and the courier is setting out for France, it could not be done,
and I will send it by the courier going by sea, who will soon set out.
When you receive it, you must write to the prelates, the grandees, to
the cities, universities, and the heads of orders, and inform them of
all that has passed: you must direct them to look upon the censures and
interdict sent from Rome as non-existent, because they are null, unjust,
and without foundation, for I have taken counsel on what is permitted in
these circumstances. If any act of the Pope should arrive in the
interim, it will be sufficient to prevent it from being received,
accepted, or executed; but to preclude the necessity of coming to this
extremity, you must cause the frontiers to be strictly guarded, as we
have done in England, that none of these pieces should be notified or
delivered, and _punish very severely any person who shall dare to
distribute them, because it is not to be permitted that we should
continue to dissimulate_. If it is impossible to prevent their
introduction, and if any one attempts to put them in force, you must
oppose their execution, as we have powerful motives for this command;
and this prohibition must extend to the kingdom of Aragon, to which you
must write if it is necessary. It has been since known, that in the bull
published on Holy Thursday, the Pope has excommunicated all those who
have taken or shall take the property of the church, _whether they are
kings or emperors_, and that on Good Friday, he commanded the prayer for
his majesty to be omitted, although the Jews, Moors, heretics, and
schismatics are prayed for on that day. This proves that the evil is
becoming serious, and induces us to recommend more particularly the
execution of the measures which we have prescribed, and of which we
shall give an account to his majesty[15]."

Philip, for the time, prevented the inquisitor-general from trying any
of those persons who had been marked as suspected of heresy, among whom
were not only the theologians and canonists who had been consulted, but
many counsellors of state who supported their opinion against Cardinal
Siliceo and his adherents[16].

The Pope was obstinate in his resolutions; and deceived by the
tranquillity which Philip suffered him to enjoy in Rome, he placed
himself at the brink of the precipice. The Duke of Alva, who was viceroy
of Naples (and whose character was at least as harsh as that of the
Pope), in September 1556, left his government, and occupied the states
of the holy see, even to the gates of Rome; and Paul IV., finding that
the republic of Venice had deserted him, and being pressed by the
cardinals and people, demanded an armistice, which was granted. Instead
of taking advantage of this favour to make peace on reasonable terms,
the Pope confirmed his alliance with Henry II., and raised a war between
that monarch and the King of Spain, although Charles V. had, in 1555,
signed a truce of five years with that prince. Henry, having lost the
famous battle of St. Quentin, on the 10th of August, 1557, the Pope
became so alarmed, that he demanded a peace at the time when the Duke of
Alva was preparing to enter Rome at the head of his army. The viceroy
renounced his design, but had the boldness to tell the Pope that he
would not make peace until he had asked pardon of the king, his master,
for having treated him with so little respect. This message increased
the alarm of the old pontiff, who had recourse to the mediation of
Venice. The Pope refused to negociate with the Duke of Alva, but said
that he would consent to any proposal from the King of Spain, as he was
persuaded that he would not impose any condition on him contrary to his
honour, or to the dignity of the holy see.

The Duke of Alva wrote to Philip, to request that, in this instance, he
would display the severity necessary to prevent new divisions. But this
prince (who had signed on the 10th of July, 1556, the excellent letter
already quoted) had no person in the following year to inspire him with
sufficient energy to follow the advice of his viceroy. He wrote to
command him to conclude a peace immediately, "as he would rather lose
the privileges of his crown, than infringe those of the holy see in the
slightest degree."

The Duke of Alva was extremely displeased at this resolution, but he
immediately obeyed his master, and this singular peace was signed on the
14th of September, 1557, by the Duke of Alva, and Cardinal Carafa,
nephew and plenipotentiary to the Pope. The envoy made no reparation to
Philip II., and the following singular article is part of the
treaty:--"His holiness will receive from the Catholic king, through his
plenipotentiary, the Duke of Alva, all the necessary submissions to
obtain the pardon of his offences, without prejudicing the engagement of
the king to send an ambassador extraordinary for the particular object
of the pardon which he demands, it being understood that his holiness
will restore him to favour as a submissive son, and worthy to share the
benefits which the holy see is accustomed to bestow on its children and
the other Christian princes."

The haughty pontiff acknowledged that he had obtained more than he had
hoped for, and to show his satisfaction, bestowed the highest honours on
the Duke of Alva; he invited him to eat at his own table, and received
him in the palace of the Vatican.

Gregorio Leti is right in attributing all the evils that have since
arisen from the excessive authority which the priests have arrogated
over laymen, to this conduct of Philip II. Paul IV. soon displayed his
contempt for Philip II. and his father, since, in five months after the
treaty, on the 13th of February, 1558, he addressed a brief to the
inquisitor-general Valdés, in which he revived all the regulations of
the councils and pontiffs against heretics and schismatics. He commanded
him to prosecute them, and punish them according to the constitutions,
and, above all, to deprive all such persons of their dignities and
offices, whether they were bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, cardinals,
or legates, _barons, counts, marquisses, dukes, princes, kings, or
emperors_. Fortunately, neither Charles V. nor his son had embraced the
opinions of Luther, yet it was certainly the intention of the Pope to
subject them to the dispositions of his bull.


_Of the Inquisitions of Sardinia, Flanders, Milan, Naples, Galicia,
America, and the Sea._

In 1562, Philip II. commanded the Inquisition of Sardinia to conform
rigorously to the rules of the holy office of Spain in prosecuting the
accused, although it was represented to him that they had hitherto only
known those of Ferdinand V., which were less severe.

Philip did not treat his Flemish subjects with less rigour. In 1522
Charles V. appointed Francis de Hult, a lay counsellor of Brabant,
inquisitor-general for the states of Flanders; and Adrian VI. invested
him with the apostolical jurisdiction, on the condition that he had
priests and theologians for assessors. Soon after three provincial
inquisitors were appointed, the overseer of the regular canons of Ypres
for Flanders and its dependencies; the overseer of the clergy of Mons
for Hainault, and the Dean of Louvain for Brabant, Holland, and the
other provinces. The inquisitors-general appointed by Clement VII. were
Cardinal Everard de la Marche, Bishop of Liege, and Francis de Hult,
before mentioned. This measure did not deprive the other inquisitors of
their privileges; those of Louvain, in 1527, celebrated several
_autos-da-fé_, and condemned sixty persons to different punishments. In
1529 terrible edicts were issued against heretics, which were renewed in
1531, but with some mitigation.

At the death of the Dean of Louvain, Paul III. in 1537, appointed as
inquisitor-general for the Low Country the successor in the deanery, and
the canon Douce; they were approved by Charles V. In 1555 Julius III.
authorised the sub-delegates of the dean and canon; Paul IV. did the
same in 1560 for the overseer of Valcanet, and the theological doctor of
Louvain, Michael Bayo. All these men took the title of _ecclesiastical
ministers_ from the year 1550, when Charles V. prohibited them from ever
taking the name of _inquisitors_, because it was obnoxious to the
people. The Flemish Inquisition was extremely severe in the first period
of its existence; it inflicted the same punishments as that of Spain,
but applied them to a greater number of cases. Philip II. moderated the
action of this tribunal by an edict in 1556.

Such was the state of the Flemish Inquisition in 1559, when a bull of
Paul IV. was received from Rome, by which three ecclesiastical provinces
were created, the bishoprics of which were subjected to the jurisdiction
of the Archbishops of Malines, Cambray, and Utrecht: twelve canons were
instituted for each cathedral, three of whom were to be inquisitors for
life. This measure caused the first indication of the rebellion which
raged in Holland and the United Provinces in 1562. The people maintained
that they had only tolerated the inquisitors since 1522, because they
considered them as temporary agents; but that they would never allow the
permanent establishment of an institution so obnoxious to the provinces.
This opposition increased when it was known that Philip II. intended to
organize the eighteen Inquisitions of Flanders, on the plan of that of
Spain, which had long been regarded as a sanguinary tribunal.

This project was the more dreaded, as many Spaniards had fled from the
Inquisition to Holland. These emigrations were most numerous after the
year 1550, when several Bibles, which had been printed in the Spanish
language in the Low Countries, were prohibited as containing the
opinions of the new heretics. Notwithstanding the obstinacy with which
the King of Spain pursued the establishment of the Inquisition in
Flanders, he failed in his enterprise, and also in his attempt to force
the Low Countries to receive the regular tribunal. The Flemings
persisted in opposing everything resembling the Inquisition, and their
resistance was the cause of the long and bloody wars which exhausted the
treasures and armies of Spain during half a century.

In the following year, 1563, Philip II. decreed the necessary measures
to establish the Inquisition at Milan. He communicated his design to the
Pope, who appeared to approve it, but was really displeased, because it
tended to diminish the power of the holy see. The Milanese immediately
protested against the introduction of a tribunal, of which they had
formed the most unfavourable opinion. The bishops of Lombardy were not
less averse to it, as they knew that in Spain the bishops were not only
deprived of all power, but had fallen into contempt from the despotism
of the inquisitors, who had taken possession of the episcopal
privileges, and enjoyed them in peace under the protection of the
sovereign, who had no adviser in these affairs but the
inquisitor-general.

The city of Milan sent deputies to the Pope (who was a native of that
place), to entreat him to preserve his country from the danger which
threatened it. They also sent deputies to Madrid to demand that things
should remain in the same state, and applied at the same time to the
Milanese bishops at the Council of Trent to support their cause before
that celebrated assembly. Pius IV. told the deputies that he would never
allow the Spanish Inquisition to be established in Milan, _as he knew
its extreme severity_, and promised that their tribunal should be
dependent on the Court of Rome, whose decrees were extremely mild, and
gave the accused every facility in their defence.

During the course of this negotiation, the Duke de Sesa, wishing to
execute his master's private orders, established the tribunal of the
Inquisition in the city of Milan, of which he was the governor, and
published the names of the sub-delegated inquisitors. This declaration
displeased the Milanese, who began to excite popular commotions, and
cried _Long live the king! perish the Inquisition!_

The Milanese bishops at the Council of Trent disinclined all the Italian
prelates to the Spanish Inquisition; the legates of the Pope who
presided at the council, declared in favour of the Milanese, and
Cardinal S. Charles Borromeo pleaded the cause of his countrymen in the
college of cardinals, and placed them under their protection. The Duke
de Sesa, who observed all that passed, foresaw that the result would be
disagreeable to his master, and wrote to Philip, who abandoned his
design[17].

These events did not prevent Philip II. from attempting to introduce the
inquisition at Naples, although both Ferdinand V. and Charles V. had
failed in the enterprise; but his efforts only served to disgrace him
and destroy his authority in Naples, as they had before done in Flanders
and Milan.

It may be supposed that Philip did not forget his American dominions.
Ferdinand V. having resolved to establish the Inquisition in the New
World, charged Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros with the conduct of the
affair, and in 1516 he appointed Don Juan Quevedo, Bishop of Cuba, the
_delegated_ inquisitor-general, for the Spanish colonies then known by
the name of the _kingdom of Terra Firma_, and gave him the power of
appointing judges and officers for the tribunal. Charles V. wished to
extend the benefits of this _pious_ institution, and Cardinal Adrian, by
his order, appointed, on the 7th of January, 1519, Don Alphonso Manso,
Bishop of Porto Rico, and Brother Pedro de Cordova, inquisitors for the
_Indies and Isles of the Ocean_, and gave them the requisite powers to
establish the tribunal.

The new inquisitors began to prosecute the baptized Indians, who still
retained some idolatrous practices. The viceroys informed the King of
Spain of the evils produced by this system: in fact the Indians fled
into the interior, and joined the savage tribes, which considerably
retarded the progress of population in those vast countries. Charles V.
in 1538 prohibited the inquisitors from prosecuting the Indians, who
were to be under the jurisdiction of the bishops. The inquisitors of
America were not more submissive than those of Spain, which obliged the
prince to renew his orders in 1549. Philip II. undertook to organize the
tribunal on the plan of that of Spain. In 1553 and 1565 he renewed his
father's injunctions to leave the Indians under the jurisdiction of the
bishops; and in 1569 he published a royal ordinance, importing that the
inquisitor-general had appointed inquisitors, and commanding the
viceroys and governors to give them every assistance in their
establishment. These inquisitors were received with great ceremony at
Panama and Lima, when they first formed the tribunal.

In 1570 Philip II. appointed an Inquisition at Mexico, and in 1571
established three tribunals for all America; one at Lima, one at Mexico,
and the other at Carthagena, assigning to each the extent of territory
which they were to possess, and subjecting them to the authority of the
inquisitor-general and the Supreme Council.

The first _auto-da-fé_ in Mexico took place in 1574; it was celebrated
with so much pomp and splendour, that eye-witnesses have declared that
it could only be compared to that of Valladolid in 1559, at which Philip
II. and the royal family attended. A Frenchman and an Englishman were
burnt as impenitent Lutherans; eighty persons were reconciled, and
subjected to different penances. The Inquisition of Carthagena was not
established at this period; it was founded in 1610 by Philip III.

The great fleet of the Catholic league against the Emperor of
Constantinople, which gained the famous battle of Lepanto, inspired
Philip II. with the project of creating an Inquisition for heretics who
might be found in ships. As the authority of the inquisitor-general did
not extend beyond the dominions of the King of Spain, it was considered
necessary to apply to the Pope, who in 1571 granted the brief, which was
demanded, authorizing the inquisitor-general to create the new tribunal,
and appoint judges and officers. It was first known by the name of the
_Inquisition of the Galleys_, but it was afterwards called the
_Inquisition of the Fleets and Armies_; it existed but for a short
period, as it was found to impede the progress of navigation.

The Inquisition was unknown in Galicia for more than a century before
this period. This province formed part of the district subject to the
holy office of old Castile and the kingdom of Leon; it had escaped this
scourge, but at last Philip II. resolved that it should have an
Inquisition to superintend the sea-ports, in order to prevent the
introduction of pernicious books, and the entrance of persons who would
teach the doctrines of the Protestants. The royal ordinance which
established the Inquisition in Galicia was expedited in 1574, and the
tribunal was organised in the same year.


_Disputes with the Inquisition of Portugal._

The establishment of the power of Philip II. in Portugal, after the
death of the Cardinal King Don Henry, who had occupied the throne until
1580, gave that prince another opportunity of signalizing his zeal for
the Inquisition. I have already indicated the period of its institution,
and the attendant circumstances[18]. Don Henry was inquisitor-general
from 1539 to 1578, when he succeeded to the crown of Portugal, after the
death of his nephew Don Sebastian. He bestowed the archbishopric of
Lisbon, which he occupied at the time of his accession, on Don George
Almeida, and likewise appointed him the third inquisitor-general of the
kingdom.

In 1544, Don Henry (who then occupied the see of Evora), and Cardinal
Don Juan Pardo de Tabera, inquisitor-general of Spain, with the consent
of their respective sovereigns, published a circular, in which they
announced, that as the two states were so near each other, and the
extent of the frontier favoured the flight of the persons prosecuted by
the Inquisition, they had agreed, 1st, to communicate reciprocally
everything which might interest the Inquisition; 2nd, to arrest in their
respective jurisdictions those subjects who were designated; 3rdly, to
keep them prisoners, and to claim the writings of the trial, because
this measure was less inconvenient than the exchange of the prisoners.

This convention was observed for some time; but in 1588 the inquisitors
of Lisbon sent a requisition to those of Valladolid, to deliver up to
them Gonzales Baez, who had been arrested at Medina del Campo: they
replied that this demand could not be admitted, as it was contrary to
the convention. The inquisitors of Portugal acknowledged the justice of
this claim; but those of Spain, who in 1568 found themselves in the same
situation, refused to conform to the measure, because they had at their
head Cardinal Espinosa, who was all-powerful with Philip. The cardinal
informed Don Henry that he had not ratified the convention, and that he
considered it more proper that the prisoner should be given up to the
tribunal which had instituted the trial. He requested Cardinal Henry to
apply to both their sovereigns, and promised to propose to the King of
Spain a measure which should be a general rule for all cases in future.

Don Henry commissioned Francis Pereira, the Portuguese ambassador at
Madrid, to terminate this dispute with Cardinal Espinosa. While this
affair was being negotiated, several Spaniards who had been condemned by
the tribunal of Llerena to be burnt in effigy as contumacious, were
arrested in Portugal by the inquisitors of Evora, who immediately
demanded the writings of the trial according to the convention of 1544.
The tribunal of Llerena replied that it was impossible not to follow the
example of Cardinal Espinosa. Almost at the same time these inquisitors
arrested some Portuguese who had escaped from their country. The Bishop
of Portalegre, inquisitor of Evora, reclaimed the prisoners, but the
tribunal refused to give them up, if the inhabitants of Albuquerque, who
had been arrested by the Inquisition of Evora, were not returned.
Cardinal Henry yielded to the Spanish Inquisition, but wrote to them on
the 5th of December to address a formal requisition on this subject,
while the Inquisition of Evora would do the same to Cardinal Espinosa.
The Supreme Council consented to this arrangement, and the prisoners
were exchanged.

The inquisitor-general, Don Henry, died in 1580. The crown of Portugal
then descended to Philip II., as being the son of the Empress Isabella,
the sister of John III., King of Portugal. As the office of
grand-inquisitor was vacant, he wished to suppress it, and place
Portugal under the dominion of that of Spain. He represented to the Pope
that there would be more unity in the proceedings: but this attempt was
unsuccessful, as he had only been acknowledged king, on condition that
the crown should continue independent of that of Spain.

When the Duke of Braganza was proclaimed King of Portugal in the reign
of Philip IV., Don Francis de Castro grand-inquisitor, and Don John de
Vasconcellas, a member of the council of the Inquisition, remained
faithful to the King of Spain. The new sovereign (who had taken the name
of John IV.) wished to increase his party. Influenced by the advice of
England, which had favoured the insurrection, he resolved to restore to
the Jews the liberty which they enjoyed before the establishment of the
Inquisition; but he was opposed by the two inquisitors above mentioned.
The council even condemned a decision of the university of Paris, in
which it was said that the king could appoint and consecrate bishops
without bulls from Rome, if Pope Innocent X. refused to grant them. John
IV. threatened the inquisitors with imprisonment, and even with death,
but they were ready to suffer anything rather than consent to the
emancipation of the Jews. Don Francis de Castro died, and it was
necessary to appoint another inquisitor-general; but the bulls of
confirmation were not less difficult to obtain than those for bishops,
as the Popes, Urban VIII., Innocent X., and Alexander VII., avoided
declaring in favour of either the King of Spain or the Duke of Braganza.
At last Portugal triumphed over the efforts of Spain, and the
Inquisitions of the two kingdoms seldom had any communication.

That I may not pass over any event tending to prove the attachment of
Philip II. for the Inquisition, I shall here mention a project for a
military order of the holy office, which would never have been
conceived, if the partiality of the monarch for this tribunal had not
been generally known.

Some fanatics thought to please him by founding a new military order
under the name of _St. Mary of the White Sword_. The object of this
institution was to defend the Catholic religion, the kingdom of Spain,
its frontiers, and forts, from any invasion; to prevent the ingress of
Jews, Moors, and heretics; and to execute any measures which the
inquisitor might command. To be a member of this order it was necessary
to produce proofs and witnesses that they descended neither from Jews,
Moors, nor any Spaniard condemned and punished by the holy office;
nobility was not necessary. The members of this association were
independent of the jurisdiction of the bishops and civil authorities;
they were all to take the field and fight in defence of the frontier
towns, but they acknowledged no chief but the inquisitor-general.

This scheme was adopted by the provinces of Castile, Leon, the Asturias,
Aragon, Navarre, Galicia, Guipuscoa, Alava, Biscay, Valencia, and
Catalonia. The statutes of the order received the approbation of the
inquisitor-general and the Supreme Council; the founders and the
representatives of the metropolitan churches of Toledo, Seville,
Santiago, Grenada, Tarragona, Saragossa, Valencia, and forty-eight
noble families known for having never mixed their blood with that of the
New Christians, addressed an humble supplication to the king to obtain
the confirmation of them. They represented that the order of the _White
Sword_ offered the greatest advantages to Spain; that it would increase
the army without any expense of public treasure; that its services would
reform and ameliorate the morals of the people; lastly, that it would
shed fresh lustre on the nobility of the kingdom.

Philip commissioned his Sovereign Council to examine the plan of this
institution, which was likewise discussed in several assemblies
appointed by his majesty. The opinions were various; but I shall make
known that of a Spanish gentleman, as it deserves to be recorded.

Don Pedro Venegas, of Cordova, represented to the king, that the new
order was not necessary, as the Inquisition had not found the want of it
in the most difficult circumstances; that the bishops reformed the
morals of the people as much as could be expected from human nature;
that Spain had never wanted troops even when part of the Peninsula was
occupied by enemies; that other military orders existed, who were
obliged to obey their respective grand-masters; that these dignities
were now possessed by the monarch in virtue of apostolical bulls; that
the new establishment might one day attack the authority of the
sovereign, if the inquisitor-general made a bad use of the troops at his
disposal; that several similar instances had been known of the
grand-masters of the orders above mentioned; that this institution would
create two parties in the kingdom, that of the Old Christians and that
of the New, and that the distinction granted to the first would cause
murders and civil wars, and threaten the monarchy with ruin.

Philip II. thought seriously on what the grand-masters of the military
orders had done, and being jealous of his authority, he was not disposed
to place an army in the power of the inquisitor-general, who might
follow their example; he therefore commanded that the proceedings should
be suspended, and the interested persons informed that it had not been
found necessary to create a new order.




CHAPTER XX.

THE INQUISITION CELEBRATES AT VALLADOLID, IN 1559, TWO AUTOS-DA-FE
AGAINST THE LUTHERANS, IN THE PRESENCE OF SOME MEMBERS OF THE ROYAL
FAMILY.


_First Auto-da-fé._

The trial of Juan Gil, Bishop of Tortosa, so much alarmed many
Lutherans, that they quitted the kingdom. Of this number were
Cassiodorus de Beina, Juan Perez de Pineda, Cyprian de Valera, and
Julian Hernandez; the three first published catechisms, translations of
the Bible, and other works written in the Castilian tongue, in foreign
countries[19]. Juan Perez published his at Venice in 1556, and they were
soon after introduced into Spain by Hernandez, who was arrested by the
Inquisition. The citations and inquiries made in consequence of the
trial of Hernandez, in order to discover the religious opinions of the
persons with whom he associated, caused an infinite number of trials to
be instituted during the fifteen years following, in all the tribunals
of Spain, particularly in those of Seville and Valladolid. In 1557 and
1558, the Inquisition arrested a great number of persons distinguished
by their birth, their offices, or their doctrine. Some indications found
in the writings of the trials, of a vast scheme tending to the
propagation of the opinions of Luther, persuaded Philip II. and the
inquisitor Valdés that it was necessary to treat all the convicted
persons with the utmost severity. Philip wrote to Rome on the subject on
the 4th January, 1559. The Pope addressed to Valdés a brief, in which he
authorized him to give over to secular justice all dogmatizing
Lutherans, even those who had not relapsed, and who, to avoid capital
punishment, had given equivocal signs of repentance. If history had
nothing to allege against Philip II. and the inquisitor Valdés, but the
solicitation for this bull, it would be sufficient to devote their names
to infamy.

On the 5th of January, 1559, a second bull revoked all the permissions
granted for reading prohibited books, and charged the inquisitor-general
to prosecute all who should read or keep them in their houses; and as
his Holiness was informed that a great number of writings which tended
to propagate the Lutheran doctrines were circulating in Spain, the bull
commanded the confessors to ask their penitents if they knew or had
heard of any persons possessing, reading, or dispersing them; that they
should also impose upon them the obligation of communicating such
circumstances to the holy office on pain of excommunication; and that
the confessors who omitted this duty should be punished as guilty, even
if persons they absolved were bishops, archbishops, patriarchs,
cardinals, _kings_, or _emperors_. It is easy to perceive how much these
measures must have increased the number of accusations; and to encourage
the informers, Philip renewed the edict of Ferdinand V., published at
Toro in 1505, by which they were entitled to the fourth part of the
confiscated property.

The multitude of accusations caused by these bulls, induced the
inquisitor-general to delegate his powers to Don Pedro de la Gasca,
Bishop of Palencia, who established himself at Valladolid, and to Don
Juan Gonzales de Munebrega, Bishop of Tarragona, who repaired to
Seville. Valdés at the same time executed the dispositions of another
bull, which granted to the holy office, on account of its increased
expenses in travelling and maintaining so great a number of prisoners,
the revenues of a canonship in each metropolitan church, cathedral, and
college, in the kingdom. Another brief granted them a subsidy of one
hundred thousand ducats of gold, to be imposed on the ecclesiastical
revenues of the kingdom, to pay the debts contracted from the same
cause. It is surprising that, after eighty years of confiscation, the
establishment should complain of distress. These bulls, however, were
not sufficient to procure money, owing to the resistance of several
chapters, particularly that of Majorca. In 1574 they still remained
unexecuted, when Gregory XIII. confirmed them, and the King of Spain was
obliged to force the rebel canons to submit.

The arrest and trial of so great a number of Spaniards necessarily
caused an _auto-da-fé_ to be celebrated in many tribunals; but as the
victims in those of Valladolid and Seville were persons distinguished,
some for their nobility, others for their doctrine, and all for the
purity of their lives, the ceremonies in these cities were more noted
than the others; and I do not hesitate in affirming that all that has
been written against the Spanish Inquisition in Germany and France was
only caused by the treatment of the Lutherans at Seville and Valladolid
(for, until then, scarcely anything had been written on the subject),
though the number of Lutherans who perished was small, when compared to
the enormous and almost incredible number of those who had suffered as
Jews or Mahometans.

The first solemn _auto-da-fé_ of Valladolid was celebrated on the 21st
of May, 1559, in the grand square, and in the presence of the Prince Don
Carlos, and the Princess Juana, of the civil authorities, and of a
considerable number of the grandees of Spain, besides an immense
multitude of people. The arrangement of the scaffolds and seats have
been already described in several works, and represented in prints.
Fourteen persons were relaxed, the bones and effigy of a woman burnt,
and sixteen individuals were admitted to reconciliation, with penances.
Some details of the principal persons may be found interesting.

Donna Eleonora de Vibero (the wife of Pedro Cazalla, who held an office
in the Treasury), daughter of Juan de Vibero, who had a similar
employment, and Constance Ortiz, was proprietress of a chapel in the
Benedictine convent of Valladolid. She had been interred without any
doubt of her orthodoxy; but she was accused of Lutheranism by the fiscal
of the Inquisition, though he said she had concealed her opinions, by
receiving the sacraments and the eucharist at her death. He supported
his accusation by the testimony of several witnesses who had been
tortured or threatened, the result of which was that the house of
Eleonora de Vibero had been used as a temple by the Lutherans. Her
memory and her posterity were condemned to infamy, her property
confiscated, her body disinterred and burnt with her effigy, and her
house razed to the ground, and prohibited from being rebuilt; a monument
with an inscription relating to this event was placed on the spot. I
have seen the column and the inscription; I have heard that it was
destroyed in 1809.

The other principal persons who perished in this _auto-da-fé_ were,
Doctor Augustin Cazalla, priest and canon of Salamanca, almoner and
preacher to the king and emperor; he was the son of Pedro Cazalla and
Eleonora de Vibero, and descended from the Jews both by his father and
mother. He was accused of professing the Lutheran heresy; of having
dogmatized in the Lutheran conventicle of Valladolid, and corresponded
with the heretics of Seville. Cazalla denied the facts imputed to him in
several declarations on oath, and in others which he presented when the
_publication of the proofs_ took place. The torture was decreed:
Cazalla, on the 4th of March, was conducted to the dungeon where it was
to be inflicted, but it did not take place, as the prisoner promised to
make a confession. He gave it in writing, and ratified it on the 16th,
acknowledging that he was a Lutheran, but denied having taught the
doctrine. He explained the motives which had prevented him from making
this declaration before; and promised to be a good catholic for the
future, if reconciliation was granted to him; but the inquisitors did
not think proper to spare him the capital punishment, as the witnesses
affirmed that he had dogmatized. Cazalla, however, continued to give
every possible proof of conversion until his execution: when he saw that
death was inevitable, he began to preach to his companions in
misfortune. Two days before his death, he related some particulars of
his life. He was born in 1510: at the age of seventeen he had
Bartholomew Carranza de Miranda for his confessor, in the college of St.
Gregory at Valladolid; he continued his studies at Alcala de Henares,
where he remained till 1536. In 1545 Charles V. made him his preacher;
in the following year he accompanied that prince to Germany, and stayed
there till 1552, preaching against the Lutherans; he returned in that
year to Spain, and retired to Salamanca, where he lived for three years,
going sometimes to Valladolid. He once attended, by the emperor's order,
at an assembly where Don Antonio Fonseca, president of the Royal Council
of Castile, presided, and at which the Licentiate Otalora, the Doctors
Ribera and Velasco, auditors of the council and chancery, and Brothers
Alphonso de Castro and Bartholomew Carranza assisted. The object of the
meeting was to decide on the course to be pursued on the occasion of
certain briefs which the Court of Rome had expedited against those who
approved of the decrees of the Council of Trent, which continued to
assemble in that city, though the Pope had commanded that it should be
transferred to Bologna. Cazalla declared that all the members of the
junta acknowledged that the Pope only acted from motives of personal
interest; and that Bartholomew Carranza particularly distinguished
himself by inveighing against the abuses of the Court of Rome. On the
20th of May, the day before his death, he received a visit from Brother
Antonio de la Carrera, a monk of St. Jerome, who was sent to him by the
inquisitors, to inform him that they were not satisfied with his
declarations, and to exhort him, for the good of his conscience, to
confess all that he knew of himself and others. Cazalla answered, that
he could not say more, without bearing false-witness. The monk replied,
that he had always denied that he had dogmatized, though the contrary
was proved by the witnesses. He said, that this crime had been unjustly
imputed to him; that he was guilty of not having undeceived those who
held bad doctrines; but that he had only spoken of his opinions to
persons who thought as he did: Brother Antonio then exhorted him to
prepare for death on the following day. This information was a
thunderbolt to Cazalla, who had expected to be admitted to a
reconciliation. He demanded if his punishment might not be commuted:
Carrera told him, that if he confessed what he had hitherto concealed,
he might hope for mercy. _Well then_, said Cazalla, _I must prepare to
die in the grace of God; for it is impossible that I should add anything
to what I have already said, unless I lie_. He then began to encourage
himself to suffer death; he confessed several times in the same night,
and the next day to Antonio de la Carrera. When he arrived at the place
of the _auto-da-fé_, he asked permission to preach to those who were to
suffer with him; he could not obtain it, but he addressed a few words to
them: as he was a penitent, he was strangled before, he was burnt. When
he was fastened to the stake, he confessed for the last time, and his
confessor was so affected by all that he had seen and heard during the
last twenty-four hours, that he afterwards wrote, "that he had no doubt
that Doctor Cazalla was in Heaven."

Francis de Vibero Cazalla, brother to Augustin, a priest, and Curate of
Hormigos in the diocese of Palencia, at first denied the charges,
confessed them when tortured, ratified his confession, and demanded to
be admitted to reconciliation. This was refused, as it was supposed that
he had only confessed from the fear of death. In fact, he ridiculed his
brother's exhortations on the scaffold, and expired in the flames
without showing any signs of repentance. He was degraded from the
priesthood, as well as his brother, before he ascended the scaffold.

Donna Beatrice de Cazalla, sister to the above-mentioned persons, and
Alphonso Perez, at first denied the charges, confessed during the
torture, demanded reconciliation, but were strangled and burnt.

Don Christobal de Ocampo, of Seville, a knight of the order of St. John,
and almoner to the Grand Prior of Castile and Leon, and Don Christobal
de Padilla, a knight and inhabitant of Zamora, were condemned to the
same punishment for Lutheranism.

The licentiate Antonio Herrezuelo, a lawyer of the city of Toro,
condemned as a Lutheran, died without any signs of repentance. Doctor
Cazalla addressed some words to him in particular; Antonio ridiculed his
discourse, although he was already fastened to the stake. One of the
archers, furious at so much courage, plunged his lance into the body of
Herrezuelo; he died without uttering a word.

Juan Garcia, a goldsmith of Valladolid, and the licentiate Perez de
Herrera, judge of the court against smugglers, in Logrono, suffered as
Lutherans. Gonzalez Baez, the Portuguese mentioned in the preceding
chapter, suffered as a Judaic heretic.

Donna Catherine de Ortega, widow of the commander Loaisa, and daughter
to Hernand Diaz, fiscal of the Royal Council of Castile, was condemned
as a Lutheran, and made her confession. She suffered the same fate with
Catherine Roman de Pedrosa, Isabella d'Estrada, and Jane Blazquiez, a
servant of the Marchioness d'Alcanizes. None of these persons had
dogmatized, none had relapsed, but they were condemned because they only
confessed during the torture.

Among the persons reconciled were distinguished,--Don Pedro Sarmiento de
Roxas, a knight of the order of St. Jago, commander of Quintana, and the
son of the first Marquis of Poza. He was condemned as a Lutheran,
deprived of his orders, clothed in the perpetual _San-benito_,
imprisoned for life, devoted to infamy, and his property confiscated.

Don Louis de Roxas, nephew of the above, was charged with the same
crime; he was exiled from Madrid, Valladolid, and Palencia, and
prohibited from leaving Spain; his property was confiscated, and he was
declared incapable of succeeding to the marquisate of Poza, which passed
to his youngest brother.

Donna Mencia de Figueroa, wife of Don Pedro Sarmiento de Roxas, and an
attendant of the Queen of Spain, was condemned, for Lutheranism, to wear
the _San-benito_, to imprisonment for life, and the confiscation of her
property.

Donna Anna Henriquez de Roxas, daughter of the Marquis d'Alcanizes, and
the wife of Don Juan Alphonso de Fonseca Mexia, was condemned as a
Lutheran. She appeared in the _auto-da-fé_ with the _San-benito_, and
was afterwards shut up in a monastery. She was twenty-four years of age,
was perfectly acquainted with the Latin tongue, and had read the works
of Calvin, and those of Constantine Ponce de la Fuente.

Donna Maria de Roxas, a nun of the convent of St. Catherine of
Valladolid, and daughter to the first Marquis de Poza. She was condemned
as a Lutheran, conducted to the _auto-da-fé_ with the _San-benito_, and
secluded for life in her convent. The Inquisition commanded that she
should be treated as the lowest in the community in the choir and
refectory, and deprived of the power of voting.

Don Juan de Ulloa Pereira, a knight commander of the order of St. John
of Jerusalem. He was son and brother to the Lords de la Mota, who were
soon after made Marquisses, and an inhabitant of Toro. He was condemned,
for Lutheranism, to wear the _San-benito_, to be imprisoned for life,
and to be deprived of his property. He was declared infamous, incapable
of obtaining dignities, stript of the habit and cross of his order, and
banished from Madrid, Valladolid, and Toro, but was prohibited from
quitting the kingdom. In 1565, Ulloa represented his situation to the
Pope, reminding him of his services in fighting against the Turks,
particularly when he took five ships of the pirate Caramani Arraez; he
added that the inquisitor-general had remitted the continuation of his
penance for more than a year, but that he wished to regain his rank as a
knight, as he was still capable of serving. The Pope granted a brief in
favour of Ulloa, rehabilitating him in his privileges as a knight, with
a particular clause, stating that what had passed could not prevent him
from attaining the superior dignities of his order, provided the
inquisitor-general and the grand master of Malta approved the decree.
Ulloa was then reinstated in his commandery.

Juan de Vibero Cazalla, a brother of Augustin, and Donna Juana Silva de
Ribera, his wife, were condemned, as Lutherans, to be deprived of their
liberty and their property, and to wear the _San-benito_.

Donna Constance de Vibero Cazalla, sister of Augustin, and widow of
Hernand Ortiz, was condemned to wear the _San-benito_, to perpetual
imprisonment, and the confiscation of her property. When Augustin saw
his sister pass, he turned to the princess governess, and said to her:
_Princess, I entreat your highness to have compassion on that
unfortunate woman, who will leave thirteen orphans_.

Eleonora de Cisneros, aged twenty-four, the wife of Antonio Herrezuelo,
and Donna Francisca Zuñiga de Baeza, were condemned to the
_San-benito_, imprisonment, and confiscation.

Marina de Saavedra, the widow of Juan Cisneros de Soto, a distinguished
gentleman, Isabella Minguez, a servant of Donna Beatrice Cazalla, and
Antonio Minguez, the brother of Isabella, suffered the same punishment.

Anthony Wasor, an Englishman, servant to Don Louis de Roxas, was
condemned to wear the _San-benito_, to lose his property, and be
confined in a convent for one year.

Daniel de la Quadra lost his liberty and property, and took the
perpetual _San-benito_, as a Lutheran.

The sermon on the faith was preached by the celebrated Melchior Cano,
after all the assembly had witnessed a scandalous transaction. When the
court and all the other attendants had taken their places, Don Francis
Baca, Inquisitor of Valladolid, advanced towards the Prince of Asturias,
Don Carlos, and his aunt, the princess Juana, to demand and receive from
them an oath to maintain and defend the Inquisition, and to reveal to it
all that might have been said against the faith by any person within
their knowledge. It had been decreed at the establishment of the
Inquisition, that the magistrate who presided at an _auto-da-fé_ should
take a similar oath, but sovereigns cannot be considered as magistrates.
Don Carlos and his aunt took the oath, but subsequent events show how
much he was displeased at the boldness of this inquisitor: he was then
aged fourteen years.


_Second Auto-da-fé._

The second _Auto-da-fé_ of Valladolid took place on the 8th of October,
in the same year, 1559; it was still more splendid than the first, on
account of the presence of Philip II. The inquisitors had waited his
return from the Low Countries, to do him honour in this grand festival.

Thirteen persons, with a corpse and an effigy, were burnt, and sixteen
admitted to reconciliation. The king was accompanied by his son, his
sister, the Prince of Parma, three ambassadors from France, the
Archbishop of Seville, the Bishops of Palencia and Zamora, and other
bishops elect; there were also present, the constable and admiral, the
Dukes de Naxara and d'Arcos, the Marquis de Denia, afterwards Duke of
Lerma, the Marquis d'Astorga, and the Count de Ureña, afterwards Duke of
Ossuna, the Count de Benavente, the Count de Buendia, the last
grand-master of the military order of Montesa, Don Louis Borgia, the
Grand Prior of Castile and Leon, a knight of the order of St. John of
Jerusalem, Don Antonio de Toledo, son and brother to the Dukes of Alva;
several other grandees of Spain, not named in the verbal-process of this
execution, and many persons of lower rank: the Countess de Ribadabia,
and other ladies of distinction, besides the councils, the tribunals,
and other authorities.

The sermon on the faith was preached by the Bishop of Cuença: the
Bishops of Palencia and Zamora degraded the condemned priests; and the
inquisitor-general, the Archbishop of Seville, demanded and received
from the king the same oath which had been administered to Don Carlos.
The condemned persons were:--

Don Carlos de Seso, a noble of Verona, son to the Bishop of Placenza in
Italy, and one of the most noble families in the country; he was
forty-three years of age, passed for a learned man, who had rendered
great services to the emperor, and had held the office of Corregidor of
Toro. He married Donna Isabella de Castilla, daughter of Don Francis de
Castilla, who were descended from the king Don Pedro _the Cruel_. After
his marriage he settled at Villamediana, near Logroño. He there openly
preached heresy, and was the principal author of the progress of
Lutheranism at Valladolid, Palencia, Zamora, and the boroughs depending
on those cities. He was arrested at Logroño, and taken to the secret
prisons of Valladolid. He answered the requisition of the fiscal on the
28th of June, 1558. His sentence was communicated to him on the 7th of
October, 1559, and he was told to prepare to suffer death on the
following day. De Seso asked for ink and paper, and wrote his
confession, which was entirely Lutheran; he said that this doctrine, and
not that taught by the Roman Church, which had been corrupted for
several centuries, was the true faith of the gospel; that he would die
in that belief, and that he offered himself to God in memory of the
passion of Jesus Christ. It would be difficult to express the vigour and
energy of his writing, which filled two sheets of paper. De Seso was
exhorted during the night, and on the morning of the 8th, but without
success; he was gagged, that he might not have the power of preaching
his doctrine. When he was fastened to the stake, the gag was taken from
his mouth, and he was again exhorted to confess himself; he replied with
a loud voice, and great firmness: "If I had sufficient time, I would
convince you that you are lost, by not following my example. Hasten to
light the wood which is to consume me." The executioners complied, and
De Seso died impenitent.

Pedro de Cazalla, curate of the parish of Pedrosa; he was the brother of
Augustin Cazalla, and aged thirty-three. He was arrested on the 23rd of
April, 1558, and confessed that he was a Lutheran. He demanded to be
reconciled, but was sentenced to be _relaxed_ because he had preached
the heretical doctrine. On the 7th of October he was informed of his
sentence, but refused to confess; when he was fastened to the stake, he
asked for a confessor, and was then strangled, and afterwards burnt.

Dominic Sanchez, a priest of Villamediana, adopted the Lutheran heresy,
after having heard De Seso and read his books. He was condemned to be
burnt, and followed the example of Pedro de Cazalla.

Dominic de Roxas, a Dominican priest; he was a disciple of Bartholomew
Carranza. His father was the Marquis de Poza, who had two children
punished in the first _auto-da-fé_. Brother Dominic was forty years of
age. He was taken at Calahorra, disguised as a layman; he had taken the
habit to conceal himself from the agents of the Inquisition, until he
could escape to Flanders, after an interview which he wished to have
with Don Carlos de Seso. He made his first declaration before the Holy
Office, on the 13th of May, 1558; he was obliged to make several others,
because he retracted in one what he advanced in another; he was
condemned to the torture for these recantations. Brother Dominic
intreated that he might be spared the horrors of the question, as he
dreaded it more than death. This request was granted on condition that
he would promise to reveal what he had hitherto concealed; he consented,
and added several new declarations to the first; he afterwards demanded
to be reconciled. On the 7th of October, he was exhorted to prepare for
death; he then made some discoveries in favour of persons against whom
he had spoken in the preceding examinations; but he refused to confess,
and when he descended from the scaffold of the _auto-da-fé_, he turned
towards the king, and exclaimed, that he was going to die for the true
faith, which was that of Luther. Philip II. commanded that he should be
gagged. He was still in that situation when he was fastened to the
stake; but when they began to light the fire his courage failed, he
demanded a confessor, received absolution, and was strangled.

Juan Sanchez, a servant of Pedro de Cazalla, and Donna Catherine
Hortega; he was thirty-three years of age. The fear of being arrested by
the Inquisition induced him to go to Valladolid, in order to escape to
the Low Countries, under the forged name of Juan de Vibar. The
inquisitors were informed of his intention by his letters written at
Castrourdiales, addressed to Donna Catherine Hortega, while she was in
prison. The inquisitors gave information to the king, who commissioned
Don Francis de Castilla Alcalde, of the court, to arrest him. Sanchez
was taken at Turlingen, and transferred to Valladolid, where he was
condemned to _relaxation_, as a dogmatizing and impenitent Lutheran. He
was gagged until he was fastened to the stake. As he did not ask for a
confessor, the pile was lighted, and when the cords which held him were
burnt, he darted to the top of the scaffold, from whence he could see
that several of the condemned confessed, that they might avoid the
flames. The priests again exhorted him to confess, but seeing that De
Seso remained firm in his resolution, he returned and told them to add
more wood, for that he would die like Don Carlos de Seso. The archers
and executioners obeyed his injunctions, and he perished in the flames.

Donna Euphrosyne Rios, a nun of the order of Santa Clara of Valladolid,
was convicted of Lutheranism by twenty-two witnesses; she continued
impenitent until she was fastened to the stake, when she confessed, and
was strangled and burnt.

Donna Marina de Guevara, a nun of the convent of Belen at Valladolid, of
the order of Cistercians; she was related to the family of Poza. Marina
confessed the facts, but could not avoid her condemnation, though she
demanded to be reconciled. This was the more surprising, as the
inquisitor-general made great efforts to save her life; he was the
intimate friend of several of her relations, and being informed that the
inquisitors of Valladolid intended to condemn her, he authorized Don
Alphonso Tellez Giron, Lord of Montalban and cousin to Marina, and the
Duke of Ossuna, to visit the accused, and press her to confess what she
denied, and the witnesses affirmed; but Marina said that she could not
add anything to what she had already declared.

She was condemned to be _relaxed_, but the sentence was not immediately
published, as it was the custom to do so only on the day before the
_auto-da-fé_; and as the rules of 1541 allow the sentence of death to
be revoked if the criminals repent before they are given up to secular
justice, the inquisitor-general sent Don Alphonso Giron a second time to
his cousin, to exhort her to confess all, and avoid death. This conduct
of Valdés displeased the inquisitors of Valladolid, who spoke of it as a
singular and scandalous preference. Valdés applied to the Supreme
Council, which commanded that the visit should be made in the presence
of one or two inquisitors. This last attempt did not succeed better than
the first; Marina persisted in her declaration, and was burnt.

Donna Catherine de Reinoso, a nun in the same convent, Donna Margaret de
Santisteban, and Donna, Maria de Miranda, nuns of Santa Clara at
Valladolid, were likewise strangled and burnt as Lutherans.

Pedro de Sotelo and Francis d'Almarzo suffered the same punishment for
Lutheranism, with Francis Blanco, a New Christian; who had abjured
Mahometanism, and had afterwards fallen into error.

Jane Sanchez, of the class of women called Beates, was condemned as a
Lutheran: when she was informed of her sentence, she cut her throat with
a pair of scissors, and died impenitent some days after in prison. Her
corpse was taken to the _auto-da-fé_ on a bier, and burnt with her
effigy.

Sixteen persons were condemned to penances. I shall only mention those
distinguished for their rank or the nature of their trials.

Donna Isabella de Castilla, the wife of Don Carlos de Seso, voluntarily
confessed that she had adopted some of her husband's opinions; she was
condemned to wear the _san-benito_, to be imprisoned for life, and to be
deprived of her property.

Donna Catherine de Castilla, the niece of the above, suffered the same
punishment.

Donna Francisca de Zuñiga Reinoso, sister to Donna Catherine, who was
burnt in the same _auto-da-fé_, and a nun in the same convent was
condemned, with Donna Philippina de Heredia and Donna Catherine
d'Alcaraz, two of her companions, to be deprived of the power of voting
in her community, and prohibited from going out of the convent.

Antonio Sanchez, an inhabitant of Salamanca, was punished as a false
witness; it was proved that he had deposed falsely for the purpose of
causing a Jew to be burnt: he was condemned to receive two hundred
stripes; was deprived of half his property, and sent to the galleys for
five years. The compassion of the inquisitors for this sort of criminals
is an incontestable fact, although they did not hesitate to condemn
heretics to death, if they had only concealment, or an insincere
repentance to reproach them with.

Pedro d'Aguilar, a shearer, born at Tordesillas, pretended to be an
alguazil of the Inquisition, and appeared at Valladolid with the _wand_
of the Holy Office on the day of the celebration of the first
_auto-da-fé_; he afterwards went to a town in the province of Campos,
where he said that he was commissioned to open the tomb of a bishop, and
take the bones to be burnt in an _auto-da-fé_, as belonging to a man who
had died in the Judaic heresy. Pedro was condemned to receive four
hundred stripes, to have his property confiscated, and to be sent to the
galleys for life. This affair proves that the inquisitors considered it
a much greater crime to pretend to be an alguazil of the Holy Office,
than to bear false-witness, and to cause the death of a man, the
confiscation of his property, and the condemnation of his posterity to
infamy!

Such is the history of the two celebrated _autos-da-fé_ of Valladolid,
of which so much has been said, although nothing certain was known of
them. It is an interesting circumstance that the Inquisition was at the
same time proceeding against forty-five persons distinguished for their
rank or personal qualities; of these forty-five persons, ten had been
arrested. It is not to be supposed that the inquisitors only prosecuted
these persons: the trial of Carranza, Archbishop of Seville, was the
origin of a great number against bishops and other distinguished
individuals. I have confined myself to those of which I could consult
the papers; it would be a task beyond the strength of one man to read
all that have accumulated in the archives.




CHAPTER XXI.

HISTORY OF TWO AUTOS-DA-FE, CELEBRATED AGAINST THE LUTHERANS IN THE CITY
OF SEVILLE.


An _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated on the 24th of September, 1559, in the
place of St. Francis, at Seville, not less remarkable for the rank of
the condemned, than for the nature of their trials. Four bishops
attended at it; the coadjutor of Seville, those of Largo and the
Canaries, who happened to be in the city, and of Tarrazona, whom the
king had authorized to reside at Seville as vice-inquisitor-general.

The inquisitors of the district of Seville were Don Michel del Carpio,
Don Andres Gasco, and Don Francis Galdo; Don Juan de Obando represented
the archbishop. I make this remark, to show that none of the judges were
named _Vargas_, as the author of a romance entitled _Cornelia Bororquia_
has asserted.

This _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated before the royal court of justice, the
chapter of the cathedral, some grandees of Spain, and a great number of
titled persons and gentlemen; the Duchess of Bejar was present with
several ladies, and an immense concourse of people. Twenty-one persons
were _relaxed_, with an effigy of a contumacious person, and eighty
persons condemned to penances, the greatest number of whom were
Lutherans; I shall mention the most remarkable instances.

The effigy was that of Francis Zafra, the beneficed priest of the parish
of St. Vincent of Seville, who was condemned as a Lutheran, but had made
his escape. Gonzalez de Montes gives a long account of this man, which I
found to be correct, on examining the papers of the holy office. He says
that Francis Zafra was well versed in the Scriptures; for some time he
succeeded in concealing his inclination to Lutheranism, and was employed
by the inquisitors to qualify denounced propositions, and that he was
thus enabled to save many persons from being condemned. He had received
into his house one of the women called _Beates_, who (after obstinately
supporting the new doctrines) became so much deranged, that he was
obliged to confine and scourge her, to calm her violence. In 1555, this
woman escaped, and denounced three hundred persons as Lutherans to the
Inquisition: the inquisitors drew up a list of them; Francis Zafra was
summoned, and although he was mentioned as one of the principal
heretics, proved that they could not receive the evidence of a person
whose mind was so much disordered[20]. As the holy office never
neglected anything that could assist in discovering heresy, this list
caused the conduct of many persons to be strictly observed, and more
than eight hundred were arrested; Francis Zafra was one of the
prisoners, but he contrived to escape, and was burnt in effigy as
contumacious.

The first person I shall mention as condemned to relaxation, was Donna
Isabella de Baena, a rich lady of Seville. Her house was razed to the
ground for having served as a temple to the Lutherans.

I find, among the other victims at Seville, Don Juan Ponce de Leon,
youngest son to the Count de Baylen; he was cousin-german to the Duke
d'Arcos, and related to the Duchess de Bejar, who were both present at
his _auto-da-fé_. He was condemned as an impenitent Lutheran: he at
first denied the charges, but confessed during the torture: the
inquisitors sent a priest, with whom he was well acquainted, to persuade
him that it would be to his advantage if he confessed the truth. Ponce
was deceived, and made the confession they required; but on discovering
his mistake, the day before the _auto-da-fé_, he made one truly
Lutheran, and treated the priest who attended him with contempt.
Gonzalez de Montes pretends that he persisted in his sentiments, but he
is mistaken, for Ponce confessed when he was fastened to the stake, and
strangled before he was burnt.

Don Juan Gonzalez, a priest of Seville, and a celebrated preacher of
Andalusia, embraced Mahometanism at twelve years of age, because his
parents were Moors, but he was reconciled by the Inquisition. Some time
after he was imprisoned as a Lutheran, but obstinately persisted in
refusing to confess, even when tortured; affirming that his opinions
were founded on the Holy Scriptures, and that, consequently, he could
not be a heretic. This example was imitated by his two sisters, who
suffered in the same _auto-da-fé_: When the gags were taken from their
mouths, Don Juan told them to sing the 106th psalm. They died (say the
Protestants) in the faith of Jesus Christ, and detesting the errors of
the _Papists_.

Brother Garcia de Arias (surnamed the _White Doctor_, on account of the
extreme whiteness of his hair) was a Jeronimite of the Convent of St.
Isidore, at Seville; he was condemned as an impenitent Lutheran, and
perished in the flames. He had professed the doctrines of Luther for
several years, but his sentiments were known only to the principal
partisans of the heresy, such as Vargas, Egidius, and Constantine: his
prudence was so great, that he was looked upon as an orthodox theologian
and of the greatest piety: he even carried his dissimulation so far as
to profess to be an enemy to the Lutherans. He was several times
employed to qualify heretical propositions, and appeared to be so
devoted to the inquisitorial system, that though he was denounced
several times, the inquisitors declared that the informers acted out of
hatred to him. However, the informations were communicated to him, that
he might be more cautious in his conversations with suspicious persons.

His conduct towards Gregorio Riuz ought to be recorded. Riuz was
denounced for some explanations of doctrine in a sermon; being obliged
to appear and defend his doctrine before theologians, he applied to his
friend, the White Doctor, who wished to hear his exposition of the
principles he intended for his defence, and the solutions he had
prepared for the difficulties which he might meet with. When the
assembly took place, the Inquisitors commissioned Arias to argue against
Riuz, who was much surprised to see him at this conference, and still
more so, when he heard him speak in such a manner, that the answers he
had prepared were entirely useless. Riuz sunk under this attack, and the
doctor Arias was severely reproached for his treachery by the Lutheran
doctors, Vargas, Egidius, and Constantine.

Arias taught the Lutheran doctrine to some monks of his convent: one of
them (Brother Cassiodorus) made so much progress in it, that he
converted almost all the monks of the community, so that the monastic
exercises were no longer practised. Twelve of these persons being
alarmed at this state of things fled to Germany; the rest who remained
at Seville, were condemned by the Inquisition. The same fate awaited
Garcia d'Arias; the depositions against him continued to multiply, and
he was at last arrested. Foreseeing the result of his trial, he made a
confession of his faith, and undertook to prove, that the opinions of
Luther were founded on the gospel. He persevered in his impenitence, and
no Catholic could convert him, because he understood doctrine better
than those who disputed with him.

Donna Maria de Virues, Donna Maria Cornel, and Donna Maria Bohorques,
also perished in this _auto-da-fé_. They were all young, and of the
highest class of nobility. The history of the last of these ladies ought
to be made known, on account of some circumstances in her trial, and
because a Spaniard has composed a _novel_ under the title of _Cornelia
Bororquia_, which he affirms to be rather a history than a romance,
although it is neither the one nor the other, but a collection of scenes
and events badly conceived, in which he has not even given the actors
their true names, from not having understood the History of the
Inquisition by Limborch. This historian has mentioned two of the ladies
by the names of _Cornelia_ and _Bohorquia_, which means _Donna Maria
Cornel_, and _Donna Maria Bohorquia_. The Spanish author has united
these names, to designate _Cornelia Bororquia_ an imaginary person. He
has supposed a love-intrigue between her and the inquisitor-general,
which is absurd, since he was at Madrid. He has also introduced
examinations which never took place in the tribunal; in short, the
intention of the author was to criticise and ridicule the Inquisition,
and the fear of being punished for it induced him to fly to Bayonne. A
good cause becomes bad when falsehood is employed in its defence: the
true history of the Inquisition is sufficient to show how much it merits
the detestation of the human race, and it is therefore useless to employ
fictions or satire. The same may be said of the _Gusmanade_, a French
poem, containing assertions false and injurious to the memory of St.
Dominic de Guzman, whose personal conduct was very pure, though he may
be blamed for his conduct to the Albigenses.

Donna Maria de Bohorques, was the natural daughter of Pedro Garcia de
Xerez Bohorques of one of the first families of Seville, and from which
sprung the Marquises de Ruchena, grandees of the first class. She was
not twenty-one years of age when she was arrested as a Lutheran. She had
been instructed by the doctor, Juan Gil (or Egidius), was perfectly
acquainted with the Latin language, and understood Greek; she had many
Lutheran books, and had committed to memory the Gospels, and some of the
principal works which explain the text in a Lutheran sense. She was
conducted to the secret prisons, where she acknowledged her opinions,
and defended them as Catholic. She said that some of the facts and
propositions contained in the depositions were true, but denied the
others, either because she had forgotten them, or was afraid to
compromise others. She was then tortured, and confessed that her sister,
Jane Bohorques, was acquainted with her sentiments, and had not
disapproved them. The fatal consequences of this confession will be
shown hereafter. The definitive sentence was pronounced, and Maria
Bohorques was condemned to _relaxation_. As the sentence was not
communicated to the prisoner till the day before the _auto-da-fé_, the
inquisitors desired that Maria should be exhorted during the interval.
Two Jesuits and two Dominicans were successively sent to her. They
returned full of admiration at the learning of the prisoner, but
displeased at her obstinacy, in explaining the texts of Scripture which
they proposed, in a Lutheran sense. On the day before the _auto-da-fé_,
two other Dominicans went with the first, to make a last effort to
convert Maria, and they were followed by several other theologians of
different religious orders. Maria received them with as much pleasure as
politeness, but she told them, that they might spare themselves the
trouble of speaking to her of their doctrines, as they could not be more
concerned for her salvation than she was herself; that she would
renounce her opinions if she felt the least uncertainty; but that she
was still more convinced that she was right, since so many _popish_
theologians had not been able to advance any arguments, for which she
had not prepared a solid and conclusive answer. At the place of
execution, Don Juan Ponce de Leon, who had abjured heresy, exhorted
Maria to do the same. She received his advice very ill, and called him
_ignorant, an idiot, and a babbler_: she added, that it was no longer a
time to dispute, and that the few moments they had to live ought to be
employed in meditating on the passion and death of their Redeemer, to
reanimate the faith by which they were to be justified and saved.
Although she was so obstinate, several priests, and a great number of
monks, earnestly entreated that she might be spared, in consideration of
her extreme youth and surprising merit, if she would consent to repeat
the _Credo_. The inquisitors granted their request; but scarcely had
Maria finished it, than she began to interpret the articles on the
Catholic faith, and the judgment of the quick and the dead, according to
the opinions of Luther: they did not give her time to conclude; the
executioner strangled her, and she was afterwards burnt. Such is the
true history of Maria Bohorques, according to the writings of the
Inquisition.

Paul IV. died at Rome on the 18th of August, 1559, a few days before the
_auto-da-fé_ at Seville. When the Romans learnt this event, they went in
crowds to the Inquisition, set all the prisoners at liberty, and burnt
the house and the archives of the tribunal. It cost much money and
trouble to prevent the enraged populace from burning the convent _De la
Sapienza_ of the Dominicans, who conducted all the affairs of the Roman
Inquisition. The principal commissioner was wounded, and his house
burnt. The statue of Paul IV. was taken from the capitol and destroyed;
the arms of the house of Carafa were everywhere defaced, and even the
mortal remains of the Pope would have been abused, if the Canons of the
Vatican had not interred him secretly, and if the guards had not
defended the pontifical residence[21]. This revolt of the Romans did not
alarm the inquisitors of Spain, where the people had been brought up by
the monks in different principles from those professed by their
ancestors under the reign of Ferdinand, and the first ten years of that
of Charles V.


_Auto-da-fé of the year 1560._

The inquisitors of Seville, who had perhaps depended on the presence of
Philip II., prepared another _auto-da-fé_ for him similar to that of
Valladolid. When they had lost all hope of that honour, the ceremony was
performed: it took place on the 22nd of December, 1560. Fourteen
individuals were burnt in person (_i. e._ relaxed), and three in effigy;
thirty-four were subjected to penances, and the reconciliation of three
other persons was read before the _auto-da-fé_. The effigies were those
of the Doctors Egidius, Constantine, and Juan Perez.

Constantine Ponce de la Fuente was born at _San Clemente de la Mancha_,
in the diocese of Cuença; he finished his studies at Alcala de Henares,
with the Doctor Juan Gil, or _Egidius_; and with Vargas, who died during
his trial. These three theologians were the principal chiefs of the
Lutherans at Seville, whom they secretly directed, enjoying at the same
time the reputation of good Catholics and virtuous priests. Egidius
preached much in the metropolitan church; Constantine was less ardent in
his zeal, but he obtained as much applause; Vargas explained the
Scriptures in the pulpit of the municipality. Constantine refused the
dignity of magisterial canon, which was offered to him both by the
Chapter of Cuença and that of Toledo. Charles V. appointed him his
almoner and preacher; in this quality he took him to Germany, where he
made a long stay. On his return to Seville, he directed the College _de
la Doctrina_, and there established a pulpit to preach the Holy
Scriptures, of which he appointed the salary: he undertook to fill the
office, and during this period the Canons' corporation offered him the
place of magisterial canon; exempting him from the usual competition.
Some of the canons recollecting the unfortunate consequences of the
election of Juan Gil (who was appointed in the same manner), wished that
the competition should take place. Constantine was requested to submit
to it, and assured that he would triumph over the competitors. This, in
fact, took place in 1556, in opposition to the appeals and intrigues of
the only person who had the courage to compete with him. While
Constantine continued to enjoy general esteem, the declarations of a
great number of prisoners who were arrested for Lutheranism, caused his
arrest in 1558, some months before the death of Charles V. During the
time that he was preparing his defence, an accident happened which
rendered it useless.

Isabella Martinez, a widow of Seville, was arrested as a Lutheran. Her
property was sequestrated; but it was soon found, that Francis Beltran,
her son, had concealed several chests of valuable effects before the
inventory was taken. Constantine had committed some prohibited books to
the care of this woman, who concealed them in her cellar. The
inquisitors sent Louis Sotelo, the alguazil of the holy office, to
Francis Beltran, to claim the effects which he had concealed. Francis,
on seeing the alguazil, did not doubt that his mother had declared the
concealment of the books given to her care by Constantine, and without
waiting until Sotelo should tell him the cause of his visit, he said,
_Señor Sotelo, I suppose that you come for the things deposited in my
mother's house. If you will promise that I shall not be punished for not
giving information of them, I will show you what there is hidden there._
Beltran then conducted the alguazil to his mother's house, and pulled
down part of the wall, behind which the Lutheran books of Constantine
had been concealed; Sotelo, astonished at this sight, told him that he
should take possession of the books, but that he did not consider
himself bound by his promise, as he only came to claim the effects which
he had concealed. This declaration increased the alarm of Beltran, and
he gave everything up to the alguazil, on condition that he might remain
free in his house. This denunciation had been made by a servant, who
hoped to obtain the benefit of the act of Ferdinand V., which assigns
the fourth part of the concealed effects to the informer.

Among the prohibited books, were found several writings by Constantine
Ponce de Fuente, which treated of the true church according to the
principles of the Lutherans, and proved in their manner, that this
church was not that of the _papists_: he also discussed in them several
other points on which the Lutherans differed from the Catholics.
Constantine could not deny these papers, as they were in his own
hand-writing; he confessed that they contained the profession of his
faith, but refused to name his accomplices and disciples. The
inquisitors, instead of decreeing the torture, plunged him into a deep,
humid, and obscure dungeon, where the air, impregnated with the most
dangerous miasma, soon altered his health. Overcome by this persecution,
he exclaimed, "_My God, were there no Scythians or cannibals into whose
hands to deliver me, rather than to let me fall into the power of these
barbarians!_" This situation could not last long; Constantine fell sick,
and died of a dysentery: it was reported, when the _auto-da-fé_ was
celebrated, that he had killed himself to avoid his punishment. His
trial was as celebrated as his person. The inquisitors caused the
_merits_ or charges against him to be read in a pulpit close to their
seats, where the people could not hear them; the Corregidor Calderon
remarked the circumstance twice, and they were obliged to begin it again
where those of the other trials were read. Constantine had published the
first part of a catechism; the second was not printed. The following
works of Constantine were inserted in the prohibitory Index, published
in 1559, by Don Ferdinand Valdés:--An Abridgment of the Christian
Doctrine; a Dialogue on the same subject, between a Master and his
Disciple; The Confession of a Sinner to Jesus Christ; A Christian
Catechism; An Exposition of the Psalm, _Beatus qui non abiit in concilio
impiorum_. Alphonso de Ulloa, in his Life of Charles V., gives the
highest praise to the works of Constantine, particularly his Treatise on
the Christian Doctrine, which was translated into Italian[22]. The
effigy of Contantine was not like those of the other condemned persons
(which were an unformed mass surmounted by a head); it was an entire
figure with the arms spread, as Constantine was accustomed to do when
preaching, and was clothed in garments which appeared to have belonged
to him. After the _auto-da-fé_, this figure was taken back to the Holy
Office, and a common effigy was burnt with the bones of the condemned.

Another prisoner died in the dungeons of the Inquisition; he was
(according to Gonzalez de Montis) a monk of the Convent of St. Isidore,
named Ferdinand. The same author affirms, that one Olmedo, a Lutheran,
was likewise carried off by an epidemic disease which ravaged the
prisons, and that he uttered groans similar to those of Constantine when
he was dying. I have not found that any Inquisition in Spain has, of
late years, condemned any person to this sort of dungeon, unless the
torture was decreed; the inquisitors of that time cannot be pardoned for
making them a common prison.

The Doctor Juan Perez de Pineda, whose effigy was the third in the
_auto-da-fé_, was born at Montilla in Andalusia; he was placed at the
head of the College _de la Doctrina_, in which the young people of
Seville were educated.

He made his escape when he was informed that the inquisitors were about
to arrest him as suspected of Lutheranism. Proceedings were instituted
against him as contumacious, and he was condemned as a formal Lutheran
heretic. He had composed several works: the Index prohibited the
following: The Holy Bible, translated into the Castilian tongue; a
Catechism, printed at Venice in 1556 by Pedro Daniel; The Psalms of
David in Spanish; and a Summary of the Christian Doctrine. Juan Perez
had attained a great age when he was condemned. Of the fourteen persons
who were reconciled in the second _auto-da-fé_ the most remarkable
were:--

Julian Hernandez, surnamed the _Little_, a native of Villaverdè. The
wish to promulgate Lutheran books in Seville induced him to go to
Germany. He gave the books to Don Juan Ponce de Leon, who undertook to
distribute them. He passed more than three years in the prisons of the
Holy Office, and was tortured several times, to force him to discover
his accomplices. He bore the torture with a fortitude far above his
physical strength, and remained faithful to his creed. When he arrived
at the stake he arranged the wood around him so as to burn quickly; the
Doctor Ferdinand Rodriguez, who attended him, demanded that the gag
should be taken from his month, that he might make his confession, but
Júlian opposed it, and he was burnt.

Nicholas Burton, born in England, was condemned at an impenitent
Lutheran heretic. It is impossible to justify the conduct of the
inquisitors to this Englishman, and several other foreigners who had not
settled in Spain, and were merely returning to their respective
countries after having transacted their commercial affairs. This man
came to Spain in a vessel laden with merchandise, which, he said, was
all his own property, but of which some part belonged to John Fronton,
who was reconciled in this _auto-da-fé_. Burton refused to abjure, and
was burnt alive; the inquisitors seized his vessel and its freight, thus
proving that avarice was the principal motive of the Inquisition. The
inquisitors were guilty of a great cruelty in this instance, and the
commerce of Spain would perhaps have been destroyed, if the violence
committed against Burton, and some others, had not been protested
against by the different powers, which induced Philip IV. to prohibit
the inquisitors from molesting foreign merchants and travellers, if they
did not attempt to promulgate heretical opinions; but the inquisitors
eluded this order, by pretending that they brought prohibited books into
the kingdom, or spoke in favour of heresy.

Gonzalez de Montes speaks of the arrival in Spain of a very rich
stranger, named Rehukin, whose vessel was finer and better built than
any that had ever appeared at San-Lucar de Barrameda. The Inquisition
arrested him as an heretic, and confiscated his property; the merchant
proved that the vessel did not belong to him, and that it could not be
included in the confiscation; but his efforts to recover it were
useless.

Two other foreigners shared the fate of Burton. One was an Englishman
named William Brook, born at Sarum, and a sailor; the other was a
Frenchman of Bayonne, named Fabianne, whose trade required his presence
in Spain.

The _Beata_ protected by Francis Zafra, who had recovered her senses,
but persisted in her heresy, was burnt in this _auto-da-fé_, with five
women of her family. Thirty-four persons were condemned to penances. The
most remarkable instances were:--

John Fronton, an Englishman of the city of Bristol, who came to Seville,
where he was informed of the arrest of Nicholas Burton. He was the
proprietor of a considerable part of the merchandise taken from Burton,
and after proving this fact by documents which he brought from England
he claimed restitution. He was subjected to great delays and expenses,
but as it was impossible to deny his rights, the inquisitors promised to
restore the merchandise: in the mean time they contrived that witnesses
should appear and depose that John Fronton had advanced heretical
propositions, and he was taken to the secret prisons. The fear of death
induced Fronton to say everything that the inquisitors required, and he
demanded reconciliation. He was declared to be _violently suspected_ of
the Lutheran heresy. This was sufficient to authorize the inquisitors to
seize his property, and he was reconciled, condemned to forfeit his
merchandise, and to wear the _san-benito_ for the space of one year.
This is a remarkable proof of the mischief produced by the secrecy of
the inquisitorial proceedings. If the affair of John Fronton had been
made public, any lawyer would have shown the nullity and falsehood of
the _instruction_. Yet there are Englishmen who defend the tribunal of
the holy office as a useful institution, and I have heard an _English
Catholic priest_ speak in its defence. I represented that he did not
understand the nature of the tribunal; that I was not less attached to
the Catholic religion than he, or any inquisitor might be; but that if
the spirit of peace and charity, humility and disinterestedness,
inculcated by the Holy Scriptures, is compared with the system of
severity, craft, and malice, dictated by the laws of the holy office,
and the power possessed by the inquisitors (from the secrecy of their
proceedings) of abusing their authority in defiance of natural and
divine laws, the orders of the Popes and the royal decrees, it will be
impossible not to detest the tribunal as only tending to produce
hypocrisy.

Gaspard de Benavides was an alcalde of the prison of the Inquisition,
and appeared in the _auto-da-fé_ with a flambeau; he was banished for
life from Seville, and lost his place, for _having failed in zeal and
attention in his employment_. Let this qualification and the sentence be
compared with the crime of which he was accused. He purloined part of
the small rations of the prisoners, the food which he gave them was of a
bad quality, and he made them pay for it, as if it was superior; he did
not take care to prepare it properly, it was badly cooked and seasoned;
he deceived them in the price of wood, and made false bills of
expenditure. If any of the prisoners complained, he removed them to a
dark and humid dungeon, where he left them for a fortnight or even
longer, to punish them for murmuring; he did not fail to tell them that
he did this by the order of the inquisitors, and that they were released
at his intercession. When any prisoner demanded an audience, Gaspard
(fearing that they would denounce him) did not inform the inquisitors of
the request, and told the prisoner the next day that the inquisitors
were so much occupied that they could not grant audiences. In short,
there was no sort of injustice which he did not commit, until the moment
when his conduct was discovered by chance.

Maria Gonzalez, a servant of this man, was condemned to receive two
hundred stripes, and to be banished for ten years. Her crime was, having
received money from some prisoners, and having permitted them to see and
converse with each other.

Donna Jane Bohorques was declared innocent. She was the legitimate
daughter of Don Pedro Garcia de Xeres y Bohorques, and the sister of
Donna Maria Bohorques, who perished in a former _auto-da-fé_. She had
married Don Francis de Vargas, lord of the borough of Higuera. She was
taken to the secret prisons when her unfortunate sister declared that
she was acquainted with her opinions, and had not opposed them; as if
silence could prove that she had admitted the doctrine to be true. Jane
Bohorques was six months gone with child; but this did not prevent the
inquisitors from proceeding in her trial, a cruelty which will not
surprise, when it is considered that she was arrested before any proof
of her crime had been obtained. She was delivered in the prison; her
child was taken from her at the end of eight days, in defiance of the
most sacred rights of nature, and she was imprisoned in one of the
common dungeons of the holy office. The inquisitors thought they did all
that humanity required in giving her a less inconvenient cell than the
common prison. It fortunately happened that she had as a companion in
her cell a young girl who was afterwards burnt as a Lutheran, and who
pitying her situation, treated her with the utmost tenderness during her
convalescence. She soon required the same care; she was tortured, and
all her limbs were bruised and almost dislocated. Jane Bohorques
attended her in this dreadful state. Jane Bohorques was not yet quite
recovered, when she was tortured in the same manner. The cords with
which her still feeble limbs were bound penetrated to the bone, and
several blood vessels breaking in her body, torrents of blood flowed
from her mouth. She was taken back to her dungeon in a dying state, and
expired a few days after. The inquisitors thought they expiated this
cruel murder by declaring Jane Bohorques innocent, in the _auto-da-fé_
of this day. Under what an overwhelming responsibility will these
monsters appear before the tribunal of the Almighty!




CHAPTER XXII.

OF THE ORDINANCES OF 1561, WHICH HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE HOLY OFFICE, UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME.


The ancient laws of the holy office had been almost entirely forgotten,
and the inquisitors merely followed a kind of routine in transacting
their affairs. The inquisitor-general Valdés found it necessary to
remedy this evil; and as a multitude of extraordinary cases had occurred
since the publication of the Codes of Torquemada and his successor Deza,
which had obliged the inquisitors to publish supplements and new
declarations, he resolved to frame a new code, composed of those laws
which experience had shown to be useful. This edict was published at
Madrid, on the 2nd of September, 1561; it was composed of eighty-one
articles, which have been, till the present time, the laws by which the
proceedings of the Inquisition have been regulated.

_Preamble._ "We, Don Ferdinand Valdés, by the grace of God, Archbishop
of Seville, apostolical inquisitor-general against heresy and apostacy
in all the kingdoms and domains of his majesty, &c. we inform you,
venerable apostolical inquisitors, that we understand, that although it
has been provided by the ordinances of the holy office, that the same
manner of proceeding should be exactly followed in all the Inquisitions,
there are, nevertheless, some tribunals where this measure has not
been, and is not well observed. In order to prevent any difference for
the future, in the conduct of the tribunals, and the forms which should
be followed, it has been resolved, after communicating and consulting
with the council of the general Inquisition, that the following order
shall be observed by the tribunals of the holy office:--

1st. When the inquisitors admit an information, which shows that
propositions have been advanced which ought to be denounced to the holy
office, they must consult theologians of learning and integrity, and
capable of qualifying the said propositions; they shall give their
opinion in writing, accompanied by their signature.

2nd. If it is certain from the opinion of the theologians that the
object of their examination is a matter of faith, or if it is apparent
without consulting them, and the denounced fact is sufficiently proved,
the procurator-fiscal shall denounce the author of it, and the
individuals implicated, if there are any, and shall require that they be
arrested[23].

3rd. The inquisitors shall be assembled to decide if imprisonment should
be decreed; in doubtful cases, they shall summon consultors, if they
find it necessary[24].

4th. When the proof is not sufficient to cause the arrest of the
denounced person, the inquisitor shall not cite him to appear, or
subject him to any examination, because experience has shown, that an
heretic who is at liberty will not confess, and this measure only makes
him more reserved and attentive in avoiding everything that may increase
the suspicions or the proofs brought against him.

5th. If the inquisitors are not unanimous in decreeing an arrest, the
writings of the trial shall be sent to the council, and this must
likewise take place even when they are unanimous in their decisions, if
the individuals to be arrested are persons of quality and consideration.

6th. The inquisitors shall sign the decree of arrest, and address it to
the _grand alguazil_ of the holy office. When it relates to a formal
heresy, this measure shall be immediately followed by the sequestration
of the property of the denounced person. If several persons are to be
imprisoned, a decree of arrest shall be expedited for each individual,
distinct and independent of each other, to be separately executed: this
precaution is necessary to ensure secrecy, in case one _alguazil_ cannot
arrest all the criminals. A note shall be entered in the trial, stating
the day on which the decree of arrest was delivered, and the person who
received it.

7th. The _alguazil_ shall be accompanied, in the execution of the decree
of imprisonment, by the recorder of the sequestrations, and the
stewards. He shall appoint a depositary, and if the steward does not
approve of the person mentioned, he shall appoint another himself, as he
is responsible for the property.

8th. The recorder of the sequestrations shall note all the effects
separately, with the day, the month, and year of the seizure; he shall
sign it with the _alguazil_, the steward, the depositary, and the
witnesses; he shall give a copy of this writing to the depositary; but
if the others demand copies, he is permitted to require payment for
them.

9th. The _alguazil_ shall deduct from the sequestrated property a
sufficient portion to defray the expenses of the food, lodging, and
journey of the prisoner; he shall give an account of what he received
when he arrives at the Inquisition. If any money remains he shall give
it to the cashier, to be employed in the maintenance of the prisoner.

10th. The _alguazil_ shall require the prisoner to give up his money,
papers, arms, and everything which it might be dangerous for him to be
in possession of; he shall not allow him to have any communication,
either by speech or writing with the other prisoners, without receiving
permission from the inquisitors. He shall remit all the effects found
upon the person of the prisoner to the goaler, and shall take a receipt,
with the date of the day on which the remittance took place. The gaoler
shall inform the inquisitors of the arrival of the prisoner, and he
shall lodge him in such a manner, that he cannot have at his disposal
anything which might be dangerous in his hands, unless they are confided
to him, and he is obliged to be responsible. One of the notaries of the
holy office shall be present, and shall draw up the verbal process of
the decree of imprisonment and its execution; even the hour when the
prisoner entered the prison must be mentioned, as this point is
important in the accounts of the cashier.

11th. The gaoler shall not lodge several prisoners together; he shall
not permit them to communicate with each other, unless the inquisitors
allow it.

12th. The gaoler shall be provided with a register, in which all the
effects in the chamber of the prisoner, with the clothes and food which
he receives from each detained person, shall be noted; he shall sign the
statement with the recorder of the sequestrations, and shall give notice
of it to the inquisitors; he shall not remit any food or clothing to the
prisoners without examining them with great attention, to ascertain if
they contain letters, arms, or anything of which they might make a bad
use.

13th. When the inquisitors think proper, they shall order the prisoner
to be brought into the chamber of audience; they shall cause him to sit
on a bench or small seat, and take an oath to speak the truth, at this
time, and on all succeeding audiences; they shall ask him his name, his
surname, his age, his country, the place where he dwells, his profession
and rank, and the time of his arrest; they shall treat him with
humanity, and respect his rank, but without derogating from the
authority of judges, that the accused may not infringe the respect due
to them, or commit any reprehensible act towards their persons. The
accused shall stand while the act of denunciation by the fiscal is read.

14th. The accused shall be afterwards examined on his genealogy. He
shall be asked if he is married: if more than once, what woman he
married: how many children he had by each marriage, their age, as well
as their rank and place of dwelling. The recorder shall write down these
details, paying attention to place each name at the beginning of a line,
because this practice is useful in consulting registers, to discover if
the accused is not descended from Jews, Moors, heretics, or other
individuals punished by the holy office.

15th. When the preceding ceremony has passed, the accused shall be
required to give an abridged history of his life, mentioning those towns
where he has made a considerable stay, the motives of his sojourn, the
persons he associated with, the friends he acquired, his studies, the
masters he studied under, the period when he began them, and the time
that he continued them; if he had been out of Spain, at what time and
with whom he had quitted the country, and how long he had been absent.
He shall be asked if he is instructed in the truths of the Christian
religion, and shall be required to repeat the _Pater-noster_, the _Ave
Maria_, and the _Credo_. He shall be asked if he has confessed himself,
and to what confessors. When he has given an account of all these
things, he shall be asked if he knows or suspects the cause of his
arrest, and his reply shall regulate the questions put to him
afterwards. The inquisitors shall avoid interrupting the accused while
he is speaking, and shall allow him to express himself freely while the
recorder writes down his declarations, unless they are foreign to the
trial. They shall ask all necessary questions, but shall avoid fatiguing
him by examining him on subjects not relating to the trial, unless he
gives occasion for it by his replies.

16th. It is proper that the inquisitors should always suspect that they
have been deceived by the witnesses, and that they shall be so by the
accused, and that they should not take either side; for, if they adopt
an opinion too soon, they will not be able to act with that impartiality
which is suitable to their station, and on the contrary will be liable
to fall into error.

17th. The inquisitors shall not speak to the accused during the
audience, or at other times, of any affair not relating to his own. The
recorder shall write down the questions and replies; and, after the
audience, he shall read it to the accused, that he may sign it. If he
wishes to add, retrench, alter, or elucidate, any article, the recorder
shall write after his dictation, without suppressing or certifying the
articles already written.

18th. The fiscal shall present his act of accusation within the time
prescribed by the ordinances; he shall accuse the prisoner of being an
heretic in general terms, and afterwards mention, in particular, the
facts and propositions of which he is charged. The inquisitors have not
the right of punishing an accused person for crimes which do not relate
to matters of faith; but if the preparatory instruction mentions any,
the fiscal shall make it the object of an accusation, because this
circumstance, and that of his general good or bad conduct, assists in
determining the degree of credence to be given to his replies, and
serves for other purposes in his trial.

19th. Although the accused may confess all the charges brought against
him in the first audiences of _admonition_, yet the fiscal shall draw up
and present his act of accusation, because experience has shown, that it
is better that a trial, caused by the _denunciation_ of a person who is
a party in the cause, should be continued and judged at the prosecution
of the _denunciator_; that the inquisitors may be at liberty to
deliberate on the application of punishments and penances, which would
not be the case if they proceeded _officially_.

20th. Whenever the accused shall be admitted to an audience, he shall
be reminded of the oath which he has taken to speak the truth.

21st. At the end of his requisition, the fiscal shall introduce a
clause, importing, that if the inquisitors do not think his accusation
sufficiently proved, they are requested to decree the torture for the
accused, because, as it cannot be inflicted without previous notice, it
is proper that the accused should be informed that it has been required;
and this moment appears the most convenient, because the prisoner is not
prepared for it, and he will receive the notice with less agitation.

22nd. The fiscal shall himself present his requisition, or demand in
accusation, to the inquisitors; the recorder shall read it in the
presence of the prisoner, the fiscal shall make oath that he does not
act from bad intentions, and retire; the accused shall then reply
successively to all the articles of the act, and the recorder shall
write down his answers in the same order, even if they are only denials.

23rd. The inquisitors shall give the prisoner to understand that it is
of great consequence to him to speak the truth. One of the advocates of
the holy office shall be appointed to defend him, who shall communicate
with him in the presence of an inquisitor, in order to prepare himself
to reply in writing to the accusation, after swearing fidelity to the
accused, and secrecy to the tribunal, although he had already taken that
oath at the time that he was appointed the _advocate of the prisoners of
the holy office_. He must endeavour to persuade the accused that it is
of the greatest consequence to be sincere, to ask pardon and submit to a
penance if he acknowledges his guilt. His reply shall be communicated to
the fiscal, who, with the prisoner and his advocate, shall be present at
the audience, and shall demand the proofs. The inquisitors shall admit
the requisition, but without naming the day or informing the parties of
it, because neither the accused nor any other person in his name has
the right of being present when the witnesses take their oaths.

24th. The recorder shall read to the advocate all that the accused has
declared relating to himself, but shall omit all that he has said
concerning others; this communication is necessary to the advocate, that
he may establish the defence of his client. If he wishes to make any
additions to his declaration, the advocate must be obliged to retire.

25th. If the accused has attained the age of twenty-five years, a
guardian shall be appointed for him before the accusation is read. The
advocate may fill that office, or any other person of known honour and
integrity. The prisoner, with the approbation of his guardian, shall
ratify all that he has declared in former audiences; and he shall
afterwards be attended by the same person in all the circumstances of
the trial.

26th. Where the proof has been admitted, the fiscal shall announce in
the presence of the accused, that he reproduces and presents the
witnesses and the proofs which existed in the writings and the registers
of the holy office; he shall demand that they proceed to the
_ratification_ of the witnesses who have been examined in the
preparatory instruction, that the witnesses shall be confronted and the
depositions published. If the accused or his advocate speak at this
time, the recorder shall write down all that they say.

27th. If the accused confesses himself guilty of another crime, after
the proof is admitted, the fiscal shall accuse him of it, and he shall
be prosecuted according to the ordinary forms. If the proof of the first
crime is increased, it will be sufficient to inform the prisoner of the
circumstance.

28th. In the interval between the proof and the publication, the
prisoner may demand audiences, through the gaoler. The inquisitors must
grant them without delay, in order to profit by the inclination of the
accused, which may change from day to day.

29th. The inquisitors must not neglect to cause the _ratification_ of
the witnesses, or to take any measures to discover the truth.

30th. The _ratification_ of the witnesses shall take place before
responsible persons, such as two priests, Christians of an ancient race,
and of a pure life and reputation. The witnesses shall be asked in their
presence if they recollect having deposed in any trial before the
Inquisition: if they reply in the affirmative, they shall be questioned
on the circumstances, and the persons interested in it. When they have
given satisfaction on this article, they shall be informed that the
fiscal has presented them as witnesses in the trial of the prisoner.
Their first declaration shall be read to them, and if they say that they
have attested those facts, they shall be required to ratify them, making
any additions, suppressions, explanations, and alterations, which they
may think proper. These shall all be mentioned in the verbal process: it
shall also be stated if the witness is at that time at liberty or
detained in the chamber of audience, or in his chamber, and why he has
not appeared in the ordinary place.

31st. When the ratification of the witnesses is concluded, the
publication shall be prepared, taking a copy of each deposition; it
shall be literal, except in all that may tend to discover the witnesses
to the accused. If the declaration is too long, it shall be divided into
several chapters. At the publication of the depositions, they shall not
be read to the accused all at once, nor all the articles of a long
declaration. The first head of the deposition of the first witness shall
be read to him, that he may reply to it with more precision and
facility; they shall then pass to the second chapter, then to the third,
following the same order in all the depositions. The inquisitors shall
hasten, as much as possible, the publication of the depositions, to
spare the accused the anxiety of a long delay; they shall avoid all that
may lead him to suppose that new charges have been brought against him,
or that those already made are more extended than in their own
declarations; and although such circumstances may have occurred, and the
accused has denied the charges, they shall cause the delay of the
formalities and the conclusion of the trial.

32nd. The inquisitors shall fulfil the form of the _publication_,
dictating to the recorder all that is to be written in the presence of
the accused, or they shall write it themselves and sign it. This writing
shall be dated with the year, the month, and the day, when the witness
deposed, provided that it is not convenient to do so; it would be
improper if the deponent was in prison. They shall also mention the time
and place when the facts occurred, because this is useful to the accused
in his defence; but the place must only be designated in general terms.
In the copy of the deposition the _third person_ shall be used, although
the witness spoke to the _first_. Thus it must be said: The witness has
seen or heard the accused conversing with an individual, &c.[25]

33rd. If an accused, who has made declarations in several sittings,
reveals crimes committed by persons whom he named, and afterwards makes
new declarations, only cites these persons in a vague and general
manner, employing for example, the words, _all those whom I have named_,
or a similar expression; these accusations cannot be brought against any
accused person, as they do not apply in a direct manner; this must
oblige the inquisitors to pay attention to the prisoner who speaks of
different individuals, and cause him to name them one after the other,
and afterwards to state the facts or words which he imputes to them.

34th. Although the accused has denied the charges, the publication of
the depositions must be read to him, that he may not call in question
the regularity of the proceedings of the tribunal which has arrested
him, and that the judges may rely with more confidence on the law when
they pass sentence; for this discretionary power exists only if the
accused is convicted and confesses himself guilty; otherwise the charges
brought against him by the witnesses, whose declarations have not been
mentioned to him, cannot be of any value, particularly in a trial of
this kind, when the accused is not present at the oath of the witnesses.

35th. When the accused has replied to the publication of the
depositions, he shall be permitted to consult with his advocate, in the
presence of an inquisitor and the recorder, that he may prepare his
defence. The recorder shall write down the particulars of the conference
which he considers worthy of attention. Neither the inquisitor nor
recorder, still less the advocate, shall remain alone with the accused.
It shall be the same with all other persons, except the gaoler or his
deputy. It is sometimes eligible that learned and pious persons should
visit the accused, to exhort them to confess what they obstinately deny,
though they have been convicted. These interviews can only take place in
the presence of the recorder or an inquisitor. Procurators shall not be
permitted to be appointed for the prisoner, though the _old
instructions_ have established this measure, because experience has
shown that great inconvenience arises from it[26]; besides which, the
accused derives little advantage from it[27]. If any unforeseen
circumstance renders this measure necessary, the advocate may be
appointed to fill the office.

36th. If the accused wishes to write, to fix the points of his defence,
he shall be furnished with paper: but the sheets shall be counted and
numbered by the recorder, that the accused may give them back again
either written upon or blank. When his work is finished, he shall be
allowed to converse with his advocate, to whom he may communicate what
he has written, on condition that his defender restores the original
without taking a copy when he presents his address to the tribunal. When
there is an examination in the defence of the prisoner, he shall be
required to name, on the margin of each article, the witnesses he wishes
to call, that those who are the most worthy of credit may be examined.
He must also be required to name as witnesses none but Christians of an
ancient race, who are neither his servants nor relations, unless it is a
case when the questions can only be answered by them[28]. Before the
address is presented by the advocate, if the accused requires it, it
shall be communicated to him, and the inquisitors shall desire the
advocate to confine himself to the defence of the accused in what he has
to say, and to observe a strict silence on everything said in the world,
as experience has shown the inconvenience of this sort of revelations,
even in respect to the accused persons; they shall cause him to restore
all the papers, without taking copies of them, or even of the address,
of which he must give up the notes, if there are any.

37th. Whenever the prisoner is admitted to an audience, the fiscal shall
examine the state of the trial, to ascertain if he has declared anything
new of himself or others; he shall receive his declaration judicially,
and mark the names of the persons of whom he has said anything, and all
the other points which might elucidate the affair, in the margin.

38th. The inquisitors shall receive the informations relative to the
defence of the accused, the depositions in his favour, the indirect
proofs and challenges of the witnesses, with as much care and attention
as they receive those of the fiscal; that the detention of the prisoner,
which prevents him from acting for himself, may not be an obstacle to
the discovery of the truth.

39th. When the inquisitors receive important information in defence of
the prisoner, he shall be brought before the tribunal accompanied by his
advocate; they shall inform him that the proofs of all the circumstances
which might mitigate his crime have been received, and that they can
conclude the trial, unless any other demand occurs on their part, in
which case they will do everything which may be permitted for the
prisoner. If he declares that he has nothing more to say, the fiscal may
give in his conclusions. It will be proper, however, that he should not
do it immediately, that he may take advantage of every circumstance that
may take place. If the accused demands the publication of the
depositions in his defence, it must be refused, as it may tend to
discover the persons who have deposed against him[29].

40th. When the trial is so far advanced that the sentence may be passed,
the inquisitors shall convoke the ordinary and the consulters. As there
is no reporter, the dean of the inquisitors shall report the trial,
without giving any opinion, and the recorder shall read it in the
presence of the inquisitors and the fiscal, who shall sit by the
consultors, and retire when he has heard the report, before the judges
give their votes. The consultors shall give their votes first, and then
the ordinary, the inquisitors after him, and the dean the last. Each
voter shall be at liberty to make any observations which he thinks
proper in giving his vote, without being interrupted or prevented. If
the inquisitors gave different votes, they shall explain their motives,
to prove that there is nothing arbitrary in their conduct. The recorder
shall write each opinion in a register prepared for the purpose, and
shall afterwards join it to the trial, to give testimony of it.

41st. When the accused confesses himself guilty, and his confessions
have the required conditions, if he is not relapsed, he shall be
admitted to reconciliation; his property shall be seized; he shall be
clothed in the habit of a penitent, or a _san-benito_ (which is a
scapulary of linen or yellow cloth, with two crosses of St. Andrew of
another colour), and he shall be confined in the prison for those who
are condemned to perpetual imprisonment, namely, that of _Mercy_. As to
the colours of the habit he is to wear, and the confiscation of his
property, there are _Fueros_ and privileges existing in some provinces
of Aragon, and other rules and customs which must be conformed to, in
acquitting the criminal, and restoring his ordinary garments to him,
according to the sentence. If it is proper that he should remain in
prison for an unlimited time, it shall be said in his sentence, that his
punishment shall last as long as the inquisitors think proper. If the
accused has really relapsed, after abjuring a _formal_ heresy, or is a
_false penitent_ when he has abjured as _violently_ suspected, and is
convicted in the present trial of the same heresy, he shall be given up
to the common judge according to the civil law, and his punishment shall
not be remitted, although he may protest that his repentance is sincere,
and his confession true in this case.

42nd. The abjuration must be written after the sentence, and signed by
the accused: if he is incapable of signing it, this ceremony must be
performed by an inquisitor and the recorder: if the condemned abjures in
a public _auto-da-fé_, the abjuration must be signed the next day, in
the chamber of audience.

43rd. If the accused is convicted of heresy, bad faith, and obstinacy,
he shall be _relaxed_, but the inquisitors must not neglect to endeavour
to convert him, that he may die in the faith of the church.

44th. If an accused who has been condemned, and informed of his sentence
on the day before the _auto-da-fé_, repents during the night and
confesses his sins, or part of them, in a manner that shows true
repentance, he shall not be conducted to the _auto-da-fé_, but his
execution shall be suspended, because it might be improper to allow him
to hear the names of the persons condemned to death, and those condemned
to other punishments, for this knowledge and the report of the offence
might assist him in preparing his judicial confession. If the accused is
converted on the scaffold of the _auto-da-fé_, before he has heard his
sentence, the inquisitors must suppose that the fear of death has more
influence in this conversion than true repentance; but if, from
different circumstances and the nature of the confession, they wish to
suspend the execution, they are permitted to do so, considering at the
same time that confessions made in such circumstances are not worthy of
belief, and more particularly those which accuse other individuals.

45th. The inquisitors must maturely consider motives and circumstances
before they decree the torture; and when they have resolved to have
recourse to it, they must state the motive: they must declare if the
torture is to be employed _in caput proprium_, because the accused is
subjected to it as persisting in his denials, and incompletely convicted
in his own trial; or if he suffers it _in caput alienum_, as a witness
who denies, in the trial of another accused, the facts of which he has
been a joint witness. If he is convicted of bad faith in his own cause,
and is consequently liable to be _relaxed_, or if he is equally so in
any other affair, he may be tortured, though he must be given up to the
secular judge for what concerns him personally. If he does not reveal
anything in being tortured as a witness, he shall nevertheless be
condemned as an accused; but if the question forces him to confess his
crime, and that of another person, and he solicits the indulgence of his
judges, the inquisitors shall conform to the rules of right.

46th. If only a semi-proof of the crime exists, or if appearances will
not admit of the acquittal of the prisoner, he shall make an abjuration
as being either _violently_ or _slightly_ suspected. As this measure is
not a punishment for the past, but a precaution for the future,
pecuniary penalties shall be imposed; but he shall be informed that if
he again commits the crime for which he was denounced, he will be
considered as having _relapsed_, and be delivered over to the secular
judge: for this purpose he shall sign his act of abjuration.

47th. In cases where only the semi-proof, or some indications of a crime
exist, the accused has been sometimes permitted to clear himself
canonically before the number of persons appointed in the ancient
instructions; the inquisitors, the ordinary, and the consultors, may
therefore allow it if they think proper, but they must observe that this
proceeding is very dangerous, not often used, and can only be employed
with great caution[30].

48th. The third manner of proceeding in this case is to employ the
_question_. This measure is thought to be dangerous and not certain,
because its effects depend upon the physical strength of the subject;
consequently no rule can be prescribed on this point, but it is left to
the prudence and equity of the judges. Nevertheless the question shall
only be decreed by the ordinary, the consultors, and the inquisitors, or
applied without their concurrence, as circumstances may occur, when
their presence would be necessary[31].

49th. When it is necessary to decree the torture, the accused shall be
informed of the motives for employing it, and the offences for which he
is to suffer it; but after it has been decided he shall not be examined
on any particular fact, he shall be allowed to say what he pleases.
Experience has shown that if he is questioned on any subject when pain
has reduced him to the last extremity, he will say anything that is
required of him, which may be injurious to other persons, in making them
parties concerned, and producing other inconveniences.

50th. The question shall not be decreed until the process is terminated,
and the defence of the accused has been heard. As the sentence of
recourse to the question admits of an appeal, the inquisitors shall
consult the council, if the case is doubtful; if the accused can
maintain his appeal, it shall be admitted. But if the point of law is
clear, the inquisitors are not required to consult the council, or to
admit the application of the accused; they are at liberty to proceed
immediately to execution, as if it had not been made.

51st. If the inquisitors think that the appeal ought to be admitted,
they shall send the writings of the process to the Supreme Council,
without informing the parties, or any individual not belonging to the
tribunal, because the council will send an order to the inquisitors, if
it is considered proper that they should be made acquainted with it.

52nd. If an inquisitor is challenged, and there is another in the
tribunal, the first shall abstain from performing his office, and the
second shall take his place, after the council has been informed of the
circumstance. If there is only one inquisitor in the tribunal, the
proceedings shall be suspended until the decision of the Supreme Council
has been received; the same course shall be pursued if there are several
inquisitors, and they are all challenged.

53rd. Twenty-four hours after the accused has been put to the question,
he shall be asked if he persists in his declarations, and if he will
ratify them. The notary of the tribunal shall appoint the time for this
formality, and likewise that for the application of the question. If at
this moment the accused confesses his crimes, and afterwards ratifies
his declarations in such a manner that the inquisitors may believe him
to be converted, repentant, and sincere in his confessions, he may be
admitted to reconciliation, notwithstanding the article in the ordinance
of Seville, in 1484. If the accused retracts his declaration, the
inquisitors shall proceed according to rule.

54th. When the inquisitors, the ordinary, and the consultors decree the
question, they shall not decide on what is to be done after it has been
administered, as the result is uncertain, nothing being regulated on
this point. If the accused resists the torture, the judges shall
deliberate on the nature, form, and quality of the torture which he has
suffered; on the degree of intensity with which it was inflicted; on the
age, strength, health, and vigour of the patient: they shall compare all
these circumstances, with the number, the seriousness of the indications
which lead to the supposition of his guilt, and they shall decide if he
is already cleared by what he has suffered; in the affirmative they
shall declare him free from prosecution, in the other case he shall
abjure according to the nature of the suspicion.

55th. The judges, notary, and the executioners shall be present at the
torture; when it is over, the inquisitors shall cause an individual who
has been wounded to be properly attended, without allowing any suspected
person to approach him, until he has ratified his declarations.

56th. The inquisitors shall take every precaution that the gaoler shall
not insinuate anything to the accused relating to his defence, that he
may only follow his inclination in all that he says. This measure does
not allow the gaoler to fill the office of guardian or defender to the
prisoner, or even representative of the fiscal; he may however serve as
a writer for the accused, if he does not know how to write: in this case
he shall be prohibited from substituting his own ideas for those of the
accused.

57th. The affair being for the second time in a state for passing
sentence, there shall be a new audience of the inquisitors, the
ordinary, the consultors, the fiscal and the notary. The fiscal shall
hear the report of the last incidents, to ascertain if it contains
anything important relating to his office; after it has been read he
shall retire, that the judges may remain alone when they proceed to
vote.

58th. When the inquisitors release an accused person from the secret
prisons, he shall be conducted to the chamber of audience; they shall
there ask him if the gaoler treated him and the other prisoners well, or
ill; if he has communicated with him or other persons on subjects
foreign to the trial; if he has seen or known that other prisoners
conversed with persons not confined in the prison, or if the gaoler gave
them any advice. They shall command him to keep secret these details,
and all that has passed since his detention, and shall make him sign a
promise to this effect, if he knows how to write, that he may fear to
break it.

59th. If a prisoner dies before his trial is terminated, and his
declarations have not extenuated the charges of the witnesses, so as to
give a sufficient cause for reconciliation, the inquisitors shall give
notice of his death to his children, his heirs, or other persons who
have the right of defending his memory and property; and, if there is
cause to pursue the trial of the deceased, a copy of the depositions and
the act of accusation shall be remitted to them, and all that they
advance in defence of the accused shall be received.

60th. If the mind of an accused person becomes deranged before the
conclusion of the trial, a guardian or defender shall be appointed for
him; if the children or relations of the accused present any means of
defence in his favour to the tribunal, when he is in possession of his
senses, the inquisitors shall not permit them to be joined to the other
writings of the process, because neither the children nor relations of
the accused are lawful parties; yet in a distinct and separate writing
they may decree what they think fit, and take measures to discover the
truth, without communicating with the prisoner, or the persons who
represent him.

61st. When sufficient proof exists to authorize proceedings against the
memory and property of a deceased person, according to the _ancient
instruction_, the accusation of the fiscal shall be signified to the
children, the heirs, or other interested persons, each of whom shall
receive a copy of the notification. If no person presents himself to
defend the memory of the accused, or to appeal against the seizure of
his goods, the inquisitors shall appoint a defender, and pursue the
trial, considering him as a party. If any one interested in the affair
appears, his rights shall be admitted, although he should be a prisoner
in the holy office at the time; but he shall be obliged to choose a free
person to act for him. Until the affair is terminated, the sequestration
of the property cannot take place, because it has passed into other
hands: yet the possessors shall be deprived of it, if the deceased is
found guilty.

62nd. If a person is found not liable to prosecution, this resolution of
the tribunal shall be announced in the _auto-da-fé_ by a public act, in
any manner most suitable to the interested party; the errors with which
he was charged shall not be designated, if the accusation is not
proved. If a deceased person is pronounced free from prosecution, the
judgment shall be formally published, because the action was public and
notorious.

63rd. When a defender is appointed for the memory of a person accused
after his death, in default of interested persons to take his defence,
the choice must only fall on a person not belonging to the Inquisition;
but he must be required to keep all the proceedings secret, and not to
communicate the _depositions_ and the accusations to any but the lawyers
of the prisoners, unless a decision of the inquisitors authorize him to
make them known to other persons.

64th. When absent individuals are to be tried, they shall be summoned to
appear, by three public acts of citation at different intervals,
according to the known or supposed place of their residence. The fiscal
shall denounce them contumacious, at the end of each citation.

65th. The inquisitors may take cognizance of several crimes which
occasion suspicion of heresy, although they do not consider the accused
an heretic, on account of certain circumstances; such as bigamy,
blasphemy, and suspicious propositions. In these cases the application
of the punishments depends upon the prudence of the judges, who ought to
follow the rules of right, and consider the gravity of the offence.
However, if they condemn the accused to corporeal punishment, such as
whipping, or the galleys, they shall not say that it may be commuted for
pecuniary penalties; for this measure would be an extortion, and an
infringement of the respect due to the tribunal.

66th. If the inquisitors and the ordinary differ in opinion when they
assemble to give their votes on the definitive sentence, the trial shall
be referred to the Supreme Council; but if the division is produced by
the manner in which the consultors have voted, the inquisitors may pass
them over, (although they may be more numerous,) and establish the
definitive sentence on their own votes, and that of the ordinary, unless
the importance of the case compels them to apply to the council, even if
the inquisitors, the consultors, and ordinary are unanimous[32].

67th. The _secret notaries_ shall draw up as many literal and certified
copies of the declarations of the witnesses, and the confessions of the
accused, as there are persons designated as guilty, or suspected of the
crime of heresy, that there may be a separate proceeding against each;
for the writings which contain the original charges are not sufficient,
since experience has shown that it always causes confusion, and the
prescribed method has been employed several times, although it increases
the labour of the notaries.

68th. When the inquisitors are informed that any of the prisoners have
communicated with other detained persons, they shall ascertain the truth
of the fact, inform themselves of the name and quality of the denounced
persons, and if they are accused of the same species of crime. These
details shall be mentioned in the process of each prisoner. In these
cases little credit can be given to any subsequent declarations made by
these persons, either in their own cause, or in the trial of another.

69th. Where a trial has been suspended by the inquisitors, if another
commences, though for a different crime, the charges of the first shall
be added to those of the second, and the fiscal shall maintain them in
his act of accusation, because they aggravate the new crime of which the
prisoner is accused.

70th. When two or more prisoners have been placed in the same prison,
they shall not be afterwards separated, or introduced to other
companions; if extraordinary circumstances make it impossible to comply
with this order, they shall be stated in the process of each person, and
this incident ought to diminish the weight of their declarations after
the change; for it is certain that each prisoner will tell his
companions all that he knows and has seen, and that these reports will
influence the other prisoners in the recantations which they sometimes
oppose to their first confessions.

71st. If a prisoner falls sick, the inquisitors must carefully provide
him with every assistance, and more particularly attend to all that
relates to his soul. If he asks for a confessor, the inquisitors shall
summon a learned man, worthy of possessing their confidence; they shall
recommend that he shall not undertake any commission for any person,
during the sacramental confession; and if the accused gives him one out
of the tribunal of penance, that he shall communicate to the Inquisition
everything relating to his trial. The confessor shall be required to
inform the accused that he cannot be absolved in the sacrament of
penitence, unless he confesses the crime of which he is accused. If the
sick person is in danger of dying, or is a woman about to be delivered,
the rules appointed for such cases shall be followed. If the accused
does not ask for a confessor, and the physician declares that he is in
danger, he shall be induced to make the request, and to confess himself.
If the accused makes a judicial confession of his crime, agreeing with
the charges, he shall be reconciled, and when he has been acquitted by
the tribunal, the confessor shall give him absolution. In case of death,
ecclesiastical sepulture shall be granted, but secretly, unless it is
inconvenient. If the accused demands a confessor when he is in good
health, it may be useful to refuse it, as he cannot be absolved until
after his reconciliation; unless he has already judicially confessed
enough to justify the charges: in that case the confessor may encourage
him to be patient.

72nd. The witnesses in a trial shall not be confronted, because
experience has shown that this measure is useless and inconvenient,
independently of the infringement of the law of secrecy which is the
result.

73rd. When an inquisitor visits the towns of the district of his
tribunal, he shall not undertake any trial for heresy, or arrest any
denounced person, but he shall receive the declarations and send them to
the tribunal. Yet if it is the case of a person whose flight may be
apprehended, he may be arrested and sent to the prisons of the holy
office; the inquisitor may also decide upon affairs of small
consequence, such as heretical blasphemies, which may be judged without
arresting the parties. The inquisitor shall not exercise this authority
without being empowered by the ordinary.

74th. In the definitive sentence pronounced against an individual
declared guilty of heresy, and condemned to be deprived of his property,
the period when he first fell into heresy shall be indicated, because
this knowledge may be useful to the steward of the confiscations; it
shall likewise be mentioned if this declaration is founded on the
confession of the accused, on the depositions of the witnesses, or on
both. If this formality is omitted, and the steward demands that it
shall be fulfilled, the inquisitors shall comply; if it cannot be done
by all together, it shall at least be executed by one of them, or the
consultors.

75th. An account shall be given by the gaoler of the common and daily
nourishment of each prisoner, according to the price of the eatables; if
there is in the prison a person of quality, or who is rich and has
several domestics, he shall be supplied with the quantity of food which
he requires, but only on condition that the remnants be distributed to
the poor, and not given to the gaoler.

76th. If the prisoner has a wife or children, and they require to be
maintained from his sequestrated property, a certain sum for each day
shall be allowed them, proportioned to their number, age, quality, and
the state of their health, as well as to the extent and value of these
possessions. If any of the children exercise any profession, and can
thus provide for themselves, they shall not receive any part of the
allowance.

77th. When any trials are terminated and sentences passed, the
inquisitors shall fix the day for the celebration of an _auto-da-fé_.
They give notice of it to the ecclesiastical chapter and the
municipality of the town, and likewise to the president and the judges
of the royal court, if there is one, that they may assemble with the
tribunal, and accompany it to the ceremony according to custom. They
shall use proper means that the execution of those who are to be
_relaxed_ shall take place before night, in order to prevent accidents.

78th. The inquisitors shall not permit any person to enter the prisons
on the day before the _auto-da-fé_, except the confessors and the
_familiars_ of the holy office when their employments make it necessary.
The _familiars_ shall receive the prisoner and be responsible for him,
after the notary has taken evidence of it in writing, and shall be
required to take him back to the prisons after the ceremony of the
_auto-da-fé_, if he is not given over to the secular judge; they shall
not allow any person to speak to him on the road, or inform him of
anything that is passing.

79th. On the day after the _auto-da-fé_, the inquisitors shall cause all
the reconciled persons to be brought into their presence. They shall
explain to each the sentence which had been read the day before, and
shall tell him to what punishment he would have been condemned if he had
not confessed his crime; they shall examine them all, particularly on
what passes in the prisons, and they shall afterwards give them into the
custody of the gaoler of the _perpetual_ prisons, who shall be
commissioned to observe that they accomplish their penances, and to
inform them when they fail. He shall also be required to supply the
prisoners with everything they want, and to procure work for those who
can occupy themselves, that they may contribute to their subsistence,
and be able to alleviate their misery.

80th. The inquisitors shall visit the _perpetual_ prisons from time to
time, to observe the conduct of the prisoners, and if they are well
treated. In those places where there is no _perpetual_ prison, a house
shall be provided instead; for without this precaution it is impossible
to inflict the punishment of imprisonment on those who are condemned to
it, or to ascertain if they faithfully accomplish their penances.

81st. The _San-benitos_ of all those persons who have been condemned to
_relaxation_, shall be exposed in their respective parishes, after they
have been burnt in person or in effigy; the same shall be done with the
_San-benitos_ of the reconciled persons, after they have left them off:
no _San-benitos_ shall be suspended in the churches for those
individuals who have been reconciled before the term of grace, as they
have not been condemned to wear them. The inscription for the
_San-benito_ shall consist of the names of the condemned persons, a
notice of the heresies for which they were punished, and of the time
when they suffered their penance in order to perpetuate the disgrace of
the heretics and their descendants.

As this formulary is still in force in the tribunals of the holy office,
it appeared to me useless to follow minutely the details of the events
of the reign of each inquisitor-general, since the nature of the
institution may be known by the picture I have given of its laws and
ordinances, and by the observations which I shall have occasion to make
in the remainder of the history.

I shall only add, that Don Ferdinand Valdés was, in 1566, succeeded by
Don Diego Espinosa, Bishop of Siguenza and President of the Council of
Castile. Espinosa died on the 5th of September, 1572. Don Pedro Ponce de
Leon, Bishop of Placentia and Estremadura, was the next
inquisitor-general, but he died before he had entered on his office.

The king appointed the Cardinal Gaspard de Quiroga, Archbishop of
Toledo, to be the eleventh inquisitor-general: he died on the 20th
November, 1594.

Don Jerome Manrique de Lara succeeded Quiroga; he was Bishop of Avila,
and the son of Cardinal Manrique, who had filled the same office under
Charles V.

Don Jerome died in September, 1595, and after him Don Pedro
Portocarrero, Bishop of Cordova, was at the head of the Inquisition.

The fourteenth inquisitor-general was the Cardinal Don Ferdinand Niño de
Guevara, Archbishop of Seville, who took possession in December 1599,
during the reign of Philip III.

It was under Philip II. that the Inquisition committed the greatest
cruelties; and the reign of this prince is the most remarkable period of
the history of the holy office.




CHAPTER XXIII.

OF SOME AUTOS-DA-FE CELEBRATED IN MURCIA.


The opinions of Luther, Calvin, and the other Protestant reformers, were
not disseminated in the other cities in Spain with the same rapidity as
at Seville and Valladolid; but there is reason to believe that all Spain
would soon have been infected with the heresy, but for the extreme
severity shown towards the Lutherans. From 1560 to 1570 at least one
_auto-da-fé_ was celebrated every year in every Inquisition of the
kingdom, and some heretics of the new sect always appeared among the
condemned persons. Yet the progress of Lutheranism cannot be compared to
that of Judaism and Mahometanism, because these religions had been long
established, and the ancestors of a great number of Spanish families had
professed them. An opinion may be formed of what passed in the other
tribunals from some notices of the proceedings of that of Murcia.

On the 7th of June, 1557, a solemn _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated at
Murcia, where eleven individuals were burnt, and forty-three were
reconciled. On the 12th of February, 1559, thirty victims were burnt
with five effigies, and forty-three were reconciled. On the 14th
February, in the same year, 1560, fourteen persons were burnt, and
twenty effigies: twenty-nine persons were subjected to penances.

On the 8th of September, in the same year, sixteen individuals perished
in the flames, and forty-eight were condemned to penances.

On the 15th of March, 1562, another _auto-da-fé_ took place, composed of
twenty-three persons, who were burnt, and of sixty-three who were
condemned to penances. They were all punished as Judaic heretics: among
the first may be remarked, Fray Louis de Valdecañas, a Franciscan,
descended from the ancient Jews; he was condemned for having preached
the law of Moses; Juan de Santa-Fé, Alvarez Xuarez, and Paul d'Ayllon,
alderman or sheriffs; Pedro Gutierrez, a member of the municipality; and
Juan de Leon, syndic of the city.

An _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated in the same town on the 20th of May,
1563; seventeen persons were burnt in person, and four in effigy;
forty-seven others were subjected to penances. I shall mention those
distinguished by their rank or some particularity in their trials.

Don Philip of Aragon, son of the Emperor of Fez and Morocco, came to
Spain while he was very young, and became a Christian; he had for his
godfather Ferdinand of Aragon, Viceroy of Valencia, Duke of Calabria,
and eldest son of the King of Naples, Frederic III. Neither his rank, as
the son of an emperor, nor the advantage of having a prince for his
godfather, were sufficient to prevent the inquisitors from exposing him
to the disgrace of appearing in a solemn _auto-da-fé_; he was introduced
in the ceremony with the paper mitre on his head, terminated by long
horns, and covered with figures of devils. In this state he was admitted
to public reconciliation, after which he was to be imprisoned for three
years in a convent, then banished for ever from the town of Elche where
he had settled, and from the kingdoms of Valencia, Aragon, Murcia, and
Grenada. The inquisitors boasted much of the lenity of this sentence,
and informed the public that it was occasioned by Don Philip's having
given himself up, instead of taking flight as he might have done. It
appears that, after his baptism, he had shown some interest and
inclination to the sect of Mahomet; he had also given assistance to some
apostates, and had shown himself a favourer and concealer of heretics.
He was also accused of having made a compact with the devil, and having
practised sorcery.

The licentiate Antonio de Villena, a native of Albacete, and a priest
and preacher much esteemed at court, appeared in the _auto-da-fé_ in his
shirt, with his head uncovered and a flambeau in his hand; he abjured
heresy as slightly suspected. He was reconciled, and condemned to one
year's imprisonment, without the privilege of celebrating the holy
mysteries; deprived for ever of the power of preaching, banished from
Madrid for two years, and obliged to pay five hundred ducats toward the
expenses of the holy office. His crime was having spoken ill of the
Inquisition, and of the inquisitor-general Valdés, saying that he
persecuted him, and that he would find an opportunity of complaining to
the king. He had also been unfortunate enough to betray the system of
the prisons of the holy office, after having been detained there twice
for suspicious propositions.

Juan de Sotomayor, of Jewish origin, and a native of the town of Murcia,
appeared in the _auto-da-fé_ as a penitent, with the gag and the cord
round his neck. He was condemned to receive two hundred stripes, to wear
the _San-benito_, and to be imprisoned in the _House of Mercy_ for life,
with a threat that he should be treated with still greater severity if
he presumed to converse with any one on the affairs of the Inquisition.
Juan de Sotomayor had already been arrested and condemned to a penance,
as suspected of Judaism. When he was set at liberty, he conversed with
several persons on the subject, repeated the confession he had made, and
some other circumstances. This was the crime for which he was condemned
to receive two hundred stripes, and to be imprisoned for life!

Francis Guillen, a merchant, of Jewish origin, appeared in the
_auto-da-fé_, with several persons condemned to be _relaxed_, in virtue
of a definitive sentence confirmed by the Supreme Council, which was to
be read during the ceremony, with the charges against him. In the midst
of the _auto-da-fé_ Francis announced that he had new declarations to
make. Immediately Don Jerome Manrique (son of the Cardinal of that name,
and who was afterwards inquisitor-general) descended from the tribunal,
took off the insignia of _relaxation_, and gave Francis those belonging
to a person intended to be reconciled.

The history of this trial proves the arbitrary conduct, and the disorder
with which the inquisitors pursued and judged the causes, and executed
their sentences.

More than twenty witnesses deposed that Francis Guillen had attended
assemblies of the Jews in 1551, and the following years. He was sent to
the secret prisons, and his sentence of _relaxation_ was pronounced in
December, 1561. The process having been sent to the Supreme Council, the
Council remarked that two new witnesses having been heard before the end
of the trial, their depositions had not been communicated to the
condemned; in consequence they commanded that this formality should be
fulfilled, and that the votes should be afterwards given, according to
law. The inquisitors obeyed, but they did not agree on the sentence;
some voted for relaxation, the others that the trial should be
suspended, and that the accused should be induced to acknowledge that
which was admitted to be true, from the state of the depositions.
Francis had three audiences, in which he confessed several other facts
which related to himself, or concerned other persons; the inquisitors
then voted a second time for the definitive sentence. Francis was
unanimously declared to be a false penitent, for having confessed only a
part of his crimes, and he was condemned to be _relaxed_; but it was
agreed that as he had concealed facts concerning persons of
consideration, he should be induced to make a more extended declaration.

On the 27th of April, Guillen named twelve accomplices in his heresy,
and ratified his declaration. On the 9th of May it was decreed that he
should be told to prepare to die the next day. Francis inquired if his
life would be spared, supposing that he revealed all he knew: they
replied that he might depend upon the clemency of his judges. He
demanded another audience, named a great many persons as his
accomplices, and designated Fray Louis de Valdecanas as the principal
preacher of the party. Some time after he accused other persons. On the
night of the 19th the inquisitors assembled, with the ordinary and
consultors, and decided that Francis should appear in the _auto-da-fé_
with the habit of the _relaxed_ persons, in order to make him suppose
that he was condemned to die; but that he should be reconciled, with the
punishment of the _san-benito_, perpetual imprisonment, and
confiscation.

When he was placed among those destined to the flames, Francis demanded
an audience. The inquisitor Marinque then informed him of his sentence;
and when he was taken back to the prison, he made a new declaration
against nine persons, alleging that he had forgotten them in his other
depositions: he ratified these on the 22nd of the same month.

Some days after the inquisitor-general caused the tribunal to be
visited; the visitor declared that the judges had acted contrary to the
laws in conducting Francis to the _auto-da-fé_ in the habit of a relaxed
person, when they had decided on his reconciliation. The inquisitors
endeavoured to justify themselves by saying that they thought it would
frighten the accused into making new declarations. The visitor
commanded that Francis should be reconciled and taken to the prison of
the _Penitents_, likewise called that of _Mercy_.

Francis, who was probably a little deranged, declared several times that
he had deceived the inquisitors by accusing some persons as heretics who
were innocent, because he hoped that he should escape death by this
proceeding. These words were reported to the inquisitors, and Francis
was taken to the secret prisons. There was an act of accusation against
him; he acknowledged all the articles of the fiscal, and affirmed upon
oath that all his declarations were true; he ratified them, and begged
that he might be pardoned. On the 19th of January, 1564, he was
condemned to appear in the _auto-da-fé_ with the gag, to receive two
hundred stripes, and to pass three years in the house of _Penitence_.
Francis suffered the stripes, but they did not render him more prudent,
for he declared, even in the prison, that he was unjustly treated, for
all that he had said was false, and dictated by fear.

In 1565, the Inquisition of Murcia received the visit of a new
commissary, who obliged Francis to appear before him as a witness, to
ratify a declaration which he had made against Catherine Perez, his
wife, for Judaism. The following dialogue took place between the visitor
and the witness:--

Do you remember making a declaration against Catherine Perez, your
wife?--Yes.

What was that declaration?--It will be found in the writings of the
trial. (The declaration was here read to Francis.)

Is what you have just heard true?--No.

Why then did you affirm that it was so?--Because I heard an inquisitor
say it.

Are the declarations against other persons true?--No.

Why did you make them?--Because I perceived in the _auto-da-fé_ at which
I assisted, that the contents were read in the publication of the
depositions, and I thought that if I declared it to be true, I should
avoid death as being a good penitent.

Why did you make your ratification after the _auto-da-fé_, when the
fiscal presented you as a witness against your wife, and other
persons?--For the same reason.

After this conversation, Francis was sent back to the prison, where he
wrote a kind of memorial, in which he said that none of the witnesses
were admissible against him, because they differed and contradicted each
other in their declarations.

When the visitor was gone, the inquisitors recommenced their
prosecution; the fiscal accused Francis Guillen of the crime of
_revocation_, saying that he had imposed on them from fear, ignorance,
or some other motive. When Francis again found himself in danger, he, as
might have been expected, declared that his first depositions were true,
and that the cause of his retracting was a mental indisposition, with
which he had been affected. On the 10th November, 1565, Francis was
condemned to appear in the _auto-da-fé_, to receive three hundred
stripes, and to pass the rest of his life in a prison. The punishment of
imprisonment was commuted for that of serving in the galleys, as long as
the strength and health of Francis allowed of it. The judges reserved
the right of deciding this point themselves. The prisoner was conducted
to the _auto-da-fé_ on the 9th of December, and suffered the punishment
of whipping; he was then transferred to the common royal prison.

After he arrived there, he wrote to his judges, declaring himself
incapable of serving in the galleys. The tribunal revised the judgment,
and sent him to the house of _Mercy_. This proceeding displeased the
fiscal, who protested against it, saying, that the office of the judges
did not extend beyond the sentence, and that they had not the right of
commuting the punishment, without the consent of the
inquisitor-general; the affair stopped here, and Francis had been
sufficiently punished for his indiscretion to render him more cautious
for the future.

The irregularity and disorder of the proceedings of this tribunal may be
seen still more clearly in another trial before the Inquisition of
Murcia, about the same time, and which was undertaken in consequence of
the depositions of Guillen. It was instituted against _Melchior
Hernandez_, a merchant of Toledo, which place he afterwards left to
establish himself at Murcia. As he was descended from the Jews, he was
suspected of being attached to the religion of his ancestors. After
being taken to the secret prisons from the informations of seven
witnesses, he had his first audience of _admonition_ on the 5th of June,
1564; he was accused of having frequented a clandestine synagogue in
Murcia, from 1551 to 1557, when the assembly was discovered; and of
having acted and discoursed in a manner that proved his apostasy. Two
witnesses afterwards appeared, and the accused having denied all the
charges, the publication of the nine deponents was given to him: he
persisted in his denial, and by the advice of his defender, alleged that
the evidence of the witnesses could not be admitted, as they
contradicted each other, and several of them were known to be his
enemies.

To prove this, and to challenge some other persons, he presented a
memorial which was admitted, although it was afterwards considered to
have failed in disproving the charges.

A new witness was heard, when Melchior fell dangerously ill. On the 25th
of January, 1565, he made the sacramental confession, and on the 29th
demanded an audience, when he said that his memory was bad, but he
remembered being in a house in 1553, where a number of persons, whom he
named, were assembled; he denied having uttered anything concerning the
law of Moses, and that the only thing he could reproach himself with,
was not having declared that the others had made it the subject of
conversation.

Four days after, he declared that all that had been said in the assembly
was spoken in jest. Several days after this he said that he had not
heard what these persons said; and that he had affirmed the contrary,
because the witnesses had deposed to that effect.

Another witness, who was in the prison, was produced, who deposed, that
after Melchior had written his memorial, he formed a plan of escaping,
and endeavoured to induce his companions to accompany him. The
procurator-fiscal read to him the act of accusation, and he denied all
that it contained.

At this period, the visitor Don Martin de Coscojales arrived, and
examined the prisoner, who affirmed that if he had said anything, he was
induced to do it from the fear of death. The advocate made his defence;
Melchior wrote a memorial, which he read to his judges, in which he
challenged several persons as if they had deposed against him.

On the 24th September, 1565, Melchior suffered the _question in caput
alienum_, with the view of making him confess what he knew of some
suspected persons, but he bore it without speaking. On the 18th of
October he was declared to be a Jewish heretic, guilty of concealment in
his judicial confession, and condemned to _relaxation_, as a false
penitent and obstinate heretic.

Although the sentence was pronounced, it was resolved to press Melchior
once more to reveal the truth. The _auto-da-fé_ was to be celebrated on
the 9th of December, 1565; he was exhorted on the 7th; he replied that
he had confessed all he knew; yet, when he was told on the 8th to
prepare for death, he demanded an audience, and declared that he had
seen and heard the suspected persons and several others, and that they
spoke of the law of Moses, but that he considered these conversations to
be of no consequence, and a mere pastime.

On the 9th, before daylight, Melchior was dressed in the garb of the
_relaxed_ persons, when perceiving that his confessions were not
sufficient to save him, he demanded an audience, and mentioned the
persons designated in the information, as forming part of the assembly,
besides twelve other individuals who had not been named to him; but he
added that he did not approve of their doctrine.

Some minutes after, finding that the marks of condemnation were not
taken from him, he added the names of two or three accomplices, declared
the name of the person who had preached on the Law of Moses, and even
confessed that he approved of some of the things which he had heard.

Lastly, when his confessions did not produce the effect he wished, he
said, that he really believed in what was preached in the synagogue, and
persisted in this belief for a year; but that he had not confessed,
because he thought there was no proof of his heresy in the depositions
of the witnesses. The inquisitors decreed that Melchior should not
appear in the _auto-da-fé_ of this day, and that they would consult on
the proper measures to be taken.

On the 14th of December, Melchior ratified his propositions of the 9th,
but on the condition that all that had passed should not separate him
from the Catholic communion, or cause him to be considered as a Judaic
heretic. On the 18th he desired another audience, and again confessed
that he believed in the Law of Moses. Yet on the 29th of June, 1566, he
declared that the Holy Scriptures were read in the assembly, that he
believed part of what he heard, and had consulted a priest on the
subject; that the priest told him it ought to be held in contempt, and
that this decision had regulated his subsequent conduct.

On the 6th of May, 1566, the tribunal assembled to decide whether the
definitive sentence pronounced against Melchior should be executed. Two
of the consultors voted in the affirmative; the inquisitors, the
ordinary, and the other consultors agreed that Melchior had confessed
enough to entitle him to reconciliation. In an audience on the 28th of
May, the accused again asked pardon, alleging that he had only believed
what he heard, until he was undeceived by the priest. On the 30th he
declared that he thought all he had heard necessary to salvation.

In the October following, he was again admitted to an audience, where he
spoke against the inquisitor, who had received his confession on the day
of the _auto-da-fé_ (this was Don Jerome Manrique); he complained of the
ill treatment he had been subjected to, in order to obtain new
declarations. He acknowledged that his confessions on that day were
true, but added that the presence of two inquisitors was necessary to
prevent the abuse of authority which took place in his case.

The fiscal protested against the act of reconciliation granted to
Melchior on the 6th of May, 1566, and demanded that the sentence of
_relaxation_ pronounced on the 8th of October, 1565, should be executed,
because the accused had shown no signs of true repentance, and would not
fail to seduce others into heresy if he was pardoned. The inquisitors
consulted the Supreme Council, which decided that the prisoner should be
examined again before the ordinary and consultors, and the affair
submitted to the Council. The sentence was pronounced on the 9th of May,
1567; three of the judges voted for the _relaxation_, and two for the
_reconciliation_ of the accused.

The Supreme Council decreed on the 6th of May, that Melchior should be
_relaxed_, and the tribunal of Murcia pronounced a second definitive
sentence according to the orders which they received. The execution was
to take place on the 8th of the following month.

In contempt of the rules of common law, Melchior was called up on the
5th, 6th, and 7th of June, and exhorted to discover his accomplices; as
he did not know that he was already sentenced, he referred them to what
he had confessed before. But when he found that he was to be arrayed in
the habit of a _relaxed_ person, he declared that he could name other
accomplices. The inquisitor went to the prison, and Melchior designated
another house where the Jews assembled, and named seven persons, whom he
said he had seen there; he also wrote a list of seven synagogues, and of
fourteen persons who frequented them. He afterwards named another house
of Judaic heretics.

He was conducted to the _auto-da-fé_ with the other persons condemned to
be burnt. When he arrived at the place of execution, he demanded another
audience, in which he named two other houses, and twelve heretics; on
being told that this declaration was not sufficient to confirm the
result of the trial, he said he would endeavour to recollect others, and
a few minutes after he denounced seven persons. Before the conclusion of
the _auto-da-fé_, he desired to make a third confession, and named two
houses and six individuals; the inquisitors then agreed to suspend the
execution, and to send Melchior back to the prison. This was what he
wished, and on the 12th of June he signed his ratification; but when
told that he was suspected of having other accomplices, he replied that
he did not remember any other.

On the 13th, Melchior declared that he was mistaken in naming a certain
person among his accomplices, but pretended to remember another house,
and two persons whom he named.

The procurator-fiscal again spoke in favour of the _relaxation_ of the
accused, alleging that he had been guilty of concealment; Melchior,
supposing that his death was resolved upon, demanded an audience on the
23rd of June, and endeavoured to excite the compassion of his judges.
"What more could I do," he exclaimed, "than accuse myself falsely? Know
that I have never been summoned to any assembly, that I never attended
them for any purposes but those of commerce."

Melchior was summoned to fifteen audiences during the months of July,
August, and September; his replies were always the same. On the 16th of
October another witness appeared, but Melchior denied his statement, as
well as that of a witness who was examined on the 30th of December.
Melchior wrote his defence, and demanded that his own witnesses should
be heard, in order to prove that he was not at Murcia, but at Toledo, at
the time specified by his accusers; but the inquisitors did not think
the evidence offered by the accused sufficient to invalidate that of the
witnesses against him.

Melchior was at last sentenced to _relaxation_ for the third time, on
the 20th of March; he, however, had not forgotten the means he had
formerly used to save himself, and returned from the _auto-da-fé_. In
five subsequent audiences, he made a long declaration against himself,
and denounced a great number of persons. He was then told that he was
still guilty of concealment in not mentioning several persons not less
distinguished and well known than those he had already denounced, and
that he could not be supposed to have forgotten them.

This proceeding destroyed the tranquillity which Melchior had hitherto
shown; and after a long invective against the inquisitors and all who
had appeared on the trial, he said, "What can you do to me? burn me?
well, then, be it so: I cannot confess what I do not know. Nevertheless
know that all I have said of myself is true, but what I have declared of
others is entirely false. I have only invented it because I perceived
that you wished me to denounce innocent persons; and being unacquainted
with the names and quality of these unfortunate people, I named all whom
I could think of, in the hope of finding an end of my misery. I now
perceive that my situation admits of no relief, and I therefore retract
all my depositions; and now I have fulfilled this duty, burn me as soon
as you please."

The trial was sent to the Supreme Council, which confirmed the sentence
of _relaxation_ for the third time, and wrote to reprimand the tribunal
for having _summoned_ the accused before them after passing the
sentence, since an audience should only take place at the request of the
accused.

Instead of submitting to this opinion, the inquisitors called Melchior
before them on the 31st of May, and asked him if he had nothing else to
communicate; he replied in the negative: they then represented to him
that his declarations contained many contradictions, and that it was
necessary for the good of his soul, that he should finally make a
confession of the truth, respecting himself and all the guilty persons
he was acquainted with.

These words show the cunning of the inquisitors; their object was to
induce the accused to retract his last declaration: but Melchior,
knowing the character of the inquisitors, replied, that if they wished
to know the truth, they would find it in the declaration which he made
before the Señor _Ayora_, when he visited the tribunal. This writing was
examined, and it was found that Melchior had said, _that he knew nothing
of the subject on which he was examined_. The following conversation
then took place:--

"How can this declaration be true, when you have several times declared
that you have attended the Jewish assemblies, believed in their
doctrines, and persevered in the belief for the space of one year, until
you were undeceived by a priest?"--"I spoke falsely when I made a
declaration against myself."

"But how is it that what you have confessed of yourself, and many other
things which you now deny, are the result of the depositions of a great
many witnesses?"--"I do not know if that is true or false, for I have
not seen the writings of the trial; but if the witnesses have said that
which is imputed to them, it is because they were placed in the same
situation as I am. They do not love me better than I love myself; and I
have certainly declared against myself both truth and falsehood."

"What motive had you for declaring things injurious to yourself, if they
were false?"--"I did not think it would be injurious to me; on the
contrary, I expected to derive great advantages from it, because I saw
that if I did not confess anything, I should be considered as
impenitent, and the truth would lead me to the scaffold. I thought that
falsehood would be most useful to me, and I found it so in two
_autos-da-fé_."

On the 6th of June Melchior Hernandez was informed that he must prepare
for death on the following day. He was clothed in the habit of the
persons condemned to be burnt, and a confessor was appointed for him. At
two o'clock in the morning he demanded an audience, saying that he
wished to acquit his conscience. An inquisitor, attended by a secretary,
went to his cell; Melchior then declared "that, at the point of
appearing before the tribunal of the Almighty, and without any hope of
escaping from death by new delays, he thought himself bound to declare
that he had never conversed with any person on the Mosaical Law; that
all he had said on this subject was founded on the wish to preserve
life, and the belief that his confessions were pleasing to the
inquisitors; that he asked pardon of the persons implicated, that God
might pardon him, and that no injury might be done to their honour and
reputation."

The inquisitor represented that he ought not to speak falsely, even from
a motive of compassion for the denounced persons; that the declarations
of the witnesses had every appearance of truth, and he therefore
entreated him, in the name of God, not to increase his sins at the hour
of death. Melchior merely repeated that all his former declarations were
false. The royal judge condemned him to be strangled, and his body was
afterwards burnt.

Some doubts may be entertained of the sincerity of the last declarations
of Melchior Hernandez, but the extreme irregularity of the proceedings
of the tribunal must be evident to every one. The intervention of the
Supreme Council proves that the same system was pursued in the other
tribunals, since it approved of their proceedings, and exercised the
rights of revocation and censure.

In 1564 another _auto-da-fé_ took place at Murcia, one person and eleven
effigies were burnt; there were also forty-eight penitents, but the
following circumstance was the cause of this ceremony being more
particularly remembered. Pedro Hernandez had been reconciled in 1561, as
suspected of Judaism. In 1564 he fell sick, and through the mediation of
his confessor demanded an audience of the inquisitors. One of them went
to his house, and Pedro told him that he had denied the crime of which
he was accused, and had afterwards made a confession, alleging as an
excuse for this conduct, that a French priest had given him absolution.
He now confessed that this was not true, and that he wished to relieve
his conscience by acknowledging it before he died. The inquisitors
presented this declaration to the tribunal, which immediately caused
Pedro to be taken from his bed and conveyed to their prisons, where he
died three days after.

Three other _autos-da-fé_ took place at Murcia in the years 1565, 1567,
and 1568, in which thirty-five persons were burnt, and a considerable
number condemned to penances.




CHAPTER XXIV.

OF THE AUTOS-DA-FE CELEBRATED BY THE INQUISITIONS OF TOLEDO, SARAGOSSA,
VALENCIA, LOGRONO, GRENADA, CUENCA, AND SARDINIA, DURING THE REIGN OF
PHILIP II.


_Inquisition of Toledo._

On the 25th of February, 1560, the inquisitors of Toledo celebrated an
_auto-da-fé_, in which several persons were burnt, with some effigies,
and a great number subjected to penances. This _auto-da-fé_ was
performed to entertain the new queen, Elizabeth de Valois, the daughter
of Henry II., King of France. It is rather surprising that this
melancholy ceremony was chosen to amuse a royal princess of thirteen
years of age, and who in her native country had been accustomed to
brilliant festivals, suitable to her rank and age. The Cortes general of
the kingdoms was also assembled at Toledo at the same time, to swear
allegiance to the heir-presumptive, Don Carlos, so that this
_auto-da-fé_, with the exception of the number of victims, was as solemn
as any of those in Valladolid.

In 1561, another _auto-da-fé_ took place in the same town; four
impenitent Lutherans were burnt, and eighteen reconciled. Among those
condemned to penances was one of the king's pages, a native of Brussels,
named Don _Charles Estrect_, but the young queen Elizabeth obtained his
pardon.

On the 17th of June, 1565 (which was Trinity Sunday), an _auto-da-fé_ of
forty-five persons was celebrated; eleven were burnt, and thirty-four
condemned to penances. Some of these were Lutherans, but the greater
number were Jews. Among those designated as Protestants, some were
called _Lutherans_, others the _Faithful_; there was a third called
_Huguenaos_, after _Huguenots_.

Although the Inquisition of Toledo celebrated as many _autos-da-fé_ as
the other tribunals, I do not find any persons of distinction among the
victims, until the _auto-da-fé_ of the 4th of June, 1571, when two men
were burnt in person, and three in effigy, for Lutheranism, and
thirty-one individuals were condemned to penances. One of the men who
were burnt ought to be particularly mentioned. He was called the _Doctor
Sigismond Archel_, of Cagliari, in Sardinia. He had been arrested at
Madrid, in 1562, as a dogmatizing Lutheran, and after remaining for a
long time in the prisons at Toledo, he contrived to make his escape. He
had not time to get out of the kingdom; descriptions of his person were
sent to all parts of the frontier, and he was again arrested, and fell
into the hands of his judges. He persisted in denying the facts imputed
to him, until the _publication of the witnesses_, when he confessed, and
maintained not only that he was not a heretic, but that he was a better
Catholic than the _Papists_. He was condemned to be burnt, but
persevered in his system, and declared that he was a martyr; he insulted
the priests when they exhorted him, and was then gagged until he was
fastened to the stake. The archers, perceiving that he pretended to the
glory of martyrdom, pierced him with their lances, while the
executioners were lighting the faggots.


_Inquisition of Saragossa._

The Inquisition of Saragossa also celebrated an _auto-da-fé_ every year,
when several people were burnt, and about twenty reconciled. Most of
these were _Huguenots_ who had quitted Bearn, to establish themselves as
merchants in Saragossa, Huesca, Barbastro, and other cities. The
progress which the Calvinistic doctrines had made in Spain, is proved by
an ordinance of the Supreme Council, in which we read, that "Don Louis
de Benegas, the ambassador of Spain at Vienna, informed the
inquisitor-general, on the 14th of April, 1568, that he had learnt from
particular reports, that the Calvinists congratulated each other on the
peace signed between France and Spain, and that they hoped that their
religion would make as much progress in Spain as in England, Flanders,
and other countries, because the great number of Spaniards who had
secretly adopted it might easily hold communication with the Protestants
of Bearn, through Arragon." These, and other reports, induced the
council to recommend additional vigilance to the inquisitors.

The following circumstance shows the injustice and cruelty of the
Inquisition in a strong light. In 1578, a man was condemned, on
suspicion of heresy, to receive two hundred stripes, to be sent for five
years to the galleys, and to pay an hundred ducats. His crime was
sending Spanish horses into France. Since the reign of Alphonso XI., in
the fourteenth century, the introduction of Spanish horses into France
was prohibited, on pain of death and confiscation; the particular
circumstances which caused so disproportionate a punishment to the crime
to be established are not known; it was however renewed in 1499, by
Ferdinand the Catholic. No one will deny that the officers of the
customs were the proper persons to arrest these smugglers; but when the
civil wars broke out between the Catholics and Protestants in France,
Philip thought proper to employ the Inquisition in repressing the
practice, pretending, according to the Papal bull, that those who
furnished the Protestants with arms, ammunition, &c., were favourers of
heretics, and liable to suspicion of heresy. Philip II. commissioned the
Inquisition of Logroño, Saragossa, and Barcelona, to take cognizance of
all the crimes relating to the introduction of Spanish horses into
France.

The Council of the Inquisition added a clause to the annual edict of
denunciations, which obliged every Spanish Catholic Christian to
denounce persons known to have bought horses to send to France, for the
use of the Protestants. Besides these motives of religion, the zeal of
the inhabitants was excited by the promise of a reward.

In 1575, the punishment of whipping was decreed for this crime; but
though the law is expressed in general terms, the following event shows
that it was only inflicted on those whose power and credit were small.
In 1576, a Commissary of the Inquisition met a servant of the viceroy of
Arragon going into France with two horses; he seized the horses, but
allowed the servant to go away. He gave an account of his proceedings to
the inquisitors, who approved of his conduct in not arresting the
servant; their opinion was confirmed by the Supreme Council. The
inquisitors were on the point of writing to the viceroy, to demand an
explanation of the conduct of his servant, and the destination of the
horses, when the council ordered them to desist, if they thought it
would be disagreeable to the viceroy.

This law was afterwards applied to those who were suspected of
smuggling, and to those who favoured the practice. In 1607, Philip II.
ordered the inquisitors to offer rewards to those who intercepted this
trade, and the people were at last inspired with so great a horror of
it, and those who practised it became so odious, that the government was
obliged to declare that the misfortune of being convicted and punished
for this crime, did not exclude a person from enjoying honours and
offices.

The inquisitors, always eager to extend their jurisdiction, wished to
have the right of undertaking the trials for smuggling saltpetre,
sulphur, and gunpowder; this attempt did not succeed, and was, in fact,
the cause of their being deprived of the powers bestowed on them by
Philip, respecting the introduction of horses into France.


_Inquisition of Grenada._

In the yearly _autos-da-fé_ of the Inquisition of Grenada, there
generally appeared about twenty condemned persons; for although the
Morescoes who denounced themselves were treated with great clemency, yet
there were many who refused to accuse themselves, either from the fear
which the severity of the Inquisition inspired, or because they were
persuaded that those who declared they had been treated with great
gentleness, did not dare to assert the contrary; and others, after
having emigrated to Africa, had returned to Spain without considering
the danger they were in of being arrested by the Inquisition.

On the 27th of May, 1593, a grand _auto-da-fé_ took place at Grenada;
five individuals were burnt in person, and five in effigy; eighty-seven
were condemned to penances. The only considerable person among these,
was Donna Inez Alvarez, the wife of Thomas Martinez, alguazil to the
royal chancery. She was condemned to be burnt, but making a confession
on the scaffold, she was reconciled.

The proceedings were the same in the Inquisition of Valencia. The number
of Morescoes who relapsed into Mahometanism, and refused to accuse
themselves, was so considerable, that many appeared in every
_auto-da-fé_, either to be burnt as _impenitent_, or to suffer different
penances.


_Inquisition of Logroño._

The Inquisition of Logroño was not less active in prosecuting heretics.
An _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated every year, composed of about twenty
persons condemned for Judaism, and some others for different heresies,
particularly Lutheranism; for after the time of Don Carlos de Seso,
corregidor of Toro (who was arrested at Logroño, in 1558, and burnt in
the following year at Valladolid), there were always some individuals to
be found who professed his opinions, and succeeded in obtaining Lutheran
books. The council which was informed of this circumstance, wrote to the
inquisitors in 1568, enjoining them to redouble their vigilance in
preventing the introduction of heretical books, and informed them, that
Don Diego de Guzman, ambassador to England, had written that the
Protestants of that country boasted that their doctrine was well
received in Spain, particularly in Navarre, and that it was even
preached there.

While the inquisitors of Logroño were preparing for the _auto-da-fé_ of
1570, they had the mortification of being blamed for their conduct in
two instances by the Supreme Council. One was in the case of Lope de
Arguinaraz, and the other in that of Juan Floristan Maestuz, who were
accused of Judaism. Arguinaraz denied the fact, was tortured, and then
confessed having committed the actions, but asserted that he did not do
them with the sentiments and belief that he was accused of. He ratified
his confession some days after, and demanded reconciliation. The judges
when they assembled to vote for the definitive sentence, resolved to
refer the case to the Supreme Council, which pronounced that they had
not sufficiently examined the accused on the sentiments and intentions
which he entertained in committing the actions he had confessed, and
commanded them to return to that stage of the trial, and vote according
to the result. The inquisitors sent an account of the motives of their
conduct, and gave notice that they should wait until the council had
considered their observations, before they proceeded further. The reply
to this message enjoined the inquisitors to execute the orders they had
received immediately, and harshly reproached them for not having obeyed
them in silence, and for having failed in their duty, in the
interrogation, when they ought to have examined the accused on his
doctrine.

In the other affair of Juan Floristan Maestuz, the council expressed its
surprise, that the inquisitors did not examine the accused on some
heretical propositions which were proved against him, though he refused
to confess even during the torture; and above all, that the inquisitor,
who had qualified the accused as _negatively_ perjured, had voted for
his reconciliation, since the constitutions of the holy office
prohibited the reconciliation of those who persisted denying the charges
proved against him. The reconciliation of the two prisoners took place
in the _auto-da-fé_.

An _auto-da-fé_ took place at Logroño, on the 14th of November, 1593,
where forty-nine persons appeared; five were burnt in person, seven in
effigy; the others were subjected to penances.

The custom of celebrating one _general auto-da-fé_ every year was so
well established, that when the inquisitors of Cuença, in 1558, gave up
a man to secular justice in a _particular auto-da-fé_, it was doubted if
the rules of the holy office permitted it; and though the council
decided in the affirmative, the custom of reserving all the condemned
persons for the general _auto-da-fé_ prevailed, unless any very
particular circumstance made it necessary to deviate from it.


_Inquisition of Sardinia._

I have already stated, that Philip II. introduced the Spanish
constitution into Sardinia, in 1562. Don Diego Calvo first began to put
it into execution, but the novelty made so great an impression on the
inhabitants, that they demanded that the tribunal should be visited.
This commission was confided by the inquisitor-general to the
licentiate, Martinez del Villar, who fulfilled it in 1567. He received
so many complaints against the inquisitor Calvo, that he was recalled,
and Martinez took his place; he, however, did not remain there long, but
was succeeded by Don Alphonso de Lorca.

In 1575, an appeal was made to Rome against the tribunal of Sardinia,
and Philip II. interposed in its defence. Don Francis Minuta, a
Sardinian gentleman, had been subjected to a penance for bigamy, and
condemned to serve for three years as a common soldier in the galleys
of Spain, and without the liberty of going out of the Goletta, in Malta.
He had not been there a month, before he contrived to escape, and
returned to Sardinia; the inquisitor-general then ordered him to be
again arrested, and doubled his punishment; Minuta was taken back to the
Goletta, whence he escaped a second time, and fled to Rome. He
represented to the Pope that he was not guilty of bigamy, and that the
manner in which the inquisitor-general had treated him was unjust, since
he had left the fort with the permission of the governor. Don Francis
demanded, and obtained of the Pope, two briefs of commission: the first
for the examination of the principal question, that of bigamy; the other
to judge of the reasons which he advanced against the sentence, which
prolonged his detention. In the interim, the inquisitor of Sardinia
declared him a contumacious fugitive, and condemned him to eight years'
labour in the galleys. The apostolical judge required the inquisitor to
suspend the proceedings; he informed the inquisitor-general, who applied
to the king, whose interference they had never requested in vain. Philip
II. wrote to Don Juan de Zuñiga, his ambassador at Rome, to demand a
revocation of the briefs of commission, and to obtain permission for the
inquisitor of the island to continue the prosecution, or that it might
at least be referred to the inquisitor-general, to whom the right of
judging the cause belonged. The Pope revoked his bulls to please the
King of Spain, and the unfortunate Don Francis Minuta experienced the
fate which he might have expected; for, in cases of this nature, the
inquisitor-general always delegates one of the members of the accused
tribunal to be the examining judge, on pretence that they are in
possession of the writings of the trial.

Don Andrea Minuta, brother to Don Francis, was also condemned to the
same punishment for three years. He fled to Rome, and appealing to the
Pope, obtained a brief of commission for a bishop of Sardinia. Philip
II. made the same request to the Pope, and Andrea was treated in the
same way as his brother.

Don Pedro Guisa, Baron de Casteli, in Sardinia, was prosecuted and
condemned for the same crime of bigamy; but having learnt what had
happened to the two brothers Minuta, he had recourse to entreaties and
humiliations, to appease the inquisitor-general and obtain a commutation
of his punishment.




CHAPTER XXV.

OF THE LEARNED MEN WHO HAVE BEEN PERSECUTED BY THE INQUISITION.


Among the many evils which the Inquisition has inflicted on Spain, the
obstacles which it opposes to the progress of the arts and sciences, and
literature, are not the least deplorable. The partisans of the holy
office have never allowed this, yet it is a certain truth. The
apologists, of whom I speak, maintain, that the Inquisition only opposes
the invasion of heretical opinions, and leaves those who do not attack
the doctrines of the faith in perfect liberty,--consequently, that it
does not influence the arts and sciences. If this pretension was just,
there are many excellent works which might be read, and which are only
prohibited because they contain doctrines opposed to the opinions of the
scholastic theologians.

St. Augustine was certainly a very zealous partisan of religion in its
greatest purity, yet he made a great distinction between a dogmatic
proposition and one not defined. He acknowledged that in the second case
a Catholic was free to maintain the argument for, or against, according
to the dictates of his reason. St. Augustine did not suppose that the
freedom of opinion would be opposed by such theological censures as the
qualifiers of the holy office have established in modern times. They
have had great influence on the prohibition of books, and even on the
condemnation of their authors. They are employed against the first, on
pretence that they contain propositions _favourable to heresy, ill
sounding, savouring of heresy, fomenting heresy, or tending to heresy_;
against the authors, in declaring them suspected of having adopted
heresy in their hearts.

In the present time the qualifiers have extended the prohibitions, by
saying that the books contained propositions _offensive to persons of
high rank, seditious, tending to disturb public tranquillity, contrary
to the government of the state, and opposed to the obedience which has
been taught by Jesus Christ and his apostles_.

These censures are generally passed by scholastic theologians. The work
of _Filangieri_, entitled _The Science of Legislation_, was censured by
Fray Joseph de Cardenas, a Capuchin, who thought himself competent to do
it, though he had only read the first volume of the Spanish translation,
which contained only half of that of the original.

The prohibition applies most to those books which treat of theology, and
the canonical laws, particularly if they are well written, and contain
the doctrines taught by the fathers, the councils, and even by the popes
who reigned in the seven first centuries, but which have been forgotten
or opposed by the theologians of the barbarous times, who wished to
establish the system of the union of the two powers in the person of the
sovereign pontiff.

The theological censures likewise attack works on philosophy, on civil
and natural law, and on the people. Those books which have been
published on mathematics, astronomy, physic, and other subjects which
depend upon these, have not been more highly favoured. The Spaniards
have, consequently, been deprived of the advantages which other nations
have derived from all the recent discoveries.

Since the establishment of the holy office, there has scarcely been any
man celebrated for his learning, who has not been prosecuted as a
heretic. In the list which follows, I shall not (unless particular
circumstances render it necessary) include any learned man who has been
prosecuted for having embraced Judaism, Mahometanism, or any sect
equally prohibited by the Catholic religion. Those only will be
mentioned who suffered in their liberty, honour and fortunes, from not
having adopted erroneous scholastic opinions.

The names are disposed in an alphabetical order, that the reader may be
enabled to find the article he wishes to consult more quickly.

_Abady-la-Sierra_ (D. Augustin), bishop of Barbastro. See Chapter 29.

_Abady-la-Sierra_ (D. Manuel), archbishop of Selimbria, _ibid._

_Almodobar_ (Duke of). See following Chapter.

_Aranda_ (Count d'). _Ibid._

_Arellano_ (D. Joseph Xavier Rodriguez d'), archbishop of Burgos. See
Chapter 29.

_Avila_ (the venerable Juan d'), secular priest, born at Almodovar del
Campo, surnamed the Apostle of Andalusia. See Chapters 13 and 14.

_Azara_ (Doctor Nicholas d'). See the following Chapter.

_Balvoa_ (Doctor Juan de), doctoral canon of the cathedral of Salamanca,
and law professor in the university of that city. He was one of the most
distinguished literati of his age. Nicolas Antonio only mentions one of
his works, entitled _Salmantine Lessons_. He composed several others,
one of which would have caused him to be arrested by the Inquisition, if
he had not been protected by the inquisitor-general, Cardinal Don
Antonio Zapata, and by some of the councillors of the tribunal. It was a
memoir which he had drawn up and presented in 1627, to Philip IV., in
the name of the universities of Salamanca, Valladolid and Alcala. The
object of this memoir was to induce the king to refuse the permission
which the Jesuits had requested, to change the _Imperial_ College of
Madrid into a university.

The Jesuits denounced the work, and qualified some of the propositions
as _erroneous, offensive to pious ears, scandalous and injurious to the
government, and to the regular ecclesiastics of the Society of Jesus_.

The council caused the memoir to be examined by _qualifiers_, who
declared that it did not merit theological censure, and the council
abandoned the affair. The Jesuits then employed the influence of the
Count Duke d'Olivarez with the king, but the attempt was unsuccessful.
The other work which is attributed to Balvoa, is perhaps that which was
printed at Rome in 1636, in the printing-office of the apostolic
chamber. It is written in Latin, in quarto, and bears the name of
Alphonso de Vargas de Toledo, with this title: _An Exposition made by
Alphonso de Vargas to the Christian Kings and Princes, of the Stratagems
and political Artifices which the Members of the Society of Jesus employ
to establish a universal Monarchy in their favour, a Work which proves
the Deceit of the Jesuits towards the Kings and Nations who have
received them favourably; their Perfidy and Disobedience, even to the
Pope, and the immoderate Desire of Innovation which they have always
shown in Matters of Religion_. It has been said that this work was
printed at Frankfort, with the exception of the justificatory pieces.
The author advances and proves heavy charges against the Jesuits.

_Bails_ (D. Benito), professor of mathematics at Madrid, and author of a
work on that science, used in the schools. The Inquisition instituted
his trial towards the end of the reign of Charles III., as suspected of
atheism and materialism. Bails was deprived of the use of his limbs, and
incapable of attending to his affairs; yet he was arrested and taken to
the prisons of the holy office, with one of his nieces, who obtained
permission to share his captivity, that she might continue to render
him the assistance which his situation rendered necessary. He prepared
his defence in the best manner he was able; and before the publication
of the depositions, he acknowledged enough to show that he was sincere
in his confession and repentance. When he was examined on his internal
belief, he declared that he had had some doubts on the existence of a
God, and the immortality of the soul, but that he had never actually
been an atheist, or a materialist; that during his solitude in the
prison, he had reflected on the subject, and was ready to abjure all
heresies, and particularly those of which he was suspected. He demanded
reconciliation, and a penance, which he promised to accomplish as well
as his health would allow him. His situation was considered; and instead
of sending him to a convent, whither his niece could not have followed
him, he was kept for some time in the secret prisons of the holy office:
he was afterwards removed to his own house, which served for his prison,
and he was obliged to pay for his food during his imprisonment, and
subjected to several other penances, one of which was being obliged to
confess to a priest, who was appointed three times in the year,--at
Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.

_Balza_ (Francis), Franciscan, and a celebrated preacher in the reign of
Charles III. When the Jesuits were driven from Spain, he openly preached
against the relaxed morals of the age; he inveighed against the authors
who had introduced and propagated them, and endeavoured to inspire
people with a horror of reading their works. As some of these authors
were Jesuits, he declaimed violently against those persons who blamed
the king for the measures he had taken, to drive them out of the
kingdom. Balza was denounced at Logroño, and the inquisitors gave him to
understand, that he would be treated with severity if he did not change
his tone.

_Barriovero_ (Doctor Ferdinand de), theologist of the church of Toledo,
and a professor in the university. He was tried in 1558, for approving
the doctrine of the Catechism of Don Bartholomew Carranza. He allayed
the storm by retracting, when he received the king's order to do so, and
by sending his recantation to the Pope, when the Archbishops of Granada
and Santiago, and the Bishop of Jaen adopted that measure.

_Belando_ (Fray Nicolas de Jesus), Franciscan: he was prosecuted on
account of his _Civil History of Spain_. In this work he gives an
account of all the events from the accession of Philip IV. to 1733. The
inquisitors prohibited this book entirely from political motives, and
not from anything relating to doctrine; their judgment against Belando
was given on the 6th of December, 1774. The inquisitors had no respect
either for the license at the beginning of the book, the dedication to
Philip V., or for the favourable opinion of an enlightened member of the
Council of Castile, who was commissioned by his majesty to examine it,
before he allowed it to be dedicated to him. The author appealed against
the sentence, and demanded to be heard: he offered to reply to all the
observations, and to make any alterations or suppressions in his work
which the tribunal should suggest. This attempt of Belando to defend his
book was considered as a crime, and he was confined in the dungeons of
the holy office, where he suffered the harshest treatment. He only left
them to be imprisoned for life in a convent, and he was prohibited from
ever composing another work. He was stripped of the honours which
distinguished him in his order, and more severe penances were inflicted
on him than if he had been an heretic.

_Bercial_ (Clement Sanchez del), priest, archdeacon of Valderas, and
dignitary of the church of Leon. He was prosecuted and punished in the
time of Charles V. for Lutheranism. He was condemned for some
propositions in a work called _Sacramental_. In 1559, the
inquisitor-general Valdez placed this book in the _Index_.

_Berroçosa_ (Fray Manuel Santos), author of a work called _Essays on the
Theatre of Rome_. He was imprisoned by the Inquisition of Toledo,
because he spoke of the court of Rome, in his Essays, in a manner
displeasing to the Jesuits and inquisitors. The proceedings in this
trial were so arbitrary, that the work in question was not examined
until the affair was nearly finished. The writings of this trial were
taken from the archives of the Inquisition, for some unknown reason. In
1768 they were laid, by the king's order, before the council
extraordinary of bishops, who were assembled to consider the affairs of
the Jesuits.

_Blanco_ (Don Francis), archbishop of Santiago. See Chapter 29.

_Brozas_ (Francis Sanchez de Las), generally called _el Brocense_; he
was born in the village of Las Brozas, from whence he took his name. He
was one of the greatest _humanists_ of his age, and the most
distinguished Spaniard of that party in the time of Philip II. During
this reign he published several works, which are mentioned by Nicolas
Antonio in his catalogue. The severe _Justus Lipse_ calls him the
_Mercury and Apollo of Spain_, and Gaspard Scioppius, the _divine man_.
He was prosecuted by the Inquisition of Valladolid several times for
some propositions contained in his works, but principally in a book in
octavo, entitled, _Escolias à las quatro Sylvas escritas en verso
heroico por Angelo Policiano, intituladas Nutricia, Rustico, Manto y
Ambra_; viz. "Commentaries on the four Sylvas, written in heroic verse
by Angelo Politiano, called _Nutricia_, _Rustico_, _Manto_, and
_Ambra_." _El Brocense_ completely satisfied the qualifiers, and his
work was not inscribed on the Index.

_Baruaga_ (Don Thomas Saenz), archbishop of Saragossa. See Chapter 29.

_Cadena_ (Louis de la), second chancellor of the university of Alcala de
Henares, and nephew of Doctor Pedro de Lerma, who was the first who
possessed that dignity. Cadena was one of the most learned men of his
time; he understood Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and other eastern languages;
he wrote Latin with the greatest elegance, and enjoyed a high reputation
among the literati. The learned Alvaro Gomez de Castro says, in his
_History of Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros_, that he had formed the design
of destroying the bad scholastic taste which reigned in the
universities. This enterprise cost Cadena dear: those who were attached
to the opinions of the schools denounced him to the Inquisition of
Toledo, as suspected of Lutheranism; the archbishops Ximenez de Cisneros
and Fonseca, who protected the persecuted members of the university of
Alcala, were no more; and Cadena was obliged to follow the example of
his uncle, and fly to Paris to escape the dungeons of the holy office.
He was received as a doctor in the Sorbonne, and died a professor in
that celebrated house.

_Campomanes._ See following Chapter.

_Cano_ (Melchior), bishop of Canary. See Chapter 29.

_Cañuelo_ (Don Louis), advocate of the king's council during the reign
of Charles III. He was subjected to a penance, and abjured, _de levi_,
for having inserted certain propositions in some numbers of a periodical
work called _The Censor_, which appeared without the name of the author.
Cañuelo often published declamations against superstition in the
_Censor_, in which he proved the evil which might be produced by a blind
and vain confidence in the indulgences and pardons obtained by those who
wore the scapulary of our Lady of Mount Carmel, in reciting _neuvaines_,
and in the other outward exercises of devotion, which he said were
detrimental to the purity of religion. He also presumed to ridicule the
pompous titles given by the monks to the saints of their orders: thus
St. Augustine was called the _Eagle of Doctors_; St. Bernard, _Honied_;
St. Thomas, _Angelic_; St. Buonaventure, _Seraphic_; St. John de la
Cruix, _Mystic_; St. Francis, _Cherubim_; and St. Dominic, _Burning_. He
one day offered a recompense to any one who would apply the name of
_Cardinal_ to St. Jerome, and that of _Doctor_ to St. Theresa de Jesus.
The monks whom he ridiculed could not forgive his boldness, and they
persecuted him with virulence. The numbers of his work were prohibited,
although they were already published; and he was forbidden to write on
any subject which had the least relation to doctrine, morals, or the
received opinions on piety and devotion.

_Cantalapiedra_ (Martin Martinez de), professor of theology, and very
learned in the Oriental tongues. He was prosecuted during the reign of
Philip II. for publishing a book called _Hippotiposeon_, &c. it was
prohibited, and inserted in the _Index_ of Cardinal Quiroga in 1583.
This author was suspected of Lutheranism, from having too much enforced
the necessity of consulting the original books of the Holy Scriptures,
in preference to the interpretations: he abjured _de levi_, submitted to
a penance, and was forbidden to write again. This example gives us an
idea of the judgment and discrimination of the judges and qualifiers.

_Carranza_ (Don Bartholomew), archbishop of Toledo. See Chapters 32, 33,
and 34.

_Casas_ (Don Fray Bartholomew de Las), a Dominican, bishop of Chiapa and
afterwards of Cuzco, resigned his see to live in Spain; he was the
defender of the right and liberty of the native Indians. He wrote
several excellent works which are mentioned by Nicholas Antonio. In one
of these, he endeavours to prove that the kings have not the power of
disposing of the property and liberty of their American subjects, and of
giving them to other masters, either under a feodal tenure, or from a
right of conquest. This work was denounced to the Inquisition as opposed
to the declarations of St. Paul and St. Peter, concerning the submission
of serfs and vassals to their lords. The author was much grieved when he
heard that it was intended to prosecute him; but the council only
required of him, in an official manner, the remittance of the work and
the manuscript. It was afterwards printed several times in other
countries, which is mentioned by M. Peignot in his _Dictionnaire
Critique, et Bibliographique des Livres remarquables qui ont été brulés,
supprimées ou censurés_. Casas died at Madrid in 1566 at the age of
ninety-two. He had the pleasure of seeing another of his works in favour
of the Americans approved by the censors, although it had been
criticised by Juan Gines de Sepulveda. Charles V. ordered this writing
to be suppressed, although it was favourable to the royal authority: he
likewise made several ordinances in favour of the Americans, and if they
had been executed, fewer reproaches would have been bestowed on the
Spaniards who governed the new world.

_Castillo_ (Fray Ferdinand del), a Dominican, and one of the most
illustrious men of his order. He was implicated in the proceedings
against the Lutherans at Valladolid in the year 1559. Fray Dominic de
Roxas, Pedro Cazalla, and Don Carlos de Seso, wishing to prove that
their opinions on _justification_ were orthodox, declared that they were
the same as those of Fray Ferdinand del Castillo, who was universally
acknowledged to be eminent for virtue and wisdom; he had been a member
of the College of St. Gregory at Valladolid; afterwards professor of
philosophy and theology at Grenada: he was at this time a preacher of
great eminence at Madrid. The three witnesses ratified their
declarations on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th of October, 1559; they were to be
burnt on the 8th of the same month. Fortunately for Fray Ferdinand, the
three witnesses had not positively asserted that he had maintained the
doctrine of _justification_ in the manner that they did, or in the same
sense, but that he had expressed himself in such a manner that it might
be supposed. Fray Ferdinand was ordered to repair to Valladolid, where
he was confined in the College of St. Gregory, and was summoned to
appear before the tribunal. He cleared himself from the charges brought
against him, and even obtained a certificate of his acquittal, that his
honour and reputation might not be affected. He returned to Madrid,
where he was made a prior, and was afterwards sent to Medina with the
same dignity; lastly he was appointed preacher to Philip II. This prince
often consulted him on difficult affairs, and appointed him to accompany
the Duke of Ossuna in his embassy to Lisbon. Castillo was one of those
who took the greatest part in inducing the Cardinal King, Don Henry, to
call Philip II. to succeed him on the throne of Portugal, and he was
subsequently made preceptor to the infant Don Ferdinand. He wrote the
history of the order of St. Dominic, a work which is much esteemed by
the learned of the present day. Castillo died on the 29th of March,
1593: his life had been a model of austerity, and he fasted on bread and
water three times a week.

_Centeno_ (Fray Pedro), an Augustine monk. He was one of the most
learned men of his order, and one of the most distinguished literati in
Spain, during the reigns of Charles III. and Charles IV. Centeno
incurred the hatred of all the monks, priests, and seculars, by his
periodical work, entitled, _The Universal Apologist for all unfortunate
Authors_. Centeno attacked the bad taste which predominated in
literature, with the most delicate irony, so that the scholastic
theologians, who knew nothing of good taste, dreaded to come under his
examination. The ironical praise which he lavished on them, was more to
be feared than his sharpest satire: his papers were universally read
with pleasure, and his decisions generally adopted by his readers. The
prejudices which prevailed in Spain did not fail to create him many
enemies. He relied on the purity of his religious opinions, and the
extent of his knowledge; but he was denounced at the holy office, and
the denunciations were as different as the stations and characters of
those who attacked him. He was accused of _impiety_ (a crime then
considered in Spain as equal to _atheism_, or _materialism_), at the
same time that others accused him of being a Lutheran and a Jansenist.
The great reputation enjoyed by the accused, the protection which the
Count de Florida Blanca, first secretary of state, afforded him, the
fear that hatred, envy and resentment had induced the accusers to invent
calumnies, and the impossibility that Centeno could be at the same time
an atheist and a Lutheran, prevented the tribunal from sending him to
their dungeons; they therefore confined him in the Convent of St.
Philip, where he dwelt, commanding him to appear before the tribunal
when summoned. His great knowledge of doctrine enabled him to defend
himself with advantage: if his discourse had been printed, his fame must
have much increased by it; yet he was condemned as _violently_ suspected
of heresy, and was compelled to abjure and perform different penances.
This treatment plunged Centeno into a profound melancholy, which
alienated his reason; he died in this state in the convent of Arenas,
where he was confined.

The principal accusations against him were, 1st. That he had disapproved
of the _Novenas_, the rosaries, processions, stations, and other pious
exercises. This charge was supported by a quotation from the funeral
oration of a nobleman, in which he had said that beneficence was the
favourite virtue of the deceased; that it was in the constant practice
of it that true devotion consisted, and not in the mere exterior
exercises of religion, which required neither care nor trouble, or any
sacrifices of money, or other things. 2d. That he denied the existence
of _limboes_, places destined to receive the souls of those who die
before the age of reason, without receiving baptism: the argument
brought to support this charge was the suppression of the question and
answer on the article _Limbo_, which he had obliged the author of the
Catechism to make. This work had been printed for the use of the
charity-schools at Madrid, of which he had been appointed censor; the
accused replied to the first accusation, by giving clear and perfect
explanations, founded on the texts of Scripture and the Holy Fathers,
and on the principles of true devotion: he proved the perfect connection
of his defence with the expressions he had used in the sermon, of which
he produced the original copy, as a proof of his innocence. On the
second charge, he said that the existence of _Limbus_ was not defined as
an article of faith; that it ought not to be mentioned in a catechism,
where, according to his opinion, nothing ought to be considered but
_doctrine_; and that he had suppressed the question, that the Christians
might not confound this subject which was still an object of discussion
among the Catholics, with those already decided by the Church. He was
formally summoned to declare whether he believed in the existence of
_Limbus_; he replied that he was not obliged to answer, because it did
not relate to an article of faith; but that as he had no motives to
conceal his opinions, he would confess that he did not believe in the
existence. He demanded permission to compose a theological treatise, in
which he offered to demonstrate the truth of what he advanced, humbly
submitting to the decisions of the Church: this permission being
granted, he wrote an hundred and twenty pages in folio, in close lines,
so that it would form an octavo volume. I had the curiosity to read it,
and was astonished at his immense and profound erudition: this writing
contains all that the Fathers and the great theologians have said since
the time of Jesus Christ, particularly since St. Augustine, on the
future lot of those who die without receiving baptism, and before they
have committed any mortal sin. His defence could not save him. A
barefooted Carmelite and a Minime were the principal qualifiers, who
censured Centeno as _violently suspected of heresy_.

_Cespedes_ (Doctor Paul de), born at Cordova, prebendary of the
Cathedral of that city, and residing at Rome. The Inquisition of
Valladolid tried him in 1560, for some letters which he had written to
Don Bartholomew Carranza, archbishop of Toledo, and which were found
among the papers of that prelate, with the copies of his replies. In one
of these letters dated from Rome, on the 17th of February, 1559, he
gives him an account of his proceedings in his favour, and allowed
himself to speak ill of the inquisitor-general and the Inquisition of
Spain. Cespedes was a great literati, a great painter, and poet, and a
very clever modeller in wax: he composed a poem, in stanzas of eight
verses, on _Repentance_. Juan de Verzosa and Francis Pacheco (both
mentioned with approbation by Nicholas Antonio) have highly praised this
poem. Cespedes continued to reside at Rome, and thus the inquisitors of
Valladolid could not execute their projects of vengeance.

_Chumacero_ (Don Juan de). See the following Chapter.

_Clavijo y Faxardo_ (Don Joseph de), principal director of the museum of
natural history at Madrid, and a learned man, who had a great taste for
science. The Inquisition of the _Court_ tried him on the suspicion that
he had adopted the antichristian principles of modern philosophy. He was
confined to the city of Madrid, which was fortunate for him, as he thus
preserved his honour and his office; he appeared privately before the
tribunal, and was only condemned to private penances; he also made his
abjuration, _de levi_, with closed doors, in the hall of the tribunal.
It is true that the proofs against him were weak, and he gave to his
propositions an air of Catholicism. He had lived for some time in Paris,
where he had been intimate with Buffon and Voltaire. He edited a
journal, called _The Thinker_. M. Langle, in his _Travels in Spain_,
says, that this work is without merit; if this author judged truly, it
would, perhaps, be the only truth in his book. Clavijo was appointed
editor of the _Mercury_, by the government, he also published a
translation of "Buffon's Natural History," with notes. As this book is
written with great purity of style, and without gallicisms, it is an
important acquisition to those who seek a work rich in the beauties of
the Spanish language. The Count d'Aranda also gave him the direction of
a company of tragic actors: Clavijo endeavoured to fulfil the intention
of the minister, but religious fanaticism arrested the progress of the
design.

_Clement_ (Don Joseph), bishop of Barcelona. See the following Chapter.

_Corpus Christi_ (Fray Mancio de), Dominican, doctor and professor of
theology, in the university of Alcala de Henares. He was tried by the
Inquisition of Valladolid for having given a favourable opinion of the
Catechism of Carranza. On the 21st of February, 1559, he remitted those
of the doctors of his university, who had carefully examined some
propositions of a doubtful nature, and of which they acknowledged the
orthodoxy. He escaped the dungeons, by retracting, at the request of
Philip II. A brief of Gregory XIII. obliged him to restore the
definitive sentence which he had passed on the Catechism and other works
of Carranza, and in which he had condemned an hundred and thirty-one
propositions of that prelate. On the 17th of October, 1559, he addressed
a letter to the inquisitor-general, in which he asked pardon, and
submitted to any penances which might be imposed on him.

_Cruz_ (Father Louis de la), Dominican, disciple of Don Bartholomew
Carranza de Miranda, a member of the college of St. Gregory, at
Valladolid, and extremely well versed in doctrine and theology. He was
imprisoned in the dungeons of the Inquisition at Valladolid, for being
implicated in the affair of Cazalla and his companions. The quotations
made by the friends of Cazalla from his works, created a suspicion that
he was a Lutheran: it is true that he had held a regular correspondence
with Carranza, and had given him his opinion of his Catechism. He was
accused of having bribed the minister of the holy office to obtain
information of his old master; but he vindicated himself by proving that
he had acquired some knowledge of the affair, in his conversations with
Melchior Cano, and with one of the condemned Lutherans whom he had
exhorted. Fray Louis was arrested in the month of June, 1559, and on the
7th of August he drew up a writing of six pages, in which he made many
confessions. He soon became subject to fits of insanity, owing to his
anxious thoughts during his trial. In June, 1560, he was removed to the
ecclesiastical prison of the bishop, that he might be taken care of. It
was impossible to prove any of the charges against him, yet the
Inquisition kept him in prison until Carranza was released. At last,
after five years of captivity, he abjured, _de levi_, and was sentenced
to a seclusion of a few years as a penance.

_Cuesta_ (Don Andres de la). See Chapter 29.

_Cuesta_ (Don Antonio de la), archdeacon of the cathedral of Avila. The
Inquisition of Valladolid ordered him to be arrested in 1801, as
suspected of Jansenism and heresy; but he fled to Paris, where he lived
during the five years of his trial: it would have been much longer if
government had not interposed, as will be seen in the following article.

_Cuesta_ (Don Jerome de la), penitentiary canon of the cathedral of
Avila. He was arrested for Jansenism, and heresy, while his brother
Antonio was pursued, to whom he furnished the means of flight, at the
expense of his own safety. He passed five years in the prisons of the
Inquisition, and he would have been detained for a much longer time, but
for the solicitations addressed to Charles IV., by persons of the
highest rank, who obtained permission to cause the original writings of
the trial to be laid before his majesty. Don Jerome proved that the
prosecution of himself and his brother originated in the intrigues of
Don Raphael de Muzquiz, bishop of Avila, and formerly confessor to the
queen, and archbishop of Santiago, and of Don Vincent Soto de Valcarce,
bishop of Valladolid. When the depositions of the witnesses were read to
Don Jerome, his great penetration enabled him to recognise them, and he
clearly proved their injustice. The archbishop of Santiago made many
representations to the king against the two brothers, the Inquisitors of
Valladolid, and some members of the Supreme Council; he did not even
spare Don Ramon Joseph de Arce, archbishop of Saragossa, patriarch of
the Indies, and inquisitor-general: he accused them all of partiality in
favour of the two brothers, who were, besides, countrymen of the chief
of the holy office. The tribunal of Valladolid pronounced Don Jerome
innocent; the votes were divided in the council: the king then examined
the writings, and declared, that, from the reports he had received, the
two brothers were innocent of the crimes of which they were accused. He
authorized Don Antonio to return to Spain, created him and his brother
knights of the order of Charles III., and commanded the
inquisitor-general to appoint them honorary inquisitors. Don Francisco
de Salazar, bishop of Avila, (who in quality of Inquisitor of
Valladolid, and member of the council, had taken a great part in this
intrigue,) received an order from his majesty to reinstate the brothers
in their stalls. This is one of the very rare instances, where the King
of Spain took an active part in the affairs of the Inquisition, and one
of the still more rare occurrences where innocence has triumphed.

_Delgado_ (Don Francis), archbishop of Santiago. See Chapter 29.

_Feyjoo_ (Benedict), Benedictine, born in the Asturias, and a
distinguished literati. He was one of the first who restored good taste
in Spain: the works which he has composed, have been enumerated by Don
Juan Sempere y Guarinos in the _Catalogue of the Authors who flourished
during the Reign of Charles III._ This learned man was denounced at the
different tribunals of the Inquisition, as being suspected of the
different heresies of the fifteenth century, and of that of the ancient
Iconoclasts; most of his accusers were ignorant and prejudicial monks,
of whom he had made enemies by the arguments in his _Critical Theatre_
against false devotion, false miracles, and some superstitious customs.
It was fortunate for the author that the council of the Inquisition was
well acquainted with the purity of his principles and Catholicism.
Although the progress of knowledge has been extremely slow in Spain, it
must be confessed that it has even penetrated into the interior of the
_Holy House_ during the last part of the eighteenth century.

_Fernandes_ (Juan), doctor of theology, prior of the cathedral of
Palencia. He was prosecuted from the declarations of some Lutherans who
were executed in 1559, particularly that of Fray Dominic de Roxas, who
quoted several propositions of Fernandez, in which he pretended to find,
especially on the subject of justification, the same opinions as his
own. The fiscal presented Fray Dominic as a witness in the trial of
Fernandez: he persisted in his declaration (he was already condemned to
_relaxation_, but did not know it), and expected to be reconciled as a
penitent. Fernandez, however, only received a reprimand for not having
observed, in his discourse, the prudence which became a doctor of
theology, at a period when heresy was so common in the kingdom.

_Frago_ (Don Pedro), bishop of Jaca. See Chapter 29.

_Gonzalo_ (Don Vitorian Lopez), bishop of Murcia. _Ibid._

_Gorrionereo_ (Don Antonio), bishop of Almeria. _Ibid._

_Guerrero_ (Don Pedro), archbishop of Grenada. _Ibid._

_Grenada_ (Fray Louis de). _Ibid._

_Gracian_ (Fray Jerome), Carmelite, born at Valladolid, and the son of
Diego Gracian, secretary to Charles V., and Jane Dantisqui, daughter of
the ambassador of Poland, at the court of the emperor. He was a doctor
of theology, and professor of philosophy at the university of Alcala. He
wrote several works of a mystical nature, and some others on literary
subjects, which are mentioned by Nicolas Antonio. He was prior of a
convent of barefooted Carmelites at Seville, which he founded when St.
Theresa and her community, of whom he was the director, were attacked by
the Inquisition. The tribunal of Seville prosecuted him as a heretic, of
the sect of the _Illuminati_; but his trial failed for want of proof.
Father Jerome experienced many vicissitudes; but as they have been
related by historians it is unnecessary to mention them here.

_Gudiel de Peralta_. See the following Chapter.

_Gonzalez_ (Gil), Jesuit, born at Toledo in 1532. He was prosecuted by
the Inquisition of Valladolid, in 1559, for having begun a Latin
translation of the Catechism of Carranza. When this prelate was informed
that his work was to be translated into the language of theologians, he
made some corrections in it, thinking it not sufficiently clear, and in
July requested Gil Gonzalez to undertake the task. St. Francis de
Borgia, having heard of the trial of the archbishop, commanded Gonzalez
to communicate to the Inquisition all that he had been requested to do.
He obeyed; and in August informed the inquisitor-general of the order he
had received, and his promptitude in submitting to it. In September he
renewed his declarations, gave up the Castilian copy of the Catechism,
with the corrections of Carranza, and all that he had written of the
translation. He thus escaped persecution, and died in peace at Madrid in
1596.

_Illescas_ (Gonsalvo de). See Chapter 13.

_Iriarte_ (Don Thomas), born in the island of Canary, master of the
archives of the minister for foreign affairs, and of the first secretary
of state, author of a poem on _Music_, a volume of _Fables_, and other
poetical works. He was prosecuted by the Inquisition of Madrid, during
the last years of the reign of Charles III., as suspected of professing
the antichristian philosophy. He was confined to the city, and received
an order to appear when he was summoned: the proceedings were private,
and he replied in a satisfactory manner to the accusations, but the
inquisitors did not think fit to acquit him; they declared him to be
_slightly suspected_: he abjured and obtained absolution in private, the
penance imposed was likewise private, and few persons knew that he had
been tried. Don Thomas Iriarte had two brothers, one called Don Dominic,
who concluded a treaty of peace with the French Republic at Basle; and
the other, Don Bernard, counsellor of the Indies, and knight of the
order of Charles III.

_Isla_ (Francis de), Jesuit. He was the author of several works, during
the reign of Charles III.; and also published, under a feigned name, the
_History of the famous Preacher Fray Gerund de Campazas otherwise called
Zotes, written at Madrid in 1750 and 1770, by the Licentiate Don Francis
Lobon de Salazar_. This work is a fine satire, in two volumes, against
the preachers who make a bad use of texts by quoting them in the wrong
place, and distorting their meaning to support an extravagant
proposition. This work produced very beneficial effects in Spain; all
the preachers dreaded the epithet of _Fray Gerund_. This fictitious hero
might be called the Don Quixote of the pulpit, since the effects of this
romance were the same as those of Don Quixote de la Mancha, which was
intended to cure the Spaniards of their ridiculous mania for books of
chivalry. The monks united against this work; they declared it to be
impious, injurious to the ecclesiastical state, and the author suspected
of all the heresies of those who speak with contempt of mendicant
friars. The holy office received an infinite number of denunciations
against this work. The qualifiers were of opinion that it ought to be
prohibited, because the author, in ridiculing those who made a bad use
of the sacred text, had fallen into the same error in composing the
sermons preached by his hero. These volumes were consequently forbidden,
but a publisher at Bayonne reprinted them with a third volume composed
of the different essays which had appeared in Spain, either for or
against the history of Fray Gerund. The true author did not put his
name to the work, but he was known, and the Inquisition having arrested
him, reproached him for what he had done. Isla alleged his laudable
intention of correcting the defects which had been introduced into the
pulpit by bad preachers, and the affair finished there. The Jesuits at
that time had still some power at Madrid, and many of their society were
judges of the holy office.

_Jesus_ (St. Theresa de). See Chapter 27.

_Jovellanos._ See Chapter 43.

_Joven de Salas_ (Don Joseph Ignacio), born in one of the towns of the
Pyrenees, advocate to the king's councils, and a very learned man. He
was chosen by several grandees of Spain to defend the right of their
families to the succession of the elder branches, and for other
interesting trials. He was denounced to the Inquisition for having read
prohibited books: the inquest did not furnish sufficient proof to
authorize imprisonment. His aversion for popular commotions, his love
for social order, the absence of all the royal family, and the
impossibility of resisting the invasion, induced him in 1808 to submit
to the conqueror. The great merit of Joven obtained him the office of a
counsellor of state under King Joseph: for this reason the political
inquisitors who surround the throne of Ferdinand VII. induced him to
banish this respectable old man, who lives at Bordeaux full of years and
virtues.

_Lainez_ (Diego). See Chapter 29.

_Laplana_ (Don Joseph), bishop of Tarrazona. _Ibid._

_Lara_ (Don Juan Perez de). See the following Chapter.

_Lebrija_ (Antonio de). See Chapter 10.

_Ledesma_ (Fray Juan de), Dominican, professor of theology in the
college of St. Peter Martyr, at Toledo. He was tried by the Inquisition
of Valladolid in 1559, for having expressed a favourable opinion of the
Catechism of Carranza; the proceedings were transferred to the tribunal
of Toledo, which continued the trial without imprisoning Fray Juan, who
was only confined to his college. Fray Juan declared that he had not
perceived the heresies in Carranza's work, for that relying on the
learning, virtue, and zeal of the author, he had read it without
examining it particularly; he added, that as he had not fallen into any
error knowingly, which he acknowledged as such, he abided by the
censures of the qualifiers. He abjured _de levi_; a small private
canonical penance was imposed on him to be performed in secret, and he
received the absolution _ad cautelam_.

_Leon_ (Fray Louis de), an Augustine. He was born in 1527, of Lope de
Belmonte, a judge and member of the chancery of Grenada, and of Donna
Inez de Valera, his wife. He distinguished himself by the purity of his
language and the beauty of his verses, which are looked upon as models
of elegance. He took the monastic habit at Salamanca in 1544. His
discernment was very great, and his knowledge of theology was so
profound, that he was not surpassed by any of his contemporaries, and
had very few rivals. He understood the Greek and Hebrew languages
sufficiently to read them, and wrote Latin with peculiar elegance. He
composed several works in verse and prose, which are mentioned by
Nicolas Antonio. Experience has shown that it is impossible to possess
superior talents without exciting envy; it is not therefore surprising
that he was denounced to the holy office of Valladolid as being
suspected of Lutheranism, at the time that he was professor of theology
at Salamanca. Although he was innocent, he was kept in prison for five
years. The solitude in which he lived during this period was so painful
to him, that he could not help commemorating it in one of his works,
taking for his text the 26th Psalm. Having been acquitted, he resumed
his professorship; but his long captivity, the inaction in which he had
lived, and his grief at being dishonoured, had considerably injured his
health. He however had still sufficient strength to compose, in 1558,
rules for the use of his order. He died at Madrid on the 23rd of August,
1591, during the chapter of which he was named vicar-general.

_Lerma_ (Pedro de), doctor, professor of theology and first chancellor
of the university of Alcala. He was very learned in the oriental
languages, which he had studied at Paris, where he had obtained the
degree of Doctor in Theology: he was also one of the Junta convoked at
Valladolid in 1527, by the inquisitor-general Manrique, to examine the
works of Erasmus. He endeavoured to revive good taste in ecclesiastical
literature in the university of Alcala, exhorting every one to take
their opinions from the ancient sources. The scholastic theologians who
did not understand the oriental languages, and who were accustomed to
read the councils and the Holy Fathers only in the quotations of other
authors, adopted the usual resource of the envious; they denounced him
to the Inquisition of Toledo as suspected of Lutheranism. Pedro, being
informed that he would be arrested, fled to Paris, where he died dean of
the doctors of the Sorbonne, and professor of theology in that school.

_Ludeña_ (Fray Juan). See Chapter 29.

_Linacero_ (Don Michael Raymond), canon of Toledo, preceptor of the
archbishop of that city, the Cardinal de Bourbon. In 1768 he received an
admonition from the holy office, while he was only curé of Ugena,
because he had in his possession the _Ecclesiastical History_ written by
Racine. This work had not yet been prohibited; but an order of the king
forbade any person to read it, and the inquisitors compelled Linacero to
give it up. After the king's death the tribunal prohibited this work as
infected with Jansenism.

_Melendez Valdéz_ (Don Juan), a native of Estremadura; after having been
a professor at Salamanca, he was appointed judge of the royal court of
appeal at Valladolid, by Charles III. Charles IV. promoted him to the
office of the king's attorney in the royal Council of Castile, the
chamber of the alcades of the royal house and of the Court of Madrid. He
was the Spanish Anacreon of the nineteenth century, and the fame of his
odes will last while good poetry is made. One of these gave rise to
several denunciations in 1796, and Melendez was accused of conversing
like a man who had read prohibited books, such as Filangieri,
Puffendorf, Grotius, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and others. This attack
failed from want of proof. In 1808 Melendez was barbarously treated by
assassins of the same description as those who massacred the Marquis de
Perales and the intendant Truxillo, at Madrid; the Marquis del Socorro,
at Cadiz; the Count del Aguila, at Seville; the Count de Torre del
Fresno, at Badajoz, and many distinguished Spaniards in other places.
Melendez survived almost by a miracle, and sought safety in the French
army. King Joseph appointed him a counsellor of state. Melendez accepted
the place for the same reasons as _Joven de Salas_; he afterwards
incurred the same fate, and died at Montpelier in 1817. The _Mercury_ of
France and the other Parisian journals have published his panegyric. I
shall therefore only add that at Valladolid in 1788 he gave me a small
poem of his own composition to read; it was called _The Magistrate_.
When the second edition of his poems appeared, this poem was inserted,
and on my inquiring the reason, he gave me the following account of it.
"As I was always much occupied in composing poetry, even after I was
appointed judge of the royal court of appeal, some of my colleagues
harshly censured my conduct, saying that the composition of lyric and
amatory verses was very unbecoming the dignity of the magistracy: one of
them said maliciously, that I might perhaps know what a troubadour was,
but not what a magistrate should be. I then composed this poem, and
intended to publish it, but afterwards changed my mind, that it might
not occasion a suspicion that I wished to revenge myself." This poem, in
my opinion, has much merit, and I hope it will be included in the first
edition of the poems of Melendez.

_Macanaz_, (Don Melchior de). See the following Chapter.

_Mariana_ (Juan de), Jesuit. He was a natural son of Juan Martinez de
Mariana, afterwards canon and dean of the college of Talavera de la
Reyna, where Mariana was born in 1536. When he had finished his studies
at Alcala, and had become well skilled in the oriental tongues and in
theology, he quitted Spain to travel in foreign countries: he professed
theology in Rome, Sicily, and at Paris. When he returned he wrote his
history of Spain, and was often consulted by the government in affairs
of a difficult and delicate nature. He was chosen as an arbitrator in
the great question concerning the royal Polyglott Bible of Antwerp, and,
contrary to the wishes and intrigues of his brethren, he decided in
favour of Benedict Arias Montanus. In 1583 he was commissioned to form
an Index, in which he left out the work of St. Francis Borgia. The
Jesuits, who are not accustomed to forgive such conduct, did not
afterwards treat him with the consideration to which he was entitled. He
proved the vices of the government of their society in a work called,
_Of the Maladies of the Society of Jesus_. This work was not published
till after the death of the author; but his brethren were acquainted
with some parts of it, which increased their hatred towards him. In 1599
he published and dedicated to Philip III. his treatise _de Rege et Regis
institutione_, which was burnt at Paris by the common executioner. He
also published in 1609, seven treatises in one folio volume, one of them
is on the _Exchange of Money_, and another on _Death and Immortality_.
These works exposed him to prosecutions from the government and the holy
office. I have read his defence, and the doctrine he professed is so
pure and solid, that I am persuaded it would be favourably received if
it was printed. The sentence of the king was more lenient than he could
have expected, after having, in his dedication to that monarch, shown
himself the advocate of the _regicide_, disguised under the name of the
_tyrannicide_. He did not escape so well from the inquisitors: they made
some retrenchments in his work on the _Exchange of Money_, and it was
prohibited until he had been punished. A penance was imposed on the
author, and he was confined a long time in his college. He died at
Toledo in 1623, at the age of eighty-seven. Nicholas Antonio mentions
other works by the same author. In the _Dictionnaire_ of Peignot there
are some details which might be interesting to a literary person.

_Medina_ (Fray Michel de). See Chapter 29.

_Meneses_ (Fray Philip de), Dominican, and professor of theology at
Alcala de Henares; he gave a favourable opinion of the Catechism of
Carranza. The Inquisition of Toledo received from that of Valladolid the
writings of his trial, summoned Fray Philip, and condemned him to the
same punishment as Fray Juan de Ludeña.

_Merida_ (Pedro de), canon of Palencia: he was commissioned by Carranza
to take possession of the see of Toledo in his name, and administer to
the archbishopric. He was mentioned by Pedro Cazalla and others, as
partaking their sentiments on the subject of _justification_. He
corresponded with Carranza, and in his trial the Inquisition took
advantage of several letters in which he spoke ill of the holy office.
He was arrested at Valladolid, abjured _de levi_, was subjected to a
penance and a pecuniary penalty.

_Moñino_ (Don Joseph). See the following Chapter.

_Molina_ (Don Michel de), bishop of Albaracin. See Chapter 29.

_Montanus_ (Benedict Arias). _Ibid._

_Montemayor_ (Prudencio de), Jesuit, born at Ceniecros, in Rioja, and
professor of theology at Salamanca. He composed several works, which
are mentioned by Nicholas Antonio. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried
him on suspicion of Pelagianism, arising from some theological
conclusions which he maintained and printed in 1600. He defended
himself, and explained what he had advanced like a true Catholic. The
inquisitors ceased to prosecute him personally, but they prohibited his
conclusions. The Jesuits have always been reproached with their
adherence to the system of the heresiarch Pelagius, on the subject of
grace and free-will. Montemayor afterwards endeavoured to vindicate his
honour and that of his order, in a discourse, entitled _A Reply to the
Five Calumnies invented against the Society of Jesus, and promulgated in
the City of Salamanca_. He died in that city in 1641, at a very advanced
age.

_Montijo_ (Donna Maria-Frances Portocarrero, Countess of), a grandee of
Spain: she deserves a distinguished rank among the literati of Spain.
Her claims to celebrity are not only supported by her translation of the
_Christian Instructions on the Sacrament of Marriage_, by M. Le
Tourneux, but by her great love for good literature, and by her efforts
to render the taste for it more common. Her amiable and benevolent
character made her house a favourite resort for many virtuous and
enlightened ecclesiastics: among these may be distinguished Don Antonio
de Palafox, bishop of Cuença, and brother-in-law to the Countess; Don
Antonio de Tabira, bishop of Salamanca; Don Joseph de Jeregui, preceptor
to the Infants of Spain; Don Juan Antonio Rodrigalvarez, archdeacon of
Cuença; Don Juaquin Ivarra, and Don Antonio de Posada, canon of St.
Isidore at Madrid. All these ecclesiastics, and the Countess herself,
were the victims of the calumnies of fanatical priests and monks, who
were the partisans of the Jesuits and of their maxims on discipline and
morals; they were accused of Jansenism. The hatred of their enemies was
so great, that Don Balthazar Calvo, Canon of St. Isidore, and Fray
Antonio de Guerrero, a Dominican, declared in the pulpit, that there
existed in one of the first houses in the capital a conventicle of
Jansenists, protected by a lady of distinction: they took care to speak
of her in such a manner that the person could not be mistaken. The
nuncio of the Court of Rome informed the Pope of all these
circumstances, and his Holiness immediately addressed letters of thanks
to these two preachers and some other individuals, for the zeal they had
shown in defending the faith. These letters were, in a manner, the
signal for a denunciation against all persons suspected of Jansenism,
and did not fail to produce that effect. Besides the suspicion of
Jansenism, the Countess of Montijo was accused of holding a religious
and literary correspondence with Monsignor Henri Gregoire, then bishop
of Blois, and one of the most Catholic and learned men in France, a
Member of the Institute, and author of several works, one of which was a
_Letter to the Inquisitor-general of Spain_, in which he invites him to
propose the suppression of the Inquisition of which he is the head. The
accusers supposed Monsignor Gregoire to be the head of the Jansenists in
France; but they concealed the fact that this bishop had several times
exposed himself to death to give the victims of the revolution the last
spiritual aid, and to maintain the Catholic religion when Robespierre
endeavoured to destroy it. The accusers, who dwelt upon the mention
which had been made of the Countess in the national council of France,
held by the bishops who had taken the oaths, and of which Monsignor
Gregoire was a member. The inquisitors received secret informations of
this affair; but no facts or heretical propositions were proved, and
they had not courage to issue the orders for an arrest. The rank and
birth of the accused gave them the means of putting an end to the
persecution: a sort of court intrigue, however, caused the Countess to
be sent from Madrid. She retired to Logroño, where she died in 1808,
with the reputation of being virtuous, and charitable to the poor.

_Mur_ (Don Joseph de). See following Chapter.

_Olavide_ (Don Paul). _Ibid._

_Palafox y Mendoza_ (Don Juan de). See Chapter 30.

_Palafox_ (Don Antonio de), bishop of Cuença. He was prosecuted by the
Inquisition of Madrid on suspicion of Jansenism, but his trial did not
proceed further than the _preparatory instruction_, as nothing but
conjectures could be brought against him. He was tried at the same time
with his sister-in-law, the Countess de Montijo. This prelate made a
learned and energetic representation to the king, in which he proved
that the ex-jesuits who had returned to Spain were the authors of the
prosecutions against himself and his friends; and they left nothing
undone to ruin those who were not of their party.

_Pedroche_ (Fray Thomas de), Dominican, and a professor at Toledo; he
gave a favourable opinion of the Catechism of Carranza, and received the
same treatment as Fray Juan de Ledesma.

_Peña_ (Fray Juan de la), Dominican, director of the studies of the
college of St. Gregory at Valladolid, and a professor of Salamanca. In
1558 he gave a favourable opinion of the Catechism of Carranza. He was
summoned by the inquisitors on the 15th of March, 1559, to qualify
twenty propositions of an author whose name they concealed from him; on
the 5th of April following, he gave his reply, containing nineteen pages
of writing. He declared that the propositions were Catholic; that some
of them were ambiguous, which might cause them to be considered as
tending to Lutheranism, but that it did not appear that the author had
advanced them with any bad intention. The Archbishop Carranza, being
thrown into prison on the 22nd of August in the same year, De la Peña
became alarmed, and wrote to the Inquisition, saying, that he had been
intimate with that prelate, because he believed him to be a good
Catholic; that this reason had also prevented him from denouncing a
favourable opinion which he had expressed of one Don Carlos de Seso,
one of the Lutherans who were tried in this year; that Carranza had not
condemned him, because he did not think him an heretic, although he had
advanced propositions which were tinctured with Lutheranism. De la Peña
added, that, seeing the archbishop arrested, he had confessed this, lest
his silence might be construed into a crime. His precaution was
unavailing. De la Peña appeared guilty, from the opinion he had given of
the Catechism, and two other accusations were brought against him: the
first was, that he had said that there was no foundation for denouncing
the proposition of Carranza, which states, _that it is not yet decided
if faith was lost in committing a mortal sin_; the second, that he had
asserted when the archbishop was arrested, _that even if he was an
heretic, the holy office ought to overlook it, lest the Lutherans in
Holland should acknowledge him as a martyr, which they had already done
to several individuals who had been punished_. De la Peña's reply
displeased the inquisitors; they sharply reproved him, condemned him to
several penances, and commanded him to be more cautious for the future.

_Perez_ (Antonio), secretary of state. See Chapter 35.

_Quiros_ (Don Joseph), priest, advocate to the king's council at Madrid.
Being informed of the persecution of Belando by the Inquisition, on
account of his _Civil History of Spain_, he drew up a writing, in which
he endeavoured to prove that the inquisitors ought to have examined the
author before they condemned his work. This liberty cost him dear;
although he was seventy years old, and his legs swelled continually, he
was sent to the secret prisons, and as if this was not sufficient, he
was kept during the months of February and March in a cold, damp
chamber, where he was obliged to endure all the rigour of the season,
and nearly sunk under it. Philip V. was at last informed of the state to
which Quiros was reduced, and he obtained his liberty after forty-four
days of suffering, on the condition of never again writing on the
affairs of the Inquisition, unless he wished to experience greater
severity.

_Ramos del Manzano_ (Don Francis). See following Chapter.

_Regla_ (Fray Juan de). See Chapter 29.

_Ricardos_ (Don Antonio), Count de Trullas in his own right, and of
Torrepalma in that of his wife and cousin; captain-general of the royal
armies, and commander-in-chief of that of Roussillon against the French
republic in the years 1793 and 1794. He was suspected of being an
_esprit fort_, or an incredulous philosopher, and the dean of the
inquisitors invited him to attend the _auto-da-fé_ of Don Paul de
Olavide; they thought that he might consider some of the declarations as
relating to himself, though his name was not mentioned, particularly as
he had been very intimate with Olavide, and their religious sentiments
were very similar on some points. This was the only mortification which
the Inquisition could inflict upon Ricardos, as they had not sufficient
proof to authorize a prosecution.

_Ripalda_ (Jerome de), Jesuit, born at Teruel in Aragon towards the end
of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth. He was
one of the most learned theologians of his order; he professed theology,
and wrote two Treatises, one mystic and the other on _Christian
Doctrine_, which has been used by the schools for near a century, with
the exception of some alterations which have been made in the new
editions of his Catechism. Nicholas Antonio says that he died, with the
reputation of being a saint, in 1618, aged eighty-four. He had been for
some time director to St. Theresa de Jesus. It is possible that the
forty-four last years of Ripalda's life may have been exemplary, but the
impartiality of an historian compels me to say, that Jerome Ripalda was
tried by the Inquisition of Valladolid as an _illuminati_, or
_quietist_, and tinctured with the heresy of _Molinos_; that he
confessed some of the charges, asked pardon, and implored his judges to
be merciful; and that a penance was imposed on him in 1574, as being
_suspected de vehementi_. The sincere repentance which he showed induced
the inquisitor-general, Quiroga, to shorten the duration of his penance;
I must add that the purity of Ripalda's faith and morals after this
event were such as to render him worthy of the esteem and respect of
mankind.

_Ribera_ (Don Juan de). See Chapter 30.

_Roda_ (Don Manuel de). See following Chapter.

_Rodrigalvarez_ (Don Juan Antonio), priest, canon of St. Isidore at
Madrid, afterwards archdeacon of Cuença, and provisor and vicar-general
of that diocese; he wrote several historical works. Rodrigalvarez was
implicated in the denunciation of Don Balthazar Calvo, his colleague,
who, giving way to personal considerations, and instigated by the
ex-jesuits lately arrived from Italy, inflicted such cruel
mortifications on Rodrigalvarez and Posada his colleague, that they were
obliged to complain to the Prince of Peace, and to implore his
assistance. The trial begun by the Inquisition did not furnish
sufficient proof of their guilt, and it was not continued. The trials of
Don Antonio Posada, and Don Juaquin Ibarra, mentioned in the article
_Montijo_, finished in the same manner.

_Roman_ (Fray Jerome), an Augustine, born at Logroño. He was very
learned in the oriental languages, and directed his attention towards
the study of sacred and profane history. In prosecuting this design, he
travelled over a great part of Europe, examining the different archives,
and making extracts of all that appeared likely to increase the success
of the great works which he had projected. Being appointed historian to
his order, he published the history of it from the year 1569; in it he
gives an account of the lives of the saints and illustrious men who had
belonged to it, with many interesting details. His wish to publish the
historical facts which he had collected during his travels, induced him
to write a book called the _Republics of the World_; in this work he
treats very learnedly of the ancient and modern republics: it was
printed at Medina del Campo, in 1575, and again in 1595 at Salamanca.
Unfortunately for the author, it contained several truths which
displeased some persons powerful enough to injure him; he experienced
some persecution, and the Inquisition of Valladolid reprimanded him, and
ordered his work to be corrected. He died in 1597, leaving some MSS.
which are mentioned by Nicholas Antonio.

_Salazar_ (Fray Ambrose de), Dominican, and professor of theology at
Salamanca. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried him in 1559, on two
accusations: the first was founded on the declarations of Fray Dominic
de Roxas and Fray Louis de la Cruz, during their imprisonment: they
imputed to Fray Ambrose some propositions which tended to Lutheranism;
the second charge was founded on the favourable opinion which he had
given of the Catechism of Carranza. The trial was not continued, on
account of the death of Fray Ambrose in 1560, in the thirty-eighth year
of his age: it was supposed that fear, and his imprisonment in the holy
office, where Carranza was detained, hastened his death. He left, in
order to be printed, some _Commentaries on the first part of the Sum of
St. Thomas_.

_Salas_ (Don Ramon de), born at Belchite in Aragon, was a professor at
Salamanca, and one of its greatest literati: he was prosecuted in 1796
by the Inquisition of Madrid, on suspicion of having adopted the
principles of the modern philosophers, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others,
whose works he had read. He acknowledged that he was acquainted with
their works, but added that he had only read them in order to refute
them, which he had done in several public theses, maintained at
Salamanca by some of his pupils, under his direction. All these theses
were introduced in the trial. He replied in a satisfactory manner to
all the allegations, and the qualifiers did not find anything in his
writings which deserved theological censure. The judges not only
acquitted him, but on being informed that Father Poveda, a Dominican,
had intrigued against him, thought that he had a right to a public
reparation. On the 22nd of October, in the same year, they sent their
sentence and the writings of the trial, together with the considerations
and the points of doctrine on which they were founded, to the Supreme
Council, at the same time expressing their opinion on the right of Salas
to a reparation.

Father Poveda, by his intrigues, caused the trial to be sent back to the
inquisitors, with an order to make fresh inquiries, which was done, but
the qualifiers and judges persisted in their first sentence. The
intrigues again began in the council, which returned the trial to the
Inquisition a second time, with an order to make another inquest
extraordinary: a third qualification, and a third sentence were the
result, confirming the innocence of Salas. This was not what was
intended; the accused had a powerful enemy in the council: this was Don
Philip Vallejo, archbishop of Santiago, and governor of the Council of
Castile; he had been inimical to Salas, from having had certain literary
discussions with him at the university of Salamanca, when he was bishop
of that see. The trial was suspended, to afford time for the archbishop
to procure new denunciations, to add to those he had already obtained.
Salas requested that his imprisonment might be ameliorated, and that he
might only be confined to the city of Madrid. The council refused this
favour; he then demanded permission to apply to the king, but this was
also refused. He was at last condemned to abjure _de levi_; received the
absolution and censures _ad cautelam_; and was banished from the
capital. He retired to Guadalaxara, and there complained to his
sovereign of the injustice of the Council of the Inquisition. Charles
IV. ordered the writings of the trial to be sent to his minister of
justice. Cardinal de Lorenzana, inquisitor-general, endeavoured to
prevent it, but his efforts were ineffectual. When the affair was
examined by the minister, the intrigue was discovered, and a resolution
was formed to expedite a royal ordinance, forbidding the inquisitors to
arrest any individual for the future, without first informing the king
of their intention. The decree was drawn up by Don Eugene Llaguno,
minister of justice, and he presented it to his majesty for signature;
the king told him that it must first be shown to the Prince of Peace, as
he had taken part in the deliberation, and would see if it was properly
drawn up. Unfortunately for mankind, this delay of one day gave Vallejo
time to renew his intrigues, so that the Prince of Peace changed his
mind, and the royal decree was so different from what was expected, that
the affair was ordered to be left in the same state.

_San Ambrosio_ (Fray Ferdinand de), Dominican; he was a learned man, and
well skilled in the conduct of affairs. The Inquisition of Valladolid
tried him in 1559: he was accused of having taken measures in favour of
Carranza; of having profited by his sojourn at Rome in the same year, to
prejudice his Holiness against the tribunal, to engage him to cause the
trial to be transferred to Rome, and not to allow the archbishop to be
arrested. The prosecutions soon ceased, because the accused remained at
Rome.

_Saloedo._ See following Chapter.

_Salgado._ _Ibid._

_Samaniego_ (Don Felix-Maria de), lord of the town of Arraya, and an
inhabitant of Laguardia in the province of Alava. He composed some
fables and lyric poems of great merit, and was one of the greatest
Spanish literati, during the reign of Charles IV. The Inquisition of
Logroño prosecuted him, on suspicion of having embraced the errors of
the modern philosophers, and of having read prohibited books. He was on
the point of being arrested, when, discovering it by chance, he
immediately set off for Madrid, where Don Eugene Llaguno, the minister
of justice, and his friend and countryman, privately arranged his
affairs with the inquisitor-general.

_Samaniego_ (Don Philip). See following Chapter.

_Santo Domingo_ (Fray Antonio de), Dominican, rector of the college of
St. Gregory at Valladolid, was prosecuted by the Inquisition of that
city in 1559 and 1560. The proceeding was founded on several
accusations; in 1558, he had approved of some reprehensible propositions
in the Catechism of Carranza: he was also accused of having said in
1559, _that the arrest of this prelate was as unjust as that of Jesus
Christ_; that the prosecutions of the tribunal were of the same
character; that Fray Melchior Cano ought to die first, because he was
the most guilty; and that his death would be as agreeable to God as the
sacrifice of mass. The accused was imprisoned, and a penance was imposed
on him.

_Santa Maria_ (Fray Juan de), barefooted Franciscan, and confessor to
the Infanta Maria-Anne of Austria, Empress of Germany, and daughter to
Philip IV. In 1616 he published a work called _Christian Republics and
Politics_, which he dedicated to Philip III. Having occasion to say in
this work that the Pope Zachariah had deposed Childeric, King of France,
and crowned Pepin in his place, he added; "_It is from this time that we
date the right which the Popes have arrogated to themselves of deposing
and establishing kings_." The Inquisition receiving information of it,
reprimanded the author, and altered the sentence as follows: "_It is
from this time that the Popes have made use of their right of deposing
and establishing kings_."

_Sese_ (Don Joseph de). See following Chapter.

_Siguenza_ (Fr. Joseph de), Jeronimite of the Convent of the Escurial;
he was born in the town of that name. He was one of the most learned men
of the reigns of Philip II., and Philip III., and well versed in history
and the oriental languages. In 1595 he published the life of St.
Jerome, and in 1600, a history of his order. He experienced much
persecution, because he was one of the best preachers of his time, and
the most esteemed by the king. The other monks (whose sermons were not
so well received) denounced him to the Inquisition of Toledo, as
suspected of Lutheranism. He remained in seclusion for nearly a year, in
the monastery of _La Sisla_, belonging to his order, and he was obliged
to appear before the tribunal whenever he was summoned. He justified
himself, was acquitted, and died the superior of the convent of the
Escurial.

_Sobanos._ See Chapter 26.

_Solorzano._ See following Chapter.

_Soto_ (Fray Dominic). See Chapter 29.

_Soto_ (Fray Pedro). _Ibid._

_Sotomayor_ (Fray Pedro), Dominican; he was one of those who, in 1558,
approved the Catechism of Carranza. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried
him in 1559, on the suspicion that he was tinctured with some heretical
sentiments attributed to the archbishop; he was confined in the Convent
of St. Paul, and afterwards severely reprimanded. He did not suffer any
other punishment, because he declared (like all the others), that his
confidence in the virtue and great learning of the author of the
Catechism had induced him to act without any bad intention.

_Tabira_ (Don Antonio), bishop of Salamanca, knight of the order of St.
James, almoner and preacher to the king, and the author of several
unpublished works: his great virtue, his literary talent and exquisite
judgment, made him the ornament of the church during the reigns of
Charles III. and Charles IV. The government consulted him several times
on affairs of the greatest importance, and his opinions deserved the
approbation of enlightened men: his sermons passed in Spain for the best
which the age had produced. In 1809, I published the reply of this
prelate to a consultation addressed to him in 1799, concerning the
validity of marriages contracted before the civil authority, as in
France. The piety and erudition of Tabira are displayed in this writing.
It was impossible that the ex-jesuits should not employ the influence of
their party to persecute a prelate who gave the preference to a decision
given by the church legally assembled in a general council, to a bull
expedited by its chief. Calvo, Guerrero, and other _Jesuits of the short
robe_, attacked Tabira as a Jansenist; they denounced him to the holy
office, but did not succeed in their attempt, since they could not
impute to him any fact tending to heresy.

_Talavera_ (Don Ferdinand de), first archbishop of Grenada. See Chapter
10.

_Tobar_ (Bernardine de). See Chapter 14.

_Tordesillas_ (Fray Francis de), Dominican, member of the college of St.
Gregory of Valladolid, and pupil of Carranza: he was a learned
theologian. Tordesillas was imprisoned a short time after his master, on
the suspicion that he entertained the same opinions. He appears to have
justified this suspicion, by the care which he took to copy all his
treatises on theology, and other works. He abjured _de levi_, submitted
to a penance, and was obliged to relinquish giving lessons on theology.

_Tormo_ (Don Gabriel de), bishop of Orihuela. See Chapter 26.

_Urquijo_ (Don Marianno Louis de), secretary of state under Charles IV.
See Chapter 43.

_Valdés_ (Juan de), author of some works which are mentioned by Nicolas
Antonio; one of them, the _Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul
to the Corinthians_, is prohibited in the Index. He was tried on account
of this treatise and another, which was found among the papers of
Carranza, and which was at first supposed to be his composition; this
work is called _Thoughts on the Interpretations of the Holy Scriptures_.
Valdés also composed another called _Acharo_; all these works were
noted as being Lutheran, and the author was declared to be a _formal
heretic_. Valdés left Spain, and thus escaped imprisonment. In 1559,
Fray Louis de la Cruz, a prisoner in the Inquisition of Valladolid,
declared that Valdés was living at Naples; that his _Thoughts_, &c. had
been sent twenty years before to Carranza, in the form of a letter, but
that it had its origin in the _Christian Institutions_ of Thaulero. Fray
Dominic de Roxas (another prisoner in the Inquisition) spoke of this
Valdés as if he was the secretary of Charles V.; if that was the case,
he must be called _Juan Alonzo de Valdés_. Nicolas Antonio mentions him
as a different person in his _Bibliothèque_.

_Vergara_ (Juan de). See Chapter 14.

_Vicente_ (Doctor Don Gregory de), priest and professor of philosophy at
Valladolid. The tribunal of this city tried and imprisoned him in 1801,
for some theses which had been maintained and printed in Spanish, on the
manner of studying, examining, and defending true religion. He abjured
_naturalism_ publicly in a lesser _auto-da-fé_, and several penances
were imposed on him. His theses appear to be orthodox, if they are
understood literally. The masters of scholastic theology declared
against Vicente, because he had attacked the manner of teaching and
studying religion practised in his time; he was also accused of having
preached against the pious exercises of devotion. The sermon which was
the origin of this accusation was severely examined, and it was found
that he had said, that true devotion consists in the actual practice of
virtue, and not in exterior ceremonies; his theses were publicly
condemned, and he was detained in prison for eight years. He was nephew
to an inquisitor of Santiago, which induced those of Valladolid to
pronounce him to be insane, in order to save him; but when he returned
home he gave such unequivocal proofs of being in his senses, that the
inquisitors thought the honour of the tribunal would not allow the
affair to be left in this state, and again arrested him. He had been in
the prison more than a year when the _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated.

_Villagarcia_ (Fray Juan), Dominican, a pupil of Carranza, and his
companion during his travels in Germany, England, and Flanders. He was
one of the greatest theologians of his age. His arrest took place at
Medemblick, in Flanders, at the same time as that of the Archbishop of
Torrelaguna, in Spain. He was imprisoned at Valladolid, on the 19th of
September, 1559. Several letters were found among his papers, and those
of the archbishop, from Fray Louis de la Cruz, and Fray Francis de
Tordesillas, in which they gave an account of all that they could learn
concerning the trial of the archbishop. The same errors were imputed to
Villagarcia as to Carranza, principally because he had copied part of
the prelate's MS. works. Some person having told him that Carranza's
Catechism would be better in Latin than in the vulgar tongue, he
occupied himself in translating it, during his stay in England. This was
the source of another accusation, and a consultation took place to
decide if he ought not to receive the question _in caput alienum_, in
order to make him confess certain facts brought against the archbishop,
but without any proof concerning his having read the works of
_OEcolampadius_ and other prohibited books. The opinions were
different, and the council decreed, that Villagarcia should first be
formally examined on some other propositions. His replies were so
favourable to the archbishop, that he could not have answered more
conclusively for himself. Villagarcia remained four years in prison; he
abjured, and was subjected to several penances, one of which was, never
again to teach or write on theology.

_Villalba_ (Fray Francis de). See Chapter 29.

_Villegas_ (Alphonso de). See Chapter 13.

_Virues_ (Don Alphonso de). See Chapter 14.

_Yeregui_ (Don Joseph de), secular priest, doctor of theology and canon
law, born at Vergara de Guipuzcoa: he was preceptor to the infants Don
Gabriel and Don Antonio de Bourbon, and knight of the royal order of
Charles III. He published a good catechism, and was denounced three
times to the Inquisition of Madrid, on suspicion of being a Jansenist.
In 1792, he was commanded not to go out of the city of Madrid. He lived
in this kind of captivity for six months, and was then acquitted by the
inquisitors of the court. Unfortunately he had enemies in the Supreme
Council, who wished to order the trial to be suspended, and they would
have succeeded if the inquisitor-general, Rubin de Cevallos, had not
died at that time. His successor, Don Manuel Abady-la-Sierra, archbishop
of Selimbria, professed the same opinions as Yeregui, who at last
received a certificate of absolution, and regained his liberty; the king
then appointed him to be an honorary inquisitor. Yeregui in his new
office incurred other inconveniences, because he had spoken to his
friends of the circumstances of his trial, which was interpreted as a
sign of contempt for the holy office, which always enjoins secrecy to
those who appear before it. Yeregui however apologized, and refuted all
that had been published concerning his opinions of the Inquisition.

_Zeballos_ (Jerome de), native of Escalona; he was a professor in the
university of Salamanca, and a member of the municipality of Toledo. In
1609 he published at Rome a volume in folio, containing several
treatises on jurisprudence; the first is a _Discourse on the principal
Reasons of the King of Spain and his Council, for taking Cognizance of
Ecclesiastical Trials, or Trials between Ecclesiastics, when a Writ of
Error is brought in_. Among the questions which he discusses, is the
following: "Is an ecclesiastical judge permitted to arrest and imprison
laymen in a trial on canonical affairs, without the intervention of the
royal judge?" The same author published at Salamanca, in 1613, another
volume in folio, entitled, _Of the Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Trials,
between Ecclesiastics, when an Appeal is made by one of the Parties to
the Royal Authority_. He wrote some other works recorded by Nicolas
Antonio. Some priests, who thought it heresy to defend the privileges of
the king against the power of the clergy, denounced Zeballos to the
Inquisition of Toledo. The members of this tribunal did not arrest him,
but sent him the heads of the accusations against the two works already
mentioned; he justified himself completely, and they were permitted to
be in circulation. Some time after the Inquisition of Rome placed them
on its Index, and that of Spain suppressed some passages, which are not
found in the modern editions.

This list might have been augmented by the names of many less
distinguished men, and I did not think it necessary to include those
Spaniards whose works have been prohibited, but who were not personally
attacked by the holy office. Those already mentioned are sufficient to
show the danger of attempting to introduce the taste for good literature
in Spain.

Charles III., wishing to be made acquainted with the affairs of the
Jesuits, and some other circumstances relating to them, assembled a
council in 1768, composed of five archbishops and bishops; they were
occupied in consulting upon the tribunal of the Inquisition, and
particularly of the prohibition of books. Don Joseph Moñino, Count de
Florida-Blanca, and Don Pedro Rodriguez de Campomanes, Count de
Campomanes, the king's procurators in the Council of Castile, made a
report to the assembly. Some extracts from it will be interesting in
this part of the history.

Speaking of the clandestine introduction of a brief relating to the
Jesuits on the 16th of April, 1767, and of another concerning the
affairs of the Duke of Parma, on the 30th of January, 1768, these
ministers thus express themselves: "The council is not ignorant of the
intrigues employed by the nuncios with the Inquisition, to gain their
ends by clandestine means. During the first fifteen centuries there
were no tribunals of the Inquisition in Spain. The bishops alone were
acquainted with points of doctrine, and heretics and blasphemers were
punished by civil law. The abuse of the prohibitions of books commanded
by the Inquisition, is one cause of the ignorance which prevails over
the greatest part of this nation.... According to the bulls which
created the holy office, the bishops are joint judges with the
inquisitors, and sometimes the principal judges in the affairs which
depend on the tribunal. This power of the bishops was acquired by their
rank and their respectable office of pastors. Why then have these
natural judges of all discussions which may arise on matters of faith
and the morals of the faithful, no part or influence in the prohibitions
of books, and the choice of qualifiers? It is from this circumstance
that the subject has been treated with a negligence which excites and
perpetuates the complaints of learned men.... Supposing that the
regulations of Benedict XIV. were not sufficiently clear, the same
cannot be said of the brief of Innocent VIII., which commands the
Inquisition to follow the rules of justice in their proceedings: Can
there be anything more just, than that the parties should be heard? Is
it not contrary to the public interest, that books which might be useful
in instructing subjects should be prohibited, from passion, or to gain
some particular end? The fiscal would say too much if he dwelt upon this
subject, to prove how much the tribunal has always abused its authority,
in commanding the prohibition of doctrines which even Rome has not dared
to condemn, such as the four propositions of the clergy of France, in
supporting the indirect power of the Court of Rome against that of
kings; and lastly, in sanctioning opinions equally reprehensible. It
might be proved that the tribunal has constantly favoured and encouraged
the wickedness committed by certain ecclesiastics who remain unmolested,
contrary to the respect due to the king and his magistrates. _The
regular priests of the Society of Jesus_ have had the greatest
influence in the holy office, since the minority of Charles II., when
the Jesuit Juan Everard Nitardo, confessor to the queen-mother, was
inquisitor-general.... The last general expurgatory index, published in
1747, is still remembered. _Casani_ and _Carrasco_ (both Jesuits) so
falsified and confused it, that it was a disgrace to the tribunal: the
fact is so well known, and had such important consequences, that that
circumstance alone furnished sufficient motives to suppress the
Inquisition entirely, or at least to reform it, since it only uses its
authority to injure the state, and the purity of morals and the
Christian religion.... It may be said that the expurgatory index drawn
up in Spain is more injurious to the rights of the sovereign and the
instruction of his subjects, than that of Rome. In that court the
qualifiers are well chosen, the prohibitions moderate, and the interests
of individuals are never considered.... We cannot forbear to mention the
memoir presented by Monsignor Bossuet to Louis XIV., against the
inquisitor-general Rocaberti, on the subject of a decree of the
Inquisition of Toledo, in which the doctrine, refusing to the Pope the
direct, or indirect power of depriving sovereigns of their kingdoms, is
declared to be erroneous and schismatic.... The procurators cannot
conceal from themselves that the tribunals of the Inquisition compose
the most fanatical body in the state, and the most attached to the
Jesuits, who have been banished from the kingdom; that the inquisitors
profess the same doctrines and the same maxims; lastly, that it is
necessary to accomplish a reform in the Inquisition."

In their conclusion, the procurators proposed, that in consideration of
the edict of 1762, and to ensure its execution, the holy office should
be compelled to hear the defence of the authors of the works before they
are prohibited, according to the provision of the bull _Sollicita et
Provida_, of Benedict XIV.; that the tribunal should only condemn those
books which contain errors in doctrine, superstition, or relaxed moral
opinions; that it should particularly avoid prohibiting works written in
the defence of the prerogatives of the crown; that it should not be
allowed to seize or retain any unprohibited book, on pretence of
correcting or qualifying it, but should leave it to the proprietor; that
it should be obliged to present to the king the minutes of the decrees
of prohibition before publication, and to the Council of Castile all the
briefs sent to it, in order that they may be submitted to his majesty
for his approbation.

The Council of Castile, with the extraordinary Council of Archbishops
and Bishops, approved of the opinion of the king's procurators. They
presented it to Charles III., who wished to know the opinion of Don
Manuel de Roda, Marquis de Roda, minister of justice. This nobleman (one
of the most distinguished scholars in Spain, during the last century)
remitted his opinion to his majesty on the 16th of March in the same
year: it entirely accorded with those of the fiscals; he added, "on the
5th of September, 1761, the King of Naples, being informed of what was
passing at Rome concerning the condemnation of Mazengui's work,
commanded that the Inquisition of Sicily and the ecclesiastical
superiors throughout his states should not print or publish, in any way
whatever, any kind of proclamation without permission from his
majesty.... I was then at Rome, and I demanded in your majesty's name
some reparation from his Holiness, for the offence committed by his
nuncio at Madrid, in inducing the inquisitor-general to publish the
brief, for the prohibition of Mazengui's work, without his knowledge....
His Holiness approved of the nuncio's proceedings; but was convinced of
the justice of our complaint, when I supported it by facts and
arguments. The Pope, however, did not dare to express his opinion
openly, as he was entirely governed by Cardinal Torregiani, who had
managed all the intrigues under the influence of the Jesuits....
Torregiani knew that the brief would not be received in any court
either in Italy, France, or even at Venice. The Pope wrote to that
Republic to prevent the work from being reprinted; but it was,
nevertheless, published not only then against the Pope's command, but
afterwards with a dedicatory epistle to his Holiness.... I have seen, in
the library of the Vatican, a printed proclamation of the Inquisition of
Spain in 1693: this tribunal condemns two authors, called the
_Barclayos_, because their books contained two propositions which the
Romans consider heretical: one was, that "_the Pope has no authority
over the temporalities of kings, and can neither depose them, nor
release their subjects from their oath of fidelity_; the other, that
_the authority of the general council is greater than that of the
Pope_."

The same minister, in 1776, wrote a letter from Aranjuez to Don Philip
Bertran, inquisitor-general. Speaking with approbation of his intention
to correct the Spanish expurgatory index, he says, "A thousand
absurdities were committed in the last expurgatory (confided in 1747 by
the Bishop of Teruel to two Jesuits), and it is necessary to correct
them; the fact is proved by the denunciations and printed notes of Fray
Martin Llobet. But the appendix, or catalogue of authors called
_Jansenists_, is the most intolerable; the names are all taken from the
_Bibliothèque Janseniste_ of Father Colonia, a Jesuit, which was
condemned by a brief of Benedict XIV. Instead of placing this work in
the Index, as it ought to have been, the names are copied from it. You
know the brief addressed by that Pope to the Bishop of Teruel, on the
31st of July, 1748, and in which he disapproves of the insertion of the
works of Cardinal Noris in the Index. His Holiness also addressed five
letters to Ferdinand VI. on the same subject, but neither the Popes nor
the king could get the name of _Noris_ erased from the Index for ten
years: at that time the Bishop of Teruel (who had at last consented)
died, and, the king dismissed his confessor, the Jesuit Rabago, who had
been the most averse to the measure. I took the necessary steps, and the
king's order was sent to Monsignor Quintano, inquisitor-general, and his
majesty's confessor, with whom I had a long conference on this subject:
I at last obtained a decree, declaring _that the works of Noris had
neither been condemned, censured, nor denounced to the holy office_.




CHAPTER XXVI.

OFFENCES COMMITTED BY THE INQUISITORS AGAINST THE ROYAL AUTHORITY AND
MAGISTRATES.


In addition to the prevention of the progress of literature, the
Inquisition was so much dreaded by the magistrates, that criminals were
frequently left unpunished. Ferdinand and his successors had granted
privileges to this tribunal, which the encroachments of the inquisitors
soon rendered insupportable. They even endeavoured to humiliate three
sovereigns: Clement VIII.; the Prince of Bearn, King of Navarre; and the
Grand Master of the order of St. John of Jerusalem, at Malta. They also
attacked and qualified, as suspected of heresy, the whole Council of
Castile; excited seditions in several cities by their arbitrary
measures; and persecuted several members of their own _Supreme_ Council.

This system of domination has never been repressed either by the general
laws of Spain and America, the particular resolutions taken in each of
the kingdoms of the crown of Aragon, the king's ordinations, or the
circular letters of the Council of the Inquisition. The inquisitors have
been punished (though rarely) by being deprived of their offices; this,
however, had no effect. Lastly, the general conventions have not been
less impotent in restraining the ambition which led them to endeavour
to establish their dominion throughout the world by fear.

The Inquisition presents to our view a tribunal, whose judges have
neither obeyed the laws of the kingdom in which it was established, the
bulls of the Popes, the first constitutions of the tribunal, or the
particular orders of its chiefs; which has even dared to resist the
power of the Pope, in whose name it acts, and has disowned the king's
authority eleven different times; which has suffered books to circulate,
favouring regicides and the authority of the Popes to dethrone kings,
and at the same time condemned and prohibited works containing a
contrary doctrine, and defending the rights of the sovereign; which
acted in this manner in circumstances entirely foreign to the crime of
heresy, which was the only one they were competent to judge. Some
examples will be given of the contests for jurisdiction which have so
much injured Spain.

In 1553, the inquisitors of Calahorra excommunicated and arrested the
licentiate Izquierdo, _alcalde-major_ of Arnedo, for having attempted to
prosecute Juan Escudero, a familiar of the holy office, who had
assassinated a soldier. They also ordered divine service to cease at
Arnedo. The Chancery of Valladolid demanded the writings of the trial,
but the inquisitors eluded two of their ordinances. In the mean time the
culprit was left at liberty in the town of Calahorra, and afterwards
made his escape, so that the crime remained unpunished.

In 1567, the inquisitors of Murcia excommunicated the Chapter of the
Cathedral, and the municipality of that city; their competence was
contested, and the Supreme Council decided that some members of the
chapter and municipality should make public reparation in the capital of
the kingdom, and receive absolution; they received it in public, and in
the character of penitents, before the altar.

In 1568, a royal ordinance prescribed the execution of the Convention,
known as that of _Cardinal Espinoza_. It was issued, on the inquisitors
of Valencia claiming the right of judging in affairs concerning the
police of the city and many others, such as contributions, smuggling,
trade, _&c._ They asserted that this right belonged to them,
particularly if one of the individuals concerned in the affair was in
the service of the Inquisition. They would not allow any criminal to be
arrested in the houses of the inquisitors either in the town or country,
while even the churches were no longer a refuge for those they pursued.

In 1569, the tribunal of Barcelona excommunicated and imprisoned the
military deputy and the civil vice-governor of the city, and several of
their people. Their crime was, having exacted from an usher of the
Inquisition a certain privilege called _la Merchandise_. The Royal
Council of Aragon contested the competence of the Council of the
Inquisition; but Philip II. put an end to the dispute, by liberating the
prisoners: the inquisitors were not punished for disobeying the law,
which forbids them to excommunicate a magistrate.

In 1574 the Inquisition of Saragossa excommunicated the members of the
deputation which represented the kingdom of Aragon during the interval
of the assembly of the Cortes. The deputies complained to Pius V., who
paid no attention to them: after his death they applied to his
successor, Gregory XIII. The Pope commissioned the inquisitor-general to
arrange the affair; but, being influenced by the Supreme Council, he
rejected the papal commission, and asserted that the cognizance of the
complaint belonged to him by right. Philip II., that fanatical protector
of the holy office, commanded his ambassador at Rome to defend the
Inquisition to the Pope; and he obtained what he required, while the
deputies were still suffering under the excommunication, which lasted
nearly two years. It must be remarked, that this deputation was composed
of eight persons: two of them were ecclesiastics, generally bishops; two
for the highest order of nobility, who were counts or grandees of
Spain; two gentlemen of illustrious birth to represent the second class
of nobility; and two for the third class, selected from the most
distinguished citizens.

In 1588, the inquisitors of Toledo excommunicated the licentiate Gudiel,
alcalde of the king's house, and judge of the royal court of justice at
Madrid: this magistrate had prosecuted Iñigo Ordoñez, secretary of the
holy office, for having wounded Juan de Berrgos, who died in
consequence, and for having wilfully fired a pistol at the Canon Don
Francis Monsalve. The Council of the Inquisition pleaded the cause of
the culprit before the king, and excused the use of censures, alleging
that _such was the usual proceeding of the holy office_.

In 1591, violent contests took place between the Inquisition of
Saragossa and the chief justice of Aragon. Two seditions were the
result, and several grandees of Spain, many gentlemen, and a still
greater number of private individuals, were condemned to death. An
account of the intrigues of the inquisitors in this affair will be given
in the trial of Antonio Perez.

In 1598, the Inquisitors of Seville went to the metropolitan church,
with the president and members of the royal court of justice, to attend
the funeral of Philip II.; they pretended that they ought to precede the
judges, who resisted, and the inquisitors excommunicated them in the
church. The king's attorney protested against this act, and the
scandalous scene which ensued may be easily conceived. The judges
repairing to the place where they held their sessions, declared that the
inquisitors had used violence in proceeding against the law, and passed
a decree commanding the inquisitors to take off the excommunication. The
inquisitors did not obey the order, and the judges repeated it, with the
threat of depriving them of all civil rights, and condemning them to
banishment and confiscation. Philip III. disapproved of the conduct of
the inquisitors, commanded them to take off the excommunication and
repair to Madrid, where they were confined to the city. In the December
following, the king issued a decree, importing that the inquisitors
should only take precedence in the ceremony of the _auto-da-fé_. The
inquisitor-general Portocarrero was deprived of his office, and banished
to his bishopric of Cuença.

In 1622 the town of Lorca, which was within the jurisdiction of the
Inquisition of Murcia, appointed a familiar of the holy office to be the
collector of a tax upon the sale of goods called _Alcabala_. The man
refused the employment, but his representations were not admitted, upon
which the inquisitors excommunicated the judge of Lorca, and required
the assistance of Don Pedro Porres, the corregidor of Murcia, to take
him to their prisons. On his refusal, they excommunicated him also, and
decreed that divine service should cease in all the churches of Murcia.
This measure threw the inhabitants into the greatest consternation, and
they entreated their bishop, Don Antonio Trejo, to interpose his
authority. This prelate remonstrated with the inquisitors; but not
succeeding, in order to tranquillize the people, he published a mandate,
announcing that he was not obliged to submit to the interdict, or to the
order for the _cessation of divine service_. Don Andres Pacheco, the
inquisitor-general, condemned the mandate, and ordered this measure to
be proclaimed in all the churches of Murcia. At the same time he imposed
a penalty of eight thousand ducats on the bishop, and cited him to
appear within twenty days at Madrid, to answer the complaint preferred
against him, by the fiscal of the Supreme Council, on pain of another
penalty of four thousand ducats. The bishop and the chapter of his
cathedral sent the dean and a canon to Madrid as his deputies. The
inquisitor-general excommunicated them, without hearing their defence,
and threw them into separate prisons, and at the same time caused this
excommunication to be announced in all the pulpits of Madrid. The
inquisitors also excommunicated the Curé of St. Catherine, who refused
to submit to this interdict without an order from his bishop. The king
and the Pope were at last obliged to interfere, they re-established the
bishop in his rights; but this act of justice did not destroy the cause
of the evil which was complained of.

In the same year, the Inquisitors of Toledo excommunicated the
sub-prefect of that city, who had seized and sentenced a butcher as a
thief, and convicted him of having sold bad meat with false weights: the
inquisitors pretended that the culprit came under their jurisdiction,
because he furnished the holy office with meat, and they accordingly
required that the prisoners and the writings of the trial should be
given up to them. Their demand was refused, because the offence was
committed in the exercise of a public profession. The inquisitors then
published the excommunication in all the churches of Toledo; they
imprisoned the usher and the porter of the sub-prefect for having obeyed
their master, and they remained in prison several days; they were then
subject to the punishment of having their beards and hair shaven, which
was at that time considered infamous, and to appear in the chamber of
audience without their shoes and girdles; they were examined on their
genealogy, to discover if they were descended from the Moors or Jews;
they were made to repeat the catechism as if they were heretics, and
were then condemned to perpetual banishment; the inquisitors even
refused to give them a certificate, to show that they had not been
condemned for heresy. The compassion excited by the fate of these
unfortunate men was so general, that the people rose against the
Inquisition; but some persons of high rank, and who were devoted to the
public good, succeeded in appeasing the tumult. The king being informed
of what had passed by the Council of Castile, appointed an extraordinary
commission of eleven members selected from his councils; they passed
several resolutions against the inquisitors, which had only the effect
of correcting the present disorder, without entirely destroying the
evil.

In the following year, the Inquisitors of Grenada excommunicated Don
Louis Gudiel de Peralta, and Don Mathias Gonzalez; the first a member of
the royal civil court, and the other the king's procurator in the same
court. They condemned as heretical two works of these excellent
jurisconsults, in which they defended the rights of the royal
jurisdiction in all cases of _competence_. The Council of Castile
respectfully remonstrated with the king, and showed that the inquisitors
acted in opposition to _Instructions to the holy office of 1485_, which
directed them to consult the king in affairs of this nature. In order to
remedy this abuse, a committee was appointed in 1625, to decide upon all
difficulties which might arise on this subject. This committee did not
exist long, but it was re-established in 1657.

In 1530, the Inquisitors of Valladolid behaved with still greater
insolence. The bishop of that city (who was at the same time president
of the royal chancery) was to officiate pontifically in a solemn mass.
The inquisitors chose that day to publish the edict of _denunciations_;
and asserting that their power as inquisitors was superior to that of
the bishop, they attempted to take away the canopy which was raised when
the prelate officiated. The canons resisted, and the inquisitors sent
some of their officers to the church, who arrested Don Alonso Niño the
chanter, and Don Francis Milan a canon; they carried them away in their
canonical robes, and deposited them in that dress in the prisons of the
holy office. The Council of Castile made a representation to the king on
this event, which was the origin of the convention of the following
year, known as that of _Cardinal Zapata_. Several resolutions were
passed, and it was decided that censures should only be employed in
cases of emergency; but this had little effect on the inquisitors. Much
more would have been done, if the king had taken the advice of the
Council of Castile, which (after giving an account of evils arising from
the system of the inquisitors) recommended, that he should allow the
other tribunals to proceed against them for abuse of power. This advice
was addressed to the king by his councils, in the consultations of the
year 1634, 1669, 1682, 1696, 1761, and in several others, when the
Inquisition of Spain prohibited works in which the privileges of the
crown were defended, particularly that of Don Joseph de Mur, president
of the royal court at Majorca. It was printed in that island in 1615,
and called, _Allegations in favour of the King, on the Conflicts for
Jurisdiction which have arisen between the Royal Court of Justice and
the Tribunal of the Inquisition of Majorca_.

In 1634, another contest took place on the subject of competency,
concerning certain taxes which had been received from an inhabitant of
Vicalboro, near Madrid. The inquisitors of Toledo excommunicated a judge
of the royal court, and of the king's court, and committed the greatest
excesses against the authority of the Council of Castile, which,
impressed with a sense of its dignity, as the Supreme Senate of the
nation, commanded the Dean-inquisitor of Toledo to repair to Madrid, to
answer in person the charges brought against him, and threatened, in
case he refused, to deprive him of his property and temporal rights. It
also condemned a priest, the secretary of the holy office, to banishment
and confiscation, and ordered the Inquisitor of Madrid to give up the
prisoners and the writings of the trial to the chamber of judges of the
court. The council made an address to the king, requesting him to forbid
the inquisitors the use of censures, and to deliver his people from the
oppression under which they suffered. The king merely renewed the
prohibition of employing excommunication without an absolute necessity,
and decreed that it should never be employed against judges without a
particular permission. This ordinance shows the neglect or contempt into
which the Convention of Cardinal Zapata had fallen, only three years
after it had been established.

In 1640 the Inquisitors of Valladolid had another contest with the
bishop, who complained to the king, representing that the permission
granted by royal council to print or publish, without suppressing what
those authors who depend on the Inquisition write on the privileges of
that tribunal, would have the most fatal consequences. This assertion
was proved in 1641. Some disputes arose on the subject of competency,
between the Inquisition and the Chancery of Valladolid; the Council of
Castile was obliged to consult the king several times during the course
of the affair, and in one of its memorials stated, _that the
jurisdiction which the inquisitors exercise in the name of the king is
temporal, secular, and precarious, and cannot be defended by the use of
censures_. The members of the Council of the Inquisition in which Don
Antonio de Sotomayor the inquisitor-general presided, carried their
presumption so far as to convoke an assembly of ignorant scholastic
theologians, all chosen from the monks, to _qualify_ the proposition
advanced by the Council of Castile. These qualifiers, eager to display
their penetration, divided it into three parts.

"_First part._ The jurisdiction which the inquisitors exercise in the
name of the king is temporal and secular.--QUALIFICATION. _This
proposition is probable, if considered on the fairest side._"

"_Second part._ The said jurisdiction is precarious.--QUALIFICATION.
_This proposition is false, improbable, and contrary to the welfare of
his majesty._"

"_Third part._ Ecclesiastical censures cannot be employed to defend the
said jurisdiction.--QUALIFICATION. _This proposition is audacious, and
approaching to heresy._"

After this measure, the fiscal of the Council of the Inquisition accused
the Council of Castile; he demanded that the tribunal should procure the
copies and the minutes of the consultation addressed to the king; that
the condemnation of it should be published, and the authors should be
proceeded against. The council of the holy office, intending to act
according to circumstances, represented all that had passed to the king,
referring to the judgment of the theologians. The king, with the
carelessness which was natural to him, merely told the
inquisitor-general that he had failed in his duty, in approving a
proceeding so contrary to the honour and dignity of the senate of the
nation. The effects of the obstinacy and violence of the inquisitors was
felt for some time after. In 1643, the king obliged Don Antonio de
Sotomayor to give in his resignation.

In America, the ordinances of the king, and other regulations, could not
prevent violent quarrels from arising between the civil tribunals and
those of the holy office. But in all these affairs the viceroys showed
more firmness, and repressed the arrogance of the inquisitors with more
success than was displayed in the Peninsula. This is not surprising,
because in distant countries the inquisitors are not supported by an
inquisitor-general, who, possessing the king's favour, may influence him
in private conversations. Besides this, the viceroys, jealous of the
power with which they are invested, are careful that it shall meet with
no obstacles or contradictions.

In 1686, a quarrel arose between the inquisitors of Carthagena in
America, and the bishop. The inquisitor Don Francis Barela, after
excommunicating the prelate, caused his decree to be read in all the
churches. The bishop replied, and showed by his manner to the
inquisitor, his contempt for the excommunication. Don Francis (in
concurrence with his consultors) arrested and threw into prison the
bishop and many respectable persons of the cathedral and the city, who
had spoken freely on the subject. The Pope being informed of this affair
on the 13th February, 1687, commanded the inquisitor-general, Don Diego
Sarmiento de Valladares, to cause the inquisitor Barela and the
consultors to be brought to Madrid, and to deprive them of their
offices. This order not being obeyed, on the 15th of December he
expedited a second brief, which was comminatory. The inquisitor-general
then had recourse to the king, and gave so unfaithful an account of the
transaction, that neither his majesty nor the council of the Indies were
ever informed of the truth. The Pope persisted in his resolution, and
wished to decide on the affair himself. It was not finished when Clement
XI. ascended the pontifical throne; this Pope assembled the cardinals,
and taking their opinions, confirmed by a formal decree all that the
bishop had done, and annulled the extravagant measures of the
inquisitor. A bull, in 1706, commanded the restitution of the penalties
which had been imposed, and suppressed the tribunal of Carthagena. This
suppression was not executed, because it was contrary to the king's
policy.

In 1713, the Cardinal Francis Judice, inquisitor-general, prohibited a
work of Don Melchior Macanaz, procurator of the king in the Council of
Castile: the cardinal knew that this work had been printed by the order
of Philip V., who had approved it after having read it. The king was at
first very much irritated at this proceeding; but the cardinal,
accustomed to the intrigues of Rome and Paris, succeeded in eluding the
orders of his sovereign; although he was not in the kingdom, he
continued to exercise his office, and sent orders to his creatures which
were extremely displeasing to Philip. This prince could not obtain the
dismission of Judice, until Cardinal Alberoni had exerted his influence
at Rome and Paris, to second his master's views. Judice retired in 1716.

Don Melchior Macanaz continued to live in exile. His trial became
important, from the great number of denunciations which were made
against different works which he had written: in some of these he
inveighed against the abuses which were committed at the Court of Rome,
against those of the immunities of the clergy and of the ecclesiastical
tribunals, and called the public attention to the fatal effects of
increasing the number of monks and other societies. The qualifiers, in
judging his works, clearly showed the spirit of hatred and revenge which
actuated them. In the trial of Macanaz, one of his works, called _A
Critical Defence of the Inquisition_, is mentioned; the inquisitors
qualified it as _ironical_, because they found some things in it which
were not true. They were confirmed in their opinion some time after, by
another work of Macanaz, called _An Apology for the Defence of Fray
Nicolas Jesus de Belando, in Favour of the Civil History of Spain,
unjustly prohibited by the Inquisition_.

Although the inquisitors treated him with so much severity, Ferdinand
VI., and the inquisitor-general Don Manuel Quintano Bonifaz, permitted
Macanaz to return to Spain, and the king sent him to Aix-la-Chapelle as
his ambassador.

In 1768, the inquisitors endeavoured to obtain the right of trying
persons for polygamy: Charles III. ordered that the cognizance of this
offence should belong to the secular judge, except when the criminals
thought that it was permitted. It was his pleasure that the inquisitors
"should only punish heresy and apostasy, and, above all, that none of
his people should be subjected to the disgrace of an arrest, if they had
not been previously convicted of a crime."

In 1771, the Council of the Inquisition represented to the king, that
the simple fact of marrying another person, while the first wife was
alive, was sufficient to create a suspicion that the persons guilty of
it erred in faith on the article of marriage. For this reason the
inquisitors continued to receive the denunciations on this pretended
heresy, and to take cognizance of it.

In 1781, the inquisitor-general commanded that the confessionals in the
convents of nuns should be placed within sight of the persons in the
churches. This was done by the inquisitors, without consulting the
archbishops and bishops of the dioceses; they were extremely offended
at this conduct, but dissembled their anger, that the public
tranquillity might not be disturbed.

In 1797, the Inquisitors of Grenada removed the confessional of the
convent of the nuns of St. Paul, which was under the immediate direction
of the archbishop: the ecclesiastical governor of the archbishopric
complained to the king. The minister of justice, Don Gaspar Melchior de
Jovellanos, resolved to take advantage of this event; he addressed
himself to the Archbishop of Burgos, inquisitor-general, to the Bishops
of Huesca, Tuy, Placentia, Osma, Avila, and to Don Joseph Espiga, the
king's almoner, and requested them to propose "whatever they thought
most proper to correct the abuses committed in the holy office, and to
destroy the false principles on which that tribunal founded all its
measures." The archbishop (as may be supposed) sent notes favourable to
the tribunal; those of all the others were of quite an opposite nature.
This attempt, however, did not lead to any satisfactory result:
Jovellanos quitted the ministry before Charles IV. had decided on the
subject; the minister who succeeded him had other views, and Jovellanos
was denounced on suspicion of heresy.


_Of the Magistrates who were persecuted._

The examples which have been given of the quarrels between the
Inquisition and the civil tribunals, sufficiently prove the constant
attention of the inquisitors in endeavouring to extend their influence
and privileges, even in defiance of the sovereign power; yet a list of
the persecuted magistrates may be useful and interesting.

_Almodovar_ (Don Christopher Ximenez de Gongora, duke of). He was
ambassador to the Court of Vienna, and published a work _on the
Establishments of the European Nations beyond Sea_. This book is only a
free translation of that of the Abbé Raynal. He concealed his name
under that of _Eduardo Malo de Luque_, which is the anagram of El Duque
de Almodovar. He presented some copies of his book to the king, but
though he had taken this precaution, and had suppressed some articles,
he was denounced to the Inquisition as being tinctured with the opinions
of the incredulous philosophers. The inquisitors endeavoured to find out
how the duke conversed in society with learned men; but they did not
learn enough to authorize an accusation, as it almost always happened,
during the reigns of Charles III. and Charles IV., when they wished to
attack the literati.

_Aranda_ (Don Pedro-Paul Abarca de Bolea y Ximenez d'Urrea, Count d'),
grandee of Spain. He rendered himself more illustrious by his talents
and learning than he was by his birth and high offices. As a soldier he
attained the rank of Captain-general, which is equivalent to that of
Field-marshal: his diplomatic talents obtained the office of ambassador
to Paris; his knowledge as a statesman, that of prime-minister,
secretary of state, under Charles IV.; and for his talents as a
politician he was made president of the Council of Castile. In these
four branches of the art of governing he was always truly great. He was
president in the royal council extraordinary, assembled by Charles III.
to consider the affairs of the Jesuits. Although the members of this
assembly deliberated in secret, the public were informed not only of its
objects in general, but the particular opinions of each councillor. The
Count d'Aranda was denounced to the holy office as being suspected of
professing the sentiments of the philosophers of the eighteenth century,
because his political opinions were extremely liberal. The ordinance
signed by Charles III. in 1770 (forbidding the inquisitors to take
cognizance of any crime but heresy) was thought to be the work of the
Count d'Aranda, and the inquisitors hated him in consequence. The trial
of Don Paul Olavide, which took place about this time, furnished some
details which caused a suspicion that the opinions of the Count d'Aranda
on the subject of mere exterior devotion were the same as those of the
accused. However the inquisitors could not obtain a sufficient mass of
evidence to authorize proceedings against him, and he died after having
been denounced four times to the holy office, but without ever being put
upon his trial.

_Arroyo_ (Don Stephen d'), corregidor of Ecija, a town in Andalusia, and
a member of the royal civil court of the district of Granada. He was
excommunicated by the Inquisition of Cordova in 1664, because he opposed
the attempts made by the inquisitors to extend their jurisdiction at the
expense of the civil tribunals.

_Avalos_ (Don Diego Lopez d'), corregidor of the city of Cordova, was
threatened to be excommunicated and imprisoned in 1501, because he
refused to give up two archers of the holy office, who had been taken to
the royal prison, unless they were demanded with the proper forms.

_Azara_ (Don Joseph Nicolas d'), born in Aragon, was successively
director of the office of the minister for foreign affairs, minister
plenipotentiary at Rome, and ambassador extraordinary to Paris. He
published a translation of the _Life of Cicero_, with notes,
illustrations, and plates. He was considered one of the most learned men
in Spain during the reigns of Charles III. and his successor. Although
he almost always resided in Italy or France, his name was in the
registers of the holy office. He was denounced at Saragossa and Madrid
as an incredulous philosopher; but there were no proofs, and the trial
was suspended until fresh charges should be brought against him.

_Aragon_ (the deputation of). See the preceding Article.

_Aragon._ The Chief Justice of Aragon was invested with supreme power,
and placed between the king and the nation, to decide without appeal, if
the king's ministers infringed the laws established at the beginning of
the monarchy. Even the king was obliged to submit to the decisions of
this magistrate in all constitutional affairs. In order to prevent
disputes between the two powers, the chief justice and his tribunal were
independent of the king in the criminal proceedings. The inquisitors of
Saragossa, regardless of these regulations, commenced proceedings
against the chief justice, and in 1591 threatened to excommunicate him.
Some account of this affair will be given in the trial of Antonio Perez.

_Bañüelos_ (Don Vincent) was excommunicated by the Inquisition of
Toledo, for endeavouring to defend the jurisdiction of the civil
tribunal in a trial for homicide.

_Barcelona._ See the preceding Article.

_Barrientos_ (the commandant), knight of the military order of St. Jago,
and Corregidor and Sub-prefect of Logroño, was obliged, in 1516, to go
to Madrid, and appear before the inquisitor-general of the Supreme
Council, to ask pardon for having refused to lend assistance to the
archers of the holy office in arresting some monks. He was subjected to
the lesser _auto-da-fé_, attended mass, standing with a torch in his
hand, and received some slight strokes of a whip from the inquisitor;
this ceremony was concluded by a solemn absolution from all censures.

_Benalcazar_ (the Count de) was excommunicated and menaced with an
arrest by the inquisitors of Estremadura in 1500. The same threat was
made to the governor of the fortress of Benalcazar; their offence was
having defended their temporal power against the pretensions of the holy
office, in the case of a woman who was arrested for having uttered some
words against the faith.

_Campomanes_ (Don Pedro Rodriguez de Campomanes, Count de) was, perhaps,
the most eminent literary man in Spain, during the reigns of Charles
III. and Charles IV. He is the author of several works mentioned in the
_Spanish Library of the time of Charles III._ published by Don Juan de
Sempere Guarinos. He first filled the office of procurator to the king
in the Council of Castile, and in the chamber of the king, of which he
was afterwards the governor. In all his works he constantly maintained
the independence of sovereigns with respect to the Court of Rome, the
obligation that all the citizens of the state should pay their part of
the public expenses, and the impossibility that the contentious
jurisdiction should form part of the ecclesiastical power, unless
accorded by the special favour of the sovereign. It is easy to suppose
that Campomanes had a great many enemies among the clergy; he was
denounced to the holy office as an anti-catholic philosopher. The
charges were numerous, but they did not prove that he had advanced any
heretical proposition; they only tended to create a suspicion that his
works were opposed to the spirit of Christianity. He was invited to
attend the _auto-da-fé_ of Don Paul Olavide, in order to inform him of
the punishment he would incur by professing the same opinions; but
though the inquisitors knew him to be their enemy, they did not dare to
go any further.

_Cardona_ (Don Pedro de), captain-general of Catalonia. See Chapter 16.

_Castile_ (Council of). See preceding Article.

_Chaves_ (Don Gregorio Antonio de), corregidor and sub-prefect of
Cordova, was excommunicated and threatened with imprisonment by the
inquisitors of Cordova in 1660.

_Chumacero_ (Don Juan), Count de Guaro, president of the Council of
Castile, ambassador at Rome, composed several works which are mentioned
by Nicolas Antonio, and some discourses in defence of the temporal
against the ecclesiastical power, and in favour of the independence of
sovereigns against the abuses of the Court of Rome. The inquisitors of
Spain, at the instigation of the Pope's nuncio, undertook to condemn his
doctrine, and to prohibit his works, with those of some other authors
who wrote in the same spirit, in order to force them to retract, on
pain of excommunication and imprisonment.

_Cordova_ (Don Pedro Fernandez de), Marquis de Priego, member of the
municipality of Cordova, was persecuted by the Inquisition in 1506. See
Chapter 10.

_Cordova_ (Don Diego Fernandez de), Count de Cabra, and also a member of
the municipality of Cordova, was treated in the same manner. _Ibid._

_Godoy_ (Don Manuel), Prince of Peace, Duke of Alcudia, secretary of
state to Charles IV. See Chapter 43.

_Gonzalez_ (Don Mathias). See the preceding Article.

_Gudiel_ (the Licentiate). _Ibid._

_Gudiel de Peralta_ (Don Louis). _Ibid._

_Guzman_ (Don Gaspar de), Count-Duke d'Olivarez, prime minister to
Philip IV. See Chapter 37.

_Izquierdo_ (the Licentiate). See the preceding Article.

_Jovellanos_ (Don Gaspard Melchior de), Secretary of State in the
department of grace and justice under Charles IV., was one of the most
learned men in Spain; he wrote several pamphlets on politics and
different branches of literature. In 1798 he resolved to reform the mode
of proceeding in the holy office, and intended to take advantage of a
memorial which I had composed in 1794, according to the orders of the
inquisitor-general Abad-y-la-Sierra; but from a secret court intrigue he
was denounced to the Inquisition as a Jansenist and an enemy to the
tribunal. Charles IV. was persuaded first to banish him to his native
place Gijon, in the Asturias, and afterwards to confine him in the
Chartreuse, in the island of Majorca, where he was informed that he was
to study the Christian doctrine. This treatment was extremely unjust,
for Jovellanos was not only a good Catholic, but a just and
irreproachable man, whose memory will do honour to Spain.

_Juan_ (D. Gabriel de), president of the royal Court of Appeal at
Majorca, was excommunicated in 1531; he maintained the rights of the
sovereign against the inquisitors.

_Lara_ (Don Juan Perez de), procurator to the king, and fiscal of the
royal Court of Appeal at Seville, was extremely ill-treated by the
inquisitors in 1637, because he maintained the rights of the royal
jurisdiction in a manifesto, which the inquisitors declared contained
propositions offensive to the holy office.

_Macanaz_ (Don Melchior de). See the preceding article.

_Moñino_ (Don Joseph), Count de Florida-Blanca, first secretary of state
under Charles III., and Charles IV. He had been successively an advocate
at Madrid, procurator to the king and fiscal of the Council of Castile,
and minister plenipotentiary at Rome. His celebrity as a lawyer was the
origin of his elevation, and his subsequent conduct fully justified the
favourable opinion which had been formed of him. In his quality of
fiscal he wrote several works. Don Juan Sempere Guarinos, in his
_Catalogue of the Authors of the Reign of Charles III._, has inserted
notices of those which had been printed and those which remained
unpublished. Among the first are some of great merit: the _Advice of a
Fiscal_, which he gave to the council on the memorial presented to
Charles III. by Don Isidro Carbajal y Lancaster, Bishop of Cuença, and
on the _impartial judgment_ of the brief issued by Clement XIII. against
the sovereign Duke of Parma, induced some ignorant and prejudiced
priests to denounce him to the Inquisition as an enemy to religion. The
Count furnished them with additional arms against himself, when he gave
his opinion as procurator-fiscal on the abuses committed by the
inquisitors in the prohibition of books, and on the system which they
had adopted of taking cognizance of crimes not relating to doctrine.
However, the inquisitors, not finding in his writings any proposition
which might be qualified as heretical, were afraid to continue the trial
of a minister for whom the king showed the greatest esteem.

_Mur_ (Don Joseph de), president of the royal Court of Appeal at
Majorca, being obliged to maintain the rights of the tribunal against
the holy office, composed, in 1615, a work on competency, in which he
supported the royal jurisdiction against the ecclesiastical power in all
contests not relating to spiritual concerns. The holy office made the
author suffer much, and inserted his work in the _Index_. Philip IV.
caused it to be erased in 1641, at the request of the Council of
Castile.

_Ossuna_ (the Duke of). See Chapter 37.

_Olavide_ (Don Paul), born at Lima, in Peru, _Assistant_, that is,
Prefect of Seville, and director of the towns and villages recently
built in the _Sierra-Morena_ and in Andalusia, was arrested in 1776, and
taken to the secret prisons of the Inquisition of Madrid; on the
suspicion that he held impious opinions, particularly those of Rousseau
and Voltaire, with whom he maintained an intimate correspondence. It
appeared from the trial, that Olavide had, in the new towns which he
governed, uttered the opinions of these philosophers, on the exterior
worship which is rendered to God in this country. The accused denied
many of the words and actions imputed to him; he explained others which
might not have been understood by the witnesses, but he confessed enough
to induce the inquisitors to believe that he secretly held the same
opinions as his two friends. Olavide asked pardon for his imprudence,
but declared that he could not do so for the crime of heresy, as he had
never lost his interior faith. On the 24th of November, 1778, an
_auto-da-fé_ was celebrated with closed doors, in the hall of the
Inquisition of Madrid, in the presence of sixty persons of high rank:
Don Paul Olavide appeared before them, in the habit of a penitent, and
holding in his hand an extinguished torch. The sentence declared him to
be convicted of _formal heresy_; he ought to have appeared in the
_San-benito_, with a cord round his neck, but this was dispensed with,
as well as the obligation of wearing the _San-benito_ afterwards. He was
condemned to pass eight years in a convent, and to live according to
the orders of a spiritual director chosen by the Inquisition; to be
banished from Madrid, Seville, Cordova, and the new town in the Sierra
Morena. His property was confiscated; he was forbidden to possess any
office or honourable title; to ride on horseback, or to wear any jewels
or ornaments of gold, silver, pearls, diamonds, precious stones, or
habits of silk, or fine wool, but only those of coarse serge or some
other stuff of that kind. The reading of the _factum_ of his trial, by
the secretary, lasted four hours; the fiscal accused him of having
advanced seventy heretical propositions, and seventy-two witnesses were
examined. Towards the conclusion, Olavide exclaimed, _Whatever the
fiscal may say, I have never lost my faith_. No answer was made to him.
When he heard his sentence he fainted, and fell off the bench on which
he had been permitted to sit. When he had recovered, and the reading of
the sentence was finished, he received absolution on his knees, after
having read and signed his profession of faith; he was then taken back
to the prison. The sixty individuals who were invited to this ceremony
were dukes, counts, marquises, generals, members of the councils, and
knights of different military orders; they were most of them his
friends. These persons were, from some circumstances in the trial,
suspected of partaking his opinions, and the invitation was intended to
inform them of what they might expect, and to induce them to be more
reserved in their conversation. Olavide went to the convent where he was
to be confined, but made his escape some time after, and retired to
France. He lived at Paris under the name of the _Count de Pilo_, a title
which he had never borne in Spain. A few years after he published a
work, called _The Gospel Triumphant; or, the Converted Philosopher_.
This composition obtained his pardon, and permission to return to Spain,
where no penances were imposed on him.

_Perez_ (Antonio). See Chapter 35.

_Ramos del Manzano_ (Don Francis), Count de Francos, tutor of Charles
II. and president of the Sovereign Council of the Indies, composed some
treatises on politics, which are mentioned by Nicolas Antonio. In these
writings he maintains the prerogatives and independence of the
sovereigns against the indirect powers of the Popes, the abuses of the
Court of Rome, and the ecclesiastical judges in the holy office. The
Count de Francos suffered much persecution, and his works were
prohibited; if Philip IV. had not protected him, he would have been
arrested, and his books burnt.

_Ricla_ (the Count de), minister of war, and lieutenant-general in the
army under Charles III., was denounced to the holy office as having
adopted the opinions of the philosophers of the eighteenth century.
There was not sufficient proof against him, and the trial was suspended.

_Roda_ (Don Manuel de), Marquis de Roda, minister and secretary of state
in the department of grace and justice, under Charles III. He had been a
celebrated advocate at Madrid, and minister-plenipotentiary at Rome; his
talents and learning made him of the greatest use to Charles III. in the
important affairs relative to the expulsion of the Jesuits. The
imputation of Jansenism, incurred by the archbishops and bishops of the
Council extraordinary, was also brought against this minister, who had
made many enemies by advising Charles III. to reform the six great
colleges established at Salamanca, Alcala, and Valladolid. This
denunciation failed, because it contained no _particular proposition_
which deserved to be censured.

_Salcedo_ (Don Pedro Gonzalez de), procurator to the king in the Council
of Castile, published a treatise _On Political Law_, and some other
works, in which he attacked the abuses committed by the judges of the
privileged tribunals, and the pretensions of the inquisitors and other
ecclesiastics to the royal jurisdictions. He was persecuted, and his
works were condemned, but Philip IV. revoked the prohibition; however
some passages were afterwards retrenched, and they are not found in the
later editions.

_Salgado_ (Don Francis de), member of the Council of Castile, published
some works in defence of the royal jurisdiction against the
ecclesiastical authority; they are mentioned by Nicolas Antonio. The
Court of Rome condemned them; the inquisitors of Spain persecuted the
author, but when they were on the point of publishing the prohibition of
his works, Philip IV. commanded them to suspend their proceedings.

_Samaniego_ (Don Philip de), priest, archdeacon of Pampeluna, knight of
the order of St. James, counsellor to the king, and chief secretary and
interpreter of foreign languages. He was invited to attend the
_auto-da-fé_ of Don Paul Olavide, and was so alarmed that he voluntarily
denounced himself. He presented a declaration, in which he confessed
that he had read prohibited books, such as those of Voltaire, Mirabeau,
Rousseau, Hobbes, Spinosa, Montesquieu, Bayle, d'Alembert, Diderot, and
others; that from this course of reading he had fallen into a religious
pyrrhonism; that having thought seriously on the subject, he had
resolved to remain firmly attached to the Catholic faith, and that in
consequence he had resolved to demand to be absolved from the censures
_ad cautelam_. The tribunal ordered that he should confirm his
declaration by taking an oath. They then obliged him to confess by what
means he had obtained the books, whom he had received them from, and
where they were at that time; with what persons he had conversed on the
subject of religion, and revealed his opinions; what individuals had
refuted or adopted them; who had appeared to be ignorant of the
doctrine, or were acquainted with it; and lastly, how long he had known
it himself: these declarations were the conditions on which he was to
receive absolution. Samaniego wrote a declaration, in which almost all
the learned men of the court were implicated. Some of these persons had
been invited to the _auto-da-fé_ of Don Paul Olavide.

_Sardinia_ (the viceroy of) was excommunicated in 1498, and punished by
the inquisitors for having lent assistance to the Archbishop of Cagliari
in taking a criminal from the prisons of the holy office to those of the
archbishopric.

_Sesé_ (Don Joseph de), president of the royal Court of Appeal of the
kingdom of Aragon. This magistrate wrote a work, in which he had
collected many definitive sentences which had been pronounced in trials
for competency; they were all favourable to the secular power. The
author was the victim of his zeal; he was persecuted, and his work
prohibited, but Philip IV. caused it to be revoked.

_Solorzano_ (Don Juan de), member of the Sovereign Council of the
Indies. He was the author of a work on _Indian Politics_, and several
others of the same nature. They were written in the same spirit as those
of Salgado; Solorzano and his works shared his fate.

_Sotomayor_ (Don Guiterre de), knight commander of the order of
Alcantara, brother of the Count de Benalcazar, and governor of the
fortress of that name. See _Benalcazar_.

_Terranova_ (the Marquis de). See Chapter 16.

_Toledo_ (the royal judge of) was excommunicated, imprisoned, and
received much ill treatment from the inquisitors in 1622, in a contest
for jurisdiction.

_Valdés_ (Don Antonio), member of the royal Council of Castile. He was
excommunicated by the inquisitors in 1639, because he refused to exempt
the familiars of the holy office who possess land, from paying a
contribution.

_Valencia_ (the viceroy of), captain-general, was obliged in 1488, to
appear before the Supreme Council of the Inquisition, and ask pardon and
absolution for having set at liberty a soldier who was detained in the
prisons of the holy office. He had the mortification of being obliged to
appear in a _lesser auto-da-fé_.

_Vera_ (Don Juan-Antonio de). See Chapter 36.

_Zarate_ (Diego Ruiz de), chief alcade of Cordova, was punished by the
Supreme Council in 1500, and suspended from his office for six months,
because he refused to allow the inquisitors of Cordova to take
cognizance of the trial of the chief alguazil of that city.

Many other instances might be quoted: but these are sufficient to show
that the nature of the tribunal of the holy office will be contrary to
the independence of the sovereign, while the royal jurisdiction is
confounded with that of the inquisitors, and while the members of the
holy office are exempted from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the
royal tribunals.




CHAPTER XXVII.

OF THE TRIALS OF SEVERAL SOVEREIGNS AND PRINCES UNDERTAKEN BY THE
INQUISITION.


It is not surprising that the Inquisition should persecute magistrates
and learned men, when it has not scrupled to attack kings, princes, and
grandees. Some writers (particularly the French and Flemish) have
singularly exaggerated the accounts of these trials; some of them having
but a vague and slight foundation for what they have advanced, and
others have filled their accounts with invectives and fictions. The
history is derived from the archives and writings of the trials of the
Inquisition, and I have attended more to these authentic documents than
to the narratives of those who have not had the same advantages. This
Chapter will contain _all that is certainly known_ of the trials of the
princes and other potentates by the Inquisition.

The _Holy Tribunal_ was scarcely established in Aragon, when it attacked
Don James de Navarre, sometimes called the _Infant of Tudela_, and the
_Infant of Navarre_. His crime was an act of benevolence. The
assassination of Pedro Arbues, the first inquisitor of Aragon, which
took place in 1485, obliged many of the principal inhabitants of
Saragossa to take flight. One of these persons went to Tudela de
Navarre, where the Infant of Navarre resided, and asked and obtained an
asylum in his house for several days, until he could make his escape
into France. The inquisitors being informed of this humane action,
arrested and took Don James to their prisons in 1487, as an enemy to the
holy office. He was condemned to hear solemn mass, standing in the
presence of a great concourse of people, and of his cousin Don Alphonso
of Aragon (a natural son of Ferdinand V. and Archbishop of Saragossa),
and to receive absolution from the censures which he was supposed to
have incurred, after submitting to be _scourged_ by two priests, and
having gone through all the ceremonies prescribed in such cases by the
Roman ritual.

In 1488, the Inquisition tried John Pic de la Mirandola and de
Concordia, a prince who was considered a prodigy of science, from the
age of twenty-three years. Innocent VIII. instigated them to this
measure by a brief addressed to Ferdinand and Isabella, dated the 16th
of December, 1487, in which he said, that he had been informed that John
Pic was going into Spain, with the intention of maintaining, in the
universities and other schools of the kingdom, the erroneous doctrine of
several theses which he had already published at Rome, and had abjured,
which rendered him still more culpable. His Holiness added, that he was
most afflicted in perceiving that the youth, the pleasing manners and
agreeable conversation of the prince would gain him many partisans; he
said that these considerations had induced him to request the two
sovereigns to arrest the prince when he arrived in Spain, as the fear of
corporal punishment might have more effect than the anathemas of the
Church. De la Mirandola doubtless received information of what awaited
him in Spain, as he did not undertake the journey; at least nothing is
to be found in the archives concerning it. The learned historian Fleury
must have been ignorant of the existence of this bull, since he says
that the affair of the Prince de la Mirandola terminated in the
suppression of his theses at Rome, in 1486. This prince had published
and defended nine hundred propositions on theology, mathematics,
physics, cabala, and other sciences. Thirteen of these were examined and
qualified as heretical; the author published an apology, showing the
ignorance of his judges. His adversaries, finding that they could not
dispute with him, accused him of being a magician; and asserted, that so
much knowledge in so young a person could only be acquired by a compact
with the devil.

In 1507 the Inquisition, instigated by Ferdinand V., undertook to
prosecute and arrest Cæsar Borgia, Duke de Valentinois, and
brother-in-law to John d'Albret, King of Navarre. It is most probable
that this prince would have been taken, if he had not been killed in the
same year before Viana, not far from Logroño, by the governor of a
fortress, Juan Garces de los Fayos. Cæsar Borgia was the natural son of
Don Rodrigo de Borgia (afterwards raised to the papal see, by the name
of Alexander VI.), and the famous _Vanoci_. He had been a cardinal, but,
in 1499, his father, in compliance with the request of Louis XII. King
of France, who adopted him, granted him dispensations to marry the
sister of the King of Navarre; he then obtained the titles and estates
of the dukedom of Valentinois. A short time after the death of Cæsar
Borgia's father, in 1503, he was arrested at Naples, by the order of
Gonzalo de Cordova, viceroy of that monarchy, on the pretence that he
disturbed the tranquillity of the kingdom. He was taken to Spain, and
confined in the Castle of Medina del Campo, from whence he made his
escape, and fled to Navarre. Ferdinand, finding that his niece, the
Queen of Navarre, would not give up this prince to him, resolved to
secure him by means of the Inquisition.

It has been already stated that the inquisitors did not prosecute the
memory of Charles V.; but in 1565, they were concerned in the
proceedings against Jane d'Albret, the hereditary Queen of Navarre, and
against her son, Henry de Bourbon, afterwards Henry IV. of France, and
his sister, Margaret de Bourbon Albret, who married the sovereign Duke
of Bar. The holy office, however, did not take an active part in this
affair. After Ferdinand V. had taken possession of the five districts of
the kingdom of Navarre, called _Merindades_, he refused to recognise
either Jane or Henry de Bourbon as sovereigns of Navarre. These princes
were deprived of all their dominions, except the sixth _Merindade_ of
Navarre, by a papal bull in 1512; the Court of Rome also refused to
grant them the title of Kings of Navarre until the year 1561. The first
to whom it was given was Anthony de Bourbon.

Charles V. had ordered in his will that the right of his successors to
the crown of Navarre should be examined, and that it should be restored
to its rightful owners if it had been unjustly seized. In 1561, Philip
II., who had not yet thought of executing the intentions of his father,
perceiving that the king, Anthony de Bourbon, inclined towards
Calvinism, entered into a negociation with him on this subject. In order
to attach him to the Catholic party, Philip promised to obtain a
dissolution of his marriage with Jane, who was a heretic, to induce his
holiness to excommunicate her, and to give her states to him, with the
consent of the Kings of France and Spain; to restore Navarre, or to give
the island of Sardinia in exchange for it, and to negotiate a marriage
between him and Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland. Anthony accepted this
offer, but died before it could be executed. Philip then, through the
intrigues of his agents at Rome, obtained the excommunication of Jane
d'Albret, and that her states should be offered to the first Catholic
prince who would take possession of them on the condition of expelling
the heretics. Pius V. published a bull on the 28th September, 1563,
excommunicating Queen Jane, for having adopted the heresy of Calvin, and
promulgating his doctrines in her states; and according to the
requisition of the procurator-fiscal of the Inquisition, his Holiness
summoned her to appear at Rome, within six months, to answer these
charges.

Catherine de Medicis, regent of France, who was then reconciled to the
Prince of Condé, the brother of the late King of Navarre, was displeased
at the Inquisition of Rome; and in order to stop the proceedings, sent
an ambassador extraordinary to the Pope, with a very learned memorial,
which has been printed, with the bull, in the _Mémoires du Prince de
Condé_.

Charles IX., and Catherine de Medicis, his mother, wrote to Philip II.,
(who was married to Elizabeth of France, the daughter of Catherine,) and
informed him of what had passed, requesting that he would act in concert
with them. Philip replied, that he not only disapproved of the conduct
of the court of Rome, but he offered to protect the Princess Jane
against any one who should attempt to deprive her of her states. It has,
however, been proved by the letters of the French king to the Cardinal
d'Armagnac, that Philip at the same time offered assistance to the
Catholic subjects of Jane, to induce them to rebel against her, and that
he privately introduced Spanish troops into her territories. This event
was the origin of a confederation, known by the name of the _Catholic
League_, which forms part of the histories of M. de Varillas, and of the
secret memoirs of M. de Villeroi.

The Spanish monarch endeavoured to obtain, by means of the Inquisition
of Spain, what he had been refused by that of Rome. The
inquisitor-general Cardinal Espinosa, in concert with the Cardinal de
Lorraine, caused several witnesses to be examined, to prove that Jane
d'Albret and her children were Huguenots, and that, as they encouraged
this heresy in their states, it might spread into Spain. Espinosa (who
pretended that Philip was ignorant of his proceedings) informed the
council that it was necessary to impart this circumstance to his
majesty, and entreat him to do all in his power to prevent Jane from
persecuting the Catholics.

Philip secretly directed the affairs of the _League_ in France by means
of communications with the chiefs of the party; and according to his
orders the inquisitor-general formed a plot to carry off the Queen of
Navarre and her two children, and confine them in the dungeons of the
Inquisition of Saragossa. He hoped to succeed in this enterprise,
through the assistance afforded him by the Cardinal de Lorraine, and the
other chiefs of the _League_.

Those French historians who wrote after this period (such as the Abbé
St. Real, Mercier, and others) have endeavoured to throw all the odium
of this plot on Philip II. and the Duke of Alva; but as truth is the
first duty of historians, I am compelled to say, that the De Guises were
the authors of it. Nicolas de Neuville, Lord of Villeroy, minister and
first secretary of state during the reigns of Charles IX., Henry III.,
Henry IV., and Louis XIII., has left details of this affair, in a
_Memoir_ which was found after his death among his papers, and which has
been printed with many others, under the title of _Secret Memoirs of M.
de Villeroi_. This author, who was a contemporary, and acquainted with
the secrets of the government, seems to be more deserving of confidence
than any other.

Philip II. took advantage of the attempt, though it entirely failed; and
wrote to represent to the Pope, that his subjects in the neighbourhood
of France might imbibe the heresy, and demanded and obtained an order to
separate from the bishopric of Bayonne the villages of the valley of
Bastan, and those of the arch-priesthood of Fontarabia.

In 1563, the Inquisition of Murcia condemned another prince, called Don
Philip of Aragon. See Chapter 23.

In 1589, the Prince Alexander Farnese, governor-general of the Low
Countries and Flanders, and uncle to Philip II., was denounced to the
Inquisition of Spain, as suspected of Lutheranism, and a favourer of
heretics; it was also said, that he intended to become the sovereign of
Flanders, for which purpose he courted the Protestants. No proofs of
heresy were produced, and the inquisitor-general suspended the
proceedings. Although the enemies of Prince Farnese made every effort to
ruin him, Philip did not deprive him of his office, and he remained
Governor of the Low Countries till his death in 1592. It has been said
that he was poisoned by Philip II.

The Cardinal Quiroga, and the Council of the Inquisition, treated the
Sovereign Pontiff, Sextus Quintus, with little respect. This Pope
published a translation of the Bible in Italian, and prefaced it by a
bull, in which he recommended every one to read it, saying, that the
faithful would derive the greatest advantages from it. This conduct of
the Pope was contrary to all the regulations from the time of Leo X. All
doctrinal works had been forbidden to be in the vulgar tongue for fifty
years, by the expurgatory index of the council, and by the inquisitions
of Rome and Madrid. The Cardinals, Quiroga at Madrid, and Toledo at
Rome, and others, represented to Philip II., that great evils would
arise from it, if he did not employ his influence to induce the Pope to
relinquish his design. Philip commissioned the Count d'Olivarez to
expostulate with the Pontiff; the Count obeyed, but at the peril of his
life, for Sextus Quintus was on the point of depriving him of it,
without respect for the rights of nations, or for the privileges of
Olivarez as an ambassador.

This formidable Pope died in 1592, and Philip was suspected of having
shortened his days by slow poison. After this event, the Inquisition of
Spain having received witnesses to prove that the _infallible_ oracle of
the law was a favourer of heretics, condemned the Sextine Bible, as they
had already condemned those of Cassiodorus de Reyna, and many others.

A preparatory instruction was commenced against Don John of Austria, a
natural son of Philip IV., but the proceedings were suspended by the
king. This event was caused by the intrigues of the inquisitor-general,
John Everard Nitardo, who was the mortal enemy of Don John; and some
persons were found base enough to accuse the king's brother of
Lutheranism, in order to flatter him.

The Grandees of Spain may be numbered among the princes, since Charles
V. declared them to possess that title, and that they were equal in rank
to the sovereigns of the Circles of Germany; they had likewise the
privileges of being seated and covered in the presence of the king, as,
for example, when the emperor was crowned.

Among the princes humiliated by the Inquisition, the following persons
must be included. The Marquis de Priego, the grand-master of the
military order of Montesa, the Duke de Gandia, St. Francis de Borgia,
the blessed Juan de Ribera, the venerable Don Juan de Palafox, and many
others, among whom were several ladies. None of these trials had any
serious result; the denounced persons only received a severe
remonstrance, except in the case of the Dowager Marchioness d'Alcanices,
who was imprisoned in the Convent of St. Catherine, at Valladolid. These
persons were all innocent; the only foundation for the accusations was
their intimacy with the Doctors Pedro and Augustine Cazalla, Fray
Dominic de Roxas, and Don Pedro Samiento de Roxas: they were also
accused of having heard conversations on justification, and of not
having denounced them.




CHAPTER XXVIII.

OF THE CONDUCT OF THE HOLY OFFICE TOWARDS THOSE PRIESTS WHO ABUSED THE
SACRAMENT OF CONFESSION.


While the Inquisition was occupied in persecuting the peaceable
Lutherans, they were obliged to take measures to punish Catholic
priests, who abused the ministry of confession, by seducing their
penitents. The inquisitors were compelled to act with great reserve and
caution in this affair, that they might not furnish the Lutherans with
new arguments against auricular confession, and the Catholics with a
motive for employing it less frequently.

On the 18th of January, 1556, Paul IV. addressed a brief to the
Inquisitors of Granada, in which his Holiness commanded them to
prosecute those priests whom the _public voice_ accused of seduction,
and not to pardon _one_ of them. He also recommended that they should
ascertain if the doctrine of the priests on the sacrament of penitence
was orthodox, and if it was necessary to pursue the course prescribed
for the prosecution of heretics. The inquisitors communicated this brief
to the Archbishop of Granada, and the Council of the Inquisition, which
informed them in reply, that the publication of the brief in the usual
form would produce great inconveniences, and that it was necessary to
act with prudence and moderation.

For this reason the archbishop summoned the curés, and other
ecclesiastics, while the inquisitors did the same with the prelates of
the regular communities, to recommend to them to notify the brief of the
Pope to all the confessors, that they might be more strict in their
conduct for the future, and that the people might not be made acquainted
with the order of his Holiness. At the same time, informations were
taken against those who were suspected, and some who were guilty were
privately punished under other pretexts.

This measure convinced the Pope that the abuse was not confined to the
kingdom of Granada; and, in 1561, he addressed a brief to the
inquisitor-general Valdés, authorizing him to proceed against the
confessors guilty of this crime in the domains of Philip, as if they
were heretics. As this bull did not affect the inquisitors-general who
succeeded Valdés, several others were afterwards expedited.

It was the custom to read the _Edict of Denunciations_ in the churches
every year, on some Sunday in Lent, and as the number of crimes
increased, new articles were added to the Edict. The inquisitors of some
provinces introduced that of the priests who corrupted their penitents,
and Raynaldus Gonzalvius Montanus, speaking of the occurrences at
Seville after the publication of this edict, declares that it was
published in 1563, and that the denunciations were so numerous that the
notaries of the holy office refused to receive them, and that the
inquisitors were obliged to relinquish the prosecution of the criminals.

The edict was not published till 1564, and the denunciations were much
less numerous than he pretends. The denunciations ceased, because the
obligation imposed on the penitents to inform against the criminals was
annulled by the Supreme Council. Several other edicts were afterwards
published on this subject, and they were framed to include a great
number of cases.

This crime is never punished in a public _auto-da-fé_, because it might
prevent the faithful from confessing themselves. The _auto-da-fé_ was
held in the hall of the holy office; the secular confessors were
summoned to attend it, two from each of the establishments in the town,
and four from that of the condemned person, if there were any. No laymen
were permitted to be present, except the notaries. When the sentence,
and the motives for it, had been read, the dean of the inquisitors
exhorted the criminal to acknowledge his crime, and prepared him to make
the abjuration of all heresies in general, and of that of which he was
suspected in particular. He then placed himself on his knees, pronounced
his confession of faith, and signed his abjuration: the inquisitor
absolved him _ad cautelam_ from all the censures he had incurred: this
act terminated the _auto-da-fé_, the criminal was taken back to the
prison, and the next day he was transferred to the convent in which he
was to be imprisoned, according to his sentence. The confessors who
attended this ceremony, were commanded to inform others of the affair,
to deter them from committing the same crime.




CHAPTER XXIX.

OF THE TRIALS INSTITUTED BY THE INQUISITION AGAINST THE PRELATES AND
SPANISH DOCTORS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.


_Prelates._

Eight venerable prelates and nine doctors of theology, who were sent by
Spain to the Council of Trent, were attacked in secret by the
Inquisition of their country. From particular circumstances, rather than
from the will of the inquisitors, some of these trials were suspended,
before any attempt had been made on the liberty of the doctors.

The trial of the Archbishop of Toledo ought to be introduced in this
place, but its importance and interest renders it worthy of a separate
chapter.

_Don Pedro Guerrero_, born at Leza-de-rio-Leza, in Rioxa, archbishop of
Granada, was one of those prelates who, from their learning and virtue,
had the greatest influence in the Council of Trent. He was prosecuted
by the Inquisition of Valladolid, for the favourable opinion he
expressed in 1558, of the Catechism of Carranza, and for the letters he
wrote to him in the following year. It was also known that he voted for
the archbishop, in the commission employed by the Council of Trent to
examine his book, and likewise in the particular congregation of that
assembly, which approved his conduct in 1563. Guerrero averted the
danger by retracting his opinion in 1574, when he was informed of the
inclinations of Philip on this subject. He then gave a new opinion,
entirely different from the first, persuaded that it would be sent to
Rome, which in fact was done, in order to strengthen the charges against
Carranza: this is proved by the letter of the Supreme Council to Philip
II., in which it announces that the censures which his majesty had
demanded of the Archbishop of Granada were prepared, and that it was
absolutely necessary to send them to Rome, because _it was to be
apprehended that the affair would be soon concluded, that the trial went
on quickly_[33], and _that it was necessary to send this document, on
account of the high esteem in which the opinion of the archbishop was
held in Rome_.

It would be difficult to give a just idea of the intrigues which were
employed to obtain so contrary an opinion from Guerrero. The Pope
commanded, in a particular brief, that those censors who had been
favourable to the Catechism should examine and censure it again, and
afterwards give their opinions of the inedited works of Carranza. On the
arrival of this brief, the Cardinal Quiroga, who was in the king's
confidence, despatched persons whom he could depend upon, to the
Archbishop of Granada, to induce him to renew his censure, _without
saying that he had done it before, to conform to the king's intentions,
but as if he only did it in obedience to the orders of his Holiness_.
This intrigue is proved by the private instructions which Quiroga gave
to his messengers. It must be confessed that the conduct of the
Archbishop of Granada does little honour to his memory, but it must also
be remembered how formidable the policy of Philip II. rendered him, and
that Guerrero was advanced in years.

_Don Francisco Blanco_, born at Capillas, in the bishopric of Leon, had
been bishop of Orense and Malaga, when he was prosecuted on suspicion of
Lutheranism, for the same reason as Guerrero.

The arrest of Carranza alarmed Blanco so much, that he wrote immediately
to the inquisitor-general, and sent him several inedited works of the
archbishop of Toledo. He received an order to repair to Valladolid,
where he entered into the convent of Augustins: he made his declarations
on the 14th of September, and on the 13th of October, 1559, acknowledged
two of his approbations, but declared that he could not consent to
ratify them, until he had re-examined the book, since he had given them
without reflection, and was only influenced by the great reputation of
Carranza. It is impossible to read his declarations, and the letters
which he wrote to the inquisitor-general, without perceiving the extreme
terror which had seized him. He had recourse to the same means as
Guerrero, to extricate himself from his embarrassment. This prelate died
in 1581, after having composed several works, which are mentioned by
Nicholas Antonio.

_Don Francisco Delgado_, born at Villa de Pen, in Rioxa, founder of the
eldership of the Counts de Berberana, bishop of Lugo, and afterwards of
Jaen, and one of the fathers of the council of Trent, was suspected of
heresy for the same reasons as the two preceding prelates. He avoided
the sentence which threatened him, by retracting his opinions in 1574.

_Don Andres Cuesta_, bishop of Leon, was prosecuted for the same cause.
The inquisitor-general wrote to him before the arrest of Carranza, to
know if he had given a favourable opinion of his Catechism. The Bishop
replied in the affirmative, and sent him a copy of his opinion. Valdés
kept this paper, but could not make any use of it. As the Archbishop of
Toledo had then been arrested, the trial of the Bishop of Leon was
begun, and the inquisitor-general resolved to summon him to Valladolid.
Valdes informed the king of this resolution, and he wrote to Cuesta,
saying, that all that was to be done was in the cause of God, and the
service of his majesty. The Bishop of Leon submitted without resistance;
and on the 14th of October, 1559, he was examined in the Council of the
Inquisition, and in the presence of all its members. The opinion which
he had given of the catechism, in 1558, was shown to him, and he
acknowledged it to be his, but said that if he examined it again, he
should be able to judge differently of Carranza's doctrine. He returned
to his diocese, and sent another favourable opinion of the catechism to
the inquisitor-general; it was founded on many doctrinal considerations
and reflections, which he had not made in that which he sent to
Carranza. His letters, declarations, and opinions, show a bold and
strong mind, which may induce one to believe that he was not provoked to
retract in 1574, or that his trial recommenced at that period; for the
inquisitor-general and the Supreme Council finding in 1560 that the
trial of Carranza caused them much trouble and embarrassment, resolved
to _suspend_ the trials of the other bishops, until the result of the
first was known.

_Don Antonio Gorrionero_, bishop of Almeria, was prosecuted for his
favourable opinion of the Catechism, and some letters which he wrote on
the subject. He however attended the third convocation of the council of
Trent, which took place in 1560, and the following years.

_Don Fray Melchior Cano_, born in Tarancon, in the province of Cuença:
he had resigned the bishopric of the Canaries, and attended the second
session of the Council of Trent, in 1552. He was a member of the order
of St. Dominic, as well as Carranza, and his rival in the government and
administration of the affairs of his order, particularly after Carranza
had obtained the preference, when they were both candidates for the
office of Provincial of Castile. When the Catechism was denounced to the
Inquisition, Valdés appointed Cano to examine it, affecting to favour
its author, by choosing qualifiers from the monks of his order, but not
doubting, at the same time, that the opinion of Fray Melchior would be
unfavourable.

Fray Melchior examined the catechism, and some inedited works of
Carranza; but it appears that he did not strictly observe the secrecy
recommended by the inquisitors, since Carranza received information of
what was passing, while he was in Flanders, and wrote to Fray Melchior,
who replied to him from Valladolid, in 1559. About this time, Fray
Dominic de Roxas, and some other Lutherans confined in the secret
prisons of the holy office, deposed to certain facts, which caused some
suspicion of Fray Melchior.

However, the prosecution begun against him had no result; for at the
time when Cano was about to be reproved by the inquisitor-general, he
offered him the dedication of his Treatise _de Locis Theologicis_, which
was accepted; and as he had not time to publish it, he left it to the
inquisitor-general in his will, some time before his death, which
happened in 1560. His censure of the Catechism of Carranza, and some
propositions which he had maintained against the archbishop, and which
caused the faith of that prelate to be suspected, contributed to
preserve him from punishment. His calumnious discourse concerning
Carranza was no doubt the reason why he was thought to be his denouncer.

_Don Pedro del Frago_, bishop of Jaca, was born in 1490, in Uncastillo,
in the diocese of Jaca. Pedro studied at Paris, and became a Doctor of
the Sorbonne: he learnt Hebrew and Greek, and was considered one of the
best Latin poets of his age. He was appointed theologian to Charles V.,
for the first convocation of the Council of Trent; he assisted at it in
1545, and when the second assembly took place in 1551, he preached a
Latin sermon to the fathers, on Assumption-day: this discourse forms
part of the collection of documents relating to the council. In 1561,
Philip II. created him Bishop of Alguer in Sardinia, and he attended the
third convocation of the council in that quality. Don Pedro was made,
first, Bishop of Jaca, in 1572; and in the following year, when he was
sixty-four years of age, the Council of the Inquisition commanded the
inquisitors of Saragossa to take informations against this worthy
prelate, as suspected of heresy, because he had been denounced as not
being known to confess himself, and that he had no regular confessor; he
was likewise accused of not celebrating mass with sufficient solemnity.
It is surprising that the council should admit these charges, since a
bishop is not obliged to have a regular confessor, and it is not
necessary for any person to confess, so that the public may be informed
of it. The other charge brought against an old man of sixty-four, shows
that there was nothing more serious to accuse him of. Philip II., to
reward his services, gave Don Pedro the bishopric of Huesca, in 1577,
where he founded an episcopal seminary. He died in 1584. He held a synod
at Huesca, in which he established constitutions, which he had drawn up
and caused to be printed; he also composed a Journal of the most
remarkable events in the Council of Trent, from the year 1542 to 1560,
and much Latin poetry.

Among the doctors of theology of the Council of Trent, who were
persecuted or punished by the Inquisition, the most celebrated is
_Benedict Arias Montano_, perhaps the most learned man of his age in the
oriental tongues.

Several towns in Spain have disputed the honour of being the place of
his birth. Montano understood Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Greek,
Latin, French, Italian, English, Dutch, and German: he was almoner to
the king, a knight of the order of St. Jago, and doctor of theology in
the university of Alcala.

As there were no more copies in the trade of the _Polyglott_ Bible of
the Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros, the celebrated Plantin, a printer at
Antwerp, represented to Philip II. the advantages which might arise from
a new edition, with corrections and additions. The king approved of the
scheme, and in 1568 appointed Arias Montano to be the director of the
undertaking; he went to Flanders to fulfil the intentions of that
monarch, and to compose the Expurgatory _Index_, known as that of the
Duke of Alva's. In order to make the re-impression of the Polyglott
Bible as perfect as possible, a great number of unpublished copies of
the Bible, in all languages, were procured; this great work is in eight
folio volumes. St. Pius V. and Gregory XIII. expressed their approbation
of the execution of this undertaking, in particular briefs addressed to
their nuncios in Flanders. Arias Montano went to Rome, and presented a
copy to the Pope in person: he made a very eloquent speech in Latin on
the occasion, which gave great pleasure to the Pope and cardinals. The
King of Spain made presents of these Bibles to all the princes of
Christendom: it has been called the _Royal Bible_, because it was done
by the king's command; the _Philippine_, from his name; of _Antwerp_,
because it was printed in that place; _Plantinian_, from the name of the
printer; _Polyglott_, from being in several tongues; and of _Montano_,
because he had the direction of it, though he was assisted by many
learned men of the universities of Paris, Louvain, and Alcala de
Henares.

Arias returned to Spain, where the reputation he had acquired caused
many persons to become his enemies, particularly among the Jesuits,
because he had not consulted Diego Lainez, Alphonso Salmeron, or the
other Jesuits of the Council of Trent: he made another enemy in Leon de
Castro, a secular priest, professor of the oriental languages at
Salamanca, because he did not consult the university, and employ him in
the work. The certainty that he should be protected by the Jesuits
induced him to denounce Arias Montano to the Inquisition of Rome: this
denunciation was in Latin: he addressed another, in Spanish, to the
Supreme Council at Madrid. Leon de Castro accused him of having given
the Hebrew text of the Bible according to the Jewish MSS., and of having
made the version accord with the opinions of the rabbis, without
regarding those of the fathers of the church. He also qualified him as
suspected of Judaism, because he affected to take the title of Rabbi,
_master_; this, however, may be looked upon as a calumny, for in a copy
of this Bible, which I have seen, his superscription is that of
_Thalmud_, which means _disciple_. Other accusations were brought
against him by the Jesuits. Leon de Castro, impatient to see Arias
arrested, wrote on the 9th of November, 1576, to Don Fernando de la Vega
de Fonseca, a counsellor of the _supreme_, and renewed his denunciation,
showing by his letter that he was only actuated by resentment, at
finding his pretended zeal so ill repaid. There is no doubt that Arias
would have been arrested, if he had not been protected by the king, and
if the Pope had not signified his approbation of his Bible by a special
brief; he, however, thought it necessary to go to Rome to justify
himself.

Leon de Castro circulated copies of his denunciation, and the Jesuits
did the same. He was attacked by Fray Luis Estrada, in a discourse
addressed to Montano, in 1574; and his denunciation was also refuted by
Pedro Chacon, another learned Spaniard, who proved the injury that would
accrue to the Christian religion, if it was admitted that the Hebrew
MSS. were falsified. De Castro published a reply, which he called
_Apologetic_.

Arias returned from Rome, and he could depend upon the favour of the
king; he was not arrested, but confined to the city of Madrid. The
council decreed that a copy of the denunciations should be given to him;
Arias replied to and refuted the charges, insinuating that this attack
was a plot of the Jesuits.

The inquisitor-general, in concert with the council, appointed different
theologians as qualifiers in the trial of Arias, and remitted to them
the denunciation of de Castro and his apology, the reply of the accused,
and the two writings of Estrada and Chacon. The principal censor was
Juan de Mariana, a Jesuit, who was considered very learned in the
oriental languages, and in theology. This choice, in which the Jesuits
had some influence, induced them to suppose that Arias would be
condemned. They were, however, disappointed; for though Mariana declared
that the Polyglott Bible was full of errors and inaccuracies, he
acknowledged that they were of no importance, and were not deserving of
theological censure. This decision induced the council to pronounce in
favour of Arias, who was soon after informed that he had gained his
cause at Rome. Mariana was never forgiven by the Jesuits for his
impartiality, and they afterwards made him a victim of the Inquisition.

_Doctor Don Diego Sobaños_, rector of the university of Alcala, a
theologian of the third convocation of the Council of Trent, not only
expressed a favourable opinion of the Catechism of Carranza, but chiefly
by his ascendancy over the theologians of his university, induced them
to approve the work. He was tried by the Inquisition of Valladolid, and
condemned to a pecuniary penalty, and to be absolved _ad cautelam_, from
the censures which he had incurred by approving the Catechism.

_Diego Lainez_, born in Almazan, in the diocese of Siguenza, second
general of the Society of Jesus, was denounced to the Inquisition as
suspected of Lutheranism, and the heresy of the _illuminati_. The
Jesuits did not pardon Valdés for having prosecuted their general, and
they contributed to his dismission in 1566. Diego Lainez, who was at
Rome, succeeded in evading the jurisdiction of the Inquisition of Spain.

_Fray Juan de Regla_, a Jeronimite, who had been confessor to Charles
V., and provincial of his order in Spain, theologian of the Council of
Trent at the second convocation, was arrested by the Inquisition of
Saragossa, on the denunciation of the Jesuits, as suspected of
Lutheranism: he abjured eighteen propositions, was absolved and
subjected to a penance.

_Fray Francisco Villalba_, a Jeronimite of Montamarta, born at Zamora,
was one of the theologians at the second Council of Trent, and preacher
to Charles V. and Philip II. He attended the emperor at his death, and
pronounced his funeral oration. Philip II. had often consulted him. The
Inquisition of Toledo began an action against him as a Lutheran, and
being descended from the Jews. This arose from the envy of some monks of
his order, who denounced him. The general of his order, and his
coadjutors, made inquiries on the genealogy of Villalba, and discovered
that he was not descended either from the Jews or any persons punished
by the Inquisition. The protection of the king prevented the Inquisition
from obtaining witnesses soon enough to substantiate the charges, and
they did not dare to arrest him without further information. At this
period, in 1575, Villalba died at the Escurial, leaving, among honest
Spaniards, the reputation of being a good Catholic.

_Fray Michel de Medina_, a Franciscan, was a theologian of the third
convocation of the Council of Trent. He was born at Benalcazar, and
became a member of the college of St. Peter and St. Paul at the
university of Alcala, and guardian of the convent of Franciscans at
Toledo; he died in 1578, in the secret prisons of that city, after
having been sentenced as suspected of professing the opinions of
Luther. This accusation was occasioned by his great esteem for the
theological writings of Fray Juan de Fero, a monk of his order. He
published some of his works, which were denounced to the Inquisition,
and Medina wrote an apology for them, which was placed in the index by
Cardinal Quiroga, in 1583. Nicolas Antonio has given notices of some
works of Medina, and asserts that he justified himself on his doctrine.
This statement is inaccurate, for Medina was declared to be suspected,
and however innocent he may be supposed, his works were condemned, and
he would have been obliged to abjure and receive absolution _ad
cautelam_, if death had not arrested the progress of his trial.

_Fray Pedro de Soto_, a Dominican, confessor to Charles V. and first
theologian of Pope Pius IV. in the third convocation of the Council of
Trent. He was persecuted by the Inquisition of Valladolid in 1560, on
suspicion of Lutheranism: this suspicion was founded on the declarations
of some accomplices of Cazalla, of the favourable opinion given by Fray
Pedro on the Catechism of Carranza, of his letters to the archbishop,
his efforts to induce Fray Dominic de Soto to retract his first opinions
of the work, and to approve it, and on what he said at the council.
Pedro de Soto was not arrested, as he died at Trent in 1563, during the
first forms of his trial. He was taken by Philip II. to England, to
labour in the cause of religion. Nicolas Antonio mentions his works.

_Fray Dominic de Soto_, a Dominican, professor at Salamanca, attended
the two first convocations of the Council of Trent; he had a great
knowledge of theology, but he showed himself full of deceit and without
any resolution, when, wishing to favour two adverse parties at the same
time, he lost the esteem of both. An account of his conduct towards the
Doctor Egidius has been already given. He did not act with more
sincerity in the affair of the companion of his studies, the Archbishop
of Toledo. The inquisitors of Valladolid commissioned him to examine
and censure the Catechism of Carranza: he noted two hundred
propositions, as _heretical_, _ill-sounding_, or _favouring the
heretics_. The archbishop being informed of his conduct, wrote to Pedro
de Soto in September, 1558, to complain of Fray Dominic, and begged that
he would take his part and defend him. An epistolary correspondence was
the result of this letter, and when Carranza was arrested, the letters
were found among his papers: among them was one which deserves
particular attention; in it Fray Dominic speaks of the trials he had
been put to by the inquisitors of Valladolid, and the violence which was
used to make him censure the Catechism as he had done, although he had
said that he thought it good and according with sound doctrine. These
words were the origin of his trial, and it is certain that he would have
been arrested and taken to the secret prisons; but he died on the 17th
of December, 1560, when his trial began to assume a dangerous aspect.

_Fray Juan de Ludeña_, Dominican, born at Madrid, prior of the convent
of St. Paul at Valladolid, and the author of several controversial works
against the Lutherans. He was prosecuted by the Inquisition of
Valladolid in 1559 for Lutheranism, because he gave a favourable opinion
of the Catechism of Carranza. He was not taken to the prisons, but
appeared at the _audiences of the charges_ in the hall of the tribunal.
He justified himself by declaring that he had only read the work through
rapidly, on account of his great confidence in the virtue of the author,
and because he did not discover any error in doctrine: he was condemned
to a private penance, which was not at all humiliating. This precaution,
which prevented his trial from becoming public, gave him the liberty of
attending the third convocation of the Council of Trent in the quality
of procurator to the Bishop of Siguenza, and of preaching before the
fathers of that assembly on the first Sunday in Advent, 1563. If Ludeña
had had the boldness to defend his censure, he would certainly have
been punished severely.

To this account a list of other prelates prosecuted by the Inquisition
is added, but those mentioned in the former chapters are omitted.

_Abad y la Sierra_ (Don Augustine), bishop of Barbastro. He was
denounced at Madrid in 1796 as a Jansenist, because he corresponded with
some of the French bishops who had taken the oaths. This denunciation
had no result. He was attacked a second time at Saragossa in 1801. His
accusers renewed the charge of correspondence with the French bishops,
and his having granted matrimonial dispensations according to a royal
order was imputed to him as a crime. This accusation failed as well as
the former.

_Abad y la Sierra_ (Don Manuel), archbishop of Selimbria _in partibus
infidelium_, inquisitor-general after Don Augustine Rubin de Cevallos.
In 1794 Charles IV. commanded him to quit his office, and to retire to
Sopetran, a Benedictine monastery near Madrid. Don Manuel was possessed
of great talents and profound learning; his opinions were enlightened in
the highest degree. In 1793 this prelate commanded me to make him a plan
for an establishment of learned qualifiers to censure books and persons.
After being informed of the principles of my system, he commissioned me
to write a work to expose the vices of the procedure of the holy office,
and to propose one more useful to religion and the state. When this
prelate lost his office of inquisitor-general, he was denounced as a
Jansenist by a fanatical monk, but the information was neglected.

_Arrellano_ (Don Joseph Xavier Rodriguez d'), archbishop of Burgos, and
a member of the council extraordinary of Charles III. This prelate has
composed a great number of works on the theological principles of the
_Summary of St. Thomas_, which are taught by the Dominicans, and are in
opposition to the moral of the Jesuits. The partisans of the Jesuits,
and some friends of the Inquisition, denounced Arellano as a Jansenist,
because he expressed opinions favourable to temporal power, and defended
the royal and civil authorities against the holy office. The inquisitors
could not take any advantage of the denunciation, because it did not
express any particular proposition.

_Buruaga_ (Don Thomas Saenz de). He was archbishop of Saragossa, and
incurred the same danger as Arellano.

_Muzquiz_ (Don Raphaël de), born at Viana in Navarre. He was almoner and
preacher to Charles III. and Charles IV., confessor of the Queen Louisa,
successively bishop of Avila and archbishop of Santiago. He was
implicated in the affairs of Don Antonio de la Cuesta and his brother,
and this was sufficient to induce the inquisitors to prosecute him. This
prelate was one of the persecutors of the two brothers. Charles IV.,
having ordered the writings of the trial to be submitted to him,
discovered the intrigue, and condemned the archbishop to pay a
considerable fine, and receive a reprimand.

_Acuña_ (Don Antonio), bishop of Zamora, commander of one of the armies
of Castile, which were raised by the people for the war of the _Commons_
against the oppression of the Flemings, who governed Spain in the name
of Charles V. That prince wished that the bishop and the priests who
engaged in the war, as soldiers, should be punished by the Inquisition
as suspected of heresy, because they acted in opposition to the spirit
of peace taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and contrary to the
spirit of the Catholic Church. Leo X., however, pretended that it would
be a scandal if the bishop was punished by the holy office; and that it
would be sufficient if he was judged at Rome, and the priests by their
diocesan prelates.

_La Plana-Castillon_ (Don Joseph de), bishop of Tarragona. He was a
member of the council-extraordinary convoked by Charles III. The
inquisitors noted him as a Jansenist for the same reasons as
_Arellano_.

_Mendoza_ (Don Alvarez de), bishop of Avila. He was noted in the
registers of the Inquisition as suspected of heresy, from the
declarations of some of the witnesses in the trial of Carranza.




CHAPTER XXX.

OF THE PROSECUTION OF SEVERAL SAINTS AND HOLY PERSONS BY THE
INQUISITION.


An account has been already given of the persecutions of Don Ferdinand
de Talavera, first Archbishop of Granada; of Juan Davila, surnamed the
Apostle of Andalusia; and of San Juan de Dios, founder of the
congregation of Hospitallers. The following is a list of other holy
persons who have been prosecuted by the holy office:--

St. Ignacius de Loyola was denounced as an _illuminati_ to the
Inquisition of Valladolid; and when the inquisitors were about to arrest
him, he went to France, afterwards to Italy, and arrived at Rome, where
he was tried and acquitted; after having been so likewise in Spain by a
juridical sentence of the vicar-general of the Bishop of Salamanca. His
real name was Iñigo.

Melchior Cano says, in an unpublished work written during the life of
Iñigo, "that he fled from Spain when the Inquisition intended to arrest
him as a heretic of the sect of _Illuminati_. He went to Rome, and
wished to be judged by the Pope. As no person appeared to accuse him, he
was discharged."

It is certain that St. Ignacius was arrested at Salamanca in 1527, as a
_fanatic_ and _illuminati_, and that he recovered his liberty in about
twenty-two days; he was enjoined in his preaching from qualifying mortal
or venial sins, until he had studied theology four years. It is also
true that when the inquisitors of Valladolid learnt that the saint was
in prison, they wrote to cause an inquest to be made of the words and
actions which caused a suspicion that he was one of the _Illuminati_.

But it is not proved that Ignacius quitted Spain to escape from
punishment; it appears that he only fulfilled his intention of studying
theology at Paris. The humility of the saint was so great, that when he
was denounced a second time in that city, to Matthew d'Ory the
apostolical inquisitor, he surrendered himself voluntarily, and had no
difficulty in proving his orthodoxy.

It is not more certain that he went to Rome at that time, since he was
still at Paris in 1535, and he afterwards returned to Spain, where he
remained a year without being molested, though he preached in several
provinces. He then embarked for Italy, went first to Bologna, and then
to Venice, where he was a third time denounced as a heretic, but
justified himself to the papal nuncio, and was admitted into the
priesthood in that city. Ignacius arrived in Rome in 1538.

It cannot be proved that he was acquitted at Rome because he had no
accuser, since any criminal may be prosecuted by the minister of the
public and punished. It is true that there was not at that time a
particular tribunal of the Inquisition at Rome; but the civil judges
could punish heretics, and the procurator-fiscal impeached the
criminals. St. Ignacius was again denounced by a Spaniard named Navarro.
The informer deposed that Ignacius had been accused and convicted of
several heresies in Spain, France, and Venice, and charged him with some
other crimes. Fortunately his three judges knew his innocence, and he
was acquitted. His accuser was banished for life, and three Spaniards
who had supported his evidence were condemned to retract.

Thus it appears that Melchior Cano was misinformed when he wrote, ten
years after, that Iñigo was acquitted because no accuser appeared.

St. Francis de Borgia, a disciple of Loyola, and third general of his
order, succeeded Lainez, in 1565, and died 1572. He had been the Duke de
Gandia, and was cousin to the king in the third degree, by his mother,
Jane of Arragon.

In 1559, the Inquisition of Valladolid tried several Lutherans, who were
condemned. Many of these heretics, who endeavoured to justify themselves
by supporting their doctrine by the opinions of St. Francis de Borgia,
whose virtue was well known, related some discourses and actions of this
saint, to prove that they thought as he did on the justification of
souls by faith, on the passion and death of Jesus Christ; and added, to
strengthen their defence, the authority of some mystic treatises. Among
these involuntary persecutors, was Fray Dominic de Roxas, his near
relation, and advantage was taken of a former denunciation of his
_Treatise on Christian Works_, which he composed while he was known as
the Duke of Gandia.

This book, the discourse of Melchior Cano, and the Dominicans, caused
him to be accused as favouring the heresy of the _Illuminati_. Neither
his merit, nor his near relationship to the king, would have saved him
from the prisons of Valladolid, if he had not hastened to Rome the
moment he was informed that his trial had commenced, and that his
enemies would endeavour to secure his person. He escaped from the
Inquisition, but he had the mortification of seeing his work twice
placed in the Index, in 1559 and in 1583.

Juan de Ribera was a natural son of Don Pedro Afan de Ribera, Duke of
Alcala, and Viceroy of Naples and Catalonia. In 1568, he passed from the
bishopric of Badajoz to the archbishopric of Valencia. His life was
irreproachable; but his great charity and ardent zeal, in endeavouring
to reform the clergy, made him many enemies.

In 1570 Philip II. commanded him to visit the University of Valencia,
and reform some of its rules. The archbishop began to fulfil his
commission, but offended some of the doctors, who conspired against
him. They circulated defamatory libels concerning him, during a whole
year, and the affair was carried so far that a monk prayed for his
conversion publicly in the church of Valencia. Ribera was denounced to
the Inquisition, as a heretic, fanatic, and one of the _Illuminati_.

St. Juan de Ribera would not demand the punishment of his slanderers;
but the procurator-fiscal being informed that Onuphrius Gacet, a member
of the college, was the principal author of the intrigue, denounced him
to the provisor and vicar-general of the archbishop. Gacet being
convicted, was imprisoned. The archbishop did not think it proper that a
judge belonging to his own household should take cognizance of offences
which concerned him personally; and in order to remove all suspicion of
partiality, he wished that the trial should be transferred to the
Inquisition of Valencia, as some of the libels and texts of Scripture
were employed in so scandalous a manner, that they came under the
jurisdiction of the tribunal.

St. Juan de Ribera communicated his design to the Cardinal Espinosa,
inquisitor-general, who commanded the inquisitors of Valencia to
continue the trial. The inquisitors had already begun the preparatory
instruction against the archbishop according to the denunciations;
witnesses were found to support them, which is not surprising, since
every accuser caused the men devoted to his party to sign his deposition
as witnesses. The trial, however, took a sudden turn; instead of
proceeding in the usual forms, the inquisitor caused a decree to be read
in all the churches of Valencia, enjoining every individual to denounce
all those who employed passages of the Holy Scriptures in a scandalous
manner, on pain of excommunication. The informations began, and the
inquisitors arrested both priests and laymen. The affair was carried on
as a matter of faith; some of the accused were already condemned, and
others on the point of being so, when the procurator of the holy office
declared that doubts existed of the competence of the inquisitors, and
advised that the affair should be referred to the Pope, who would
appease the scruples.

The tribunal approved of the proposition, and in 1572, Gregory XIII.
expedited a brief, which contained all that has been here related, and
authorized the inquisitor-general, and the provincial inquisitors, to
decide in similar cases, and at the same time sanctioned all that had
been done. The inquisitors then condemned several persons, some to
corporal punishments, others to pecuniary penalties, declaring that they
should have been more severe, but from consideration for the archbishop,
who had solicited the pardon of the criminals, that no person might
suffer from an injury done to him.

St. Theresa de Jesus, one of the most celebrated women in Spain for her
talents, was accused before the Inquisition of Seville. She was not
imprisoned, because the trial was suspended after the preparatory
instructions. She was born at Avila, in 1515.

St. Juan de la Crux, who united with St. Theresa in reforming the
Convents of Carmelites, was born at Ontiveros in the diocese of Avila,
in 1542. He was prosecuted by the Inquisitions of Seville, Toledo, and
Valladolid. He was denounced as a fanatic, and of the _Illuminati_: the
proceedings did not go farther than the preparatory instruction. St.
Juan de la Crux died at Ubeda, in 1591. He composed several works on
mental orisons.

St. Joseph de Calasanz, founder of the institute of regular clerks of
the Christian schools. He was imprisoned in the dungeons of the holy
office as a fanatic, and of the _Illuminati_; but he justified himself
and was acquitted. He died some time after, at the age of ninety-two. He
was born in 1556.


_Venerables._

The venerable Fray Louis de Grenada, born in 1504, was the disciple of
Juan d'Avila; he was of the order of St. Dominic, and left several works
on religion. He was implicated in the trial of the Lutherans at
Valladolid; Fray Dominic de Roxas defended his opinions, by saying that
they were the same as those of Fray Louis de Grenada, Carranza, and
other good Catholics. The procurator-fiscal made Fray Dominic renew his
declaration, with the intention of producing him as a witness in the
trial of Fray Louis: Fray Dominic was burnt five days after. A sentence
condemning some of his works was also brought against Fray Louis.

He was denounced a third time as one of the _Illuminati_, but was
acquitted. Fray Louis died in 1588. His works are well known: it is
singular that the Index in which his condemnation was published, was
afterwards prohibited by the inquisitor-general Quiroga.

The venerable Don Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, the natural son of Don
James Palafox, afterwards Marquis de Hariza and of Donna Maria de
Mendoza (who soon after became a Carmelite); he was born in 1600. He was
made Bishop de la Puebla de los Angelos, in America, in 1639; afterwards
Archbishop and Viceroy of Mexico; and lastly, Bishop of Osma, in Spain,
in 1653. He died in 1659, leaving several works on history, devotion,
and mysticity, and with so great a reputation of sanctity, that his
canonization is pending at Rome.

Don Juan had great disputes with the Jesuits in America, on account of
the privileges of his rank, of which the Fathers wished to deprive him.
The most important of his writings, is his letter to Pope Innocent X.,
who terminated their disputes, to a certain degree, by a brief, in 1648.
The Jesuits did not consider themselves vanquished; they denounced the
archbishop as one of the _Illuminati_ and a false devotee, at Rome, at
Madrid, and at Mexico. The provincial inquisitors of the last city
applied to the Supreme Council, and the venerable Palafox suffered
everything from them which they could inflict, except imprisonment.
They condemned and prohibited the writings which the archbishop had
published in his defence, and circulated those of his adversaries, and
some libels which they had framed to ruin Don Antonio Gabiola,
procurator-fiscal to the Inquisition, who openly disapproved of the
conduct of the Jesuits.

This officer wrote to Palafox in 1647, exhorting him to make every
effort, that the trials before the Inquisition of Mexico should proceed
in a regular manner, according to the spirit of the institution, and
encouraging him to oppose his formidable enemies.

The Jesuits, by their intrigues, succeeded in causing some of the works
of Palafox to be placed in the Index, but the congregation of cardinals
having afterwards declared that they contained nothing reprehensible, or
which could impede his beatification, the inquisitors were obliged to
efface them from the catalogue.




CHAPTER XXXI.

OF THE CELEBRATED TRIAL OF DON CARLOS, PRINCE OF THE ASTURIAS.


All Europe has believed that Philip II. caused the Inquisition to
proceed against Don Carlos his only son; that the inquisitors condemned
the prince to death, and that they only differed on the manner in which
the sentence was to be executed. Some writers have gone so far as to
record the conversations which took place, on this occasion, between
Philip and the inquisitor-general, Don Carlos and other persons, with as
much confidence as if they had been present at them, and have even
quoted part of the sentence as if they had read it.

As it has been my principal aim to ascertain the truth, I have examined
the archives of the Council of the Inquisition and others, and I, in
consequence, affirm, that Don Carlos was never tried or condemned by the
Inquisition; an opinion only was given against the prince by the
councillors of state, whose president was the Cardinal Espinosa, who at
that time was the king's favourite. The circumstance of the cardinal
being inquisitor-general may have been the cause of the mistake; the
deaths of the Count de Egmont and other noblemen, and the intention of
establishing the Inquisition in the Low Countries, may have tended to
confirm the general opinion.

Don Carlos lost his life in consequence of a verbal sentence approved by
his father, and the holy office was not concerned in it. As I wrote only
the history of the Inquisition, this fact renders it unnecessary to say
more on the subject; but as almost all the historians of Europe have
said that the inquisitors condemned Don Carlos, the beat way of
disproving it is to relate the facts as they occurred.

Don Carlos was born at Valladolid, on the 8th of July in 1545, and lost
his mother, Maria of Portugal, four days after his birth. Charles V.
scarcely ever saw him until the year 1557, when he abdicated and retired
to the monastery of St. Juste in Estremadura. He visited his grandson in
passing through Valladolid. It is not true that Charles V. educated Don
Carlos, and formed his mind; but during his various journeys he gave him
good preceptors. The young prince was nine years old, and his father was
on the point of embarking for England, when the emperor wrote a letter
from Germany, dated the 3rd of July, 1554, in which he speaks (among
other tutors intended for his grandson) of Don Honorato Juanez, one of
the greatest humanists of his age, and afterwards Bishop of Osma[34]. It
is evident that Don Carlos was not fond of learning, by a letter from
his father, dated Brussels, 15th of March, 1558, in which he thanks the
preceptor for the trouble he took to give his pupil a taste for reading
and to inculcate moral principles; he desires him to pursue the same
plan, adding, that "though Don Carlos may not profit by it so much as he
ought, it will not be entirely useless. I have also written to Don
Garcia to pay particular attention in selecting those who see and visit
the prince; it will be better to put a taste for study into his head
than many other things[35]." Philip had imbibed a very disadvantageous
opinion of his son's character; he had been informed that the prince
amused himself with cutting the throats of the young rabbits which were
brought to him, and that he appeared to take pleasure in seeing them
expire. Fabian Estrada relates that the same thing was remarked by a
Venetian ambassador[36].

War had been declared between France and Spain, and the two powers were
on the point of giving battle in August, 1558, but at the same time were
negotiating a peace in the secret conference held at the Abbey of
Corpans. One of the articles states that Don Carlos, when he arrived at
a proper age, should marry Isabella, daughter to Henry II., King of
France: the prince was thirteen years of age, and the princess twelve.
This circumstance, and the custom observed at that period, of keeping
the preliminaries of a peace secret till its conclusion, entirely
disproves all that has been said of the love of the young princess,
which is the more improbable, as she had never even seen the prince's
picture, and very unfavourable accounts of his education had been
received. Charles V., after his retirement, had been heard to say, that
he thought his grandson showed a very vicious disposition. This may be
attributed to the education given him by his uncle and aunt, Maximilian,
King of Bohemia, afterwards Emperor, and Jane of Austria. They paid the
greatest attention to the health of Don Carlos, but neglected to repress
his violent inclinations, and confided the care of forming his character
to his governor, his master, and his principal chaplain.

The secret preliminaries only preceded the definitive treaty of peace,
which was concluded at Cambray on the 8th of April, 1559. Mary, Queen of
England, died during the interval, and Philip II., being then a widower,
and only thirty-two years of age, while Don Carlos was scarcely
fourteen, Henry II. thought it better to marry his daughter to the king.
The marriage of Isabella to Philip was therefore agreed upon in the
twenty-seventh article, and the secret article in the preliminaries was
not mentioned.

The marriage was celebrated at Toledo, on the 2nd of February, 1560. The
general Cortes of the kingdom was then held: the members took the oaths
of fidelity to Don Carlos, and acknowledged him as the successor to the
crown, on the 22nd of the same month. The young queen could not attend
this ceremony, as she was attacked by the small pox a few days after her
marriage. Don Carlos had also fallen sick of the quartan fever, some
time before the arrival of the queen in Spain. Although this disorder
did not prevent him from riding on horseback, and attending at the
assembly of the Cortes, it appears, from contemporary writers, that it
rendered him thin, weak, and pale. This circumstance makes it improbable
that he was handsome, and renders the journey which Mercier pretends
that he made to meet the queen at Alcala extremely doubtful.

When she became convalescent, Isabella must certainly have been made
acquainted with the neglected education of Don Carlos, his bad
principles, and his insupportable pride. She could not be ignorant how
ill he treated his attendants; that when he was angry he broke anything
he could seize; and she was probably informed of his behaviour to the
Duke of Alva, at the assembly of the Cortes. The duke had the entire
regulation of everything relating to the ceremonies, and was so much
occupied, that he forgot to attend Don Carlos when he ought to have
taken the oath of fidelity. He was sought for, and found, but the young
prince was furious, and insulted him so grossly, that he almost made him
forget the respect which was due to him. The king compelled Don Carlos
to make an apology to the duke; but it was too late, they hated each
other mortally all their lives.

I have not found in the MSS. I have examined, anything which might lead
to the supposition that Don Carlos was in love with the queen; the
opinion must have been founded on the article in the secret
preliminaries, which, there is reason to suppose, the prince was never
acquainted with. He had scarcely recovered, and the queen was still in a
state of convalescence, when the king sent him to Alcala de Henares. He
was accompanied by Don John of Austria, his uncle, and by Alexander
Farnese, the hereditary Prince of Parma, his cousin; his governor,
master, and almoner, also attended him, with other domestics. The king
expected that this journey would restore the health of his son, and also
wished that he should apply himself to his studies, for he did not yet
understand Latin. Don Honorato Juanez perceived his dislike to learning
foreign languages, and therefore gave him his lessons in Spanish.

On the 9th of May, 1552, Don Carlos, who was then seventeen years of
age, fell down the staircase of his palace, and received several wounds,
principally in the spine and head, some of which appeared to be mortal.
As soon as the king was informed of the accident, he set off for the
palace, that he might give him every assistance, and ordered all the
archbishops, and other superior ecclesiastics of the kingdom, to offer
up prayers for the recovery of his son. The king, supposing him to be
already at the point of death, sent for the body of the blessed Diego, a
lay Franciscan, by which it was said that many miracles had been
performed. This body was laid upon that of Don Carlos, and as he began
to recover from that time, it was attributed to the protection of St.
Diego, who was canonized a short time after, at the request of Philip
II. It must be observed, that the prince was attended by the celebrated
Don Andrea Basilio, the king's physician, who opened his skull, freed it
from a considerable quantity of water which had accumulated, and thus
saved his life; but he never entirely recovered, and was subject to
pains and weakness in the head, which prevented him from studying, and
by producing a disorder in his ideas, rendered his character still more
insupportable.

Don Carlos returned to court in 1564, emancipated from his masters:
Philip recompensed Don Honorato Juanez, by making him bishop of Osma.
The solid piety and amiableness of this prelate had inspired Don Carlos
with an affection which their separation did not interrupt: this is
proved by his letters, which do not give a very advantageous idea of his
capacity or information. He often left sentences imperfect, and a
different meaning might be inferred from them from what he wished to
express. The following is a letter addressed to the prelate:--

"To my master the bishop.--My master: I have received your letter in the
wood: I am well. God knows how much I should have been delighted to go
to see you with the queen[37]: let me know how you were, and if there
was much expense. I went from Alameda to Buitrago, which appeared to me
very well. I went to the wood in two days; I returned here in two days,
where I have been from Wednesday till to day. I am well; I finish. From
the country, June 2nd. My best friend in this world. I will do every
thing that you wish: I, the Prince." He finishes another letter dated on
St. John's day, in the same terms.

Don Carlos was so much attached to the bishop, that he obtained a brief
from the Pope, granting him permission to reside half the year in
Madrid, that he might enjoy his society; but the infirmities of Don
Honorato prevented him from making use of the permission, and soon
caused his death. This prelate availed himself of the attachment of Don
Carlos to give him good advice: the prince appears to have received it
as he ought, but his conduct was not improved by it. He gave himself up
without restraint to the impetuosity of his passions. Some instances may
undeceive those who approve the pompous eulogium bestowed on the talents
and generosity of Don Carlos, by St. Real, Mercier, and others.

One day, when the prince was hunting in the wood of Aceca, he was in
such a passion with his governor, Don Garcia de Toledo, that he rode
after him to beat him. Don Garcia, fearing that he should be forced to
forget the respect due to his prince, took flight, and did not stop till
he reached Madrid, where Philip II. bestowed several favours on him to
induce him to forget the insult he had received: he, however, requested
to be dismissed, and the king appointed in his place Ruy Gomez de Sylva,
Prince of Evoli. This nobleman was also subjected to the most
disagreeable scenes from the violent fits of rage to which Don Carlos
gave way[38].

Don Diego Espinosa (afterwards a cardinal, and Bishop of Siguenza,
Inquisitor-general and Councillor of State) was the president of the
Council of Castile, and banished from Madrid a comedian named
_Cisneros_, at the time when he was about to perform in a comedy in the
apartment of Don Carlos. The prince desired the president to suspend the
sentence until after the representation; but receiving an unfavourable
answer, he ran after him in the palace with a poniard in his hand. In a
transport of rage he insulted him publicly, saying to him, "What, little
priest, do you dare to oppose me, and prevent Cisneros from doing as I
wish? By the life of my father, I will kill you!" He would have done so,
if some grandees who were present had not interposed, and if the
president had not retired[39].

Don Antonio de Cordova, brother of the Marquis de las Navas, and the
prince's chamberlain, slept in his apartment. It once happened that he
did not wake soon enough to attend the prince when he rung his bell; Don
Carlos quitted his bed in a fury, and attempted to throw him out at the
window. Don Alphonso, fearing to fail in respect to the prince in
resisting him, cried out, and the servants immediately came in; he then
repaired to the king's apartment, who, on being informed of what had
passed, took him into his own service[40].

He often struck his servants. His boot-maker having unfortunately
brought him a pair of boots which were too small, he had them cut to
pieces and cooked, and forced the man to eat them, which made him so ill
that he nearly lost his life. He persisted in going out of the palace at
night contrary to all advice, and in a short time his conduct became
extremely scandalous and irregular. It is scarcely possible that the
queen could be ignorant of all these occurrences; and if she was
acquainted with them, it cannot be reasonably supposed that she could
have any inclination for Don Carlos.

In 1565, Don Carlos attempted to go secretly to Flanders, contrary to
the will of his father; he was assisted in this enterprise by the Count
de Gelbes and the Marquis de Tabera, his chamberlain. The prince
intended to take his governor, the Prince d'Evoli, with him (not
considering that he was in the confidence of the king); he thought his
presence would make it supposed that he travelled with the king's
consent. His flatterers procured fifty thousand crowns for him, and four
habits to disguise themselves when they left Madrid: they were
persuaded that if the Prince d'Evoli began the journey, he would be
obliged to go on, or that they might get rid of him; but that able
politician baffled this scheme in the manner related by Cabrera in his
Life of Philip II.

The Bishop of Osma being informed of the irregular conduct of Don
Carlos, and having also received private orders from the king, wrote a
long letter to him[41], directing him how to behave to the king's
ministers, and demonstrating the incalculable evils that would arise
from a different line of conduct. He took particular pains to avoid an
insinuation that the prince stood in need of these admonitions. Don
Carlos received the letter with the respect he always showed for the
worthy prelate, but he did not follow his advice, and had given himself
up to the greatest excesses, when he learnt that his father had bestowed
the government of Flanders on the Duke of Alva. The duke went to take
leave of the prince, who told him that the government was more suitable
to the heir of the crown. The duke replied, that doubtless the king did
not wish to expose him to the dangers which he would incur in the Low
Countries from the quarrels which had arisen between the principal
noblemen. This reply, instead of appeasing Don Carlos, irritated him
still more; he drew his dagger, and endeavoured to stab the duke,
crying, _I will soon prevent you from going to Flanders, for I will stab
you to the heart before you shall go_. The duke avoided the blow by
stepping back; the prince continued the attack, and the duke had no
means of escaping but by seizing Don Carlos in his arms, and although
their strength was very unequal, he succeeded in arresting the blows of
this madman. As Don Carlos still struggled, the duke made a noise in the
apartment, and the chamberlains entered; the prince then made his
escape, and retired to his cabinet to await the result of this scene,
which could not but be disagreeable if the king was informed of it[42].

The vices of Don Carlos could not destroy the affection of the Emperor
of Germany, his uncle, or that of the Empress Maria, his aunt. These
sovereigns wished to marry him to Anne of Austria, their daughter: this
princess had been known to Don Carlos from her earliest years, as she
was born at Cigales in Spain in 1549. Philip consented to this marriage;
but fearing, perhaps, to make his niece miserable if the character and
morals of Don Carlos did not change, he proceeded in the affair with his
usual tardiness. On the contrary, as soon as the prince was informed of
what was in contemplation, he wished to marry his cousin immediately;
and for that purpose resolved to go to Germany without the consent of
his father, hoping that his presence at Vienna would induce the emperor
to overcome all difficulties. Full of this idea, he employed himself in
the execution of his design, and was assisted by the Prince of Orange,
the Marquis de Berg, the Counts Horn and Egmont, and by the Baron de
Montigny, the chiefs of the conspiracy in Flanders. Don Carlos must be
also included among the victims of this conspiracy[43].

The Marquis de Berg and the Baron de Montigny were sent to Madrid as the
deputies of the provinces of Flanders, with the consent of Margaret of
Austria, then governess of the Low Countries, to arrange some points
relative to the establishment of the Inquisition, and other
circumstances which had caused disturbances. These deputies discovered
the prince's intention; they endeavoured to confirm him in his
resolution, and offered to assist him: it was necessary to make use of
an intermediate person in this affair, and they had recourse to M. de
Vendome, the king's chamberlain. They promised Don Carlos to declare him
chief governor of the Low Countries, if he would allow liberty of
opinion in religion. Gregorio Leti speaks of a letter from Don Carlos to
the Count d'Egmont, which was found among the papers of the Duke of
Alva, and was the cause of the execution of the Counts Egmont and Horn:
the Prince of Orange made his escape. At the same time the government
was preparing (though by indirect means) the punishment of the deputies
in Spain.

The prince did not accept the money offered by these noblemen for his
journey, and the steps he took to obtain it himself, occasioned the
discovery of the conspiracy. He wrote to almost all the grandees of
Spain, to request their assistance in an enterprise which he had
planned. He received favourable answers; but most of them contained the
condition, _that the enterprise should not be directed against the
king_. The Admiral of Castile was not satisfied with this precaution.
The mysterious silence in which this scheme was wrapped, and his
knowledge of the small share of understanding possessed by Don Carlos,
made him suspect that the enterprise was criminal.

In order to prevent the danger, the admiral remitted the prince's letter
to the king, who had already been informed of the affair by Don John of
Austria, to whom Don Carlos had communicated it. Some persons suspected
that the assassination of the king formed part of the conspiracy, but
the letters only prove the attempt to obtain money. Don Carlos had taken
into his confidence Garci Alvarez Osorio, his valet-de-chambre, and
commissioned him to give explanations of the design alluded to in the
letters which he carried. This confidant made several journeys to
Valladolid, Burgos, and other cities in Castile, in pursuance of his
master's plan.

The prince did not obtain as much money as he required, and on the 1st
of December, 1567, wrote to Osorio from Madrid; the letter was
countersigned by his secretary, Martin de Gaztalu. He says that he had
only received six thousand ducats on all the promises and letters of
change which had been negotiated in Castile, and that he wanted six
hundred thousand for the plan in question. In order to procure this sum
he sent him twelve blank letters, signed by himself, and with the same
date, that he might fill them up with the names and surnames of the
persons to whom they were remitted: he also ordered him to go to
Seville, and make use of these letters[44].

As the hopes of succeeding in his plan increased, Don Carlos gave way to
more criminal thoughts, and before Christmas in the same year he had
formed the design of murdering his father. He acted without any plan or
discretion, and by the little pains he took to conceal his secret and
secure himself from danger, proved that his resolution was that of a
madman, rather than of a villain and a conspirator.

Philip II. was at the Escurial, and all the royal family at Madrid; they
were to confess and take the sacrament on Sunday the 28th of December,
which was Innocents' Day. This was a custom established at the Court of
Madrid, to obtain a jubilee granted to the kings of Spain by the Popes.
Don Carlos confessed on the 27th to his confessor in ordinary, Fray
Diego de Chaves (afterwards confessor to the king). The prince soon
after told several persons, that having declared his intention of
killing a man of very high rank, his confessor had refused to give him
absolution, because he would not promise to renounce his intention. Don
Carlos sent for other priests, but received the same refusal from them
all. He then endeavoured to exact a promise from Fray Juan de Tobar,
prior of the Convent of the Dominicans of _Atocha_, to give him an
unconsecrated wafer at the sacrament; he wished to make it appear that
he could approach the altar as well as Don John of Austria, Alexander
Farnese, and the rest of the royal family. The prior perceived that the
prince was a madman, and in that persuasion he asked who the person was
that he wished to assassinate, adding, if he was made acquainted with
his rank it might induce him not to require the renunciation of his
design. This was a bold proposition, but the prior only wished to make
Don Carlos name the individual, and he succeeded. The unfortunate Don
Carlos did not hesitate to name the king, and afterwards made the same
declaration to his uncle, Don John. One of the prince's ushers, who
witnessed all that passed, has given a faithful relation of it. As it is
of great importance, and has never been printed, a copy of it is
inserted in the account of the arrest of Don Carlos, at which he was
also present.

Garcia Alvarez Osorio soon procured a sufficient sum of money at
Seville, and Don Carlos prepared to commence his journey towards the
middle of January, 1568. He requested his uncle, Don John, to accompany
him according to a promise he had made when informed of his design. Don
Carlos made many promises to his uncle, who replied that he was ready to
do whatever he thought proper, but that he feared the journey could not
take place, on account of the danger they would incur. Don John informed
the king, who was at the Escurial, of this circumstance; Philip
consulted several theologians and jurisconsults to ascertain if he could
conscientiously continue to feign ignorance, in order to cause his son
to perform his journey. Martin d'Alpizcueta (so celebrated under the
title of the Doctor Navarro) was one of the persons consulted; he
advised the king not to allow Don Carlos to depart, urging that it was
the duty of a sovereign to avoid civil wars, which were likely to be the
result of such a journey, as the loyal subjects of Flanders might go to
war with the rebels. Cabrera says that Melchior Cano was likewise
consulted in this affair[45], but Fray Melchior died in 1560.

The prince communicated his intentions to Fray Diego de Chaves, who
endeavoured to dissuade him, but without success. Don Carlos went to
make a visit to the wife of Don Diego de Cordova, the king's master of
the horse. This lady discovered, from some expressions which dropped
from Don Carlos, that he was prepared to depart, and immediately
informed her husband, who was at the Escurial with the king, and who
gave the letter to his majesty. At last, on the 17th January, 1568, Don
Carlos sent an order to Don Ramon de Tasis, director-general of the
posts, to have eight horses ready for him on the following night. Tasis,
fearing that this order covered some mystery, and knowing the prince's
character, replied that all the post-horses were engaged, and gained
sufficient time to inform the king. Don Carlos sent a more peremptory
order, and Tasis, who dreaded his violence, sent all the post-horses out
of Madrid, and repaired to the Escurial. The king went to the Pardo (a
castle about two leagues from Madrid), where Don John joined him. Don
Carlos, who was ignorant of his father's removal, wished to have a
conference with his uncle, and went as far as _Retamar_[46], whence he
sent for him to come to him. The prince recounted all the arrangements
for his journey. Don John replied that he was ready to set out with him,
but as soon as he left him, he returned to the king to tell him all that
he had heard. The king immediately went to Madrid, where he arrived a
few minutes after Don Carlos[47].

The arrival of the king altered the measures of Don Carlos, and
prevented him from insisting upon having horses that night. Louis
Cabrera has given some details of the circumstances of his arrest, but I
prefer inserting the account of the affair, which was written by the
usher a few days after.

"The prince, my master," says he, "had been for some days unable to
take a moment's rest; he was continually repeating that he wished to
kill a man whom he hated. He informed Don John of Austria of his design,
but concealed the name of the person. The king went to the Escurial, and
sent for Don John. The subject of their conversation is not known; it
was supposed to be concerning the prince's sinister designs. Don John,
doubtless, revealed all he knew. The king soon after sent post for the
Doctor Velasco; he spoke to him of his plans, and the works at the
Escurial, gave his orders, and added that he should not return
immediately. At this time happened the day of jubilee, which the court
was in the habit of gaining at Christmas; the prince went on the
Saturday evening to the Convent of St. Jerome[48]. I was in attendance
about his person. His royal highness confessed at the convent, but could
not obtain absolution, on account of his evil intentions. He applied to
another confessor, who also refused. The prince said to him, '_Decide
more quickly_.' The monk replied, '_Let your highness cause this case to
be discussed by learned men_.' It was eight o'clock in the evening; the
prince sent his carriage for the theologians of the convent of
_Atocha_[49]. Fourteen came, two and two; he sent us to Madrid to fetch
the monks Albarado, one an Augustine, the other a Maturin; he disputed
with them all, and obstinately persisted in desiring to be absolved,
always repeating that he hated a man until he had killed him. All these
monks declaring that it was impossible to comply with the prince's
request, he then wished that they should give him an unconsecrated
wafer, that the court might believe that he had fulfilled the same
duties as the rest of the royal family. This proposal threw the monks
into the greatest consternation. Many other delicate points were
discussed in this conference, which I am not permitted to repeat.
Everything went wrong; the prior of the Convent of _Atocha_ took the
prince aside, and endeavoured to learn the quality of the person he
wished to kill. He replied that he was a man of very high rank, and said
no more. At last the prior deceived him, saying, '_My Lord, tell me what
man it is; it may, perhaps, be possible to give you absolution according
to the degree of satisfaction your highness wishes to take._' The prince
then declared that it was the king, his father, whom he hated, and that
he would have his life. The prior then said, calmly, '_Does your
highness intend to kill the king yourself, or to employ some person to
do it?_' The prince persisted so firmly in his resolution, that he could
not obtain absolution, and lost the jubilee. This scene lasted until two
hours after midnight; all the monks retired overwhelmed with sorrow,
particularly the prince's confessor. The next day I accompanied the
prince on his return to the palace, and information was sent to the king
of all that had passed.

"The monarch repaired to Madrid on Saturday[50]; the next day he went to
hear mass in public, accompanied by his brother and the princes[51]. Don
John, who was ill with vexation, went to visit Don Carlos on that day,
who ordered the doors to be shut, and asked him what had been the
subject of his conversation with the king. Don John replied that it was
about the galleys[52]. The prince asked him many questions to find out
something more, and when he found that his uncle would not be more
explicit, he drew his sword. Don John retreated to the door; finding it
shut, he stood on his defence, and said, '_Hold, your highness_.' Those
who were outside having heard him, opened the doors, and Don John
retired to his hotel. The prince, feeling indisposed, went to bed,
where he remained till six in the evening; he then rose and put on a
dressing-gown. As he was still fasting at eight o'clock, he sent for a
boiled capon; at half-past nine he again retired to bed. I was on duty
on that day also, and I supped in the palace.

"At eleven o'clock I saw the king descending the stairs; he was
accompanied by the Duke de Feria, the grand prior[53], the
lieutenant-general of the guards, and twelve of his men: the king wore
arms over his garments, and had a helmet on; he walked towards the door
where I was; I was ordered to shut it, and not to open it to any person
whatever. These persons were already in the prince's chamber, when he
cried '_Who is there?_' The officers went to the head of his bed, and
seized his sword and dagger. The Duke de Feria took an arquebuse loaded
with two balls[54]. The prince, having uttered cries and menaces, was
told, '_The Council of State is present_.' He endeavoured to seize his
arms, and to make use of them; he had already jumped out of bed when the
king entered. His son then said to him, '_What does your majesty want
with me?_' '_You will soon know_,' replied the king. The door and
windows were fastened; the king told Don Carlos to remain quietly in
that apartment until he received further orders; he then called the Duke
de Feria, and said, '_I give the prince into your care, that you may
guard him and take care of him_:' then addressing Louis Quijada, the
Count de Lerma, and Don Rodrigo de Mendoza[55], he said to them, '_I
commission you to serve and amuse the prince; do not do anything he
commands you without first informing me. I order you all to guard him
faithfully, on pain of being declared traitors._' At these words the
prince began to utter loud cries, and said, '_You had much better kill
me, than keep me a prisoner; it is a great scandal to the kingdom: if
you do not do it, I shall know how to kill myself._' The king replied,
'_that he must take care not to do so, because such acts were only
committed by madmen_.' The prince said, '_Your majesty treats me so ill,
that you will force me to come to that extremity, either from madness or
desperation_.' Some other conversation passed between them, but nothing
was decided on, because neither the time nor place permitted it.

"The king retired; the duke took the keys of the doors, and sent away
the valets and other servants of the prince. He placed guards in the
cabinet, four _Monteros d'Espinosa_, four Spanish halberdiers, and four
Germans with their lieutenant. He afterwards came to the door where I
was, and placed there four _Monteros_, and four guards, and told me to
retire. The keys of the prince's escrutoires and trunks were then taken
to the king; the beds of the valets were taken away. The Duke de Feria,
the Count de Lerma, and Don Rodrigo, watched by his highness that night;
he was afterwards watched by two chamberlains, who were relieved every
six hours. The persons appointed by the king for this service, were the
Duke de Feria, the Prince of Evoli, the prior, Don Antonio de Toledo,
Louis Quijada, the Count de Lerma, Don Fadrique Enriquez, and Don Juan
de Valesco[56]; they did not wear arms for this service. The guards did
not allow us to approach either night or day. Two chamberlains prepared
the table; the major-domo came to fetch the dinner in the court. No
knives were allowed, the meat was taken in already cut up. Mass was not
said in the prince's apartment, and he has not heard it since he was
imprisoned[57].

"On Monday[58] the king assembled in his apartment all the councillors
and their presidents; he made to each council a report of the arrest of
his son; he said that it had taken place for things which concerned the
service of God and the kingdom. Eye-witnesses have assured me that his
majesty shed tears in making this recital. On Tuesday, his majesty
convoked in his apartment the members of the Council of State; they
remained there from one o'clock till nine in the evening. It is not
known what they were occupied with. The king made an inquest; Hoyos was
the secretary[59]. The king was present at the declarations of each
witness; they were written down, and formed a pile six inches in height.
He gave to the council the privileges of the _Majorats_[60], as well as
those of the king and prince of Castile, that they might take cognizance
of them.

"The queen and the princess were in tears[61]. Don Juan went to the
palace every evening; he went once plainly dressed and in mourning; the
king reproached him, and told him to dress himself as usual. On the
Monday above-mentioned his majesty gave orders that all the prince's
valets-de-chambre should retire to their respective homes, promising to
provide for them. He caused Don Fadrique, the admiral's brother, and the
prince's major-domo, and Don Juan de Valesco to enter into the service
of the queen." _Here finishes the relation of the usher._

Philip II. saw very plainly that an event of this nature could not long
remain concealed, and would not fail to excite the curiosity of the
public. He therefore thought it necessary to give notice of it to all
the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, to the Pope, the Emperor of
Germany, to several sovereigns of Europe, to Catherine of Austria, Queen
of Portugal, widow of John III., sister of Charles V., aunt and
mother-in-law of Philip II., grandmother of the unfortunate prisoner,
and aunt and grandmother of Anne of Austria, to whom he was to have been
married. This relationship is the reason why Philip calls her in his
letter _the mother and mistress of all the family_. Louisa Cabrera says,
that this letter was addressed to the Empress of Germany, his sister, to
whom he also wrote; but the Queen of Portugal was the only one to whom
the title could be applied.

In the letter addressed to the Pope, and dated from Madrid on the 20th
of January, the king says, that though he is afflicted, he has the
consolation of knowing that he had done his utmost to procure a good
education for his son, and had shut his eyes to all that might arise
from his physical organization; but that the service of God and his duty
to his subjects would no longer permit him to tolerate his conduct. He
finishes by promising to inform his holiness further of the affair, and
asks his prayers for a happy result. On the same day Philip wrote
another letter to Queen Catherine, his aunt, in which he imparts all his
paternal grief. He reminds her that he had already informed her of some
preceding circumstances which caused fears for the future, and tells her
that the arrest would not be followed by any other punishment, but that
it had been decided on to put a stop to his irregularities: the letter
to the empress is in much the same terms.

In that which the king addressed to the cities, he said, that if he only
had been a father, he should never have decided upon such a
determination, but that as a king he could not to do otherwise, and
that it was only in acting thus that he could prevent the evils which
his clemency would have occasioned. Don Diego Colmenares has inserted,
in his history of Segovia, the letter sent by the king to that city. All
the other cities and the different authorities received similar letters,
which were inclosed in others to the corregidors. In that to the
corregidor of Madrid, Philip commands him to prevent the municipality
from making representations in favour of his son, since it was not
necessary that a father should be solicited to grant a pardon. He also
commands that, in the reply, no detail of the affair should be entered
into. On the address from Murcia, the king (who had read them all) wrote
the following note: "_This letter is written with prudence and
reserve_." As it has never been published, and will show the style
approved by Philip on this occasion, it is here inserted.

"Sacred, Catholic, and Royal Majesty:--The municipality of Murcia has
received your majesty's letter containing your determination relating to
the imprisonment of our prince. The municipality kisses your majesty's
feet a thousand times for the distinguished favour shown them in
informing them of this event; it is fully persuaded that the reasons and
motives which have guided your majesty were so important, and so
conducive to the public good, that you could not do otherwise. Your
majesty has governed your kingdom so well, maintained your subjects in
such a state of peace, and caused religion to prosper so much, that it
is natural to conclude, that in an affair which concerns you so nearly,
your majesty has only resolved on it for the service of God, and the
general welfare of your people. Nevertheless, this city cannot help
experiencing unfeigned sorrow, for the important causes which have given
fresh grief to your majesty; it cannot consider without emotion, that it
possesses a sovereign sufficiently just and attached to the good of his
kingdom to prefer it before everything, and to make him forget his
tender affection for his own son. So great a proof of love must compel
your majesty's subjects to testify their gratitude by their submission
and fidelity. This city, which has always been distinguished for its
zeal, will, at this time, give a greater proof of it in immediately
obeying your majesty's commands. God preserve the royal and Catholic
person of your majesty! In the municipal council of Murcia, February
16th, 1568."

Pius V., and all the other persons to whom Philip had written, replied,
by interceding for his son. They said it might be hoped that so striking
an event would be a check to the prince, and induce him to alter his
conduct. No one made more earnest intercessions than Maximilian II.; it
is true that he was more interested on account of the marriage intended
for his daughter. He was not satisfied with writing, but sent the
Archduke Charles to Madrid, for the purpose of interfering. The journey
which the archduke was obliged to make into Flanders and France, was the
ostensible motive for that to Madrid. Philip was inflexible; he not only
detained the prince as a prisoner, but proved, by the following
ordinance, that he intended to keep him so. It was confirmed by the
Secretary Pedro del Hoyo, and the execution of it confided to the Prince
of Evoli, who was appointed his lieutenant-general in everything
relating to the prince. It was as follows:--

"The Prince of Evoli is the chief of all the persons employed in the
service of the prince, in guarding, supplying him with food, and in his
health, and other ways. He shall cause the door to be fastened by a
latch, and not locked, either night or day, and he shall not allow the
prince to come out. His majesty appoints to guard, serve, and keep the
prince company, the Count de Lerma, Don Francis Manrique, Don Rodrigo de
Benavides, Don Juan de Borgia, Don Juan de Mendoza, and Don Gonzalo
Chacon. No other individual (except the physician, the barber, and the
_montero_[62], who has the care of the prince's person) shall be allowed
to enter the apartment, without the king's permission. The Count de
Lerma shall sleep in the chamber of Don Carlos. If he cannot do this,
one of his colleagues must take his place; one of them shall watch all
night: this duty they may fulfil in turns. During the day they shall
endeavour to be all together in the apartment, that Don Carlos may be
diverted and enlivened by their company; and they shall not dispense
with this duty, unless they are compelled by business. These noblemen
shall converse on indifferent topics with the prince; they shall take
care to avoid conversing on anything relating to his affair, and as much
as possible all that concerns the government; they shall obey all the
orders which he gives for his service or satisfaction, but they shall
not take charge of any commission from him to people without. If Don
Carlos happens to speak of his imprisonment, they shall not answer him;
and they shall relate all that passes to the Prince d'Evoli. The king
particularly recommends to them (if they would not fail in the fidelity
and obedience they have sworn), never to report elsewhere anything that
has been said or done in the interior, without first obtaining his
consent; if any of them hear the affair spoken of, in the city, or in
particular houses, he or they must report it to the king. Mass shall be
said in the chapel, and the prince shall hear it from his chamber, in
the presence of two of the noblemen who have the care of him. The
breviary, hours, rosary, and any other books which he asks for, shall be
given him, provided they treat of nothing but devotion. The six
_monteros_ who guard and serve the prince shall take the food for his
table into the first saloon, to be served to his highness by the
noblemen: a _montero_ shall take the dishes in the second chamber. The
_monteros_ shall be employed, and serve night and day, according to the
regulations of Rui Gomez de Sylva. Two halberdiers shall be placed in
the porch of the hall, leading to the court; they shall not allow any
person to enter, without the permission of the Prince d'Evoli. In his
absence, they shall ask it of the Count de Lerma, or of any one of the
others, who is appointed to act as chief in their absence. Rui Gomez de
Sylva is commissioned to command, in the name of the king, the
lieutenant-captains of the Spanish and German guards, to place eight or
ten halberdiers outside the porch. These men shall also mount guard at
the doors of the infantas; two shall be placed in the apartment of Rui
Gomez, from the time when the great gate of the palace is opened, until
midnight, when the prince's chamber shall be closed, and the _monteros_
commence their service. Each nobleman is permitted to have a servant for
his own use; he shall select from his people the one he has most
confidence in. All these persons shall make oath, before the Prince
d'Evoli, to execute faithfully the regulations contained in this
ordinance. Rui Gomez, and the noblemen under his orders, shall inform
the king of any negligence in this respect. The said Rui Gomez is
commanded to supply all that shall be considered necessary in the
service, and which has not been stated in this ordinance. As all the
responsibility rests upon him, his orders must be executed by the people
under him."

The secretary Hoyo read this ordinance to all the persons employed, and
to each in particular; they all took the oath required.

It has been shown by the recital of the usher, that Philip gave orders
for the trial of his son. The king having proceeded to the interrogation
of the witnesses, by means of the secretary Hoyo, created a special
commission to examine into the affair. It was composed of Cardinal
Espinosa, the inquisitor-general, the Prince of Evoli, and Don Diego
Bribiesca de Muñatones, a counsellor of Castile: the king presided.
Muñatones was charged with the instruction of the process. Philip, who
wished to give this affair the air of a proceeding for a crime of
_lese-majesté_, caused to be brought from the royal archives of
Barcelona, the writings of a trial instituted by his great-great
grandfather, John II., King of Aragon and Navarre, against Charles, his
eldest son, Prince of Biana and Girone, who had already been
acknowledged as the successor to the throne.

The ordinance concerning the imprisonment of Don Carlos was so strictly
observed, that the queen and the princess Jane, who wished to see and
console him, were refused permission to do so by the king. Philip was so
suspicious of every one, that he lived in a kind of captivity, and did
not make his accustomed excursions to Aranjuez, the Pardo, and the
Escurial. He kept himself shut up in his apartment; the least noise in
the street drew him to the window, such was his dread of some tumult. He
had always suspected the Flemings, or other persons, of being the
prince's partisans, or at least to affect it.

The unhappy Don Carlos, who was not accustomed to conquer his passions,
could never make use of any means to palliate his misfortune. He gave
himself up to the greatest impatience, and refused to confess, to enable
himself to fulfil the duty always performed by the royal family on Palm
Sunday. His old master, the Bishop of Osma, had died in 1566. The king
commanded the Doctor Suarez de Toledo, his first almoner, to visit him,
and try to persuade him: his efforts were unavailing, though Don Carlos
always treated him with great respect. On Easter-day, Suarez wrote a
long and touching letter to him, in which he proved by unanswerable
arguments, that his highness did not take the proper means of
terminating the affair favourably. He represented that his highness had
no longer either friends or partisans, and reminded him of several
scandalous scenes which had increased the number of his enemies; he
finishes his letter in the following terms: "Your highness may easily
imagine all that will be said when it is known that you do not confess,
and when many other terrible things are discovered; some are so much so,
that if it concerned any other person than your highness, _the holy
office would be entitled to inquire if you are really a Christian_. I
declare to your highness, with all truth and fidelity, that you only
expose yourself to lose your rank, and (what is worse) your soul. I am
obliged to say, in the grief and bitterness of my heart, that there is
no remedy, and the only advice I can give you, is to return towards God
and your father, who is his representative on earth. If your highness
will follow my advice, you will apply to the president, and other
virtuous persons, who will not fail to tell you the truth, and conduct
you in the right way." This letter had no more success than any of the
other attempts; the prince still refused to confess.

The despair which Don Carlos soon felt, made him neglect all regularity
in taking food and rest. He became so heated by the rage which preyed on
him, that iced water (which he used continually) had no effect on him.
He caused a great quantity of ice to be put into his bed, to temper the
dryness of his skin, which was become insupportable. He walked about
naked, and without shoes or stockings, on the pavement, and remained
whole nights in this state. In the month of June, he refused all
nourishment but iced water, for eleven days, and became so weak that it
was supposed he had not long to live. The king being informed, went to
visit him, and addressed some words of consolation to him, the result of
which was to induce the prince to eat more than was proper for him in
his weak state, and this excess brought on a malignant fever,
accompanied by a dangerous dysentery. The prince was attended by Doctor
Olivares, chief physician to the king; he went in alone to the patient,
and when he returned, held a consultation with the other physicians of
the king, in the presence of the Prince d'Evoli.

The preliminary case, drawn by Don Diego Bribiesca de Muñatones, was
sufficiently advanced in the month of July, to allow of a final
sentence, without examining the criminal, or to appoint a procurator for
the king, who in quality of fiscal accused the prince of the crimes
stated in the _preparatory instruction_. No judicial notice was sent to
the prince; they had only the declarations of the witnesses, letters,
and other papers.

These writings proved that, according to the laws of the kingdom, Don
Carlos must be condemned to death, for high treason, on two counts:
first, for having attempted parricide; and secondly, for having framed a
plan to usurp the sovereignty of Flanders, by means of a civil war.
Muñatones made a report of this, and the punishments established for
such crimes, to the king; he added, that particular circumstances, and
the rank of the criminal, might authorize his majesty to declare, that
general laws could not affect the eldest sons of kings, because they
were subject to laws of a higher nature, those which related to policy,
and the welfare of the state; lastly, that the monarch might, for the
good of his subjects, commute the punishment.

Cardinal Espinosa and the Prince of Evoli were of the opinion of
Muñatones; Philip then said, that his heart inclined him to follow their
advice, but that his conscience would not permit him to do so: that he
thought it would be far from being a benefit to Spain; that, on the
contrary, he thought it would be the greatest misfortune that could
happen to his kingdom, to be governed by a king devoid of knowledge,
talents, judgment, or virtue, full of vices and passions, and, above
all, furious, ferocious and sanguinary; that these considerations
compelled him, notwithstanding his attachment to his son, and his
anguish at so terrible a sacrifice, to suffer the laws to take their
course; but considering that the health of Don Carlos was in such a
state that there was no hope of prolonging his life, he thought it would
be better to suffer him to satisfy himself in his inclinations in eating
and drinking, since, from the disorder of his ideas, he would not fail
to commit some excess, which would lead him to the tomb: that the only
thing which concerned him, was the necessity of persuading his son that
his death was inevitable, and that in consequence he must confess
himself to ensure salvation; that this was the greatest proof of
affection which he could show to his son and the Spanish nation.

This decision of the king is not mentioned in the writings of the trial.
There was no sentence written or signed; but the secretary Hoyo, in a
note, says, _that at this period of the trial the prince died of his
malady, and this was the reason why no sentence was pronounced_. The
proof of the fact exists in other papers, in which the curious anecdotes
of the time have been related. Although these documents are not
authentic, they merit attention, as they were written by persons
employed in the king's palace, and accord with what some writers have
insinuated. It is true that they did think proper not to speak plainly
on such delicate subjects, but they have said enough to lead to the
truth.

Cardinal Espinosa and the Prince of Evoli thought that they should
fulfil the intentions of Philip in hastening the death of Don Carlos;
they agreed that the physician should inform the prince of his
condition, without saying anything of the king's displeasure or of the
trial, and that he should prepare him to receive the exhortations which
would be made for the benefit of his soul: by these means they hoped to
induce him to confess and prepare himself for death, which would put an
end to his misfortunes.

The Prince of Evoli held a conference with the Doctor Olivares. He spoke
to him in that mysterious and important manner which persons versed in
the politics of courts know so well how to employ, when it is necessary
to further the views of their sovereign, or their own designs. Rui Gomez
de Sylva was perfect in this art, according to the opinion of his friend
Antonio Perez, the first secretary of state, who was well acquainted
with all that passed. In one of his letters he says, _that after the
death of the Prince of Evoli, there would be no one but himself
initiated in these mysteries_.

Olivares perfectly understood that he was expected to execute the
sentence of death pronounced by the king; and that it was to be done in
such a manner, that the prince's honour should not be affected; in
short, that his death was to appear natural. He therefore endeavoured to
express himself, so as to inform the prince of Evoli that he
comprehended him, and considered it as an order from the king.

On the 20th of July, Olivares ordered a medicine which Don Carlos took.
Louis Cabrera, who was employed in the palace at that time, and who
often saw Rui Gomez, says in his history of Philip II., that "_this
medicine did not produce any beneficial effect; and the malady appearing
to be mortal_, the physician informed the patient, that he must prepare
to die like a good Christian, and receive the sacraments."

The histories published by Cabrera, Wander-Hamen, Opmero and Estrada,
all agree with the secret memoirs of the times which I have read. It is
not surprising, then, that the Prince of Orange, in his manifesto
against Philip II., should impute to him the death of his son[63]; that
James Augustus de Thou, a French contemporary historian, has done the
same, from the accounts given him by Louis de Foix, a French architect,
employed in building the Escurial, and Pedro Justiniani, a Venetian
nobleman, who resided some time in Spain; although he was mistaken in
making the holy office interfere in this affair; in supposing that the
prince died, in a few hours, from poison; and in advancing some other
errors on the authority of his two informants[64]. It is not more
surprising that the authors cited by Gregorio Leti have stated things
which appear to be written by the pen of a novelist or romance writer,
because the death of the prince being occasioned by a mysterious
medicine, administered according to a private order, no one doubted that
it was caused by violence, and endeavoured to conjecture how it was
done.

But the truth is always discovered sooner or later, and after a century
and a half, we find so many isolated facts and accounts of this event,
that they produce conviction, and show that the death of Don Carlos had
the external appearances of a natural death, and that he himself
considered it to be so. The accounts of some foreign historians, of the
result of the medicine, have been refuted by authentic documents: those
of the writers, who have composed romances under the names of histories,
are equally disproved. I shall therefore proceed to relate the facts as
they occurred.

Don Carlos, on being informed by Olivares that death was approaching,
desired that Fray Diego de Chaves, his confessor, might be sent for: his
orders were executed on the 21st of July. The prince commissioned the
monk to ask pardon of his father, in his name; the king sent to tell
him, that he granted it with all his heart, as well as his blessing, and
that he hoped his repentance would obtain pardon from God. On the same
day he received the sacraments of the Eucharist and Extreme Unction with
great devotion. He also, with the king's consent, made a will, which was
written by Martin de Gatzelu, his secretary. On the 22nd and 23rd he was
in a dying state, and tranquilly listened to the exhortations of his
confessor and Doctor Suarez de Toledo. The ministers proposed to the
king that he should see his son, and give him his blessing in person, as
it would be a consolation to him on his death-bed. Philip asked the
opinion of the two ecclesiastics above-mentioned. They said that Don
Carlos was well-disposed, and it might be feared that the sight of his
father would occasion some disturbance in his mind. This motive
restrained him for the present; but being informed, on the night of the
23rd, that his son was at the point of death, he went to his apartment,
and extending his arms between the Prince of Evoli and the grand prior,
he gave him his blessing a second time, without being perceived. He then
retired weeping, and Don Carlos expired soon after, at four o'clock in
the morning of the 24th of July, which was the day before the festival
of St. James, the patron Saint of Spain.

The death of Don Carlos was not kept secret. He was interred, with all
the pomp due to his rank, in the church of the Convent of the Nuns of
St. Dominic _el Real_, at Madrid, but there was no funeral oration.
Philip II. announced the death of Don Carlos to all the authorities who
had been informed of his imprisonment. The city of Madrid also
celebrated solemn obsequies on the 14th of August. The sermon was
preached by Fray Juan de Tobar, the same monk who had deceived the
prince, to make him confess who he wished to kill. In the same year a
long account of the sickness, death, and funeral of Don Carlos was
printed. The municipality of Madrid had ordered it to be written by Juan
Lopez del Hoyo, professor of Latin in that capital.

Spain regretted the death of Don Carlos, as the king had no other son.
By his third wife, Elizabeth or Isabella of France, he had only had two
daughters, and that virtuous princess died of a miscarriage in the same
year, 1568. This misfortune (and the bad opinion conceived by all Europe
of Philip II., who was considered as a cruel and hypocritical prince)
occasioned the imputation of having caused the queen's death. He was
first accused of it by the Prince of Orange, and afterwards by many
other persons. France had proofs of the contrary, since Charles IX. sent
an ambassador extraordinary to Madrid, with compliments of condolence
to the king, who was really inconsolable for the loss of his expected
heir. Juan Lopez del Hoyo, in 1569, published a faithful account of the
illness and death of the queen; and some circumstances which he mentions
seem incompatible with the use of poison, which is said to have
occasioned her death. It is evident that the Prince of Orange suffered
himself to be misled by hatred and revenge. The reality of a crime
cannot be believed when neither the end nor motives for it can be
perceived, and Philip was certainly interested in the queen's life. Some
writers, after having supposed that the crime was committed, have
endeavoured to discover the cause, and some romance-writers have thought
that they discovered it in the pretended intrigue with Don Carlos.
Supposing it to be true, there are historical proofs that it could not
have commenced till after his return from Alcala, and at that time he
ardently wished to marry his cousin, Anne of Austria. This princess
became the fourth wife of Philip, and the mother of his successor,
Philip III.

Philip II., wishing to commemorate the justice of his conduct towards
his son, ordered that the writings of the trial, with the original, and
translation from the Catalonian tongue of that of Don Charles, Prince of
Biana, should be collected and preserved. Don Francis de Mora, Marquis
de Castel Rodrigo, who became the king's confidant after the death of
Rui Gomez de Sylva, in 1592, deposited these writings in a green coffer,
which the king afterwards sent shut, and without a key, to the royal
archives of Simancas, where it is still, if it has not been carried away
by the order of the French government, as it has been reported in
Spain.




CHAPTER XXXII.

TRIAL OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF TOLEDO.


One of the most illustrious victims of the holy office was Don
Bartholomew Carranza de Miranda, Archbishop of Toledo. The writings of
the trial amount to twenty-four folio volumes, each containing one
thousand or twelve hundred pages. This immense mass of writings must
doubtless contain many facts unknown to Don Pedro Salazar de Mendoza,
the author of the life of Carranza. This respectable writer spared no
expense to discover the truth, but could not penetrate the mystery which
envelopes the proceedings of the Inquisition. I have read this trial,
which enables me to fill up the omissions of Salazar de Mendoza, and
correct his involuntary errors.

Bartholomew Carranza was born in 1503, at _Miranda de Arga_, a little
borough in the kingdom of Navarre: he was the son of Pedro Carranza, and
grandson of Bartholomew, both members of the nobility of Miranda. His
true family name, consequently, was _Carranza_; but while he was a
Dominican monk, he was only called Miranda. When he was made Archbishop
of Toledo, he was named Carranza de Miranda, to prove the identity: he,
however, only signed the name Fray Bartholomeus Toletanus, according to
the custom of the times. The family of Carranza has been perpetuated to
the eighteenth century, in the direct male line from Pedro, brother to
the archbishop. At twelve years of age, Bartholomew, through the
interest of his uncle Sancho de Carranza, a doctor in the university of
Alcala de Henares, and the antagonist of Erasmus, was received into the
College of St. Eugenius, which was dependant on the university. When he
attained his fifteenth year, he passed into the College of St. Balbina,
to study what was then called _philosophy and the arts_, which was
confined to some general ideas of logic, metaphysics, and physics. In
1520 he took the habit of a Dominican, in the Convent of _Venaleç_, in
the _Alcarria_, which was afterwards transferred to the city of
_Guadalaxara_. As soon as he had professed, he was sent to study
theology in the College of St. Stephen of Salamanca and in 1525 he was
placed in that of St. Gregory of Valladolid.

A proof of the rapid progress of Bartholomew may be seen in his trial.
Fray Michel de St. Martin, a Dominican monk, and a professor in the same
college at Valladolid, denounced him to the holy office, in 1530,
deposing that, two or three years before, he had had several
conversations with Carranza, on subjects concerning his conscience; that
he had remarked that he limited the power of the Pope, relating to the
ecclesiastical ceremonies; and that he had reprimanded him for so
erroneous an opinion. Carranza was also denounced in 1530, by Fray Juan
de Villamartin, as having been the ardent defender of Erasmus, even on
the subject of the sacrament of penance, and the frequent confession of
persons who are only in a state of venial sin; that having opposed to
him the example of St. Jerome, he maintained that it was impossible to
support the fact by the authority of any respectable ecclesiastical
historian; that Carranza also said Erasmus ought not to be contemned,
for saying that the Apocalypse was not the work of St. John the
Evangelist, but of another priest, who bore the same name.

These denunciations were not made use of until the instruction of the
trial of the archbishop was far advanced, when every method was employed
to find materials for accusations; the _denunciations_ and _suspended
trials_ were then looked over, and those above-mentioned were found.
They were noted as declarations of witnesses, under the numbers
ninety-four and ninety-five; while, according to the dates, they ought
to have been the first.

As these denunciations were not known out of the holy office, the
rector and counsellors of the College of St. Gregory de Valladolid
presented Carranza, in 1530, as a professor of philosophy; in 1534 he
was appointed professor of theology, and soon after a qualifier to the
holy office of Valladolid. In 1539 he was sent to Rome, to attend a
general chapter of his order, where he was chosen to maintain the
theses, which were only confided to persons capable of performing their
duty well: the talents he displayed in these exercises obtained him the
rank of Doctor and Master of Theology; and Paul III. permitted him to
read prohibited books.

On his return to Spain, he professed theology, with the greatest
success, in his College of St. Gregory. The harvest having entirely
failed in the mountains of Leon and Santander in 1540, the inhabitants
went to Valladolid in great numbers. Carranza not only maintained forty
of these poor people in his college, but sold his books to assist others
in the city, only retaining his Bible, and the _Summary_ of St. Thomas.
During this period he was continually occupied, either at the holy
office as a qualifier, or at home in censuring books sent to him by the
Supreme Council, or in preaching sermons at the _auto-da-fé_.

In the same year, 1540, Carranza was appointed Bishop of Cuzco, but he
refused to go to South America, except as a preacher of the gospel. In
1544, Carranza was sent to the Council of Trent, as theologian to
Charles V. He remained there three years, and it was there that Cardinal
Pacheco (dean of the Spanish prelates who attended at the council)
engaged him to preach on _justification_ before the Fathers. In 1546, he
published at Rome one of his works, called _The Summary of Councils_;
and another at Venice, of _Theological Controversies_. In 1547 he
published a treatise _On the Residence of Bishops_, which created him
many enemies, and which was attacked by Fray Ambrose Caterino, and
defended by Fray Dominic de Soto, both Dominicans.

On his return to Spain, in 1548, he refused the appointment of
confessor to Philip II., then prince of the Asturias, and in 1549
declined accepting the bishopric of the Canaries. He was elected in the
same year prior of the Dominicans of Palencia, which he accepted. In
1550 he was made provincial of the Convents of Castile, and visited his
province.

The Council of Trent being again convoked in 1651, Carranza was
commanded by the emperor to attend it, and furnished with full powers by
the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo; he assisted at the different
assemblies until 1552, when he was suspended the second time. Among the
different commissions confided to him, was that of preparing an _Index_.
On his return to Spain, the period of his provincialship had expired,
and he re-entered his College of St. Gregory of Valladolid.

The alliance between Philip II. and Mary, Queen of England, being fixed,
Fray Bartholomew, in 1554, went to England in order to assist Cardinal
Pole in preparing the kingdom to return to the Catholic faith. Carranza
passed the greatest part of his time in preaching, and succeeded in
converting a great number of heretics. When the king left England to go
to Brussels, Carranza remained with the queen, to whom he was useful in
supporting the Catholic doctrine in the universities, and arranging
other affairs of the greatest importance. He revised, by the order of
Cardinal Pole, the canons which had been decreed by a national council,
and caused several obstinate heretics to be punished, particularly
Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Martin Bucer; his zeal
often exposed him to great danger.

In 1557 he went to Flanders, where he caused all books infected with the
heresy of Luther to be burnt. He did the same at Frankfort, and also
informed the king that many of these books were introduced into Spain by
way of Aragon. Philip, in consequence, gave the necessary orders to the
inquisitor-general to intercept these works. In order to render this
measure more effectual, Carranza drew up a list of suspected Spaniards
who had fled to Germany and Flanders. The original copy of this list was
found among his papers when he was arrested.

On the death of Cardinal Siliceo, Archbishop of Toledo, the king
appointed Carranza to succeed him; he however refused to accept the
dignity, and named Don Gaspard de Zuñiga y Avellanada, Bishop of
Segovia, Don Francis de Navarra, Bishop of Badajoz, and Don Alphonso de
Castro, a Franciscan, as more worthy of the king's choice than himself.
He persisted in his refusal, until the king commanded him on his
allegiance to accept the archbishopric: the original of this royal order
was also found among the papers of Carranza. Paul IV. dispensed with the
usual formalities; he was _preconised_ in a full consistory on the 16th
December, 1557, and his bulls were expedited. Pedro de Merida, canon of
Palencia, administrated until the arrival of the archbishop. The
Inquisition of Valladolid afterwards prosecuted him for some letters
which he had written to Carranza, and which were found among his papers;
he was also implicated by Fray Dominic de Roxas, and by other
accomplices of Dr. Cazalla.

The Archbishop Carranza was consecrated at Brussels on the 27th of
February in the same year, by the Cardinal Granville, afterwards first
archbishop of Malines. He published at Antwerp his Catechism in Spanish,
under the title of _Commentaries of the very Reverend Fray Bartholomew
Carranza de Miranda, Archbishop of Toledo, on the Christian Catechism,
in four parts_[65].

He afterwards returned to Spain, and assisted several times at the
Councils of Castile and the Inquisition. About the middle of September
he went to the monastery of St. Juste, to make a report to Charles V. of
some affairs confided to him by Philip II., and to pay his respects to
the emperor, who was then ill, and died two days after. An account has
been given in the eighteenth chapter of what passed at this visit. He
then repaired to his archbishopric, where he remained six months, and
then went to Alcala de Henares, with the intention of visiting his
diocese. During the six months that he passed in the capital, his
conduct was exemplary, passing his time in preaching, distributing alms,
visiting the prisoners and the sick, and in causing prayers to be said
for the dead. He employed himself in the same manner in all the places
he passed through, until he arrived at Torrelaguna, where he was
arrested by the Inquisition on the 22nd of August. He was taken back to
Valladolid, and imprisoned in a house belonging to the eldest branch of
the family of Don Pedro Gonzalez de Leon, where Don Diego Gonzalez, an
inquisitor, was appointed to guard him.

Carranza had made enemies of several bishops, when he published his
treatise _On the Residence of Bishops_: the reputation which he acquired
for learning in the Council of Trent, at the expense of several
individuals who considered themselves superior to him, rendered them
also his enemies, or at least his rivals. Of this number were Melchior
Cano, who has been already mentioned; their rivalry was changed into
open jealousy on his part, and on that of Fray Juan de Regla, when
Carranza was appointed Archbishop of Toledo. This hatred became common
to others, when, after refusing the archbishopric, Fray Bartholomew
recommended the three persons before mentioned to the king: among them
were Don Ferdinand Valdes, inquisitor-general; Don Pedro de Castro,
Bishop of Cuença, a son of the Count de Lemos; and a man of much greater
merit, Don Antonio Augustine, Archbishop of Tarragona, who was the
luminary of Spain in sacred literature. These persons endeavoured to
conceal their sentiments, but their words and actions betrayed them.

Besides this principal motive for the conspiracy against the archbishop,
we may be permitted to suppose another. Carranza had given a copy of his
Catechism to the Marchioness d'Alcañices in several detached pieces;
when it was printed, he distributed it as it came from the press.

The Marchioness d'Alcañices intrusted the work to several pupils or
partisans of the archbishop, among whom were Fray Juan de la Peña, Fray
Francis de Tordesillas, and Fray Louis de la Cruz; it was also read by
Melchior Cano, who, in different conversations, plainly insinuated that
it contained propositions tending to the Lutheran heresy. Don Ferdinand
Valdés being informed of these circumstances, bought several copies of
the Catechism, and sent them to persons with whose opinions he was well
acquainted, desiring them to read it attentively, and to observe all
that merited theological censure, but not to give their opinions in
writing until they had again communicated with him. The persons he
selected, were Fray Melchior Cano, Fray Dominic Soto, Fray Dominic
Cuevas, the Master Carlos, and Fray Pedro Ibarra, provincial of the
Franciscans.

This work was also sent to Don Pedro de Castro, Bishop of Cuença; and it
may be said that his reply, dated from Pareja, April 28, 1558, was the
foundation of the trial of Carranza. It appears from the letter to the
inquisitor-general, that he had requested to know the opinion of de
Castro on the Catechism, and he informs him that he thinks it a
dangerous work, promises to give him his reasons for it, and adds that
the article on _justification_ tends towards Lutheranism. He says that
having heard the author speak in the same manner at the Council of
Trent, he had conceived a bad opinion of his doctrine, although he did
not think that Carranza really held such erroneous sentiments. Don
Pedro further says, that his present opinion is supported by facts,
which he had already communicated to Doctor Andres Perez, a member of
the Supreme Council.

It appears, by a paper signed by the same bishop, on the first of
September, 1559, that his communications to the counsellor were confined
to the following articles: that being present at a sermon preached by
Carranza before the king in London, he observed that he spoke of the
_justification of men by a lively faith in the passion and death of
Jesus Christ_, in terms approaching to Lutheranism; that Fray Juan de
Villagarcia informed him that Don Bartholomew had preached the sermon in
the preceding year at Valladolid, and that he then thought it
reprehensible. The bishop adds, that he spoke to Carranza on the
subject, and attributed his silence to humility; that at another time
when he was preaching before the king, he said, that some sins were
irremissible. At first he thought he had not understood him, but
Carranza afterwards repeated the same proposition several times. The
bishop concluded by stating, that in another sermon preached before the
king, Don Bartholomew spoke of the indulgences granted by the bull of
the Crusade, as if they might be bought for two rials (_ten pence_); and
that he thought such language very dangerous to hold in England in the
midst of heretics. All this accords with the declaration of Fray Angel
del Castillo, after the arrest of the archbishop, who deposed that de
Castro said that _Carranza had preached like Philip Melancthon_.

It appears from this statement, that Don Pedro de Castro did not feel
any scruples until three years after his journey to London, and did not
think himself obliged to denounce Carranza, until he had lost all hope
of becoming Archbishop of Toledo; if Don Bartholomew had remained a
single month, he would never have been accused. The inquisitor-general
gave up the letter he had received from de Castro, to begin the
proceedings, but he did not mention that which he had written himself,
which shows that it was not official. The counsellor Don Andrea Perez
neither deposed nor proved any of the facts related by the bishop, so
that the declaration was not entered in the proceedings when the order
for the arrest was issued; about a year and a half after, it was thought
proper to supply the place of it, by the insertion of a writing signed
by the bishop. The Court of Rome was astonished at the irregularity of
the proceedings, when it received the writings of the trial.

Fray Juan de Villagarcia, being already imprisoned, in 1561, declared
that he perfectly remembered hearing de Castro mention the sermon
preached by Carranza in London, but not that he had been scandalized at
it, or that he had said anything which could produce that effect.
Villagarcia said, that as the confidant of the archbishop, and having
been employed to transcribe his works, he was more capable of defending
the purity of his faith than any other person; and endeavoured to prove
that there was none but Catholic propositions in his works.

It is evident that the trial originated in the malice of the
inquisitor-general, which induced him to give the catechism to the
enemies of Carranza: when he was informed by Cano of the existence of
the propositions which caused the denunciation, he sent the work
officially to him, and to the other _qualifiers_, Soto and Cuevas; but
this did not take place till after some circumstances occurred, during
the trials of several Lutherans, which seem to have caused that of
Carranza, although the fact was entirely false. The inquisitor-general
being informed that Carranza was intimate with the Marquises d'Alcañices
and de Poza, many of whose friends and relations were in the prisons of
the Inquisition, ordered the inquisitors of Valladolid to obtain
information of the prisoners concerning the faith of the archbishop. A
report was also spread, that several persons had discovered a similarity
between the opinions of Carranza and Cazalla; which succeeded so well,
that a partisan of Cano had the audacity to announce from the pulpit,
when Cazalla was arrested, that an order had been issued to arrest the
Archbishop of Toledo.

On the 25th of April, 1558, Donna Antoinia Mella deposed, that
Christopher de Padilla had given her a MS. containing Lutheran
doctrines, which he said was written by Carranza. This declaration was
not communicated to the archbishop, because the work was composed by
Fray Dominic de Roxas. On the 17th of the same month, Pedro de Sotelo
made a similar declaration.

On the 29th of April, Donna Anne Henriquez d'Almanza deposed, that she
asked Fray Dominic de Roxas if he should treat of points of doctrine
with the archbishop, and that he said he should not, because Carranza
had just written a book against the Lutherans. She added that she had
heard Francis de Vibero say, that the archbishop would burn in hell,
because, knowing better than any person that the doctrine of Luther was
orthodox, he had condemned several persons to the flames in England, for
professing it. Francis de Vibero, on being interrogated, declared that
he did not remember to have used these words, and that he thought it
doubtful, because Carranza had always been a Roman Catholic.

Donna Catherine de Rios, prioress of the convent of St. Catherine, at
Valladolid, deposed, on the 24th of April, that she heard Fray Dominic
de Roxas say, that Don Bartholomew had declared that _he did not find
any evidence of the existence of purgatory in the Holy Scriptures_: she
added however, on the following day, that she was persuaded that
Carranza did believe in purgatory, because he always exhorted his monks
to perform masses for the dead; she deposed, that having asked Donna
Anne Henriquez, if the archbishop held the same opinion, that she did;
she replied, that on the contrary he had written a book in refutation of
them; that Donna Bernardina de Roxas told her that she had learnt from
Fray Dominic, that the archbishop had advised him _not to suffer
himself to be led away by his genius_; that Sabino Astete, canon of
Zamora, assured her that he had heard Fray Dominic declare that he had
the greatest compassion for Carranza, because he did not hold the same
opinions as he did. This declaration was not communicated to the
archbishop in the _publication of the depositions of the witnesses_,
because it contained nothing against him. If these declarations had been
made known to his defender, he might have derived great benefit from
them.

Fray Dominic de Roxas being summoned on the proposition relating to
purgatory, declared that Don Bartholomew had always spoken on that
subject like a good Catholic.

Fray Juan Manuelez, a Dominican, deposed on the 18th October, 1560, that
nine or ten years before, he conversed with Don Bartholomew concerning a
Lutheran who was condemned to be burnt, but could not be certain whether
the archbishop advanced the following proposition: _It is certain that
the Holy Scriptures do not assure us that there is a purgatory_,--This
witness makes his deposition a year after the arrest of the archbishop,
and is not certain of the fact. Would he not have denounced him ten
years before, if he had heard him speak in that manner?

On the 4th of May, 1559, Pedro de Cazalla deposed that in 1554 he heard
Don Charles de Seso deny the existence of a purgatory, and repeat the
proposition before Don Bartholomew Carranza, who appeared scandalized,
but did not attempt to refute or denounce him. The deponent also said,
that Fray Dominic de Roxas told him, that he had informed Carranza that
he could not reconcile the doctrines of justification and purgatory, and
he replied that _it would not be a great evil if there was no
purgatory_; that having answered from the decision of the Church, his
master said to him, _You are not yet capable of understanding this
matter_.

Don Charles de Seso being interrogated on this subject on the 27th
June, replied that Don Bartholomew had told him that he ought to believe
in the existence of purgatory, and that if he was not obliged to depart,
he would answer his arguments in a satisfactory manner; that Pedro
Cazalla was the only person to whom he had communicated his conversation
with Carranza; that he had reason to believe his present summons was
occasioned by the declaration of Cazalla, who had not spoken the truth.
On the 20th and 23rd, Fray Dominic declared that Carranza had always
spoken of purgatory like a good Catholic. Thus it appears that the
declarations of Cazalla were proved to be false, before the order for an
arrest was issued.

On the 7th of May, 1559, the inquisitor, William, remitted a letter from
Carranza, in which he mentions Don Charles de Seso, and says that he did
not denounce him, because he thought he had only been led into error;
which was proved by the reply of Seso, when reprimanded by him, that he
would only believe that which was really commanded by the Catholic
religion, and that he then told him he could not do better.

Garcia Barbon de Bexega, an alguazil of the Inquisition of Calahorra,
deposed on the 12th of May, that he arrested Fray Dominic de Roxas, when
he endeavoured to fly from Spain, and that when conversing with him on
the increase of the number of Lutherans, he asked if his master Carranza
was of that sect; Roxas replied in the negative; that he was not going
to seek him in Flanders for that reason, but to obtain from the king the
favour of not being degraded. This declaration was not communicated to
the archbishop in the _publication of the depositions_.

On the 13th of May, Fray Dominic de Roxas declared that Fray Francis de
Tordesillas had expressed pity for him, when he heard him speak of
_justification_, and make use of phrases in his discourses tinctured
with Lutheranism; that this also happened to Carranza. Fray Francis, on
being examined, deposed, that having copied several works of the
archbishop, and translated others into Latin, for the Marchioness
d'Alcañices and different persons, he had introduced a _preface_ into
one MS., stating that the way to avoid falling into error in reading
these works, was to understand in a Catholic sense some propositions on
_justification_, which might be interpreted in a different manner; that
all that Carranza had written was in the spirit of the Catholic
religion; that he, deponent, knew his intentions to be pure, because he
had seen him practise good works, and his sermons, conferences, and
private life, perfectly accorded with the true principles of faith.

Donna Frances de Zuñiga, deposed on the 2d of June, that Carranza had
told her, that provided she was not in a state of mortal sin, she might
approach the holy table without confessing; that on the 13th of July she
heard Fray Dominic de Roxas say that Carranza thought as he did on some
of Luther's opinions, but not on all; that the nuns of the convent of
Bethlehem did not believe in purgatory, because Pedro Cazalla had told
them that such was the opinion of Carranza. Fray Dominic, being
summoned, made the depositions relating to purgatory above mentioned: he
added, on the 21st of March, that Don Bartholomew always explained his
propositions in a Catholic sense, and detested the Lutheran doctrine;
and that if he, deponent, had always profited by these explanations, he
would not have fallen into error. Pedro Cazalla being interrogated
concerning the nuns of Bethlehem, replied that he did not remember to
have spoken in that manner, but that he had concluded that such were the
opinions of Carranza when he did not denounce Don Charles de Seso.

On the 13th of July the inquisitors seized all the books composed by
Carranza in the house of the Marchioness d'Alcañices, who on the 28th
deposed, that having read the _Commentaries on the Prophecies of
Isaiah_, written by Carranza, she asked Fray Juan de Villagarcia from
what book the author had taken so much erudition? Fray Juan replied
that it was contained in a work of Luther, and that the book could not
be confided to every person, because the good was too often mixed with
evil in those authors. Fray Juan de Villagarcia being interrogated on
this subject, replied that it was a work of _OEcolampadius_, and that
the archbishop always kept it concealed; that it was true that he had
taken from it materials for the treatise in which he explained the
prophecies of Isaiah; but he was accustomed to say that no confidence
could be placed in the heretical authors; that the archbishop had been
seduced by them, but always defended the Catholic religion. It has been
already stated that Paul III. granted him permission to read prohibited
works; the brief was found among his papers.

On the 3rd of July, Elizabeth Estrada deposed, that Fray Dominic de
Roxas had told her, that it depended upon Don Bartholomew to make her
sister the Marchioness d'Alcañices adopt the errors of Luther, and that
he hoped to see that event take place, because then the king and all
Spain would embrace that religion. The deponent also said that Fray
Dominic told her that Don Bartholomew had read the works of Luther. Fray
Dominic, being examined, replied that he often spoke in that manner to
the nuns who were of his opinions, and to other individuals of his
society of Lutherans, adding that Carranza thought as he did on
_justification_ and purgatory; that he (Roxas) composed an _Explanation
of the articles of faith_, according to his own creed, and attributed it
to Carranza, to give it more consequence; that he always said the
archbishop approved the doctrine of Luther, to persuade those persons to
persevere in the faith, but that he never said that Don Bartholomew had
read the works of Luther, because he did not know that he had. The
deponent declared that the changes in his situation induced him to
confess the truth; that the archbishop had never adopted such doctrines,
and that he always gave a Catholic meaning to those phrases which would
bear a contrary interpretation.

On the 23rd of August, Fray Bernardin de Montenegro, and Fray Juan de
Meceta, (both monks of the convent of St. Francis, at Valladolid,)
voluntarily denounced a sermon, which was preached by the archbishop two
days before, in the convent of St. Paul, and in which he used some
expressions similar to those employed by the heretics. He also said,
that converted heretics should be treated with clemency, and that
persons were sometimes called heretics, illuminati, or quietists, merely
because they were seen on their knees before a crucifix, and smiting
their breasts with a stone: he invoked the authority of St. Bernard, to
support his last proposition, which (according to the denouncers) did
not agree with what he had advanced. The sermon being afterwards found
among the papers of the archbishop, was examined by the qualifiers, and
did not appear to contain any proposition deserving of censure. Yet the
inquisitors presumed to demand officially of the princess Jane,
governess of the kingdom, what she thought of the sermon; the princess
had the complaisance to reply, that she only remembered to have heard
some propositions which appeared to her to be improper.

On the 25th of the same month, Ferdinand de Sotelo denounced Don
Bartholomew, for having said in the presence of Pedro de Sotelo, his
brother, and Christopher Padilla, that if he had a notary with him when
he was dying, he would desire him to draw up an act of _renunciation of
all his good works_. Pedro and Christopher declared that they did not
remember that they had repeated this to Ferdinand de Sotelo. But Fray
Dominic de Roxas deposed, during the torture, on the 10th of September,
1559, that he thought he remembered being once in the village of
Alcañices, and hearing Don Bartholomew say, that at the point of death
he should wish to have a notary, to draw up an act of renunciation of
the merit of his good works, because he relied solely on those of Jesus
Christ, and that he considered his sins as nothing, because Jesus had
expiated them; Dominic added, that Don Louis de Roxas, his nephew,
related the same thing, as having occurred at his return from Flanders
in the king's suite, and that all these expressions did not make him
consider the archbishop as a Lutheran, but as a good Catholic; because
the heretics denied that the good works of the creature could expiate
sin, and attributed the expiation to the merits of Jesus Christ, while
Carranza only asserted, that the expiation by the good works of a sinner
was so little when compared with the infinite merits of our Redeemer,
that the sinner might regard them as nothing if he fervently prayed for
the application of the merits of our Saviour dying on the cross. There
seems to be no doubt that Fray Dominic was the author of the denounced
proposition; he explained it to the advantage of the accused during the
torture.

On the 8th of September, Fray Dominic declared that Don Bartholomew had
said, that the expression, _say the mass_, was not exact; that it would
be more correct to say _perform the mass_, from the Latin, _facere rem
sacram_, and that he used this expression in the pulpit and in his
writings. This accusation was certainly not sufficient to authorize a
decree of arrest.

On the 23rd of September, Doctor Cazalla declared, that ten or twelve
years before, he heard Fray Dominic de Roxas say, that Don Bartholomew
held the doctrines of the Lutherans. Fray Dominic on being examined
denied the fact, but afterwards, on being tortured, confessed, that he
had often declared that Don Bartholomew believed in the doctrines of the
Lutherans, to give weight to his own opinions, and acknowledged that he
did not speak the truth.

The same Doctor Cazalla (being examined on the evidence of Donna Francis
de Zuñiga, who said he had instructed her in the doctrine of Luther)
declared, that Donna Frances, and her brother Juan, had told him, that
they were instructed by Don Bartholomew. The brother and sister denied
the fact, and Cazalla being tortured, retracted his declaration.

On the 9th of December, Fray Ambrose de Salazar, Dominican, being
summoned to declare if it was true that he had said, that some persons
held the same language as the heretics of Germany, replied that it was
true, and that he alluded to Dominic de Roxas, Christopher Padilla, and
Juan Sanchez. He was pressed to name all those to whom his allusion
could be applied, and he said that he did not remember any others. He
was then requested to consult his memory, and return the next day to the
tribunal of the Inquisition. He obeyed, but did not add anything to his
former declaration. He was then told that the inquisitors had been
informed that he alluded to some other person, that he must endeavour to
recollect him, and then return. The monk repaired to the Inquisition on
the 14th of the same month, and said, that he had thought the questions
put to him related to the archbishop, particularly after a report that
his trial had commenced; that until then he had been far from suspecting
the most zealous defender of the Catholic religion of heresy; that his
words agreed with his writings; that he had converted many heretics, and
burnt some others; that if he adopted certain phrases used by the
heretics, he always explained them in an orthodox manner, and that in
this case he only followed the example of several saints.

Don Francis Manrique de Lara, bishop of Salamanca, deposed, on the 10th
of October, that, at Naxera, he heard it said, that the archbishop had
been arrested on account of his catechism, and that Fray Ambrose
remarked, _it may not be for that alone; it is possible that his belief
in purgatory was suspected_.

When the _publication of the depositions_ took place, the evidence of
Salazar was not mentioned, and the defenders of the accused never knew
that he had given it. It is thus that the inquisitors in their
proceedings violate natural right, in concealing all that may be taken
advantage of by a defender.

On the 9th of December, Fray Juan de Regla voluntarily denounced
Carranza, for some expressions used by him to Charles V., on the
forgiveness of sins. This affair has already been mentioned in the
thirteenth chapter. On the 23rd Fray Juan again denounced Don
Bartholomew, for having supported the arguments of the Lutherans, in the
second session of the council of Trent, concerning the holy sacrifice of
mass; and for having dared to say _ego hæro certe_, which scandalized
several fathers of the council; he admitted that the accused afterwards
explained his words, but said it was without energy. This monk was the
only witness who deposed to this fact. Don Diego de Mendoza, ambassador
of Spain to the council, who had been punctual in attending the
sessions, declared that he did not remember the circumstance, which had
not been denounced before by any of the numerous rivals of Carranza.
Fray Juan was extremely mortified that he could not obtain a bishopric,
and we may suppose that nothing but jealousy could inspire him with such
scruples, sixteen years after the event. It must be observed that he had
been condemned by the Inquisition of Saragossa, that he had abjured
eighteen propositions, and had been pursued by the Jesuits, of whom he
and Cano had shown themselves the most violent adversaries, while Don
Bartholomew was their friend. Cano and de Regla, therefore, endeavoured
to mortify Carranza, and persecuted him as being secretly attached to
the Jesuits.

The licentiate Hornuza, judge of appeals of the district of Santiago,
states in a writing annexed by the fiscal to the trial six weeks after
the arrest of the archbishop, that this prelate, having presented to the
Council of Trent some arguments in favour of Luther, he acknowledged
that they might be answered conclusively; the witness added that Doctor
Grados could confirm the truth of his testimony. The doctor was not
examined. Who, indeed, can believe that Carranza would have spoken in
that manner in the Council of Trent? On the 14th December, Fray Dominic
de Roxas presented a writing, containing a confession of his errors and
a prayer for pardon: he made the same declarations concerning the
archbishop as before; adding, that _he was obliged to confess that he
thought_ if the prelate and some _others had not been prepared by the
syrup of the Lutheran phrases, the works of the heresiarch would not
have made so much impression on their minds_. Fray Dominic said this to
palliate his own crime, and in the hope of being reconciled; but being
informed, on the 7th October, 1559, that he must prepare to die the next
day, he demanded an audience, in order to make a declaration necessary
to the repose of his soul; and having obtained it, he said "that he had
never heard Don Bartholomew utter any words contrary to the doctrine of
the Holy Church, that he always spoke against the Lutherans, and
explained those phrases which he (Fray Dominic) had seen in heretical
books, and heard from the preachers in Valladolid, in an orthodox
sense."

The above are all the declarations contained in the process of the
Archbishop of Toledo when a brief was denounced for his arrest. It may
even be supposed that there were not so many, since the brief was
expedited on the 7th January, 1559, and therefore it must have been
demanded, at the latest, in the beginning of December 1558. The censure
of the works of Carranza and the opinion of the Bishop of Cuença were
also made use of as a motive for the demand. The qualifiers were
Melchior Cano, Dominic Cuevas, Dominic Soto, Pedro Ybarra, and the
Master Carlos. The following is a list of the MS. works of the
archbishop which are mentioned with the printed Catechism in this part
of the process.

1. Notes on the Explanation of the Book of Job, by another author.

2. Notes on the Explanation of the verse _Audi filia_ of the 44th Psalm,
by Juan d'Avila, 83.

3. Explanation of Psalm 83.

4. Explanation of Psalm 129.

5. Explanation of Psalm 142.

6. Explanation of the Prophet Isaiah.

7. Explanation of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.

8. Ditto Galatians.

9. Ditto Ephesians.

10. Ditto Philippians.

11. Ditto Colossians.

12. Explanation of the Canonical Epistle of St. John.

13. Treatise on the Love of God to Man.

14. Ditto on the Sacrament of the Order, with notes on the same subject.

15. Ditto on the holy Sacrifice of Mass.

16. Ditto on the Celibacy of Priests.

17. Ditto on the Sacrament of Marriage.

18. Ditto on the Utility and Efficacy of Prayer.

19. Ditto on the Tribulation of the Just.

20. Ditto on the Christian Widow.

21. Ditto on Christian Liberty.

22. Remarks on the Commandments of God and the Sins of Mortals.

23. Apology for the _Commentaries on the Catechism_.

24. Proofs taken from Holy Writ for the defence of the publication of a
Catechism in the Spanish language.

25. Abridgment of the _Commentaries on the Catechism_.

26. Sermons for all the Year.

27. Ditto on the Love of God.

28. Ditto, _Super flumina Babylonis_.

29. Ditto on the Manner of hearing Mass.

30. Ditto on Holy Thursday.

31. Sermons preached before the Prince at Valladolid.

32. Ditto on the Circumcision of our Saviour.

33. Ditto, intituled _Poenitentiam agite_.

34. Ditto, _Si revertamini et quiescatis salviti eritis_.

35. Ditto on Prayer.

36. Ditto, _Hora est jam nos de somno surgere_.

37. Ditto, _Dirigite viam Domine_.

38. Ditto, _Spiritus est Deus_.

39. Ditto on the Psalm _De profundis clamavi_.

40. Ditto, _Filius quidem hominis vadit_.

41. Abridgment of two Sermons sent to Flanders to the Licentiate
Herrera.

Some MS. copies which had been given to the Marchioness d'Alcañices, and
other persons, before the Catechism was printed, were also annexed to
the process; the contents were the same, except some corrections
afterwards made by the author. The Marchioness d'Alcañices gave them to
Don Diego de Cordova, a member of the Supreme Council, who died soon
after. The MSS. were then taken by St. Francis de Borgia, who informed
Carranza, on his return from Flanders, that they were in his possession,
but that he wanted them to assist him in composing a sermon. Don
Bartholomew being arrested before the MSS. were returned to him, St.
Francis de Borgia sent them to the grand-inquisitor, in whose house they
were lost; it is stated in the process that only one of them was found
there some time after.

The holy office endeavoured to ascribe to Carranza some other works
condemned on the trial: these were the

     Explanation of the Articles of the Faith, by Fray Dominic de Roxas.

     Opinions on the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, by Juan
     Valdés, secretary to Charles V., who became a Lutheran.

     Treatise on Prayer and Meditation, which appears to have been
     written by some other Lutheran author.

     Explanation of the Book of Job, of which Carranza only wrote the
     notes, which refute the text in several places.

     Explanation of the verse _Audi filia_, explanatory notes only by
     Carranza.

     Several papers which Fray Dominic de Roxas and Christopher de
     Padilla had distributed, maliciously attributing them to Don
     Bartholomew, although they belonged to Fray Dominic, and other
     Lutherans.

As to the _Exposition of the Canonical Epistle of St. John_, the
archbishop declared that, in the state in which it was, he did not
acknowledge it as his work; that he had only given it verbally to his
pupils, and that, doubtless, one of them had written it from memory;
that although the foundation of it was what he had taught, the errors
which it contained could not be imputed to him.

The grand-inquisitor was at first only acquainted with the Catechism of
Carranza, the censure of which was confided to Cano and others. Cano,
whose heart was full of hatred, wanted no incitements to condemn it; of
the inclinations of the others we may judge by letters, in which Fray
Dominic de Soto speaks of his embarrassment at being obliged to censure
some propositions which he considered very orthodox. Of all the works of
Carranza, those only were marked with the theological censure which are
numbered 3, 4, 13, 27, 28, 29, and 30. The Master Carlos, and afterwards
Cano and Cuevas, were employed in this work.

As there were among the Lutherans many persons intimate with the
archbishop, and even some who had been his pupils, he wished to be
informed of the state of their affairs. Fray Juan de la Peña, Fray
Francis de Tordesillas, and Fray Louis de la Cruz, sent the details to
Flanders to Fray Juan de Villagarcia, the companion of the Archbishop,
and by this means he learnt that his Catechism was to be condemned for
two reasons: first, on the pretext that it contained several heretical
propositions; and secondly, because the principle which caused the Bible
in the vulgar tongue to be prohibited in Spain in the present state of
the kingdom, would not admit of the permission of a work on
_justification_, and other points of controversy with the Lutherans, in
the same language. The archbishop first commissioned Villagarcia, and
afterwards the Jesuit Gil Gonzalez, to translate his Catechism into
Latin, with notes on the obscure passages: they began, but never
finished the work.

The archbishop, however, was far from suspecting that he would be
attacked for his personal profession of faith, when he received a letter
from Fray Louis de la Cruz, dated Valladolid, May 21, 1558, in which he
informed him that the Lutherans declared he partook their opinions.
Carranza replied, that he was more grieved for their misfortune in
having embraced heresy than for their false testimony against him. As he
was perfectly convinced of the purity of his faith, and believed that he
had given sufficient proofs of it in combating the opinions of the
heretics, he persuaded himself that only the sense of his _Commentaries_
was to be dismissed. He therefore returned to Spain, expecting to
arrange the affair on a few conferences with the grand inquisitor; and
in order to facilitate the attainment of his object, he obtained
approbations of his work from some of the most famous theologians in
Spain,--Don Pedro Guerrero, archbishop of Granada; Don Francis Blanco,
archbishop of Santiago; Don Francis Delgado, bishop of Lugo and Jaen;
Don Andrea Cuesta, bishop of Leon; Don Antonio Gorrionero, bishop of
Almeria; Don Diego Sobaños, rector of the university of Alcala; Fray
Pedro de Soto, confessor to Charles V.; Fray Dominic Soto, professor of
Salamanca; Don Hernando de Barriovero, canon, magistrate, and professor
of Toledo; and Fray Mancio del Corpus, professor of Alcala; besides
many other Doctors of Salamanca, Valladolid, and Alcala.

While the archbishop was at Valladolid in 1558, he demanded that the
theological censures of his works should be communicated to him, that he
might reply to them, and give any satisfaction required of him. He
thought he had a right to this concession, for several reasons: first,
as he was the author; secondly, as the primate of Spain; and thirdly, as
a man who might expect such an act of deference from the holy office, in
consideration of his labours in its cause. But the grand-inquisitor
Valdés (who was his enemy, though he pretended to be his friend) would
not grant his request, alleging that it was not the custom to hear an
author on the qualification of his works. Carranza then endeavoured to
avail himself of the approbations he had obtained from the illustrious
theologians already mentioned, who were almost all of them fathers of
the council of Trent; but they were not received, and he experienced the
same rejection from the Supreme Council. The mystery which shrouded all
the proceedings of that body was impenetrable, and he departed from
Valladolid in ignorance of the causes of his trial.

He, however, afterwards obtained information, that some witnesses had
been examined on his personal faith, and that the censurers of his work
noted it, as containing _heresies, propositions savouring of heresy,
fomenting heresy, tending to heresy, and capable of causing it_. Some
idea may be formed of the state of his mind from his application to the
king and the pope, to whom he sent an account of all that had passed
between him and the grand-inquisitor, and implored their protection; the
minutes of this account, and the letters which accompanied it, were
afterwards found among his papers.

On the 20th of September, he arrived at Yuste, in Estremadura. His
misfortune, it may be presumed, rendered him prudent in his exhortations
to Charles V.; it is not likely that he would use the phrases
attributed to him by Fray Juan de Regla, without adding expressions to
limit the absolute sense which the denouncer imputed to him. On the 5th
of October he again wrote to the king, on the occasion of the death of
the emperor, and also to Ruy Gomez de Sylva, and to Don Antonio de
Toledo, grand-prior of the order of St. John, both high in favour with
his majesty, and with whom he was intimate, but more particularly with
Don Antonio, who always endeavoured to be useful to him. His letters and
those of many others at Rome, who wished to serve him, were found among
his papers. The papal nuncio in Spain had already informed his court of
what was passing at Madrid, and it was believed that the
grand-inquisitor acted in concert with the king; this circumstance
prevented Paul IV. (though he esteemed Carranza) from interfering in the
affair, until he clearly perceived what was to be thought of it.

Philip II., who then resided at Brussels, was far from being capable of
arresting the progress of a trial undertaken by the inquisitors for a
matter of faith; he contented himself with promising to protect
Carranza, as long as it was compatible with the Catholic religion. The
demand of being heard in his defence, before the condemnation of his
Catechism, might have been granted, if the depositions concerning his
personal faith had not presented an obstacle. Don Ferdinand Valdés
represented to the princess Jane, governess of the kingdom, the
declarations of the witnesses, which, read by a person without
discrimination, and with the intention of injuring, made the archbishop
appear to be a real heretic. The princess communicated this to the king,
her brother, who being naturally suspicious, and knowing that Valdés was
inimical to Carranza, resolved to take the cowardly part of remaining
inactive, and waiting until the affair should be elucidated. It is not
true that Philip repented of having elevated Carranza to the see of
Toledo; the proof of this exists in the procedure: he was favourably
disposed towards the archbishop, till Valdés and the counsellors of the
Inquisition persuaded him that Carranza was an hypocritical heretic. The
absolute inactivity of this prince's character, and the formidable and
continual activity of Valdés, were the cause of the misfortunes of
Carranza.

The archbishop now thought it would be better to submit in order to
avoid the infamy, and without waiting for replies from Brussels and
Rome, on the 21st of September, 1558, he addressed a petition to Don
Sancho Lopez de Otalora, counsellor of the Inquisition, in which he
consented that his Catechism should be placed in the Index, provided his
name was not mentioned, and that the prohibition did not extend beyond
Spain, because the work was in the Spanish language. He hoped by these
means to preserve the reputation of being a Catholic author, the only
fame of which he was ambitious. In November, he sent letters to the
grand-inquisitor and others, and remitted petitions to the Supreme
Council, earnestly requesting, that in order to terminate all
difficulties as soon as possible, his Catechism might be printed in
Spanish, and given to him to be revised, corrected, and translated into
Latin. His efforts were unsuccessful; the grand-inquisitor, far from
wishing to serve him, obtained from the Pope the brief which completed
his disgrace. He perceived that he ought to have followed the advice
which had been given to him in Flanders, to repair to Rome, instead of
Spain. The Bishop of Orense gave him to understand that there were in
his case some things savouring of heresy, when he made the following
reply:--_Unless this crime entered by the sleeve of my habit, I am,
thank God, innocent of any thing of the kind. I shall therefore allow
the affair to take the common course._

On the 7th of June, 1558, Paul IV. declared in full consistory, "that
being informed that the heresies of Luther, and some others, had been
propagated in Spain, he had reason to suspect that several prelates had
adopted them; and in consequence he authorized the grand-inquisitor _for
two years from that day_, to make inquests concerning all the bishops,
archbishops, patriarchs, and primates, of that kingdom: to commence
their trials, and, in case that an _attempt to escape_ was suspected, to
arrest them and lodge them in a place of security, and that the
inquisitor should _immediately_ report the same to the sovereign
pontiff, and send the criminals to Rome as soon as possible, with their
process sealed up." The archbishop received notice of the expedition of
this brief, in a letter from Cardinal Theatire, on the 18th of January.
Valdés also demanded of the king, his permission to put it in execution.
A letter from Don Antonio de Toledo to Carranza, dated Brussels, 27th of
February, informed him, that his majesty had commanded the
grand-inquisitor to suspend the proceedings till he arrived in Spain;
adding, that his majesty was quite convinced of the wickedness with
which the archbishop was treated. Valdés renewed his demand in March,
representing the inconveniences of delay, and at last obtained
permission to execute the brief.

During this period, the inquisitors of Valladolid continued to receive
every possible deposition unfavourable to the archbishop, to justify the
proceedings against him.

On the 20th of February, 1559, Fray Gaspard Tamayo, a Franciscan,
voluntarily denounced the Catechism: he said, he thought it wrong in the
author, to exhort the faithful to read the Scriptures, and not to
address to the saints the prayers beginning _Pater-Noster_ and
_Ave-Maria_.

On the 11th of April, Don Juan de Acuña, count de Buendia, deposed that
the archbishop had recommended him to renounce that practice, and to
pray to the saints in the manner he had taught in his book; that he and
all his family, and Donna Francisca de Cordova, had followed his advice,
until the Bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo had persuaded them to the contrary:
the deponent added, that he knew that Carranza had given the same
advice to several other persons employed in the palace. This deposition
was followed by those of the countess his wife, their chaplain, and
seven of their servants.

On the same day, Fray Dominic de Roxas deposed, that the Marquis de
Roza, his father, asked Carranza if he should cause a thousand masses to
be said for his soul during his life, or after his death, and that the
archbishop replied, "_If my lord the marquis will believe me, he will
say the masses during his life_." The deponent further said, that the
archbishop, in going to Trent to attend the second convocation of the
council, was in company with some Lutherans who were with the King of
Bohemia; that he disputed with one of them in the presence of the Bishop
of Segovia, and though he appeared to have the advantage in the
argument, he afterwards said privately to the deponent, "_I was never so
much embarrassed as to-day; although I am a master of theology, yet I am
not so learned in the Scriptures as this Lutheran, who is only a
layman._" The witness also said, that the archbishop had read and
approved his _explanation of the articles of the faith_, and that he had
even inserted part of it in his Catechism. It has been also stated, that
Fray Dominic recanted all his depositions before his death.

On the 5th of May, Donna Catherine de Castilla, who was a prisoner of
the holy office, declared that she believed the archbishop to be a
Lutheran; but repenting, she retracted her declaration, and said that
she knew that Carranza had maintained to Don Carlos de Seso, her
husband, that he committed a fatal error in denying the existence of
purgatory. She persisted in her recantation.

I appeal to my readers, if the state of the trial and the depositions of
the witnesses were sufficient allegation: Canino the fiscal, reserving
to himself the right of accusing him with more formality hereafter,
demanded that the person of the archbishop should be seized, that he
should be imprisoned, and his goods and revenues sequestrated, to be at
the disposal of the grand-inquisitor. Valdés, after consulting the
Supreme Council, commanded the fiscal to present the papers of which he
had spoken in his requisition: these were the Catechism with the
qualifications of Cano, Cuevas, Soto, and Ybarra; two MSS. bound,
containing the articles of faith by Fray Dominic de Roxas, and the other
works of Carranza mentioned under the numbers 3, 4, 13, 27, 28, 29, and
30, with their qualifications; two sermons sent by Carranza to the
licentiate Herrera, judge of the trials for smuggling, who was under
arrest for Lutheranism; the depositions of the witnesses, with a summary
of them, and to cause the archbishop to be pronounced attainted of
heresy. Valdés, having drawn up, on the 8th of April, a verbal process
of the reception of the powers granted by the Pope, the licentiate
Canino, fiscal of the council of the Inquisition, on the 6th of May,
presented to the grand-inquisitor a requisition, in which he demanded
the execution of the brief, and declared that he would designate, in
time and place, the person which it was to strike. Valdés remitted a
declaration, in which he announced that he was ready to do justice
whenever he was required. On the same day, the fiscal presented another
requisition, in which he stated that Don Bartholomew Carranza,
archbishop of Toledo, had preached, insinuated, written, and taught, in
his conferences, his sermons, and his catechism, and in other books and
writings, several heresies of Luther, according to the depositions of
witnesses, and the books and writings which he presented to support his
charges: the letters were those of the Bishop of Cuenza, Don Pedro de
Castro; a letter from the archbishop to Doctor Cazalla, dated Brussels,
18th of February, 1558, in reply to compliments on his elevation to the
see of Toledo; (in this letter he begs Cazalla to "_pray that he may
have the light necessary to govern his diocese well_;" adding, "_that it
was more needful to ask it then than before, for those who formed part
of the church of God_;") two letters of Juan Sanchez, a Lutheran, in
which he says _that he was going to Flanders, because he hoped to be
well received by Carranza_.

As these formalities were all fulfilled in one day, it is not to be
doubted that it was a concerted scheme between the grand-inquisitor,
some members of the council, and the fiscal: if this had not been the
case, three days would have been necessary for these ceremonies. On the
13th of May, the grand-inquisitor and the council determined that
Carranza should be cited to appear, and reply to the accusations of the
fiscal.

When the king had given his consent that the archbishop should be
prosecuted, he required that he should be treated _with the respect due
to his dignity_: this he repeated in a letter to Cardinal Pacheco, who
informed him that Carranza had demanded that his affair should be judged
at Rome. The king also wrote two letters to Carranza on the 30th of
March, and the 4th April, in which he promised to protect him. The
letter to Cardinal Pacheco induced the grand-inquisitor to write to the
king on the 19th of May, when he informed him of the measure which had
been decreed, adding, that he thought a citation to appear more
moderate, less humiliating, and more private than an arrest by
alguazils. The king, however, had still some regard for Carranza, since
he did not approve of what had been done. At this period Don Antonio de
Toledo, who continued to correspond with Carranza, informed him, that
though he did not think the affair had taken so favourable a turn as
might be wished, yet he thought he still perceived some marks of
attachment for him in the king, in spite of the evil report made of him.

At last, on the 26th of June, the king sent an answer to the
inquisitor-general, in which he gives his consent to what had been
resolved upon; adding, that he hoped the execution of this measure would
be attended _with all the consideration due to the merit of Carranza,
and the dignity with which he was invested_. The prelate was informed of
this event, in a letter written by Don Antonio de Toledo, the next day.
The approbation of the king was received on the 10th of July, and on the
15th the fiscal presented a second requisition, in which he insisted on
the execution of the demand contained in the first, that Carranza should
be arrested, and his goods seized. He represented that the instruction
of the process furnished proofs which ought to have been considered
sufficient on the 13th of May; that nevertheless he would add to them
the deposition of Donna Louisa de Mendoza, wife of Don Juan Vasquez de
Molina, secretary to the king. This lady deposed, that the Marchioness
d'Alcañices told her, that, _according to the instructions of the
archbishop, it was not meritorious in the sight of God to deprive
ourselves of pleasures, and that it was not necessary to wear
haircloth_. The marchioness, who was examined, declared that she had
never said anything of the kind, but only that all these things were
less meritorious; that she had been intimate with the archbishop for
more than twenty years, and had been his penitent, but during all that
time she had never heard him say any thing against the faith.

On the 1st of August, the grand-inquisitor, in concert with the Supreme
Council, and several consultors, issued the order for the arrest of the
archbishop. At this juncture, Philip II. wrote to his sister, the
governess of the kingdom, saying, that in order to avoid the scandal and
inconveniences arising from the measures decreed by the holy office, it
would be proper to send for the archbishop to court upon some decent
pretext. Don Antonio de Toledo having heard some hints of this, hastened
to communicate it to Carranza, on the 19th of July: this was the last
letter that faithful friend wrote to him. Among the papers of the
archbishop, were found letters from persons, who afterwards, from want
of courage, joined his enemies. There was also found the minutes of a
representation in Latin, addressed to the Pope, in the name of the
chapter of Toledo, entreating his holiness not to allow the cause of
Carranza to be judged by the holy office of Spain, alleging that its
members were swayed by human motives, and not from zeal to religion: it
is not certain if this petition reached the Court of Rome, but the
chapter behaved to the prelate with great generosity.

The regent wrote a letter to the archbishop on the 3rd of August, in
which she says, that before the arrival of the king, which would soon
take place, she wished to communicate some affairs to him, and therefore
begged him to repair immediately to Valladolid, adding, that as the
least delay might occasion very disagreeable consequences, she should be
pleased if he came as soon as possible, even if without ceremony or
equipage, and that she sent Don Rodrigo de Castro that he might not lose
time, and might inform her of his arrival.

This Don Rodrigo de Castro was the nephew of the Bishop of Cuença, the
first denouncer of Carranza: he departed from Valladolid on the 4th of
August; on the 6th he delivered the letter to the archbishop, who, on
the next day, replied to the princess that he would obey her orders. He
immediately sent his equipages and part of his household to Valladolid,
but followed slowly, that he might visit the towns and villages of his
diocese, which he was to pass through.

During this interval, Don Rodrigo wrote several letters to Valdés, one
dated the 4th of August, from Arevalo, and four from Alcala de Henares,
dated the 7th, 9th, 10th, and 14th, from which the inquisitor-general
concluded that the delay of eight days was too long, and concealed some
bad design: he pretended to think that Carranza intended to make his
escape to Rome, yet Don Rodrigo de Castro lodged in the same house, and
never lost sight of him. This pretext, futile as it was, gave Valdés the
opportunity of issuing a mandate on the 17th, appointing Don Rodrigo and
Don Diego Ramirez de Sedeño inquisitors of the districts of Toledo and
Valladolid. He commissioned them and the chief alguazil of Valladolid to
seize the person of the archbishop, to sequestrate his goods, and draw
up an inventory of them.

This order was executed at Torre-Laguna, on the 22nd, before day, and
while the archbishop was still in bed. When he was told that he was
under arrest, he demanded to know by whose order he was made prisoner;
that of the inquisitor-general, and the brief of the Pope, were shown to
him. He replied that the brief was general, and that it ought to be a
special commission expedited with a knowledge of the cause, which was
out of the jurisdiction of the inquisitor-general: that even supposing
him to be competent, the conditions prescribed in the brief were not
observed in his case, since nothing but malice could inspire the fear
that he should attempt to escape; that, from all these considerations,
he protested against the order of the grand-inquisitor, and the violence
of his measures, and demanded satisfaction of the Pope for the insult he
had received. Not being able at that moment to put his intentions into
execution, the archbishop desired Juan de Ledesma, the notary of the
holy office, who was present at his arrest, to write down his replies to
the inquisitors, and that he obeyed the order only to avoid
ill-treatment.

The archbishop requested that great care might be taken of his papers,
some of which belonged to trials concerning the archiepiscopal see, and
were of great importance. All that he requested was complied with on
this subject.

On the 23rd of August he left Torre-Laguna, and arrived at Valladolid on
the 28th; he was imprisoned in the house of Don Pedro Gonzalez de Leon:
his portfolio, and a box containing papers, were sent to the
inquisitor-general, who immediately caused them to be opened, and an
inventory taken of their contents. On the 6th of September he addressed
a letter to the king, giving an account, in his manner, of the arrest,
and alleging his pretended fear of the flight of Carranza, as the
motive for it. He added, that the archbishop appeared to be informed of
his proceedings; an insinuation which might have injured Don Antonio de
Toledo, whose correspondence he had read.




CHAPTER XXXIII.

CONTINUATION OF THE TRIAL UNTIL THE ARCHBISHOP WENT TO ROME.


The enemies of Carranza procured new witnesses, in order to justify
their conduct. Valdés and his coadjutors feared that public opinion
would be against them, if, when they pronounced the definitive sentence,
the archbishop was not proved, to all Europe, to be guilty of heresy.

To attain this end, the inquisitors examined ninety-six witnesses, who,
most of them, unfortunately, added nothing to what had been already
deposed; some of them attested the purity of Carranza's faith, and the
few who were against him deposed only what they had heard from other
persons, who either did not confirm, or denied the facts. It is worthy
of remark, that the greatest number of the witnesses who spoke in favour
of the archbishop were in the dungeons of the Inquisition, and made
their depositions during or after the torture, and when they were liable
to have it renewed, and to be subject to the cruel treatment of the
judges, whose schemes they frustrated. While these miserable people
showed so much courage, the bishops, archbishops, and theologians, who
aspired to the episcopacy, basely retracted their first and true
opinion, and qualified, as _violently suspected of Lutheranism_, the man
whom they had before considered almost as an apostle, and that in the
same trial and for the same work.

On the 26th of August, the grand-inquisitor delegated his powers to the
counsellors Valtodano and Simancas, reserving to himself the right of
pronouncing the definitive sentence; at the same time he appointed Baca,
Riego, and Gonzalez, inquisitors of Valladolid, to take the proper
measures to guard the archbishop, and sequestrate his property.

When the prelate arrived at the house intended for his prison, he was
asked what domestics he wished to have; he named six, but only two were
permitted to attend him. He begged Valtodano and Simancas not to allow
any person to see certain papers and letters from the Pope, Fray
Ferdinand de St. Ambrose, and the licentiate Cespedes, because they
related to a trial for the lordship of Cazorla: he asked the same favour
for a bundle of letters from the king, on some affairs which it had been
improper to make public. He demanded the original of his consultations,
and some approbations of his book, because he wished to present them to
the Pope, who was the only competent judge of his trial; and lastly,
some other writings relative to conferences which took place at the
Council of Trent, in England, and in Flanders, and which were so many
proofs of his efforts in the cause of the Catholic religion.

On the 1st of September, Valtodano and Simancas summoned the archbishop
to take an oath to speak the truth. The prelate replied that he would do
so when he received an order from the Pope or the king; that he
protested against all that had been done, because they were not
competent; that he did not acknowledge the grand-inquisitor as his
judge, until he was furnished with special powers for that purpose;
that, supposing him to have sufficient authority, he did not believe
that he could delegate it; that he should prove his assertions much
better if he had the brief, of which he demanded a copy. His request was
granted the next day; on the 3rd, the grand-inquisitor, after a
consultation with the Council, declared that he was a competent judge,
and that he could delegate his powers; he announced that he should
attend with the Council at the sessions of the tribunal: he attended on
the 4th, and required Carranza to take the oath to speak the truth,
either against himself or any other person, informing him that if he
confessed all he knew, he would be treated with clemency, but in the
contrary case he would be used with all the rigour of justice: he also
told him that if he was reluctant to reply in the presence of the
Council, he would be permitted to do so before two counsellors, or the
inquisitors of Valladolid. Carranza made the same reply as on the
preceding day, adding, that he was not certain that truth had been
spoken in soliciting the brief from the Pope; since at that time there
were no Spanish prelates suspected of heresy; that, if they had him in
view, he was not in Spain at the time, but in Flanders, occupied in
labouring for the defence of the Catholic religion, and converting
heretics; that he exerted himself to destroy all the heresies, and for
that purpose informed the king that heretical books were sold even at
his palace-gates, and that the king, in consequence, gave the necessary
orders to prevent the evil, which would be proved by the testimony of
the king and the noblemen of his court.

Not satisfied with these arguments, the archbishop challenged the
grand-inquisitor for reasons which he explained at the same session, and
in his presence: on the 5th and the following days he continued to give
the motives for his challenge in writing; his charges against Valdés
were numerous, and very serious. He mentions persons, times, subjects,
and reasons, which authorized him to represent Valdés as a perfidious,
envious, vindictive man; to maintain that he continually abused his
authority in order to satisfy his vengeance, which could be proved by
some writings which were registered: he particularly applied himself to
show that Valdés concealed his hatred to him, under the mask of an
hypocritical zeal for religion; that this enmity was caused by his
spite and envy after he (Carranza) was elevated to the see of Toledo,
and had published his work on the Residence of Bishops;--in short, he
filled eight folio sheets in a small hand, with the motives which
induced him to challenge Valdés, and added those concerning the
counsellors Perez and Cobos, promising to establish the proofs.

The archbishop chose for his advocates those men whom he considered most
able to defend him; but they were, by different intrigues, induced to
refuse their assistance: this plan was pursued with all the others whom
he chose in case of their default, so that he was obliged to apply to
some advocates who defended in the chancery his right to the lordship of
some villages, although they knew nothing of the affairs of the holy
office. Don Juan Sarmiento de Mendoza, counsellor of the Indies, for
Valdés, and the licentiate Isunza, judge of the civil court of
Valladolid, for the fiscal, were appointed arbitrators, to decide on the
validity of the challenge. On the 23rd of February, 1560, they
pronounced that the allegations were just, reasonable, and well proved.
The fiscal not being satisfied with the decision, intended to appeal to
Rome, but soon renounced the measure; in fact, how could the
inquisitor-general think of sending a trial to Rome, which, if made
public, would cover him and many others, who afterwards attained the
highest dignities of the church, with eternal infamy? However, this
appeal took place at a later period, after a thousand intrigues, but
Valdés was not the inquisitor-general at that time.

The lodgings assigned to the archbishop were neither commodious,
agreeable, nor airy; he was allowed only two rooms for himself, a monk,
and his page. He complained of the inconvenience, but the fiscal
presented a verbal process, stating that the house was large,
convenient, and healthy: this was true, for he spoke of it in general,
and did not mention the place where Carranza was confined. The rooms
were very remote from all communication; in 1561 there was a great fire
at Valladolid, which consumed four hundred houses in the quarter nearest
to the prison of the archbishop, yet he heard neither the cries of the
people, nor the noise which must have been occasioned by such an event,
and only learnt that it had happened, a long time after, when he was at
Rome. This privation of air and exercise produced in the archbishop a
tertian fever, which weakened him considerably, but the inquisitors had
not sufficient humanity to remove him to a more suitable place. They
dreaded that he would appeal to the Pope, or the king, on whom however
it would not have had any effect, as Valdés had contrived to persuade
him, in some private conversations, that Carranza was really an heretic,
and that all that he had done in England and Flanders was intended to
conceal his opinions.

Although Valdés persisted in maintaining that he had the right of
delegating his powers to prosecute the archbishop, yet as several
counsellors, and particularly Baco de Castro, held a contrary opinion,
he was obliged to appeal to the Pope. Paul IV. was dead, and had been
succeeded by Pius IV., who, on the 23rd of February, confirmed to Valdés
the powers granted to him by his predecessor, and that of delegating
confidential persons to proceed in the trial of the Archbishop of
Toledo. This brief was of no use, because the arbitrators had declared
on the same day that the motives for the challenge were just and valid;
his holiness, in consequence, expedited another special brief,
confirming all that had passed, provided that the proceedings had been
lawful, and authorizing Philip II. to choose judges in his own name, to
whom he gave from that moment the power of continuing the trial until it
was in a state to be terminated, for the space of two years, beginning
from the 7th of January, 1561. This brief was interpreted at Madrid to
be a permission to pass a definitive sentence. The Pope being informed
of this circumstance, on the 3rd of July issued a fourth brief, in which
he disapproved of the interpretation of that preceding it, and commanded
that the trial should be remitted to him, _instructed_ but not judged,
within a certain time.

Philip II. appointed Don Gaspard de Zuñiga y Avellanada, archbishop of
Santiago, to be the judge, with the power of delegating his authority.
This choice was pleasing to Carranza, because that prelate was one of
the persons he had proposed for the see of Toledo; in fact, he derived
some advantage from the change of his guards, and other measures. But
Zuñiga appointed Valtodano and Simancas, who had begun the trial, to be
the judges. Carranza intended to challenge them, as having voted his
arrest; but being told that the king had said that no person who had
ordered the imprisonment of a criminal could afterwards be his judge, if
this challenge was allowed, he abandoned his design. The right which the
prelate had intended to make use of, is now recognised as a principle
among civilized nations; to it we owe the establishment of _Juries_.

The trial having been commenced more than two years after the arrest of
the archbishop, he was at last permitted, in consequence of an order
from the king, to choose four advocates: these were Doctor Martin
d'Alpizcueta, known by the name of _Doctor_ Navarro; Don Antonio
Delgado, canon of Toledo; Doctor Santander, archdeacon of Valladolid;
and Doctor Morales, an advocate of the Chancery. The two first of these
lawyers were allowed to see the archbishop, but the writings of the
trial were not communicated to any of them, consequently it was
impossible for them to demonstrate the insufficiency of the proofs of
the charges brought against him by the witnesses. It is true that the
answers of Carranza were decided and conclusive.

The unqualified works of Carranza, and even some of those which had been
examined, were confided to Fray Diego de Chabes, who had been the
confessor of Don Carlos, and afterwards of the king; to Fray Juan
d'Ybarra, and to Fray Rodrigo de Vadillo, and Fray Juan de Azoloros, who
were afterwards the bishops of Cephalonia and the Canaries. These
qualified as heretical some propositions contained in works not written
by Carranza, but found among his papers; others were qualified as
approaching to heresy, and likely to cause it; and the author was
declared to be violently suspected of being an heretic. The edicts
condemning the Catechism, and the Explanation of the Canonical Epistle
of St. John, had been already published.

The Council of Trent having been convoked for the third time, Valdés
feared that the Fathers might take notice of the affairs of Carranza,
and he persuaded the king that it was important to the rights of the
crown to prevent them from taking cognizance of the trial. Philip had
appointed the Count de Luna to be the ambassador to the council, and on
the 30th October, 1562, he sent him instructions, in which he says, that
he has been informed that it was intended to form a _general index_ of
the prohibited books contained in the _index_ of Paul IV., which had
occasioned much expostulation. The king added, that he could not allow
this measure to extend its influence into Spain, which had an _index_,
and particular regulations; that this exception might also apply to
other Christian countries, since books, which were dangerous in one,
might not be so in others. The king commanded his ambassador to oppose
such a resolution in the council, because he could not receive into
Spain books approved by the council which had been prohibited in that
kingdom, and _some persons suspected that this project concealed
particular views_; that he had already commanded his ambassador at Rome,
and the Marquis of Pescara, to use every effort, consistent with
prudence, to baffle the scheme.

These instructions show very plainly that the Court of Madrid were
afraid that the Council would approve the Catechism of Carranza, and
the explanation of St. John, which had been prohibited in Spain. The
fathers, who were displeased to see the proceedings so long in the hands
of the inquisitors, addressed several remonstrances to the Pope against
them and the King of Spain, and even refused to open the letters which
that prince wrote to them, until he had atoned for the offence committed
against the episcopal dignity, in the person of one of its members. At
last the fathers declared that they would not assemble, unless his
Holiness did not cause the proceedings, and the person of the
archbishop, to be sent to Rome. The Pope had just prolonged the period
destined for the trial (which would otherwise have expired on the 7th of
January, 1568); he however replied that he would write to Philip, to
demand that the Archbishop of Toledo and the writings of his trial
should be sent to him; and to prove how much he wished to satisfy the
fathers, he sent this letter by Odescalchi, to whom he gave the title of
nuncio extraordinary.

On the 15th of August following, Philip replied, with an energy unusual
to him, that he was very much surprised that the Fathers of the council
occupied themselves with particular affairs, instead of those which
concerned religion in general; that the imperative dispositions of the
brief presented by the nuncio were contrary to the rights of his
sovereignty and the honour of his person, and that he hoped his holiness
would not take it ill, if he did not order it to be published, and
continued the trial. The Pope feared to irritate Philip, who was already
offended that the ambassador of France had obtained the precedence, and
therefore he granted the delay requested by that prince; at the same
time, he charged the cardinal-legate, president of the council, to
pacify the fathers, promising to do what they desired when the process
was _instructed_. His Holiness also commanded that the archbishop should
be treated with as much gentleness as was consistent with the
proceedings.

The resolution of the Pope appeased the fathers of the council for the
present; but they soon began to discuss an affair equally displeasing to
the King of Spain. The bishops and theologians commissioned to examine
books, pronounced the doctrine of the Catechism of Carranza to be
Catholic. They communicated their decision to the Archbishop of Prague,
who was president of the congregation of the _Index_, who, together with
the theologians composing it, approved the Catechism, and resolved to
send an act of their approbation to Carranza, that he might make use of
it in his defence. The decree of approbation was to be confirmed by the
general assembly, but violent measures were employed to prevent it. The
Pope permitted the Catechism to be printed at Rome on the 26th of June.

The Spanish ambassador, the Count de Luna, vehemently protested against
this resolution; he said that, as the Catechism was prohibited by the
Inquisition of Spain, it was an insult to his master and the Supreme
Council to declare it orthodox, and he demanded that the decree of the
congregation should be revoked. Don Antonio d'Augustine, Bishop of
Lerida, was a member of the congregation of the _Index_, and had not
been present on the 2nd of June, when the members approved the
Catechism. This circumstance induced him to support the Count de Luna.
His enmity to Carranza, and his desire to please the king, made him go
so far as to say that _the congregation approved heresies, since the
Catechism contained them_. The Archbishop of Prague, anxious to defend
his honour and that of his colleagues, addressed to the papal legates a
formal complaint against the Bishop of Lerida, demanding in their names
and his own a public reparation for the injury they had received, and
protesting that if it was refused, they would not attend the assemblies.
The cardinal succeeded in reconciling the two parties, by proposing to
maintain the decree of approbation, but to forbid a literal copy to be
given, and to commission the Count de Luna to obtain that which had
been already remitted to the agent of Carranza, on the condition that
the bishop made a public apology to the congregation, and one in private
to the president. The bishop complied, and the Count de Luna, by his
entreaties and promises, at last succeeded in obtaining the decree which
the agent had received; but he had already sent an authenticated copy
into Spain[66].

Philip II., on the 3rd of August, wrote to the Count de Luna,
complaining bitterly of all that had occurred, and charging him to
represent to the Pope and the Council, that this resolution was the
effect of an intrigue which tended to favour particular views, _as
injurious to the Pope_ as to himself, and to give the authors of the
decree to understand that they could not expect to succeed in causing
the trial to be transferred to Rome, as the king would never permit it.

On the 26th of October, the Count de Luna wrote to his master, informing
him of all that he had done. He said that after he had received his
instructions, he endeavoured to suppress the commission for the
examination of books, or to render their decrees concerning books
prohibited in Spain null and void; that the cardinal legates had assured
him that it was impossible to grant his request, because the commission
was the work of the council, and not of the Pope; that he must,
therefore, apply to the general assembly, but that he must not expect to
succeed, and the only thing that he could ask would be that the
commission should not go beyond its powers.

The Count de Luna also said, that though the commission was formed to
examine the book contained in the _Index_ of Paul IV., a particular
brief had been obtained from Pius IV. to extend the examination to the
prohibited books of the other indexes of Christendom; that the affair
concerning the Catechism of Carranza had been carried on unknown to the
Bishop of Lerida, and to Doctor Pedro _Zumel_, canon of Malaga,
commissary of the Inquisition; that in consequence, the Bishop of Lerida
and the Bishop of Caba had appealed against the decree of the
congregation, and demanded that it should be annulled; that he could
still make a remonstrance in full synod, but that he found it necessary
to renounce that intention, _as it might be the occasion of great
inconveniences_[67]; and that the only cause for this event was that the
Cardinal de Lorraine, the Archbishop of Braga, the Bishop of Modena, and
several others, defended Carranza to the Pope.

The fathers of the council could not succeed in their attempt to cause
the trial of Carranza to be transferred to them. When the assembly was
dissolved, the grand-inquisitor, who had now only the Pope to contend
with, commissioned the Council of the Inquisition to request the king to
obtain a brief to allow the trial to be terminated in Spain;
representing to him that he might say that it would be useful in
alarming those Spaniards who had adopted heretical opinions; that the
King of Spain merited such a favour, because he was the only prince who
had used every means to extirpate heresy; that the ancient canons
permitted that the trial should take place where the crime was
committed; that _if that of Carranza was transferred to Rome, the names
of the witnesses would be revealed_, which would occasion serious
consequences; that the trial must be translated into Latin or Italian,
which would take much time, and that none but Spaniards could understand
the strength of the expressions of the witnesses; that the
procurator-fiscal would be obliged to go to Rome, where he would have
the mortification of not being heard or well received, because many
persons of high rank had been zealous in the cause of the archbishop;
that the crimes were committed before he was raised to the episcopal
dignity; that it would not be convenient to allow the archbishop to go
to Rome, and that the trial could not be properly judged unless he did
so; that from all these considerations it would be better for the
sovereign pontiff to appoint persons to finish the trial in Spain, in
concert with the Supreme Council.

On the other side, Don Martin D'Alpizcueta represented to the king all
the ill treatment which the archbishop had suffered, and demanded that
he should be sent to Rome. He represented that the archbishop might have
made his escape to Rome, but that he did not do so, because his majesty
_had commanded him in a letter written with his own hand, not to apply
to any one but himself, and to have confidence in his protection_.
Alpizcueta, speaking of the injustice Carranza had suffered, says that
his arrest was decreed before anything was proved against him, since all
impartial persons would see that the propositions imputed to him were
not heretical; that his Catechism had been approved by the Council of
Trent, and that it was read in every country but Spain, where his
enemies resided.

The advocate states, that suspected judges had been appointed, and that
nothing but the fear of displeasing his majesty could prevent his client
from challenging them;

That his enemies, taking advantage of his captivity, always prevented
him from informing the king and the Pope of the secret intrigues;

That his act of accusation had been divided into fifteen or twenty
parts, and the same charges multiplied into four hundred articles, while
it might and ought to have been reduced to thirty points;

That he had been accused of having advanced heretical propositions, when
they were perfectly Catholic;

That the accusations had been accumulated to embarrass his client, and
cause him to contradict himself;

That the copies of the requisitions of the fiscal were not given to him
until the period allowed for the reply had nearly expired; that the
archbishop might render his detention longer by demanding fresh delays,
or might reply without reflection;

That works had been imputed to him, of which he was not the author;

That consequently he did not expect to be tried fairly unless the
process was transferred to the throne;

That the king ought not to listen to his flatterers; that all Spain
murmured at the treatment the archbishop had received, and that it was
spoken of still more severely than in other countries.

He then goes on to accuse the judges of partiality, and says that their
boldness in preferring their judgment to that of the Council of Trent,
resembles that of the Lutherans who were prosecuted by them.

The advocate continues, "These judges are so offended at this decision,
(concerning the Catechism,) that one of them said to my two colleagues
and myself, _All the council could not defend two propositions contained
in that book_; he quoted one, which I immediately proved to be Catholic,
and told him that if I had the authority of the grand-inquisitors, I
should perhaps denounce him, for I thought there was as much heresy in
looking upon a Catholic proposition as heretical, as in thinking an
heretical opinion Catholic; besides, it is certain that it is heretical,
to suppose that the council can approve a doctrine as Catholic, which is
not so."

That the Lutherans, when they found that the king had more confidence in
the Inquisition of Spain than in the sovereign Pontiff, would take
advantage of the circumstance, to persist in their opposition to the
holy see, and would say that his majesty's faith was subordinate to his
interest;

That he had been informed in a _confession_, that the _real design_ of
these men was to let the archbishop die in prison, _without concluding
his trial_; that such proceedings lead to the supposition, _that the
authors of them dissipate the revenues of the archbishopric to their own
profit, which they really do, without any person to call them to an
account_; besides that such a plan is equivalent to a condemnation,
since every one will suppose that his client is guilty, if the
inquisitors do not judge him; that it even concerned the honour of his
majesty, because it would be said, that he spared heretics of high rank,
and punished those of no importance.

Alpizcueta concludes, by declaring that he believes the archbishop would
be acquitted and received with the greatest honours, if he was sent to
Rome, and conjures the king to grant permission that the trial should be
transferred.

Alpizcueta was doubtless a very learned man, and told the king many
truths; but he did not understand the character of that prince, for the
letter he wrote to the Pope, on the 15th of April, shows that he had
become even more unjust than the judges. Persuaded that Carranza was an
heretic, he resolved to show the world that if he knew how to reward
merit, he also knew how to punish his creatures.

He therefore resolved to demand permission of the Pope to conclude the
trial in Spain. He selected for this commission Don Rodrigo de Castro,
to whom were remitted on the 24th November, 1564, the instructions
decreed by the council, and others from the king, which were private,
and without a date; an alphabet of the cipher, in which he was to
correspond with the king, and letters of credit to the Pope, and many
cardinals.

The king, who foresaw the events which might arise from this journey,
also sent letters to the King and Queen of France, to the constables of
that kingdom, and his own ambassador there, to his ambassador at Genoa,
to the Viceroy of Naples, the Governor of Milan, the Grand Duke of
Tuscany, and Prince Marcantonio Colonna.

Among the instructions, the following may be remarked: "That although it
is to be hoped that God will influence the decision of the Pontiff, yet
the means of succeeding in so just an enterprise ought not to be
neglected: therefore _the persons who have most influence in the affair
must be gained over by any means which may appear most convenient_."

Don Rodrigo de Castro succeeded in obtaining the required permission. On
the 13th of July, 1565, Pius IV. appointed as judges, the Cardinal
Buoncompagni (afterwards Pope Gregory XIII.) with the title of Legate;
the Archbishop of Rosano (afterwards Pope Urban VII.), the auditor of
the _Rota_, Aldobrandini, and the general of the Franciscans (afterwards
Sextus Quintus). The Pope informed Philip of these nominations in a
brief, dated the 21st of August following.

The papal envoys arrived in Spain in the month of November. Philip went
to Alcala to meet the legate, and received him in the most flattering
manner, to induce him to consent that the counsellors of the Inquisition
should be associated with the papal judges: this, the legate, who was
aware of the inexpedience of the measure, refused. Many powerful
intrigues were by the king's order employed to obtain his wish, but they
were in vain; and the Pope dying on the night of the 8th of December,
Buoncompagni, who wished to assist at the conclave, immediately set off
for Rome, without even informing the king of his intention, and leaving
the archbishop and his trial in exactly the same state as in the year
1562.

On the 17th of January, 1566, Pius V. was elected. Buoncompagni was
informed of this event while he was on the road, and stopped at Avignon.
Philip sent a courier to the new Pontiff, to entreat him to confirm the
arrangements of his predecessor, which was complied with; his Holiness
at the same time commanded the cardinal to return to Spain; he replied
that he thought it necessary to have a private conference with his
holiness, before he obeyed his orders, and therefore continued his
journey. As soon as he arrived at Rome, he proved to the new Pontiff
that the trial of Carranza could never be judged with impartiality in
Spain, even by judges appointed by the holy see; Pius IV. then
determined that the Archbishop of Toledo, and the writings of his trial,
should be transferred to Rome, and that Don Ferdinand Valdés should be
deprived of the office of inquisitor-general: this he considered
necessary, in case the proceedings required that fresh witnesses should
be examined in Spain.

Salazar de Mendoza says, that Philip obeyed immediately, but he had not
read the history of the trial: it is certain that a great contest
ensued; that Pius IV. was firm, and the pride of Philip was obliged to
give way, when the Pope threatened to excommunicate him, and to put his
kingdom under an interdict. The writings of the trial are still in
existence; and _I refer to those documents_.

The king appointed Don Diego Espinosa, Bishop of Siguenza, to be
inquisitor-general; and on the 9th of September, the Pope expedited a
bull, in which he says, that on account of the great age and infirmities
of Valdés, he had thought proper to appoint Don Diego Espinosa to be his
coadjutor, authorizing him to act as inquisitor-general, without any
dependance on Valdés. This bull was published, that Valdés might not be
dishonoured; but his holiness privately imparted his intentions to
Espinosa, in a brief on the 1st of October, commanding him to avoid
speaking of the trial of Carranza to Valdés.

The Pope sent Pietro Camayani, Bishop of Asculi, to Spain, with the
title of nuncio-extraordinary, and with the most positive orders not to
return to Rome without the archbishop, and the writings of his trial. On
the 30th of July he addressed a brief to Camayani, which it is necessary
to abridge, though of much importance. His Holiness says, that the delay
of the trial, and the detention of Carranza, had scandalized all
Christendom. He commands him, on pain of excommunication, to signify to
the Archbishop of Seville, the Council of the Inquisition, and the other
persons concerned in the trial of Carranza, with a menace of the same
penalties, the absolute revocation of all the powers intrusted to them;
and a positive order, on pain of _excommunication in its full extent_,
to set Carranza immediately at liberty without delay or protestation,
and even without requiring any security from him; to place all the
papers of the trial in the hands of the nuncio, to be by him transferred
to Rome; to subject the detainers of the papers to the same censures, if
they did not give them up immediately; to inform the archbishop, when
set at liberty, of the order to repair to Rome, and to permit him to
appoint an administrator for his see.

Nothing, however, was done as the Pope had ordained. The archbishop was
not liberated; the king sent a detachment of his guards to escort him to
Carthagena, where he was to embark. He was detained at Valladolid so
long by the preparations for his departure, that he only reached Rome on
the 29th of May in the following year.

The nuncio was obliged to issue fresh menaces of excommunication, before
he could obtain the papers, which detained the archbishop at Carthagena
for four months. The ignorance of the nuncio concerning the affair was
taken advantage of, and only part of the proceedings were remitted to
him, the rest being claimed when the deficiency was discovered at Rome,
and thus the delay of a whole year occurred; in short, it was evident
that the inquisitors wished to defer the conclusion of the trial till
after the death of Carranza. The members of the Chapter of Toledo were
remarkable for their courageous devotion to their chief; they appointed
two of their body to attend him during his detention, and to render him
every service in their power, charging them never to leave him during
his voyage and his residence at Rome.

Carranza left his prison on the 5th of December, 1566, after seven
years, three months, and fourteen days' captivity, which he had passed
in two rooms, from which he could see neither the country nor the
street, and without conversing with any persons but his two domestics,
and his two advocates. He was not permitted to name an administrator to
his archbishopric according to the commands of the Pope: the reason
given for this was, that his holiness did not know that an administrator
had been already appointed by the king, and that Paul IV. had confirmed
the nomination.

Carranza travelled in a litter, and was accompanied by Don Diego
Gonzalez, Inquisitor of Valladolid, and Don Lope de Avellaneda, who had
been appointed his gaoler in 1561. On his arrival at Carthagena,
Gonzalez and the guard returned to Valladolid, as the captain-general of
the province was then responsible for his person.

On the 27th of April, 1567, he embarked, and on the 25th of May he
arrived at Civita Vecchia, where the Spanish ambassador, and Paul
Vislersio, nephew to the Pope and captain of his guards, received him,
and on the 29th he arrived at Rome. Besides his servants and Avellaneda,
he was accompanied by two counsellors of the Inquisition, Don Diego de
Simancas, and Don Antonio Pazos; by Don Pedro Fernandez de Temiño,
inquisitor of Callahorra, Don Jerome Ramirez, fiscal to the Supreme
Council, Sebastian de Landeta and Alphonso de Castellon, secretaries to
the Inquisition of Valladolid, and several _familiars_, who all
travelled at the archbishop's expense. He had also with him Don Martin
de Alpizcueta and Don Alonso Delgado, his advocates.




CHAPTER XXXIV.

END OF THE TRIAL OF CARRANZA.--HIS DEATH.


On the arrival of Carranza at Rome, the Pope assigned to him the
apartments occupied by the sovereign pontiffs in the Castle of St.
Angelo: the size of these rooms allowed him to take exercise, and he
enjoyed a view of the country. His health became better, and his
strength returned; he was also allowed three more domestics. The Pope
forbade any person to speak to him of his trial, and while it lasted he
was not permitted to take the sacrament, or to say mass. In Spain he was
not suffered to confess, but in Rome he was allowed to do so four times
in a year.

Pius V. appointed sixteen consultors for the trial: these were Cardinals
Reviva, Pacheco, Gambaya, and Chiesa; the Archbishop of Tarragona; the
Bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo; the Bishop of Pati in Sicily; the Bishop of
Chefalu; Don Pedro Fernandez de Temiño, counsellor of the Spanish
Inquisition; Fray Thomas Manrique, a Dominican; the Archbishop of St.
Severin; the Bishop of St. Agatha; the Bishop of Arezzo; the Bishop of
Fiesoli, and Doctor Artimo, auditor of the causes of the apostolical
palace. The Pope also appointed the fiscal of the Supreme Council to the
same office; two Italian secretaries, and the two who came from Spain.
The rest of the year 1567, and part of the following, were employed in
translating the trial into Italian.

The Canons of Toledo presented a letter to the Pope, entreating him to
take into consideration the merit of the archbishop and his high rank,
as well as the honour and consolation of their church, which had been
deprived of its pastor for eight years, and soliciting him to show him
as much favour as was compatible with religion and justice. This his
Holiness promised to do, and expressed great satisfaction at the noble
sentiments contained in the letter, and the tender interest the chapter
displayed for the welfare of their pastor.

The works and MSS. of the archbishop remained in Spain; they were
claimed and sent to Rome in 1570: this circumstance caused fresh delays.
When the translation was finished, the fiscal required that no
conferences of the consultors should take place unless the Pope was
present, which prolonged the affair excessively, as his Holiness was
often unable to attend. The fiscal also challenged Fray Thomas
Manrique, because he was the friend of Carranza. The Pope then appointed
Doctor Toledo, a Jesuit, but he was also challenged, because he was
related to Don Antonio de Toledo, another friend of the archbishop.

Don Gomez Tellez Giron, governor of the archbishopric, dying at this
time, the Chapter of Toledo wrote to the Pope a second time, expressing
the utmost anxiety to see the trial terminated. His Holiness replied to
this letter with peculiar graciousness, excusing himself on account of
his numerous avocations, and the nature of the trial, and promising to
hasten the conclusion, which he said he had already endeavoured to do.

When the writings were arranged, it was discovered that several sheets
were missing; Pius V. therefore considering that it would be difficult
to express in writing what he thought on this subject, sent John de
Bedoya, agent of the Council of the Inquisition, into Spain, with a
brief addressed to the king, requesting him to listen to the commission
of John de Bedoya with his usual benevolence and goodness.

It is not known what Bedoya said to the king, but the trial informs us
that he caused the papers concerning the trial to be sought for, and
that some of these were given by the inquisitor-general to the king, to
be sent to Rome: among these were found some qualifications and
depositions, which were favourable to the archbishop. The persons who
had concealed these documents were so blinded by passion, that they did
not consider that they were cited in the papers which had been sent.
Although his Holiness and Philip intended to transfer all the papers
concerning Carranza, yet all the MS. copies of the Catechism, which were
taken from the Marchioness d'Alcañices, and which had been used in the
qualification of the work, and the duplicates and triplicates of the
unprinted works, remitted by Alphonso de Castro, and Doctor Astete, were
retained in Spain. This omission was not at first supposed to be
occasioned by malevolence, since all the rest had been sent; but it was
afterwards discovered that the papers were retained to be made use of on
some other opportunity, which in fact occurred; and to give occasion for
fresh delays if they were claimed by the Pope.

Pius V. prepared the definitive sentence; but he did not pronounce it
until he knew the inclinations of Philip, whom he did not wish to
offend. In his judgment he declared that the accusation of the fiscal
was not proved, and acquitted the prelate. He commanded that the
_Catechism_ should be restored to the author, to be translated into
Latin, and that he should insert the necessary corrections, and explain
the censured propositions in a Catholic sense; secondly that the
prohibition of that work should be held to be valid, until the
explanations were furnished; that that of the _explanation of St. John_
should remain, and that none of the manuscript works of Carranza should
be printed or published, until he had made the necessary corrections.

The Pope sent this sentence to the King of Spain, by Alessandro Casali,
his chamberlain. He was persuaded that Philip would be pleased to see
that he had acknowledged the innocence of Carranza, and that he would be
satisfied with the measures taken to prevent the books from being
dangerous. The Pope did not understand the character of Philip II., who
considered himself as much dishonoured as the holy office, by the
exoneration of Carranza. He wrote to his Holiness, to prove that it was
impossible that the works of the prelate could contain so many of the
errors of Luther, if he was not an heretic. He therefore requested the
Pope to defer the judgment until the return of his chamberlain, to whom
he would give important documents proving the truth of his statement.

The king ordered a _Refutation of the Apology for the Catechism of
Carranza, published by Alpizcueta and Delgado_, to be composed, and also
another work by the Abbot of Alcala de Henares, under the title of a
_New Qualification of the Catechism of Carranza, and the Faith of its
Author_. Philip sent these two writings to Rome, in 1572, by Casali.
When he arrived, he found that his master, Pius V. was dead, and Gregory
XIII., his successor, received the documents, and joined them to the
trial.

The death of Pius has been attributed to the agents of the Inquisition.
Such reports are not often worthy of credit, but there are letters on
the subject in existence, which contain very bold expressions. One of
them says, "The death of a man who showed himself so much attached to a
Dominican monk, and who compromised by his discourse the honour of the
Spanish Inquisition, ought not to be considered of much importance. It
(the Inquisition) would be benefitted by the death of such a Pope."

Philip II. congratulated the new Pontiff on his accession, and at the
same time requested him to suspend the judgment of the trial, until he
had heard the opinions of four Spanish theologians, whom he intended to
send to throw a new light on the affair: these doctors were, Don Francis
Sancho, professor of theology at Salamanca; Fray Diego de Chabes,
confessor to the king; Fray Juan Ochoa, and Fray Juan de la Fuente,
masters of theology. Their censures were joined to the trial.

Philip II. perceiving the turn which the affair now took, made a last
effort, and the counsellors of the Inquisition, in order to obtain a
recantation of the favourable opinions emitted by respectable
theologians before the arrest of Carranza, made use of terror and
persuasion: the first by making them dread that they would be arrested
as being suspected of professing the errors which they had approved; and
the second, by offering them an honourable pretext for reforming their
first judgment, in the discovery of the inedited works of Carranza, in
which there were a greater number of propositions susceptible of an
heretical interpretation.

The first who fell into the snare was a man truly respectable for his
learning, his virtues, his birth, and many eminent qualities; but his
great age, and his dread of the dungeons of the Inquisition, may be
considered as an excuse for his weakness, as well as for that of the
venerable Osius.

On the 30th of March, 1574, the archbishop qualified, as erroneous,
seventy-five propositions of the same printed Catechism, which he had
before pronounced to be orthodox; he however added, that the errors were
owing to the Castilian language in which the work was written, and that
if it was published in Latin, it would be necessary to suppress,
correct, or explain thirty-one propositions. The prelate also declared,
that there were two hundred and ninety-two errors in the MSS., numbered
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and sixty-six in the explanations and sermons
(of which a list has been given in a former part of this work), and from
thence he concluded that the author was _violently suspected_ of heresy.

Serrano, the reporter of the Supreme Council, who had taken these works
to the Archbishop of Grenada, returned full of triumph to Madrid. The
Supreme Council, in a letter to the king, expresses great satisfaction
on this account, and says, "It is absolutely necessary to send this
qualification to Rome, because the activity with which the affair is
proceeded in makes it likely that it will soon be concluded, and this
measure is the more important as the opinion of the Archbishop of
Grenada will have much influence." This letter was accompanied by a
false estimate of the censures, plainly showing the animosity of the
council towards Carranza.

Serrano then repaired to Don Francis Blanco, then Bishop of Malaga. This
prelate, on the 29th of April, retracted the opinion he had given in
1558. He censured sixty-eight propositions of the Catechism, although he
had formerly praised the work. Serrano immediately informed the council
of it, and that the bishop had pronounced Carranza to be _violently
suspected_ of heresy. The Archbishopric of Santiago being vacant at
this time, the king bestowed it on this prelate.

Don Francis Delgado followed his example, and censured three hundred and
fifteen propositions. Don Francis Delgado obtained the see of Santiago,
on the death of Blanco, but he did not live long enough to take
possession of it.

The king did not send the opinions of the prelates to Rome, but wrote to
the Pope, and told him that he was informed that the archbishops of
Santiago and Grenada had many important things to reveal concerning
Carranza, and that he hoped his holiness would command all that was
necessary to be done on this occasion.

On the 7th of August in the same year, Gregory XIII. expedited a brief,
in which he commissioned Don Gaspar de Quiroga, inquisitor-general, to
receive the declarations of the prelates in the presence of a notary,
and of witnesses, and to send them signed and sealed to Rome. A similar
brief was sent on the 17th of October, to the Bishop of Jaen, the
magistral canon of Toledo, and Professor Mancio. The inquisitor-general
appointed commissioners, to whom he gave written instructions. They were
directed to exact an oath to speak the truth and observe secrecy, to
induce the prelates to declare that the change in their opinion was
founded on a more strict examination of the work, and a knowledge of the
other writings of the author; lastly, to make them state in a separate
paper what they now thought of the works and faith of Carranza, and not
to allow them to say that they did so in obedience to the king, as they
had stated at first, but to declare that they acted according to the
brief.

These declarations were sent to Rome in December. Don Francis Blanco,
who had only censured sixty-eight propositions of the Catechism on the
first examination, now censured two hundred and seventy-three in the
Catechism and pamphlets together, sixty-three of which he pronounced to
be heretical.

This extraordinary change was attributed by the prelates to a love of
justice, to conscience, zeal for religion, and a wish to please God.

The declarations of five new witnesses of so much consequence, entirely
changed the appearance of the trial. Gregory XIII. fell into the snare,
which it was indeed difficult to avoid, since the intrigue which
produced it was conducted by so powerful a sovereign as Philip, and so
formidable and able a body as the Spanish Inquisition. Gregory had
discovered the intrigues when at Madrid, and informed St. Pius V. that
it would be impossible even for foreign judges to terminate the trial in
an equitable manner in Spain; but he was far from supposing that the
animosity of Carranza's enemies would be still more active at Rome.

The Pope loved justice, and thought he was obeying its dictates, in
commanding, on the 14th of April, 1576, that the Archbishop of Toledo
should abjure all heresies in general, and particularly the sixteen
Lutheran propositions which he was _violently_ suspected of believing.
He was suspended for five years from performing his archiepiscopal
duties, and condemned to be confined during that time in the dominican
convent of Orvietta in Tuscany, and for the present in that of the
Minerva at Rome, where some penances were also imposed, one of which was
to visit in one day the seven churches of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John
de Lateran, Santa Croce of Jerusalem, St. Sebastian, St. Mary Major, and
St. Laurence. The prohibition of the Catechism by the holy office was
maintained.

The sixteen Lutheran propositions abjured by Carranza were the
following:--

1. Works performed without the spirit, of whatever nature, are sins, and
offend God.

2. Faith is the first and principal means of obtaining justification.

3. Man is formally justified by the justice of Jesus Christ; by that,
Christ has merited for us.

4. No one can obtain the justice of Christ, except by firmly believing
that he has obtained it.

5. Those who are in a state of mortal sin cannot comprehend the Holy
Scriptures, or discern things relating to faith.

6. Natural reason is contrary to faith, in all that relates to religion.

7. The _germ_ of sin exists in baptized persons with the quality of sin.

8. True faith does not exist in the sinner when he has lost grace by
sin.

9. Repentance is equal to baptism, and is equal to a new life.

10. Our Lord Jesus Christ has atoned for our sins in so efficacious and
entire a manner, that no other atonement is required of us.

11. Faith without works is sufficient for salvation.

12. Jesus Christ was not a legislator, and it did not enter into his
plan to give laws.

13. The actions and works of Saints can only serve for an example, but
they cannot aid us in any way.

14. The use of holy images, and the veneration for the relics of Saints,
are customs purely human.

15. The Church of the present age has not the same light, or an
authority equal to the primitive Church.

16. The condition of the apostles and a religious life, do not differ
from the common state of Christians.

The declarations of the witnesses do not prove that Carranza ever
uttered any of these propositions, and from this censures we may
perceive that he only advanced in writing some which led the censurers
to suppose that he professed those and many others, since he was not
obliged to abjure several hundred propositions which had been censured,
or the seventy-two which were qualified as heretical. As it could not be
proved that he had ever spoken or expressed in writing any of the
sixteen propositions considered as Lutheran, I do not hesitate to say
that this sentence cannot be approved by upright men.

The archbishop heard his sentence with humility, and was absolved _ad
cautelam_; he performed mass on the four first days of the holy week,
and on the 23rd of April he performed his penance of visiting the
churches. He refused the letter which the Pope offered him, as a public
testimony of his esteem and interest in his fate. He celebrated mass on
another day in the church of St. John Lateran, for the last time in his
life; he expired at three o'clock in the morning of the 2nd of May,
1576, aged seventy-two years, eighteen of which he had passed in prison.

The Pope being informed of his illness, on the 30th of April sent him a
pontifical absolution and exemption of the penance imposed on him; the
holy father did this for the consolation of Carranza, who in fact showed
great satisfaction, and received extreme unction with tranquillity, and
even with some demonstrations of joy.

He made his will in the presence of one of the secretaries of his trial,
and appointed as his executors his faithful friend Don Antonio de
Toledo; the doctors d'Alpizcueta and Delgado, who never forsook him; Don
Juan de Navarra y Mendoza, chanter, dignitary, and canon of the
cathedral of Toledo (he was the son of the Count de Lodosa, and
descended in the direct male line from the kings of Navarre); Fray
Ferdinand de San Ambrosio, his procurator, always faithful to his cause;
and Fray Antonio d'Utrilla, a model of fidelity and affection, who
voluntarily shared his captivity for eighteen years. He had not obtained
the permission which was necessary for bishops, to make a will; but as
the Popes at that time disposed of the revenues of the stewardships, he
approved and confirmed the pious arrangements of the archbishop.

On the 30th of April, after the prelate had received absolution, and
before he pronounced his act of faith, he made the following declaration
in Latin, in the presence of the three secretaries, several Spaniards,
and some Italians, speaking slowly and with a distinct utterance, that
all present might hear him.

"Considering that I have been suspected of having fallen into the errors
imputed to me, I think it my duty to make known my sentiments on this
subject; it was for this purpose that I requested the attendance of the
four secretaries who have been employed in my trial. I call, then, to
witness the celestial court, and for my judge the sovereign Lord, whose
sacrament I am about to receive, the angels who accompany him, whom I
have always chosen as my intercessors; I swear by that Almighty God, by
my approaching death, by the account I shall soon render up to God, that
while I professed theology in my order, and afterwards when I wrote,
taught, preached, and argued in Spain and Germany, Italy and England, I
always intended to make the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ triumphant,
and to combat heretics. His divine Majesty came to my assistance, since
in England I converted several heretics to the Catholic faith; with the
king's permission I caused the bodies of the greatest heretics of those
times to be disinterred, and they were burnt, to secure the power of the
Inquisition. The Catholics, as well as the heretics, have always given
me the title of _First Defender of the Faith_. I can truly affirm that I
have always been one of the first to labour in this holy work, and have
done many things concerning it by the order of the king my master. His
majesty has been a witness of part of what I have asserted. I have loved
him, and I still love him truly; no son could have a greater affection
for him than I have.

"I also declare, that in the whole course of my life I have never
taught, preached, or maintained any heresy, or anything contrary to the
true faith of the Roman Church; that I never fell into any of the
errors of which I have been suspected, from having different meanings
attributed to my words to what I gave them myself; I swear by all that I
have already said, by that God to whom I have appealed as my judge, that
the errors I have mentioned or those reported in my trial never entered
into my mind; that I never had the least doubt of any of these points of
doctrine; but on the contrary I have professed, written, taught, and
preached the holy faith, with the same firmness as I now believe and
profess it at the hour of my death.

"Nevertheless I acknowledge my sentence to be just, because it was
pronounced by the vicar of Christ; I have received and regarded it as
such, because to the quality of vicar of Jesus Christ the person who
pronounced it joins the character of an upright and prudent judge. I
pardon, at the hour of my death, as I have always done, all offences, of
whatever nature, which have been committed against me; I also pardon
those who have shown themselves against me in my trial; also those who
have taken the smallest part in it. I have never felt any resentment
against them; on the contrary, I have always recommended them to God; I
do so at this moment, loving them with all my heart, and I promise that
if I go to that place where I hope to be by the mercy of our Lord, that
I will not ask any thing against them, but pray to God for all."

The corpse of the archbishop was deposited, on the 3rd of May, in the
choir of the convent of _the Minerva_, between two cardinals of the
family of Medicis. The Pope caused an inscription to be engraved on his
tomb, in which he calls him a _man illustrious by his doctrine and his
sermons_. From this it appears probable that he did not consider his
works full of heresies; but, perhaps, it was occasioned by the
protestation of Carranza before his death. Solemn obsequies were
performed at Rome; and those celebrated at Toledo, some time after, were
still more magnificent.

Although the holy office had obtained an unjust victory, the inquisitors
were vexed that Carranza had not been degraded from his dignity. The
suspension for five years appeared to them a singularly slight
punishment, and they feared that the Pope would grant him a dispensation
from it, which he, in fact, did, eight days after the sentence.

Their rage is displayed in several letters written from Rome on the
three first days after the judgment, and which were found among the
papers of the trial at Madrid. Among many things which are disgraceful
to the writers, is the advice given to the king, not to permit Carranza
to return to Spain, and, above all, not to suffer him to govern his see
even after the lapse of the suspension; their envy and animosity making
them suppose, that it would be a disgrace to the diocese of Toledo to be
governed by a man who had been prosecuted by the Inquisition: they said
that it would be better for the king to request the Pope to induce
Carranza to give up his diocese and accept a pension, that some person
might be placed in his see more worthy to occupy it; but God in his
infinite wisdom destroyed, by the death of the archbishop, the cause,
the motive, and the matter for new intrigues. In the writings of the
process I saw with sorrow, that, far from relinquishing their pursuits,
the inquisitors had prepared a fresh persecution for him.




CHAPTER XXXV.

TRIAL OF ANTONIO PEREZ, MINISTER AND FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE TO PHILIP
II.


Antonio Perez was another illustrious victim to the Inquisition and the
evil disposition of Philip II. The misfortunes of Perez commenced when
Philip put to death Juan Escobedo, secretary to Don John of Austria; he
succeeded in making his escape to Aragon, where he hoped to live in
tranquillity under a government which only allowed the sovereign to have
an accusing fiscal in the tribunals. It is not necessary to relate all
that Perez suffered at Madrid during twelve years before he made his
escape; these details may be found in a work published by this minister,
under the title of _Relations_, in the recital which Antonio Valladares
de Sotomayor inserted in the _Seminario erudito_, and in a volume in
octavo which appeared in 1788, entitled _The Trial of Antonio Perez_.

Antonio Perez having retired to Aragon in 1590, Philip issued an order
for his arrest, which took place at Calatayud. Perez having protested
against this measure, and claimed the privilege of the _manifestados_,
he was conducted to Saragossa, and confined in the prison of the
_kingdom_, or of _liberty_. The prisoners were there free from the
immediate authority of the king, and only depended on an intermediate
judge called the chief justice of Aragon. It was also called the prison
of the _Fuero_ or _Constitutional_, because the constitution of the king
alone was named the _Fuero d'Aragon_; it was sometimes named the prison
of the _manifestados_; no persons were received into it except those who
presented themselves, or claimed the benefit of the constitution, in
order to avoid the royal prison, and declared that they submitted to the
laws of the kingdom, and invoked the support of its privileges: those of
a prisoner in the case of Perez consisted in not being put to the
torture; in being set at liberty, after taking an oath to present
himself to reply to the charges, and being allowed even if condemned to
death by any other judge, to appeal to the tribunal of the chief justice
of Aragon[68], who examined if the execution of the sentence was
contrary to any _Fuero_ of the kingdom. This tribunal resembles that of
France called the _Court of Cassation_.

Philip II., after many earnest but useless endeavours to induce the
permanent deputation of the kingdom to transfer Perez to Madrid, sent
the commencement of the trial into Aragon, and gave the necessary powers
to his fiscal at Saragossa, to accuse him of having made false reports
to the king, which had induced him to put Juan Escobedo to death; of
having forged letters from the cabinet, and revealed state secrets.
After many incidents, Perez reduced the king to the necessity of
renouncing the prosecution, by a public act on the 18th of August, in
order to avoid the disgrace of seeing him acquitted.

His majesty, however, reserved to himself the right of making use of his
privileges; and to prevent Perez from obtaining his liberty, he caused
another trial to be commenced, under the form of an _inquest_[69],
before the regent of the royal audience of Aragon. To give occasion for
this trial, it was decided that the domestics of the king were exempted
from the privileges of the _Fueros_, and that Antonio Perez was the
king's servant, in the office of Secretary of State. Perez asserted that
the Secretary of State was a servant of the public, and had never been
confounded with the king's domestics; that supposing he had been of that
class, the law could only extend to the Secretary of State for Aragon;
that the constitution only alluded to those royal domestics who were
natives of Aragon; that no one could be tried twice for the same crime
before two different tribunals; that he had been tried at Madrid in
1582; that he then submitted to much ill-treatment, rather than justify
himself by divulging the private letters of the king, which he had in
his possession; lastly, that though the papers useful in his defence had
been obtained from his wife by fraudulent means, yet he had still
documents enough to justify himself entirely.

Perez had, in fact, retained several notes in the king's own
hand-writing, which were sufficient to exculpate him: he sent copies of
them to the Marquis d'Almenara and other persons attached to the king,
and told them that having been informed that his majesty was vexed that
his letters had been exposed in the trial, he wished to spare him the
pain of seeing other original documents presented, which contained very
important secrets relating to different people; but if the disposition
to persecute him continued, he would produce them, because he was no
longer capable of making useless sacrifices to the prejudice of his wife
and seven children.

The _inquest_ was then given up, and Perez demanded his liberty on his
parole, or at least on giving security; this was refused by the regent:
he then appealed to the privileges of the kingdom against force, before
the tribunal of the chief justice, who did not show him more favour.

It appears that Perez then, with his companion in misfortune, Juan
Francis Mayorini, formed a plan to escape into Bearn. Their design was
discovered at the moment they were about to execute it, but Perez
conducted himself with so much address, that he reduced his part in the
transaction to a simple suspicion.

The deposition of the witnesses before the regent furnished the
Inquisition with a pretext to prosecute Perez; this event was agreeable
to the Court, because no means to prolong the _inquest_ could be
invented.

On the 19th of February, 1591, the regent wrote to the inquisitor,
Molina, that Perez and Mayorini intended to escape from prison to go to
Bearn, and to other places in France, where the heretics resorted, with
intentions which would be proved by the declarations of witnesses.

The proof mentioned in this letter is an attestation, without date,
given by the notary, Juan Montañes, into which had been copied the 8th
chapter of the first additions and the 5th of the second, which had been
made to the principal charges against Perez by the royal fiscal, and the
depositions which had been obtained from Juan Louis de Luna, Anton de la
Almuñia and Diego Bustamente. In these chapters an attempt had been made
to prove, "that Antonio Perez and Juan Francis Mayorini intended to
escape from confinement, saying that they intended to go to Bearn, to
Vendome and his sister[70], and to other parts of France, where they
would find many heretics inimical to his majesty; that he hoped to be
well received, because Perez knew a great many state secrets which he
could communicate to them; that they had added to this discourse many
expressions criminal and offensive to the majesty of the king, and that
they were resolved to do him as much harm as they could." I should not
have believed that such depositions would have been sufficient to
denounce Perez to the Inquisition as guilty of heresy, if I had not seen
the writings of the trial.

We may be permitted to suppose, from what passed at Madrid, and the
commencement of the _inquest_ which threatened Perez with capital
punishment, that the accusation of heresy was a stroke of policy of the
agents of the king. They did not dare to present the depositions they
had obtained as being decisive, but they hoped that when the holy office
began the trial of their victim, the charges would be multiplied.

The inquisitors of Saragossa were Don Alphonso Molina de Medrano, and
Don Juan Hurtado de Mendoza: the one was the cousin of the Marquis
d'Almenara, and the other an intriguing and immoral man, who wished to
obtain a bishopric at any price. For this reason the marquis placed more
confidence in him than in his cousin, who was less learned, and too good
to become a persecutor. In fact, Don Juan avoided, as much as possible,
taking any part in this transaction, and even obtained leave to remove
to another tribunal. Molina received the letter of the regent, and the
depositions which accompanied it; but instead of communicating them to
the tribunal, he sent them by the first courier to Quiroga, the
inquisitor-general. The Marquis d'Almenara gave information of the event
to the Count de Chinchon, who communicated it the king; after having
consulted the cardinal, Philip commanded him to take proper measures to
prove the heresy of Perez, and to punish him accordingly. On the 5th of
March, Quiroga ordained that Molina alone should receive the
depositions; that the inquisitors should examine them without the
concurrence of the diocesan and consultors, and send them immediately to
Madrid.

On the 20th of March ten witnesses were examined: Diego Bustamente, the
servant of Perez, and Juan de Basante, a teacher of Latin, who often saw
him in prison, quoted sentences which, in the original, did not prove
anything against him, but which, on being separated from the others, had
a meaning which gave an appearance of justice to the measure employed.

The tribunal remitted the information to Quiroga, who sent it to Fray
Diego de Chabes, who qualified four propositions imputed to Perez, and
one to Mayorini.

The latter was reduced to some indecent oaths, used by Italians, which
had escaped Mayorini in losing at play, and were qualified as _heretical
blasphemies_; this was sufficient to authorize his imprisonment.

_First proposition, taken from the testimony of Diego de
Bustamente._--Some one told Perez not to speak ill of Don John of
Austria: he replied, "After being accused by the king of having
disguised the sense of my letters, and betraying the secrets of the
council, it is just that I should vindicate myself without respect of
persons: _If God the Father put any obstacle in the way of it, I would
cut off his nose for having permitted the king to behave like a disloyal
knight towards me._"--QUALIFICATION. This proposition is blasphemous,
scandalous, offensive to pious ears, and approaching to the heresy of
the Vaudois, who suppose that God the Father has a body.

_Second proposition, taken from the deposition of Juan de
Basante._--Antonio Perez considering the bad state of his affairs, said
to me one day, in a fit of grief and anger: "I shall perhaps no longer
believe in God. _One would say that he sleeps during my trial; if he
does not perform a miracle in my favour, I shall lose all
faith._"--QUALIFICATION. This proposition is scandalous, offensive to
pious ears, and suspected of heresy, because it supposes that God
sleeps, and has an intimate relation with the preceding proposition. The
two remaining accusations were very similar, with similar
qualifications. It appears that the words he used were uttered in
moments of grief and despair. It is remarkable that the Inquisition has
provided for this case, for in one of their ordinances it is decreed,
that no person shall be arrested for uttering a blasphemy, when excited
by impatience or rage. To this may be added, that the proof was
defective, since the second proposition rested solely on the testimony
of Basante. With respect to the three others, I shall quote the third
article of the instruction of Toledo, in 1498. "We also command the
inquisitors to be prudent when a person is to be arrested, and not to
issue the decree _until they_ have obtained sufficient proof of the
crime of heresy imputed to the accused."

However, as religion was only the ostensible motive for this trial, the
Supreme Council, after having seen the censures, decreed on the 21st of
May, that Perez and Mayorini should be arrested and confined in the
secret prisons of the Inquisition, that they should be strictly watched,
and arrested so promptly, that no one should have any suspicion of it.

On the 24th of May, the inquisitors sent an order to the grand alguazil
of the holy office, to seize the persons of the accused. The gaoler of
the prison of the kingdom declared, that he could not give them up
without an order from the chief justice, or one of his lieutenants. The
inquisitors wrote on the same day to the lieutenant, and commanded him
on pain of excommunication, and a penalty of a thousand ducats, to give
up the prisoners in the space of three hours, _without allowing the
Fuero of the manifestation to be any obstacle, since it could not be
applied to a trial for heresy; and for that reason the inquisitors
revoked and annulled any such interpretation of the Fuero, as preventing
the free exercise of the holy tribunal_.

The secretary presented these letters to the chief justice, Don Juan de
la Nuza, in a public audience, in the presence of five judges who formed
his council, and of all the persons employed in his tribunal. The chief
justice submitted to the order of the inquisitors, and the prisoners
were conducted to the Inquisition in separate carriages. It was
afterwards known that the courier, who brought the order from Madrid,
also brought letters from the Count de Chinchon to the Marquis
d'Almenara, who, in a private conversation with the chief justice,
persuaded him not to insist upon his privileges; and that the two
letters of the inquisitors were written on the same night, though they
were dated the 24th, because they were previously informed by the
marquis of what would take place.

Perez, who foresaw his danger, had imparted his fears to the Count
d'Aranda and other nobles, who resolved to oppose this measure as an
infraction of the most valuable privilege of the kingdom. Don Diego
Fernandez de Heredia, baron de Barboles, afterwards declared, in the
trial which brought him to the scaffold, that the Count and Perez agreed
to assassinate the Marquis d'Almenara, because if they got rid of him,
the king and the Count de Chinchon would renounce their plan of making a
Castilian the viceroy of Aragon, who would not fail to destroy all their
privileges in succession.

Perez, in his _Relations_, informs us that the father of the Count
d'Aranda above mentioned, and several other persons, claimed and were
allowed the privileges of the _Fuero de Manifestados_, when arrested by
the Inquisition.

When Perez was transferred to the prison of the holy office, he told his
servants to inform the Baron de Barboles and several other gentlemen of
the circumstance. At this news the Aragonese excited the people of
Saragossa to revolt, by cries of "Treason! Treason! Live the nation!
Live our liberty! Live the Fueros! Death to the traitors!" In less than
an hour, more than a thousand men, under arms, surrounded the house of
the Marquis d'Almenara, and treated him with so much violence, that he
would have been killed if he had not been immediately taken into the
royal prison, where he died of his wounds fourteen days after. The
insurgents insulted the archbishop, and threatened to kill him and burn
his hotel if he did not make the inquisitors give up the prisoners: they
menaced the viceroy Bishop of Teruel in the same manner, and assembling
to the number of three thousand men, began to set fire to the Castle of
Aljaferia, (an ancient palace of the Moorish kings, where the
Inquisition was held,) crying that they would burn the inquisitors if
they did not give up Perez and Mayorini. Many other events occurred in
the city, because Molina de Medrano obstinately persisted in
endeavouring to quell the insurrection, contrary to the entreaties twice
repeated of the archbishop, the viceroy, of the Counts d'Aranda and
Morata, and of many of the first noblemen of Aragon. At last, finding
that the danger increased, he appeared to yield, and announced that he
would not set the prisoners at liberty, but would give them for the
prison of the holy office that of the kingdom, and they were removed
thither on the same day.

The inquisitors were left in a critical situation, and did not dare to
arrest any one; they addressed several letters to the commissioners of
the holy office, some of them accompanied by the order to the
lieutenants and their decree, to show that they had not violated the
prison of the kingdom, but had only received the persons given up to
them by the chief justice: the others were sent with the bull of Pius
V., dated 1st of April, 1569, concerning those who opposed the exercise
of the holy office; they also proposed to publish an edict,
excommunicating several persons already noted in the registers of the
Inquisition as having opposed the execution of the orders of the
inquisitors, but they were persuaded to relinquish the intention by the
archbishop. At this period, some persons who fled to Madrid when the
revolt took place, and who were known to be devoted to the king, were
examined as witnesses; and it appeared from their depositions, that the
Counts d'Aranda and Morata, the Barons de Barboles, de Biescas, de
Purroy, de la Laguna, and many others of the first noblemen of the
country, had excited the people to sedition, and increased the
disturbance by persuading them that the _Fuero_ was attacked.

The members of the permanent deputation of the kingdom thought, that
being interested in the defence of the political constitution, they
might be accused of having failed in their duty; they therefore
endeavoured to justify themselves, by declaring that as theirs was not
an armed body or a judicial authority, they could not prevent the
revolt. They also thought proper to pronounce by a commission of
jurisconsults, that those who had given up the prisoners to the
inquisitors, from the prison of the kingdom, had violated its
privileges. However the secret intrigues of the inquisitors, the
archbishop, the viceroy, and the chief justice were so adroitly
conducted, that some members remarked, that four lawyers were not enough
to discuss the rights of the king and the holy office. This observation
caused nine other jurisconsults to be appointed, and it was decreed that
they should decide by a majority of three votes. They declared that the
inquisitors had exceeded their powers, when they cancelled the
_manifestation_, because no authority could do so, except that of the
king, and the deputies assembled in Cortes; but that if the inquisitors
required the prisoners to be given up to them, and the _privilege of
manifestation was suspended_ during their prosecution, it would not be
contrary to the laws of the kingdom. Antonio Perez wrote to the
deputation, to represent that his cause was that of all the Aragonese;
several of his friends undertook to shew, that the _suspension_ was
equally contrary to the laws, since the prisoner might be tortured, was
deprived of his right to his liberty on oath, and was exposed to the
misery of an interminable trial; these efforts were all in vain. It was
privately decided that the inquisitors should demand the prisoners a
second time, without threats or orders, and resting only on the
_suspension of the privileges_. The king was given to understand that it
would be useful if he wrote to the Duke de Villahermosa, and the Counts
d'Aranda, de Morata, and de Sastago, to engage them to lend assistance
to the viceroy, with their relations and friends, and to aid the
constituted authorities, if any event rendered it necessary. Philip
followed the advice, and his letters to those noblemen were as gracious
and flattering, as if he had been ignorant of the part they had taken in
the late disturbances.

Perez now saw no safety except in flight, and had everything in
readiness to force his prison, when he was betrayed some hours before,
by the perfidious Juan de Basante, his false friend and accomplice.

The removal of Perez was to take place on the 24th of September; the
Inquisition, the viceroy, the archbishop, the deputation of the kingdom,
the municipality, and the civil and military governors, were all to
assist. The inquisitors had summoned to Saragossa, from the neighbouring
towns, a great number of the _familiars_ of the holy office, and the
military governor had in attendance three thousand men, well armed. This
expedition was to have been made without the knowledge of the
inhabitants; but the Barons de Barboles, de Biescas, and de Purroy, and
some other individuals, were informed of it. At the moment when the
prisoners were coming out of the prison, in the presence of the
principal magistrates of the city, and while the avenues and streets
through which they were to pass were lined with soldiers, a furious
troop of insurgents broke through the lines, killed a great number of
men, dispersed the others, put the magistrates to flight, and seizing
Perez and Mayorini, carried them off in triumph, shouting, _Live our
liberty! Live the Fueros of Aragon!_ Perez and Mayorini were received
into the house of the Baron de Barboles; when they had reposed for a few
minutes, they were taken out of the town, and taking different roads,
hastened away from it.

Perez repaired to Tauste, with the intention of crossing the Pyrenees by
the valley of Ronçal, but as the frontiers were strictly guarded, he
returned to Saragossa. He entered it in disguise, on the 2nd of October,
and remained concealed in the house of the Baron de Biescas until the
10th of November. He then thought it dangerous to remain there longer,
because Don Alphonso de Vargas was advancing with an army to take the
town, and punish the rebels. This event has been related very
incorrectly in several histories.

The presence of Perez in Saragossa was suspected by means of some
letters from Madrid, which Basante had seen, and of which he had given
information. The inquisitors searched the houses of the Baron de
Barboles and several other persons. Don Antonio Morejon, the second
inquisitor[71], suspected that de Biescas knew the place of his
concealment, and pressed him to discover it, promising that Perez should
be well treated if he presented himself voluntarily. Perez had several
times declared that he would surrender to the holy office, if he was not
almost certain that he should be given up to the government, which would
immediately execute the sentence of death passed upon him in 1590,
without allowing him to be heard. On the 11th of November, Perez went to
Sallen, in the Pyrenees, on the estates of the Baron de Biescas.

On the 18th he wrote to the Princess of Bearn, to ask an asylum in the
states of her brother, Henry IV., or to be permitted to pass through
them to some other country. This letter was given to the princess by Gil
de Mesa, an Aragonese gentleman, and an old and faithful friend of
Perez.

Catherine received Perez into her brother's states on the 24th of
November, when the Barons de Concas and de la Pinilla arrived at Sallen,
with three hundred men, to take him; they had offered to betray him if
they were pardoned: the first had been condemned by the Inquisition, for
having sent horses to France, and the other was to be executed for
having excited a revolt, in an attempt of the same nature.

Perez went to Pau, and while he was in that place the inquisitor Morejon
again requested the Baron de Biescas to persuade him to submit to the
Inquisition; he replied that he would do so, if they would promise to
try him at Saragossa instead of Madrid, and that he should require that
his wife and children should be set at liberty, of which they had been
deprived, although they were innocent. Perez made the same reply to
another requisition.

In order to satisfy the curiosity of the Princess Catherine and her
subjects, Perez composed two little works, the first called _Morceau
Historique, sur ce qui est arrivée a Saragosse d'Aragon, le_ 24th
Septembre, 1591; and the other, _Précis du Récit des Avantures d'Antoine
Perez, depuis le Commencement, de sa première Detention jusqu'a sa
Sortie des Domaines du Roi Catholique_. These works were printed at Pau,
without the name of the author; the inquisitors examined them, and
derived from them some additional charges.

Philip II. and the inquisitors offered life, offices, money, and
honours, to any condemned criminal who would kill Perez or bring him as
a prisoner into Spain. I refer the reader for all that relates to this
part of the history to the work entitled _Relations_, in which Perez
takes the name of _Raphaël Peregrino_. Perez obtained leave from Henry
IV. to go to London, where he was extremely well received by Queen
Elizabeth and the Earl of Leicester; he afterwards went to Paris, where
he passed the rest of his life, pining unceasingly for his wife and
children.

On the 15th of February, 1592, the inquisitors declared Antonio Perez to
be a fugitive; they affixed an edict on the metropolitan church of
Saragossa, summoning him to appear within one month; this measure was
most revoltingly unjust, since they well knew that Perez was in a
country then at war with Spain, and the laws of the holy office allowed
even the space of a year, according to the distance the accused had to
travel.

The declarations of the witnesses who were interrogated at Madrid, after
the first revolt of Saragossa in 1591, deposed to facts to which no
importance could have been attached, if they had related to other
persons and events. But Antonio Perez was concerned in them, and that
was sufficient to cause them to be censured as _audacious_, and
_suspected of heresy_. I shall not stay to prove the insufficiency of
this act, but shall give the third of the propositions as an example of
the rest. "In speaking of Philip II., and of Vendome, Antonio Perez
said that the king was a tyrant, but that Vendome would be a great
monarch, for he was an excellent prince, and governed the state to the
satisfaction of every one; that he therefore rejoiced on hearing of his
victories, and _that it was not heresy to pay court to him and speak to
him_." QUALIFICATION. "The accused shews himself to be impious in
respect to God and the holy Catholic faith, a favourer and violently
suspected of heresy; and as he now lives in the midst of heretics, it
proves that he is himself an heretic."

The inquisitors, who wished to favour the views of the court at any
rate, took advantage of a vague report, communicated to them by one of
their _familiars_, that Antonio Perez was descended from the Jews,
because in the borough of Hariza, near Montreal, from whence his family
came, there had lived a new Christian called Juan Perez, who was burnt
by the Inquisition as a judaizing heretic. The registers of the holy
office were immediately consulted, and it appeared that one Juan Perez
de Fariza had been burnt, and that Antonio Perez de Fariza had died a
heretic.

Pascual Gilberte, a priest and commissioner of the holy office, was
appointed, on the 16th of April, 1592, to ascertain if there was any
degree of relationship between the condemned heretics and the father of
Antonio Perez. Many witnesses were examined, both in Montreal, and the
neighbouring towns, but they all declared that the two families were
perfectly distinct.

All that is known concerning the genealogy of Perez is, that he was the
natural son of Gonzalez Perez and Donna Jane d'Escobar, and that he was
legitimatized by Charles V. That his paternal grandfather was
Bartholemew Perez, secretary to the Inquisition of Calahorra, that his
grandmother was Donna Louisa Perez del Hierro, of a noble family of
Segovia; that he was great grandson to Juan Perez, an inhabitant of
Montreal, and of Mary Tirado his wife; and that there was no
relationship, direct or indirect, between his family and that of Juan
and Antonio Perez de Fariza. This was afterwards fully proved by the
wife and children of Antonio Perez. It must be observed, that if the
inquisitors had wished to be truly informed, they might have had a copy
of the contract of marriage between Perez and Donna Jane Coello, which
states that his father was born at Segovia. In that city, at Calahorra,
and even in the Supreme Council, they might have found his real
genealogy.

However, the fiscal abused the privilege of secrecy, in the accusation
he brought against Perez, on the 6th of July, by supposing that he was
descended from the Jews, in order to strengthen the suspicion of heresy,
according to the custom of the Inquisition. The accusation was composed
of forty-three articles, each more vague than the others, and only
founded on words uttered without reflection, during a fit of rage, or in
extreme pain, which had no connexion with doctrine, and concerning which
no two witnesses agreed in the time, place, or circumstances.

On the 14th of August the fiscal demanded that the depositions of the
witnesses should be published; and on the 16th the qualifiers again
assembled to censure the propositions already noted, and the works
printed at Pau. They censured sixteen as _audacious_ and _erroneous_;
some others as _blasphemous_, and _approaching to heresy_, and concluded
that Antonio Perez was _suspected of heresy in the most violent
degree_[72].

On the 18th the fiscal required that Perez should be declared
contumaceous, and that the definitive sentence should be pronounced. On
the 7th of September, the diocesan, different consultors, and
jurisconsults (among whom was the first informer, Don Urban Ximenez de
Aragues, regent of the royal audience) were convoked, and voted the
punishment of _relaxation_ in effigy. The Supreme _Council_ confirmed
the sentence on the 13th of October, and on the 20th the judges
pronounced the definitive sentence, condemning Perez as a _formal
heretic_, _a convicted Hugonot_, and _an obstinate impenitent_, to be
_relaxed_ in person when he could be taken, and in the mean time to
suffer that punishment in effigy, with the mitre and San-benito. His
property was confiscated, and his children and grandchildren in the male
line devoted to infamy, besides other penalties. Many other persons
suffered in this _auto-da-fé_, of whom an account will be given in the
next chapter.

Perez was in England when he was condemned to death. A conspiracy
against his life by some Spaniards was discovered there: it was renewed
at Paris by the Baron de la Pinilla, who declared that he had been sent
to kill him by Don Juan Idiaquez, minister to Philip II.

The death of that prince, and the consequent change in the politics of
the government, inspired Perez with the hope of arranging his affairs at
Madrid; but the misfortune of having been prosecuted by the Inquisition
rendered his efforts unavailing. The reader is referred to the
_Relations_ for all that concerns this part of the history.

Perez had, at Paris, been intimate with Fray Francis de Sosa, general of
the Franciscans, then Bishop of the Canaries, and a counsellor of the
Inquisition, who often advised him to give himself up to the holy
office, as the only means of obtaining a reconciliation. Perez replied
that he would do so, and even wished it, but was deterred by the fear of
being arrested by the government, after being set at liberty by the
Inquisition. Sosa then tried to persuade him that he would avoid that
danger by obtaining a safe conduct from the inquisitor-general and the
Supreme Council, promising that he should be set at liberty when his
trial was terminated by the holy office. Sosa, at that time, was little
acquainted with the Inquisition, of which he was afterwards a member.

Perez wrote again to Sosa in 1611 concerning this affair; the bishop
replied, and his letter determined Perez to inform him that he was ready
to surrender to the Inquisition as soon as the safe conduct was sent to
him: he sent at the same time to his wife, a petition addressed to the
Supreme Council, in which he renewed his promise. His wife presented it,
and added to it one from herself, to interest the judges in her
husband's favour. The attempt was fruitless, and Perez died at Paris on
the 3rd of November, in the same year, after giving many proofs of his
Catholicism, which were afterwards useful to his children in obtaining
the revocation of the sentence given at Saragossa in 1592, and in
_rehabilitating_ his memory.




CHAPTER XXXVI.

OF SEVERAL TRIALS OCCASIONED BY THAT OF ANTONIO PEREZ.


The trial of Antonio Perez was the cause of a great number of
prosecutions against persons who had taken part in the tumults and the
flight of Perez and his companion. The censures and penalties of the
bull of Pius V., destined to punish those who opposed the exercise of
the ministry of the holy office, were applied to them.

On the 12th of November, 1591, Don Alphonso de Vargas entered Saragossa
at the head of his army; this expedition re-established the inquisitors,
and they secretly informed against the instigators of the rebellion.

On the 8th of January, 1592, the fiscal of the holy office gave in a
complaint against the rebels in general, as suspected in matters of
faith; and he composed a list of the authors of the sedition, and of
those who were suspected of being implicated in it: it amounted to
three hundred and seventy-two individuals, who had compromised
themselves either by their words or actions.

The inquisitors imprisoned a hundred and seventy, and made arrangements
for the arrest of others who were only suspected, as the charges were
not proved against them. Of this number, only a hundred and twenty-three
individuals were taken, because the others had either been already taken
to the royal prison by the command of Vargas, to be tried by Doctor
Lanz, a senator of Milan, and the king's special commissioner on this
occasion, or had made their escape; some who had only taken an indirect
part in the event came under the jurisdiction of the commissioner, and
obtained permission to remain as prisoners in their own houses. The
following are some of the most remarkable trials, from the high rank of
the individuals:--

Don Juan de la Nuza, Chief Justice of Aragon, not only had not opposed
the exercise of the holy office, but might have been reproached for
having given up more than the privileges of the kingdom allowed. He
however suffered the fate of a rebel subject, because in the struggle
which ensued he was unfortunately the weakest. The oath which the king
had taken to observe the privileges of the kingdom did not allow him to
send into it more than five hundred soldiers. The permanent deputation,
on being informed of the preparations for the entrance of the army of
Vargas, remonstrated; Philip replied that they were destined for France:
the deputies then represented the danger which might arise from their
being permitted to pass through Saragossa; they were then informed that
the army would only remain in their city for the period necessary to
restore the authority of justice, which had been almost entirely
destroyed in the late seditions.

The deputies, on receiving this last reply, consulted thirteen lawyers
on the sense of the _Fueros_; they declared that their rights were
infringed by the entrance of the troops into Aragon, and that every
Aragonese was bound to resist and prevent them. Circulars were then sent
to all the towns, and to the permanent deputation of Catalonia and
Valencia, to demand the aid stipulated by the treaties, in case either
country was invaded. The chief justice, whom the laws of the kingdom
called to the command, was ordered to place himself immediately at the
head of the troops. When the Castilians came within six miles of
Saragossa, the chief justice found himself almost deserted, and
consequently retired and left the passage free to the troops, who
entered the town.

On the 28th of November, Don Francis de Borgia, Marquis de Lombay,
arrived at Saragossa; he was commissioned to treat with the permanent
deputies and the principal gentlemen of the kingdom concerning the
points on which it was asserted the privileges had been infringed.
Several conferences took place without any result, because the deputies
declared that the _Fueros_ did not permit them while the country was
occupied by foreign troops.

Philip II. appointed the Count de Morata to be viceroy in the place of
the Bishop of Teruel, who had retired to his see, alarmed at the danger
he had incurred. The viceroy made his public entry into Saragossa, on
the 6th of December, to the great joy and satisfaction of the
inhabitants; but their joy was of short duration. On the 18th of the
same month, Don Gomez Velasquez arrived with a commission to arrest a
great number of persons, and with a positive order to behead the chief
justice of Aragon, as soon as he entered the town; this order was obeyed
with so much expedition, that on the 28th Don Juan de la Nuza was no
longer in existence. All Aragon was filled with consternation at the
news of this execution. It is impossible to express how much La Nuza was
respected by the people on account of his high office, which had been
filled by the illustrious members of his family for more than a hundred
and fifty years. On this event, many gentlemen fled to France and
Geneva, and those who, from an ill-founded confidence, remained, soon
had cause to repent.

Don Francis d'Aragon, Duke de Villahermosa, Count de Ribagorza, did not
escape the persecution, although he had the advantage of being of royal
blood, being descended from John II. King of Aragon and Navarre, by his
son Don Alphonso d'Aragon. In his trial before the Inquisition he was
not accused of having opposed the measures of the tribunal during the
insurrections, or of taking any part in them: but Don Francis Torralba,
lieutenant to the chief justice (who had been deprived of his office in
consequence of some serious complaints of Perez), pretended that the
duke was, by the nature of his blood, an enemy to the holy tribunal,
since he descended from Jews, who had been burnt and subjected to
penances, by Estengua Conejo, a Jewess, who, on her baptism, took the
name of Mary Sanchez, and afterwards became the wife or concubine of Don
Alphonso d'Aragon, first Duke of Villahermosa, and grandfather to the
present duke, whom he denounced. Torralba minutely detailed the proofs
of what he asserted.

When the inhabitants of Saragossa resolved to oppose the entrance of the
Castilian army in their city, the duke, according to the laws of the
kingdom, offered his services to the chief justice. The royal
commissioner, not satisfied with his trial before the Inquisition,
arrested him on the 19th of December, and sent him into Castile, in
contempt of another law of the _Fuero_. The duke was beheaded at Burgos,
as convicted of treason; his property was confiscated, and the king
bestowed the duchy on the next in succession.

The Count d'Aranda, Don Louis Ximenez de Urrea, was also arrested on the
19th of December, but died in the prison of Alaejos, on the 4th of
August, 1592. It appears from his trial by the Inquisition, that when
Perez was sent to the prison of the kingdom, he declared himself his
protector, according to a promise he had given to the wife of Perez at
Madrid; that he was one of the principal instigators of the popular
commotions; that he had influenced the lawyers, who declared the act, by
which Perez was consigned a second time to the Inquisition, to be
illegal; and lastly, that he had assisted in the military arrangements
for the resistance of the royal troops. It has been already stated, that
Diego de Heredia accused the Count d'Aranda and Antonio Perez of having
conspired against the life of the Marquis d'Almenara. This deposition is
not found in the trial, but Don Diego declared he had already informed
the senator Lanz, while he was imprisoned by that magistrate. But if the
circumstances independent of this conspiracy may be considered as
crimes, why did Philip after the first revolt write to request him to
lend assistance to the authorities, and afterwards to thank him for
having so well performed his mission? It must excite indignation, to see
a powerful monarch deceiving his subjects, and punishing them by
surprise.

The Count de Morata, Don Michael Martinez de Luna, Viceroy of Aragon,
was denounced to the Inquisition, after the insurrection of Saragossa.
It appears that he blamed the conduct of the tribunal and the civil
authorities towards Perez. Some witnesses supposed that he was one of
the principal instigators of the first insurrection; but that afterwards
learning that Philip had said that Perez was an unfaithful minister, he
ceased to defend him. This is certainly an historical error, for the
declaration of the king concerning Perez was made in August, 1590, after
the act by which the king abandoned the prosecution relating to the
death of Escobedo, and the insurrections at Saragossa took place in May,
1591. The change in the opinions of Martinez de Luna must have had some
other cause. Some circumstances in his trial lead to the belief that he
was acquainted with the proceedings of the council appointed at Madrid
to consider the affairs, and that he foresaw that the consequences
would be serious, which induced him to change his system.

When he was made viceroy, the inquisitor suppressed the preparatory
instruction of the trial, and the decree of arrest which had already
been resolved upon. The tribunal had received another information
against the Count in 1577, concerning some _ill-sounding_ propositions,
but they had not sufficient proof to proceed upon.

Although the inquisitors had been so indulgent to the count, he was not
devoted to their party. His indifference induced the fiscal to bring a
complaint against him in 1592, and to require that he should be
arrested. He founded his requisition on the following allegation: the
inquisitor-general Quiroga had published an edict of grace in favour of
all the criminals who had not been arrested, that they might be absolved
from all censures; and this edict having been communicated to the count
before the publication, he declared that it was impertinent, useless,
and ridiculous. The fiscal gave this as an instance of the contempt of
the count for the censures under which he pretended that he had fallen,
as the principal instigator of the first revolt. Some other expressions
were construed into a sign of his hatred of the Inquisition.

It is certain that the count would not have escaped the vengeance of the
Inquisitors, in his quality of viceroy. When he quitted his office they
were fully occupied with other trials, and his affair was too
unimportant, and too old, to attract the attention of their successors.
The opinion of the count on the edict of grace was very just. This
_grace_ was not accorded until the inquisitors had celebrated a solemn
_auto-da-fé_ in which seventy-nine inhabitants of the town were
_relaxed_, and a much greater number of honourable persons condemned to
infamy, on pretence of publicly absolving them from censure; besides
that, those already in prison were excluded from the pardon.

After the executions of the chief justice, the Duke de Villahermosa,
and the Count d'Aranda, the king granted a general pardon on the 24th
December, 1592, with the exception of many individuals who had excited
and directed the sedition. This edict saved the lives of several
thousand Aragonese; palliating circumstances afterwards caused the
capital punishment to be remitted to all those who were excepted in the
general pardon.

The Baron de Barboles, Don Diego Fernandez de Heredia, brother and
presumptive heir to the Count de Fuentes, a grandee of Spain, was to
have been arrested by the Inquisition; but he was taken by order of
Vargas, claimed his privilege, and was taken to the prison of the
_Manifestados_, and on the 9th of October, 1592, had his head struck off
at the back of the neck as guilty of treason. He had made several
depositions before the Senator Lanz, and all that concerned Antonio
Perez was communicated to the inquisitors; he had already been examined
twice on that subject as a witness of the fiscal, and deposed to a great
number of facts which proved that he had excited the people, and kept up
the rebellion with the Count d'Aranda and others, and that he was
engaged in the plan to assassinate the Marquis d'Almenara, but that he
repented and revoked the orders he had given concerning it; nevertheless
some witnesses deposed that they had seen him in the road encouraging
the assassins. The Baron de Barboles also declared that he was the
principal author of the complaint brought by Antonio Perez before the
ordinary judge of Saragossa, against the secretary, major-domo, and
squire of the Marquis d'Almenara and several other persons, whom he
accused of having, by order of the marquis, suborned several witnesses
in 1591, to depose against Perez several facts required by the
inquisitors; that he had directed and instigated the efforts which were
made to find witnesses to confirm by their declarations the articles of
their complaint, and that he had deposed as from himself what he had
only heard from the agent of Perez.

Another inquest against Don Diego existed in the Inquisition, in which
he was accused of having made use of necromancy to discover treasures,
and sending horses to France. The Judge Torralba also deposed that he
had heard it said that Don Diego had been arrested by the Inquisition of
Valencia for having concealed a Moresco from an alguazil; he added that
it was not surprising that Don Diego was an enemy to the holy office,
because though the blood of his ancestors had not been sullied by that
of the Jews, his children had not that advantage, since his wife, the
Baroness d'Alcaraz, was of Jewish origin.

Philip II. wished to show the Count de Fuentes that though he punished
the guilty he knew how to reward a faithful subject, and made him
governor of the Low Countries. The Count hated Perez, whom he considered
as the cause of the misfortunes of de Barboles; it is not therefore
surprising that he took an active part in the conspiracy formed in
London against his life. This attempt did not succeed, and two of the
conspirators were put to death at the requisition of the English fiscal,
who had been commanded by Queen Elizabeth to prosecute the authors of
the plot.

The Baron de Purroy, Don Juan de Luna, a member for the nobility in the
deputation of the kingdom, was executed on the same day with Barboles;
the charges against him were very similar to the preceding. His offences
against the Inquisition were, that he was the cause of the resolution
taken in the committee of the deputation to defend the independence of
the prison of the _Manifestados_ against the pretensions of the
inquisitors; to confine their jurisdiction to the crime of heresy, and
to prevent them from taking cognizance of offences in the revolt and
similar crimes, which they undertook, because they said that some of the
persons concerned in it opposed the exercise of their office; lastly,
Don Juan was implicated in the subornation of witnesses in the affair of
Perez.

The Baron de Biescas, Don Martin de la Nuza, Lord of Sallen and the
towns of the valley of Tena, fled to France, but afterwards returned to
Spain; he was arrested in Tudela of Navarre, and was beheaded. The trial
before the Inquisition states, that besides the crimes committed like
the other rebels, the Baron de Biescas was guilty of having received
Antonio Perez into his house, and concealed him until he could fly to
France; and of entering into the Spanish territory at several points
with a corps of Bearnese troops, and declaring that he would not lay
down his arms until he had driven the Castilian army out of Aragon, and
revenged the death of his relation the chief justice.

The senator Lanz likewise condemned to death many other noble gentlemen,
besides labourers and artisans. Many who fled to France or Geneva were
condemned to death: these individuals remained in exile till after the
death of Philip II. His successor, Philip III., permitted them to return
to their country, and annulled all the articles in the sentences
pronounced against those who had been executed, which were contrary to
the interests of their families; _the king declaring that none of them
were guilty towards the state: and that he acknowledged that each person
had considered himself bound to defend the rights of his country_.

The cruelty of the inquisitors was not satiated by these executions.
They represented to the Supreme Council that they did not dare to demand
the prisoners of the General Vargas, although it would be much better if
they were tried by the Inquisition: but that nevertheless they thought
it would be useful if the Baron de Barboles was given up to them, since
his execution, in that case, would strike more terror into the guilty.
The council rejected the request of the inquisitors; they, however,
retained in their prisons many illustrious persons, among whom were some
women.

When the inquisitors published the edict of grace, more than five
hundred persons presented themselves to demand absolution. Each person
confessed the crime for which they were to be absolved; some of these
are rather ludicrous.

Mary Ramirez declares, that on seeing Antonio Perez taken to prison, she
exclaimed--_Poor wretch! after such long imprisonments, they have not
yet found him an heretic._

Christoval de Heredia _confesses that he has often wished that Perez
might get out of his troubles_.

Donna Geronima d'Arteaga, _that she raised a little subscription for
Antonio Perez, during his imprisonment, because he could not enjoy his
own property_.

Louis de Anton, _that he was the prosecutor of Perez, and that he did
several things to serve him_.

Martina de Alastuey, _that she prepared the food of Perez, in her house,
and that her son Antonio Añoz, who was his servant, carried it to him in
the prison_.

Don Louis de Gurrea _demands absolution only to reassure his conscience,
although it does not reproach him_!

Don Michael de Sese also claims it, _to appease the same scruples_!

Doctor Murillo, _that he visited Perez in the prison when he was ill_.

The following are instances of a spirit quite contrary to the preceding
examples:--

The Doctor Don Gregory de Andia, vicar of the parish of St. Paul, being
informed that a priest had refused absolution to more than two hundred
persons, because they had not been absolved from the censures incurred
by the bull of St. Pius V., could not help saying, _That priest is an
ignorant fellow. Let all those people come to me, and also all those who
revolted: I would absolve them with pleasure of all their sins, and feel
no fear for such an action._ The vicar was arrested for his boldness,
and taken to the secret prisons. Many persons shared his fate, among
whom were,--

Juan de Cerio, a familiar of the holy office, who, on hearing it
remarked that the Aragonese ought not to endure the Inquisition any
longer, replied: "As for me, they may burn the house, the papers, the
prisons, and even the inquisitors: I shall have nothing to say against
it."

A brother of the Trinity, who, on hearing that the Castilians wished to
reduce the Aragonese, and destroy their privileges, said, "_If Jesus
Christ was a Castilian, I would not believe in him._"

Michael Urgel, procurator of the royal audience, confessed that after he
had heard the declaration of the four counsellors, that it was an
infringement of the _Fueros_ to transfer Perez to the Inquisition, he
said: "We must treat the letters of the inquisitors with contempt, and
if the king supports them, he is a tyrant: let us get rid of him and
elect a native king of Aragon, since we have a right to do so."

These are a few instances of the pretended sins for which absolution was
demanded, and for which many persons were arrested, but they are
sufficient to shew the spirit of the people and of the inquisitors.

Donna Juana de Coello, the wife of Perez, and her young children, were
also victims to the events at Saragossa. They had been detained in the
Castle of Pinto, two leagues from Madrid, since the month of April,
1590, where that heroine had favoured the escape of her husband at the
expense of her own liberty. After his second flight from Saragossa,
their imprisonment became still more rigorous. It is proved by the trial
of Perez, that he often said when in prison, that nothing should induce
him to renounce the privileges of the prison of the kingdom, except the
assurance that his wife and children enjoyed their liberty; but that he
was certain if he gave himself up to the inquisitors he should be sent
to Madrid and executed.

This information induced the inquisitors at the end of September, 1591,
to request that Donna Juana and her children might be more strictly
imprisoned, since he would hear of it, and it might induce him to return
to the prison of the kingdom. This idea was inspired by the perfidious
Basante. In fact, Perez was informed that his wife and children were
removed to a sort of bastion or tower of the castle, which was much more
inconvenient than the former prison; however, Donna Juana requested her
husband to think only of his own safety, since the news of his flight
had been sufficient to keep her and her children in good health. Donna
Juana remained in prison during the life of Philip II., who on his death
advised his successor to set her and her family at liberty.

All the events above-mentioned were occasioned by the trial of Antonio
Perez, but the original cause was the extreme attachment of the
Aragonese to a privilege which Philip II. wished to destroy, because it
set bounds to his despotism; they had not forgotten that this prince
made use of the Inquisition, in his political schemes, which they had
experienced in some attempts made twenty years before.

The insurrection offered to Philip the opportunity he had so long
desired, of making himself absolute monarch of Aragon, by the abolition
of the intermediate office of the chief justice, and of all the _Fueros_
of the primitive constitution, which bounded the extent of his power.
Another cause of the revolt was, the policy which disgraced and kept in
a perpetual state of uneasiness, all the first families of the kingdom,
a great number of the second order, and even of the people. It was well
known that these misfortunes were the consequence of the system of the
inquisitors, who were always eager to disgrace and humiliate those who
did not debase themselves before the lowest among them, and to sacrifice
every man who did not acknowledge their tribunal to be the most holy of
institutions, and the only bulwark of faith, which they still declare
and publish through their partisans, though in their hearts they are
convinced of the contrary.




CHAPTER XXXVII.

OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN THE INQUISITION DURING THE REIGN OF PHILIP
III.


Philip II. died on the 13th of September, 1598, and left the crown to
his son, Philip III., whose education had made him more worthy of
wearing the habit of St. Dominic, than of governing a kingdom: the
Inquisition was then as formidable and powerful as before the
constitutions of 1561. As the new king wished to have an
inquisitor-general of his own choice, he took advantage of a bull,
commanding all bishops to reside in their dioceses, to invite Don Pedro
Porto-Carrero to retire to his see of Cuença, and appointed as his
successor, in 1599, Don Ferdinand Niño de Guevara, cardinal of the Roman
Church, and afterwards archbishop of Seville. This prelate retired to
his diocese in 1602, in consequence of an order from the king; his
successor was Don Juan de Zuñiga, bishop of Carthagena, who died in the
same year. Juan Baptiste de Acebedo, bishop of Valladolid, took his
place, and died in it in 1607, with the title of Patriarch of the
Indies. He was succeeded by Don Bernardo de Sandoval Roxas, cardinal
archbishop of Toledo, brother to the Duke de Lerma. At his death Don
Fray Louis Aliaga, a Dominican confessor to the king, was appointed
inquisitor-general; Philip IV., on his accession, deprived him of his
office.

Philip III., in 1607, assembled the Cortes of the kingdom at Madrid,
where they remained for more than a year. The members represented to the
king, that in 1579 and 1586, they had required a reform of the abuses
committed in the tribunal of the Inquisition, to put an end to the
right, which the inquisitors had usurped, of taking cognizance of crimes
not relating to heresy; that Philip II. had promised to do this, but
died before he could perform it, and that in consequence they renewed
the request.

Philip replied, that he would take proper measures to satisfy the
Cortes. In 1611, when he convoked the new Cortes, they made the same
request and received the same answer, but nothing was attempted, and the
inquisitors daily became more insolent, and filled their prisons with
victims.

The archbishop of Valencia, Don Juan de Ribera, represented to Philip
III., that it was impossible to convert the Morescoes of Valencia, and
that their skill in agriculture and the arts gave just cause of
apprehension, that they might some day disturb the public tranquillity,
with the assistance of the Moors of Algiers, and the other African
cities, with whom they held constant intercourse; he therefore advised
his majesty to banish them from the kingdom.

The gentlemen whose vassals the Morescoes were, complained of the
immense loss it would occasion, if their estates were thus depopulated;
they also declared that the statement of the archbishop was shamefully
exaggerated, since the holy office had never failed to punish every
Moresco who returned to his heresy.

The king summoned his council, and after many discussions, it was
resolved to send the Morescoes out of the kingdom of Valencia, on the
11th of September, 1609, and all the others in the following year.

This emigration cost Spain a million of useful and industrious
inhabitants, who all went to Africa: they were invited by Henry IV. to
colonise the _Landes_ in Gascony on condition that they professed the
catholic religion, but they feared that they should be persecuted in the
same manner, at some future period. The inquisitors principally
contributed to induce Philip III. to take this resolution, and they
noted all who had condemned the measure, as suspected of heresy: among
these was the Duke of Ossuna, whose process they began. This trial had
no particular result, because the charges did not offer any heretical
propositions, though some were qualified as audacious, scandalous, and
offensive to pious ears. The duke was appointed Viceroy of Naples, but
was deprived of the office some years after, and imprisoned by the king.
The inquisitors seized this opportunity to renew their charges, but they
were disappointed; the duke died in prison before the definitive
sentence was pronounced.

On the 7th and 8th of November 1610, the Inquisition of Logroño
celebrated an _auto-da-fé_, in which six persons were burnt, with five
effigies, twenty-one individuals were reconciled, and twenty condemned
to different penances; among these were eighteen sorcerers[73].

A sufficient number of the trials of the Inquisition, during the reign
of Philip III., have already been cited; therefore, that of Don Antonio
Manriques, Count de Morata, need only be mentioned: in 1603 he abjured
some heretical propositions without being disgraced by an _auto-da-fé_.




CHAPTER XXXVIII.

OF THE TRIALS AND AUTOS-DA-FE DURING THE REIGN OF PHILIP IV.


Philip IV. ascended the throne on the 31st of March, 1621; and during
the thirty-four years that he reigned, the following persons filled the
office of inquisitor-general: Don Andres Pacheco, in 1621; Cardinal Don
Antonio de Zapata Mendoza, in 1626; in 1632, Don Fray Antonio de
Sotomayor; and in 1643, Don Diego de Arce y Reinoso. Don Diego died on
the same day as the king.

Many circumstances had shewn the necessity of a reform in the
Inquisition, but the indolence of Philip IV. prevented him from
attempting it; on the contrary, he permitted the inquisitors to take
cognizance of the offence of exporting copper money, and to dispose of a
fourth of what fell into their hands.

On the 21st of June, 1621, the Inquisition celebrated the accession of
Philip IV. by the _auto-da-fé_ of Maria de la Conception, a _Beata_, and
famous hypocrite of the preceding reign, who had deceived many persons
by her feigned revelations and pretended sanctity. She appeared in the
_auto-da-fé_ gagged, with the _san-benito_, and the mitre.

On the 30th of November, 1630, another _auto-da-fé_ was held at Seville,
when six persons were burnt in effigy, and eight in person; fifty were
reconciled, and six absolved _ad cautelam_.

On the 21st of December, 1627, a general _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated at
Cordova, composed of eighty-one condemned persons; fifty-eight were
reconciled, among whom were three sorcerers.

In 1532, a grand general _auto-da-fé_ was held at Madrid, at which the
king and all the royal family attended. Seven persons were burnt, with
four effigies, and forty-two reconciled; they were almost all
Portuguese, or of Portuguese parents. The following circumstance has
rendered this _auto-da-fé_ very famous. Miguel Rodriguez, and Isabella
Martinez Albarez, his wife, were the proprietors of a house used by the
condemned as a synagogue. They were accused of having struck the image
of Jesus Christ with a whip, and of having crucified and insulted it in
various ways, as if to revenge themselves upon it for all the evils
which the Christians made them suffer. The holy office caused this house
to be razed to the ground, and an inscription was placed on the spot. A
monastery for the Capuchins was afterwards built on the site, and named
the Convent of Patience, in allusion to the outrages which our Saviour
allowed them to commit on his image: a report was then spread that the
image spoke to the Jews three times, and that they did not hesitate to
burn it. Solemn masses were performed at Madrid and other cities in the
kingdom, to expiate the sacrilege which had been committed.

On the 22nd of June, 1636, another general _auto-da-fé_ was held at
Valladolid, composed of twenty-eight persons. The punishment inflicted
on the Jews seems entirely novel: one hand was nailed to a wooden cross,
and in that state they were obliged to hear read the report of their
trial, and the sentence which condemned them to perpetual imprisonment
for having insulted our Saviour and the Virgin by their blasphemies. A
_Beata_ also appeared in this _auto-da-fé_; she was known by the name of
_Lorenza_: her crimes were the same as those of the other women of her
class; she pretended that she had seen apparitions of the Devil, Jesus
Christ, and the Virgin Mary, and an infinity of revelations, but she
was, in fact, nothing but a libertine woman.

Another _Beata_, who was more celebrated, appeared before the tribunal
of Valladolid, she was called _Louisa de l'Ascension_. M. Lavellée has
spoken of the fragments of the cross which had belonged to this woman,
in his history of the Inquisition, published at Paris in 1809. This
author (_who has only added to the errors of the writers of the two last
centuries_) says, that this cross was one of those which the inquisitors
suspended round the necks of the condemned. This practice was never
known in the Inquisition; the cross belonged to the _Beata_. M. Lavellée
has not explained the inscription correctly. I have seen a cross entire;
on the upper part are the letters I. N. R. I., which are the initials of
_Jesus Nazarenius Rex Judæorum_; on the mounting and on the arm, and
towards the foot, are these words--_Jesus. La Très Sainte Marie, conçue
sans péché originel. Soeur Louise de l'Ascension, esclave indigne de
mon très doux Jesus. Jesus. Maria santissima concibida sin pecado
original. Indigna soror Luisa de la Ascencion, esclava de dulcisimo
Jesus_. This _Beata_ gave similar crosses to those who, deceived by her
reputation for sanctity, came to demand her prayers. This cross being
once given, the wish to possess them became so general, that they were
engraved and became the occasion and the subject of a trial: the
Inquisition caused all that could be found to be remitted to them, and
thus several were to be seen at Madrid and Valladolid.

Louisa de l'Ascension must not be confounded with the hypocrites and
false devotees, such as Mary de la Conception, Lorenza de Simancas,
Magdalena de la Croix, and some others, who were vicious women. The
constant virtue of Louisa was acknowledged by the nuns of St. Clara de
Carrion, and by the inhabitants of that place and of the country.

On the 23rd of January, 1639, there was a general _auto-da-fé_ at Lima
in Peru, in which seventy-two persons appeared. Eleven persons were
burnt, and one effigy. In this _auto-da-fé_ were seen, on elevated
seats, six persons who had been accused by false witnesses.

The cities of Toledo, Cuença, Grenada, and Seville, also celebrated
_autos-da-fé_ in 1651, 1654, and 1660, when many persons were burnt.

Besides the public _autos-da-fé_ and trials mentioned in the Chapters
24, 25, and 26, several others worthy of notice took place in the reign
of Philip IV. Don Rodrigo Calderona, Marquis de Siete Inglesias,
secretary to Philip III., was prosecuted by the Inquisition, which had
not time to condemn him, because he was beheaded at Madrid in 1621,
according to the sentence of the royal judges. The inquisitors accused
him of having bewitched the king, in order to gain his favour. This
charge was also brought against him by the fiscal of the civil tribunal
of Madrid, but the judges paid no attention to it. It is certain that
Calderona was the victim of a court intrigue, and the Count Duke de
Olivares did an irreparable injury to his memory, in coldly witnessing
the execution of a man, who, during his favour, had rendered him great
services.

Don Fray Louis Aliaga, archimandrite of Sicily, confessor to Philip
III., and inquisitor-general, resigned his place by the command of
Philip IV.; and a short time after Cardinal Zapata had succeeded him, he
was prosecuted by the Inquisition of Madrid, for some propositions
suspected of Lutheranism and materialism. Aliaga died in 1626, when his
trial had not advanced further than the preparatory instruction.

In the year 1645, the Inquisition of Madrid prosecuted Don Gaspard de
Guzman, Count Duke de Olivares, favourite and prime-minister to Philip
IV. This took place under the ministry of the inquisitor-general, Don
Diego de Arce, on whom he had bestowed the bishoprics of Tui, Avila, and
Placencia. Don Diego did not forget his benefactor, and it was to his
prudence that the duke owed the favourable issue of an affair, which, in
other hands, might have had the most fatal result.

This minister was disgraced in 1643: a short time after, memorials were
presented to the king, accusing him of the most heinous crimes. The
tribunal, where every false report was received, also seized this
opportunity to prosecute him; he was denounced to the Inquisition as a
believer in judicial astrology; and as a proof that he was an enemy to
the church, it was asserted that he attempted to poison Urban VIII.; the
apothecary at Florence, who prepared the poison, and the Italian monk,
who was to administer it, were mentioned; in fact, proofs were offered
of all the crimes he had committed. The inquisitors commenced the
preparatory instruction, but their proceedings were so dilatory, that
the Count Duke died before the order for his arrest could be issued.

The Jesuit, Count Juan Baptiste de Poza, occupied the Inquisitions of
Spain and Rome for some time with his writings, during the reign of
Philip IV., particularly from the year 1629 to 1636. I have spoken in
Chapter 15 of the memorial presented by the university of Salamanca
against the Jesuits, in order to prevent the imperial college of Madrid,
which was under the direction of these fathers, from being made an
university; Poza wrote several pamphlets in defence of the pretensions
of his order, which were all condemned by the Inquisition of Rome in
1632. The enemies of the Jesuits hoped that the Spanish Inquisition
would do the same, but the inquisitors were afraid of offending the
Count Duke de Olivares, whose confessor was a Jesuit. At this period,
Francis Roales, doctor of the university of Salamanca, almoner and
councillor of the king, professor of mathematics, and preceptor to the
Cardinal-infant Don Ferdinand, published a work which created a great
sensation. The author denounces the writings of Poza to the Catholic
Church in general, and to each of its members in particular, as
heretical and tainted with atheism, and also denounces all the Jesuits
who defended his doctrine.

Urban VIII. would have pronounced Poza to be an heretic, if he had not
feared to offend the Court of Madrid; he therefore contented himself
with depriving him of his professorship, and commanding that he should
be sent to a house of the Jesuits, in some small town in Castile, and
forbade him to preach, teach, or write. Although the Jesuits in their
fourth vow, promised to obey the Pope without restriction, and they
were, generally speaking, the most zealous supporters of his authority,
yet, in this instance, they refused to obey, because they were supported
by the Court of Madrid. At this time the work of Alphonso Vargas[74] was
published out of Spain; Vargas exposes the stratagems, the perfidious
politics, and the bad doctrine of the Jesuits. Their general alleged, as
an excuse for their disobedience, that they were forbidden to execute
the orders of his Holiness by the king of Spain: this was the state of
the affair when Olivares was disgraced. The works of Poza were then
prohibited in Spain, and he was condemned to abjure several heresies.

Juan Nicolas Diana, another Jesuit, known for the very relaxed morals
of his printed works, was prosecuted by the Inquisition of Sardinia for
some propositions contained in a sermon, and was condemned to recant.
The Jesuit published his defence, and went to Spain where he demanded to
be tried by the Supreme Council. The Council, after taking the opinions
of several qualifiers, annulled the sentence, and not only acquitted the
Jesuit, but made him a qualifier.

_Ali Arraez Ferrarés_, surnamed the _Renegado_, was tried by the
Inquisition of Sicily in this reign. He was a Moor of Tunis, and high in
the favour of the king of that country: having been taken prisoner to
Palermo, he was ransomed and sent back to Tunis. Some Christian slaves,
who were in that city, expressed their surprise that an apostate had
been ransomed instead of being sent to the dungeons of the Inquisition.
The tribunal, being informed of the opinion of these slaves, published
that they were ignorant that Ali Arraez Ferrarés had been a Christian,
and that he was surnamed the _Renegado_. Ali was taken a second time in
1624, and though no other proof of his guilt existed but the report
above-mentioned, he was taken to the prisons of the holy office. A great
number of Sicilians, Genoese, and others, who had known him at Tunis,
were examined; they all declared that he was called the _Renegado_, and
some added that they had heard him say that he had been a Christian. Ali
denied the fact, but the tribunal considered him as convicted, and
condemned him to be burnt. The Supreme Council decided that the proof
was not complete, annulled the sentence, and commanded that the prisoner
should be tortured, in order to obtain additional proofs, and that the
sentence should then be renewed. Ali still persisted in denying that he
had been a Christian, and found means to inform the king of Tunis of his
situation; the Moorish king received his letter at the moment when Fray
Bartholomew Ximenez, Fray Ferdinand de Reina, Fray Diego de la Torre,
and three other Carmelites, were brought in captive; they had been taken
in going to Rome. The king commanded them to write to the inquisitors
of Sicily to set Ali Arraez at liberty, and to accept his ransom, and,
in case they refused, to inform them that he would imprison and torture
all the Christian slaves in his power. The monks excused themselves by
alleging that they did not know the inquisitors, and the affair was
dropped. At this period the Supreme Council commanded that Ali should be
confined in a dungeon and ironed. In 1628, Ali found means to convey
another letter to the Moorish king, informing him that he was imprisoned
in a dark and fetid dungeon, with a Christian captain, and that they
were almost starved. When the king received the letter, the Spanish
monks were negotiating their ransom. He sent for them, and said, "Why do
they endeavour to make this renegado a Christian by their tortures? If
this Inquisition is not suppressed, or if the inquisitors do not send
the renegado immediately to the galleys with the other slaves, I will
burn all the Christians who are in my power: write, and tell them so."
The monks obeyed, and added, that if justice and religion required the
execution of the prisoner, they were ready to suffer martyrdom. The king
of Tunis afterwards accepted the ransom of the monks. After detaining
Ali for sixteen years, the inquisitors had no greater proof of his
crime, and yet they refused to exchange him for a Christian priest,
alleging that the relations of the priest ought to ransom him, and that
it would be taking an active part in the heresy and damnation of the
renegado to set him at liberty: it was represented that their refusal
might have the most fatal consequences to the Christian slaves at Tunis;
but this consideration did not affect them.

An affair, which created a great sensation, occupied the Supreme Council
at this time. A convent for Benedictine nuns had been founded in the
parish of St. Martin. The director and confessor, Fray Francis Garcia
was considered a learned and holy man. Donna Theresa de Sylva, whose
relation had founded the convent for her, was the abbess, though only
twenty-six years of age. The community was composed of thirty nuns, who
all appeared to be virtuous, and had voluntarily embraced the monastic
life. While the new convent enjoyed the highest reputation, the gestures
and words of one of the nuns indicated that she was in a supernatural
state: Fray Garcia exorcised her, and on the 8th of September she was
pronounced to be a demoniac. In a short time, the abbess and twenty-five
nuns were attacked in the same manner. Many consultations took place on
the condition of these women, between men of learning and virtue, who
believed that they were really _possessed_,--their confessor repeated
his exorcism every day, and even spent days and nights in the convent to
renew them. He at last brought the tabernacle of the holy sacrament into
the room where the nuns worked, and they said the prayers of forty
hours. This singular scene lasted for three years, when the Inquisition
of Toledo put a stop to it in 1631, by arresting the confessor, the
abbess, and some of the nuns. Fray Francis Garcia was denounced as an
_illuminati_, and it was said that he had corrupted the nuns, who
pretended to be possessed. The trial was terminated in 1633; the
confessor and the nuns were declared to be suspected of having fallen
into the heresy of the _Alumbrados_. They were condemned to several
penances, and sent to different convents; the abbess was exiled, and
deprived of the privilege of consulting for four, and of voting for
eight years: when this period had expired, she returned to her own
convent, and was commanded by her superiors to demand a revision of her
trial. The abbess obeyed, declaring at the same time, that she did it
solely for the honour of her nuns and those of the other houses of St.
Benedict. The enterprise was difficult, but the power of her relation,
the prothonotary of Aragon, and of the Count Duke de Olivares, overcame
every obstacle. In 1642 the Supreme Council acknowledged the innocence
of the nuns, but not of Fray Francis, became he had been so imprudent
as to hold a correspondence with the demons to satisfy his curiosity,
before he drove them from the nuns. Donna Theresa gives an account of
her own feelings when possessed, and says that she was in a state of
delirium, and did the most foolish things.

Don Jerome de Villanueva, prothonotary of Aragon, that is, the royal
secretary of state for that kingdom, had, in his youth, been the
secretary to the Inquisition. He was prosecuted by the tribunal on the
disgrace of the Count Duke de Olivares, as his creature and principal
confidant. Several heretical propositions were imputed to him, and he
was arrested in 1645, and condemned to abjure: this sentence was
pronounced on the 18th of June, 1647. When he was set at liberty to
accomplish his penance, he appealed to Pope Innocent X., complaining of
the injustice with which he had been treated in depriving him of the
means of defending himself, and protesting that he had only submitted to
the sentence, that he might bring his cause before an impartial
tribunal; he therefore demanded that his trial should be revised by
judges appointed by his Holiness. Don Pedro Navarro, an opulent
gentleman, went to Rome to negotiate the affair, out of friendship to
Villanueva; and although Philip requested through his ambassador that
Navarro should be compelled to leave Rome, his Holiness refused, and
would not allow him to be arrested. The Pope issued a brief of
commission to the bishops of Calahorra, Segovia, and Cuença, to revise
the trial, but Philip IV., in consequence of the insinuations of the
inquisitor-general, forbade them to accept the commission, because it
was contrary to the prerogatives of the crown. The Pope then commanded
that the process should be transferred to Rome; after some opposition he
was obeyed, and Villanueva was acquitted. The resistance and the
injustice witnessed by the Pope in this case induced him to expedite a
second brief in 1653, in which he declared that he had discovered great
irregularities in the trial of Villanueva, and charged the
inquisitor-general to observe that the laws were more strictly followed,
and the trials conducted with more justice, gravity and circumspection.

New contests soon arose between the Courts of Madrid and Rome, and the
Pope sent Francis Mancini as his nuncio to Madrid, to settle the
dispute, but he could not obtain an audience of the king, and in 1654
was obliged to apply in the name of his Holiness to the
inquisitor-general, who told him that the Pope had offended the king in
the affair above-mentioned; he asserted that the prosecution of
Villanueva had been properly conducted, and that the Pope had approved
it. If this assertion was true, the Pope must have expressed his
approbation before he took cognizance of the trial, for when it was
transferred to the tribunal of Rome, the injustice and defects were
discovered.




CHAPTER XXXIX.

THE INQUISITION DURING THE REIGN OF CHARLES II.


Charles II. succeeded his father on the 17th of September, 1665, when he
was only four years of age. The grand inquisitors, during his reign,
were, Cardinal Don Pascual d'Aragon, archbishop of Toledo; Father John
Everard de Nitardo, a German Jesuit; Don Diego de Sarmiento de
Valladarés, bishop of Oviedo and Placentia; Don Juan Thomas Rocaberti,
archbishop of Valencia; Cardinal Don Alphonso Fernandez de Cordova y
Aguilar; and Don Balthazar de Mendoza-Sandoval, bishop of Segovia.

The infancy of Charles II., the ambition of his brother Don John of
Austria, the imperious temper of the queen-mother, Maria Anne of
Austria, and the machiavelism of the Jesuit Nitardo, gave occasion for
a number of scandalous events during this reign. The weakness of the
government was the principal cause of the insolent conduct of the
inquisitors.

When Charles II. married Maria Louisa de Bourbon in 1680, the taste of
the nation was so depraved, that a grand _auto-da-fé_, composed of a
hundred and eighteen victims, was considered as a proper and flattering
homage to the new queen; nineteen persons were burnt, with thirty-four
effigies. None of the cases were remarkable, and may therefore be passed
over in silence, together with another _auto-da-fé_ which was celebrated
in the church of the convent of the nuns of St. Dominic. Some manuscript
notes indicate that some of the condemned avoided the fate which awaited
them, by bribing the inferior officers of the tribunal; I am persuaded
that this assertion is incorrect, because the subalterns had very little
influence after the criminals were arrested.

The most celebrated trial of the Inquisition in this reign is that of
Fray Froilan Diaz, bishop elect of Avila, and confessor to the king. The
habitual weakness of Charles II., and the failure of an heir, created a
suspicion that he was _bewitched_. The Cardinal Portocarrero and the
inquisitor-general Rocaberti believed in sorcery, and after persuading
the king that he was bewitched, they entreated him to suffer himself to
be exorcised according to the formulary of the church. Charles
consented, and was exorcised by his confessor. The novelty of this
proceeding occasioned many remarks, and Froilan was informed that
another monk was at that time exorcising a nun at Cangas de Tineo, in
order to free her from the demons, which, she said, tormented her.
Froilan and the inquisitor-general charged the exorcist of the
_demoniac_ to command the demon, by the formula of the ritual, to
declare if Charles II. was bewitched or not, and if he replied in the
affirmative, to make him reveal the nature of the sorcery; if it was
permanent; if it was attached to anything that the king had eaten or
drank, to images or other objects; in what place it might be found; and
lastly, if there were any natural means of preventing its effects: the
confessor added several other questions, and desired the exorcist to
urge them with all the zeal which the interest of the king and the state
required.

The monk at first refused to question the demon, because it is forbidden
by the church; but on being assured by the inquisitor-general that it
would not be sinful in the present circumstances, he faithfully
performed all that had been requested of him. The demon declared by the
mouth of the demoniac, that a spell had been put upon the king by a
person who was named. According to the private notes of that time, the
criminal was an agent of the Court of Vienna; but Cardinal Portocarrero
and the confessor Diaz were the partisans of France for the succession
of Spain.

Diaz was very much alarmed at this information, and redoubled his
conjurations until he learned some method of destroying the enchantment.
Before this operation was concluded, Rocaberti died, and was succeeded
by Don Balthazar de Mendoza, who was of the Austrian party; he signified
to the king that all that had taken place had arisen from the imprudent
zeal of his confessor, and that he must be removed. The king followed
his advice, and made Froilan Bishop of Avila; but the new
inquisitor-general, not contented with preventing the expedition of the
bulls, prosecuted him for having made use of demons to discover hidden
things.

Mendoza directed this attack in concert with Torres Palmosa, the king's
confessor, who was as eager for the ruin of Froilan Diaz as himself;
this man communicated to Mendoza the letters which Diaz had received
from Cangas, which were found among his papers.

Mendoza examined witnesses, and after combining their declarations with
the contents of the letters, he gave them to five qualifiers who were
devoted to him, and made Don Juan Arcemendi, a counsellor of the
Inquisition, and Don Dominic de la Cantolla, official of the
secretaryship of the Supreme Council, their president and secretary.
However, the five qualifiers declared that the trial offered no fact or
proposition worthy of theological censure.

This decision was very displeasing to Mendoza; but relying on his
influence in the council, he proposed that Diaz should be arrested: the
councillors refused, because the measure was unjust, and contrary to the
laws of the holy office, according to the decision of the five
qualifiers. This resistance irritated the inquisitor-general, who caused
the decree to be drawn up, signed it, and sent it to the council, with
an order to register it with the ordinary forms. The councillors replied
that they could not perform a ceremony which they considered illegal,
because the resolution had not been adopted by a majority of votes.

During these transactions, Diaz made his escape to Rome: Mendoza, who
could depend upon the king's confessor, induced him to persuade the king
that this was an offence against the rights of the crown, and obtained a
letter from him to the Duke de Uzeda, his ambassador at Rome, commanding
him to seize the person of Diaz, and send him under an escort to
Carthagena.

The anonymous author of Anecdotes of the Court of Rome says, that Diaz
went thither to show to the Pope the will of Charles II., by which
Philip de Bourbon was called to the throne of Spain; and that his return
as a prisoner was occasioned by a court intrigue; but there is no
evidence to prove this assertion. The inquisitor-general sent Froilan
Diaz to the prison of the Inquisition of Murcia, and commanded the
inquisitors to begin his trial. They appointed as qualifiers nine of the
most learned theologians of the diocese, who unanimously gave the same
answer as those of the Supreme Council: the inquisitors consequently
declared that there was no cause for the arrest. The inquisitor-general
then caused Diaz to be transferred to Madrid. Mendoza afterwards charged
the fiscal of the Inquisition to accuse him as a dogmatizing
arch-heretic, for having said that an intercourse with the demon might
be permitted, in order to learn the art of curing the sick.

Charles II. died about this time, and Philip was at first too much
engaged with the war against the Archduke Charles of Austria, to
discover the intrigues and artifices of Mendoza. He at last submitted
the affair to the Council of Castile, on the 24th of December, 1703,
which decided that the arrest of Diaz was contrary to the common laws,
and those of the holy office. The Supreme Council then decreed that Diaz
should be set at liberty and acquitted.

It must be observed, that the demon affirmed that God had permitted a
spell to be put upon the king, and that it could not be taken off,
because the holy sacrament was in the church without lamps or wax
candles, the communities of monks dying of hunger, and other reasons of
the same nature. Two other demons who were interrogated, only agreed in
declaring the necessity of favouring the churches, convents, and
communities of Dominican monks; perhaps because the inquisitor-generals
Rocaberti and Diaz were of that order.

This prince convoked the _grand junta_, composed of two councillors of
state, two members of each of the Councils of Castile, Aragon, Italy,
the Indies, the military orders and the finances, and one of the king's
secretaries. The royal secretary informed the junta that the disputes
between the inquisitors and the civil judges had caused so much
disturbance, that the king had resolved to commission the assembly to
propose a plain and fixed rule, to secure to the Inquisition the respect
due to it, and to prevent the inquisitors from undertaking trials
foreign to the jurisdiction of the holy office. The king commanded the
six councils to remit to the junta all the papers necessary for the
examination of the affair.

On the 21st of May, 1696, the grand junta made a report, stating that it
appeared from the papers which had been examined, that the greatest
disorder had long existed in the different jurisdictions, because the
inquisitors had arbitrarily extended their power, so that the common
tribunals had scarcely anything to do; that they punished the slightest
offence against themselves or their domestics with the greatest
severity, as if it was a crime against religion; that not content with
exempting their officers from taxes, they gave their houses the
privileges of an asylum, so that a criminal could not be taken from
them, even by a judicial order; and if the public authorities exercised
their powers, they dared to complain of it as a sacrilegious violation
of the church; that in their official letters, and in the conduct of
their affairs, they showed an intention of weakening the respect of the
people towards the royal judges, and even to make the authority of
superior magistrates contemptible; and that they affected a certain
independent manner of thinking on the subjects of administration and
public economy, which made them forgetful of the rights of the crown.

The junta then stated that these abuses had caused complaints from the
subjects, division among the ministers, discouragement to the tribunals,
and much trouble to his majesty in settling their differences. That this
conduct had appeared so intolerable, even in the beginning, that the
powers of the Inquisition had been suspended for ten years by Charles
V., until it was restored by Philip II., in the absence of his father,
with some restrictions, which had not been well observed; that the
extreme moderation with which the inquisitors had been treated was the
cause of their boldness.

The junta proposed for the reformation of the holy office; 1st. That the
Inquisition should not make use of censures in civil affairs. 2nd. That
in case they employed them, the royal tribunals should be charged to
oppose them by the means in their power. 3rd. That the privileges of the
inquisitorial jurisdiction should be limited, in respect to the
ministers and familiars of the Inquisition, and the relations of the
inquisitors. 4th. That measures should be adopted to ensure the
immediate settlement of affairs relating to competence and mutual
pretensions.

The Count de Frigiliana, councillor of state, added that the inquisitors
ought to be compelled to give an account of the revenues of the holy
office. These observations, and the propositions of the junta, had no
effect; for the inquisitor-general Rocaberti, and Froilan Diaz,
succeeded in changing the favourable inclinations of the king.




CHAPTER XL.

OF THE INQUISITION IN THE REIGN OF PHILIP V.


Philip V. succeeded his uncle Charles II. on the 1st of November, 1700;
he died on the 9th of July, 1746. The grand-inquisitors, during this
period, were, Don Balthazar Mendoza y Sandoval; Don Vidal Marin, Bishop
of Ceuta; Don Antonio Ibañez de la Riba-Herrera, Archbishop of
Saragossa; Cardinal Don Francis Judice; Don Joseph de Molinos; Don Diego
de Astorga Cespedes, Bishop of Barcelona; Don Juan de Camargo, Bishop of
Pampeluna; Don Andres de Orbe Larreategui, Archbishop of Valencia; Don
Manuel-Isidore Manrique de Lara, Archbishop of Santiago; and Don Francis
Perez de Prado Cuesta, Bishop of Teruel, who was still in office at the
death of Philip V.

The court had always been so favourable to the Inquisition, that the
inquisitors thought that a solemn _auto-da-fé_ in celebration of his
accession would be agreeable to the king. It took place in 1701, but
Philip refused to be present at this barbarous scene. He however
protected the tribunal of the holy office, according to the advice of
his grandfather, Louis XIV., who told him, that he must support the
Inquisition as the surest means of maintaining the tranquillity of his
kingdom. This system acquired fresh importance in his eyes when Don
Vidal Marin, the inquisitor-general, published an edict excommunicating
all those who did not denounce the persons who had been heard to say,
that they thought themselves permitted to violate the oath of fidelity
to Philip V. This edict gave occasion for several trials, but none of
them were followed by a definitive sentence.

Judaism was nearly extirpated during the reign of Philip V.; it had been
secretly propagated for the second time in a remarkable manner, after
the reunion of Portugal to Spain. A yearly _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated
by all the tribunals of the Inquisition, during the reign of this
prince; some of them held two, and three were performed at Seville and
Grenada. Thus, without including those of America, Sardinia and Sicily,
seven hundred and eighty-two _autos-da-fé_ took place at Madrid,
Barcelona, the Canaries, Cordova, Cuença, Grenada, Jaen, Llerena,
Logroño, Majorca, Murcia, Santiago, Seville, Toledo, Valencia,
Valladolid and Saragossa.

In fifty-four of these ceremonies seventy-four persons were burnt, with
sixty-three effigies, and eight-hundred and eighty-one condemned to
penances. From this statement we may calculate, that during the
forty-six years of the reign of Philip V. fourteen thousand and
sixty-six individuals were condemned by the Inquisition to different
punishments.

It has been a common opinion, that the Inquisition began to be less
severe towards heretics, when the princes of the house of Bourbon
ascended the throne of Spain; but other causes seem to have decreased
the number of its victims, which will be considered in the following
chapters.

Among the pretended sorcerers condemned by the Inquisition was Juan
Perez de Espejo, who was punished at Madrid in 1743, as a blasphemous
hypocrite and a sorcerer. This person, after taking the name of _Juan de
St. Esprit_, is said to have been the founder of the _Congregation of
Hospitaliers_ or of the _Divine Shepherd_, which still exists. He was
condemned to receive two hundred stripes, and to be imprisoned ten years
in a fortress.

A number of the disciples of _Molinos_ were also condemned. Don Joseph
Fernandez de Toro, Bishop of Oviedo, was condemned for this doctrine in
1721. The Inquisition of Logroño burnt Don Juan de Causados, a prebend
of Tudela, the most intimate friend and disciple of _Molinos_; he had
promulgated his mystic doctrines with great zeal and enthusiasm. His
nephew, Juan de Longas, maintained this doctrine after his death; he is
still known in Navarre, Rioxa, Burgos, and Soria, by the name of
_Brother John_. The inquisitors of Logroño condemned him, in 1729, to
receive two hundred stripes, and sent him for ten years to the galleys:
he was afterwards imprisoned for life. Unfortunately some monks of his
order had adopted his sentiments, and had communicated them to several
nuns of the Convents of Lerma and Corrella, which gave occasion to
several _autos-da-fé_.

Donna Agueda de Luna was the principal of these: she was born of noble
parents at Corella, in Navarre. In 1712 she entered the Carmelite
Convent at Lerma, with so great a reputation for virtue, that she was
looked upon as a saint. In 1713 she had already adopted the heresy of
Molinos; she passed twenty years in the convent, and her fame was
continually increased by the accounts of her ecstasies and miracles,
which were promulgated by Juan de Longas, the Prior de Lerma, the
provincial, and other monks of the first rank, who were all accomplices
in the imposture of Agueda, and interested in her reputation for
sanctity.

A convent was founded at the place of her birth, and she was made
prioress; in this character she continued her iniquitous course of life
without losing any of her reputation, which, on the contrary, became so
great, that the inhabitants of all the neighbouring countries repaired
to her to implore her intercession with God.

After having passed a life full of iniquity, concealed by an appearance
of sanctity, Agueda was denounced to the Inquisition of Logroño; she was
taken to the secret prison, where she died from the consequences of the
torture, before her trial was terminated. She confessed during the
question that her sanctity was an imposture; she appeared to repent in
her last moments, and received absolution. It was said in the
informations taken during the trial, that Agueda had made a compact with
the demon, and had sold her soul to him. She was also accused of
infanticide, and some bones were found in the spot where it was said
that her children were murdered and buried.

Fray Juan de la Vega, provincial of the barefooted Carmelites, was also
prosecuted as an accomplice of Agueda; he was her spiritual director,
and, according to the evidence in his trial, had participated in her
crimes, and seduced several other nuns. Several persons declared that
Fray Juan had likewise made a compact with the demon; but he denied the
fact, and resisted the severity of the torture, although he was advanced
in years. He only confessed that he had received the money for eleven
thousand eight hundred masses which had not been said. He was declared
to be suspected in the highest degree, and sent to the desert Convent of
Duruelo, where he died a short time after.

The provincial, and the secretary, and the two monks who had held those
offices in the three preceding years, were implicated in the charges,
arrested, tortured, and denied the facts; they were confined in the
convents of their order in Majorca, Bilboa, Valladolid, and Osma. The
annalist of the order confessed his crime, and appeared in the
_auto-da-fé_ with the _San-benito_. The other nuns who were found guilty
were dispersed in different convents.

The trial of Don Balthazar Mendoza-Sandoval, Bishop of Segovia and
inquisitor-general, was equally famous, though from a different cause.
The conduct of this bad prelate towards Froilan Diaz has been related in
the preceding chapter. When the Supreme Council refused to sanction the
enormous abuse of his powers which he meditated, Mendoza ordered the
arrest of three of the councillors who had been the most remarkable in
their opposition; he requested of the king, in a false representation,
the dismissal of Don Antonio Zambrana, Don Juan Arzemendi, and Don Juan
Miguelez, whom he sent loaded with chains to Santiago de Grenada, and
formed the bold design of depriving the council of the right of
intervention in the trials submitted to them, and the members of the
power of voting a definitive sentence.

This act of despotism roused the resolution of Philip V. On the 24th of
December he submitted the affair to the Council of Castile. On the 21st
of January, 1704, the council proposed that the Supreme Council should
be re-established in the possession of the privileges it had enjoyed
since the foundation of the Inquisition, and that the three members
should be restored to their office. The king took this advice, and
commanded Mendoza to give in his resignation and leave Madrid.

Mendoza complained to the Pope, who wrote to the king to remonstrate on
the manner of treating one of his sub-delegates. The king, however,
maintained his resolution with firmness, and Mendoza was obliged to
obey.

The king gave another proof of his firmness in defending the privileges
of the crown, in his conduct towards the Inquisitor-general Judice, in
the affair of Don Melchior Macanaz[75]. Philip, however, endured an
insult from the Inquisition, which it is surprising that he did not
avenge. He had complained of a decree which Cardinal Judice had signed
at Marli in 1714, prohibiting the works of Macanaz. The members of the
Supreme Council had the boldness to reply that his majesty might
_suppress_ the holy office if he thought proper, but _that, according to
the apostolic bulls, he could not prevent it from exercising its office
while it continued in existence_.

The Council of Castile, on the 3rd of November, 1714, gave the king
substantial reasons for the suppression of the holy office. The
ordinance for that purpose was prepared, and the blow would have been
struck, but for the intrigues of the Queen, Isabella Farnese; the Jesuit
Daubenton, her confessor, and Cardinal Alberoni, who made the faithful
and zealous conduct of Macanaz appear in a criminal light. They reminded
the king of the advice of Louis XIV., and obtained another decree
annulling the first. In this ordinance the king acknowledges that he had
paid too much attention to the evil advice of perfidious ministers, and
approves the prohibition of the works of Macanaz as favourable to the
rights of the crown, re-establishes the counsellors who had been
dismissed, and praises the conduct of Cardinal Judice.

The Inquisition prohibited the works of _Barclay_ and _Talon_ in the
same edict with those of Macanaz, because they defended the rights of
the crown against the pretensions of the Court of Rome, and Philip had
the weakness to sanction an act so prejudicial to his own authority. It
was during this reign that the works of Nicolas Belando and Don Joseph
Quiros were prohibited[76].

Among the trials I examined at Saragossa, was one very similar to that
of Corellas, but the criminals had not committed the crime of
infanticide, or made a compact with the demon.




CHAPTER XLI.

OF THE INQUISITION DURING THE REIGN OF FERDINAND VI.


Philip V. left his crown to Ferdinand VI., his eldest son by his first
wife, Gabriella of Savoy. This prince reigned from the 9th of July,
1746, to the 10th of August, 1759; he died without children. He was
succeeded by his brother, Charles III. of Naples, the son of Philip V.
and Isabella Farnese, his second wife. Don Francis Perez del Prado,
Bishop of Teruel, held the office of inquisitor-general at the accession
of Ferdinand. He was succeeded by Don Manuel Quintano Bonifaz,
Archbishop of Pharsala, who was still in office at the death of that
Prince.

The rise of good taste in literature in Spain, the restoration of which
was prepared under Philip V., was dated from the reign of Ferdinand VI.
On this circumstance is founded the opinion that the accession of the
Bourbons caused a change in the system of the Inquisition; yet these
princes never gave any new laws to the institution, or suppressed any of
the ancient code, and, consequently, did not prevent any of the numerous
_autos-da-fé_ which were celebrated in their reigns. But Philip
established at Madrid two Royal Academies for History and the Spanish
language, on the model of that of Paris, and favoured a friendly
intercourse between the _literati_ of the two nations.

The agreement made in 1737 with the Court of Rome, concerning the
contributions to be imposed on the clergy, and some other points of
discipline, had rendered appeals to the Pope more rare; and many
opinions were admitted to be reasonable, which had been long represented
as unfavourable to religion and piety, by the ignorance and superstition
of one side, and the malevolence of the other. The establishment of
weekly papers made the people acquainted with works they had never
before heard of, and informed them of resolutions of the Catholic
princes, concerning the clergy, which a short time before they would
have considered as an outrage against religion and its ministers. The
_Diario de los Literatos_ (Journal de Savans) also opened the eyes of
many persons, who, till then, had not been able to judge of books.

These circumstances, and some other causes, during the reign of Philip
V. prepared the way for the interesting revolution in Spanish literature
under Ferdinand VI. This change was followed by a great benefit to
mankind; the inquisitors, and even their inferior officers, began to
perceive that zeal for the purity of the Catholic religion is exposed to
the admission of erroneous opinions. The doctrine of Macanaz no longer
shocked the people, who heard with tranquillity all that had been
written on the appeal against violence (_fuerzas_), and without dreading
the anathemas fulminated every year by the Popes in the bull _in coena
dominum_.

The effect of this change in opinion was particularly conspicuous in the
reduction of the number of trials for Judaism and, consequently, in the
victims in the _autos-da-fé_. During the reign of Ferdinand, no general,
and not more than thirty-four private _autos-da-fé_ were celebrated; the
persons who appeared in them were condemned for blasphemy, bigamy, and
pretended sorcery. Ten persons only were relaxed, and one hundred and
seventy subjected to penances: those who were burnt had relapsed into
Judaism. The Jews had been so severely persecuted in the preceding
reigns, that scarcely any remained.

Jansenism and Freemasonry particularly occupied the Inquisition under
Ferdinand VI. The Jesuits called those persons Jansenists who did not
adopt the opinions of Molina, on grace and free-will: their adversaries
designated them as Pelagians. These parties reciprocally accused each
other of favouring heresy. But the faction of the Jesuits prevailed
during the reigns of Philip V. and his successor, because their
confessors were of that order.

Freemasonry was an object entirely new to the Inquisition. Clement XII.
had expedited on the 28th of April, 1738, the bull _in Eminenti_, in
which he excommunicates the freemasons. In 1740 Philip issued a royal
ordinance against them, and many were arrested and sent to the galleys.
The inquisitors took advantage of the example, and treated the members
of a lodge discovered at Madrid with great severity. The punishment of
death was decreed against freemasons, in 1739, by the Cardinal Vicar of
Rome, in the name of the high-priest of the God of peace and mercy!
Benedict XIV. renewed the bull of Clement, in 1751. Fray Joseph
Torrubia, examiner of books for the holy office, denounced the existence
of freemasons, and Ferdinand published an ordinance against them in the
same year, in which it was said, that all who did not conform to the
regulations contained in it, would be punished as state criminals guilty
of _high treason_. Charles III., then King of Naples, prohibited the
masonic assemblies on the same day. The following pages contain the
notice of a trial of this nature, which took place at Madrid, in 1757.

M. Tournon, a Frenchman, had been invited into Spain, and pensioned by
the government, in order to establish a manufactory of brass or copper
buckles, and to instruct Spanish workmen. On the 30th of April, 1757, he
was denounced to the holy office as suspected of heresy by one of his
pupils, who acted in obedience to the commands of his confessor.

The charges were: 1st. That M. Tournon had asked his pupils to become
freemasons, promising that the _Grand Orient_ of Paris should send a
commission to receive them into the order, if they should submit to the
trials he should propose, to ascertain their courage and firmness; and
that their titles of reception should be expedited from Paris. 2nd.
That some of these young workmen appeared inclined to comply, if M.
Tournon would inform them of the object of the institution. That in
order to satisfy them, he told them several extraordinary things, and
showed them a sort of picture on which were figured instruments of
architecture and astronomy. They thought that these representations
related to sorcery, and they were confirmed in the idea, on hearing the
imprecations which, according to M. Tournon, were to accompany the oath
of secrecy.

It appeared from the depositions of three witnesses that M. Tournon was
a freemason. He was arrested and imprisoned on the 20th of May. The
following conversation, which took place in the first audience of
_monition_, may be interesting to some readers. After asking his name,
birth-place, and his reason for coming to Spain, and making him swear to
speak the truth, the inquisitor proceeded:--

_Question._ Do you know or suppose why you have been arrested by the
holy office?

_Answer._ I suppose it is for having said that I was a freemason.

_Q._ Why do you suppose so?

_A._ Because I have informed my pupils that I was of that order, and I
fear that they have denounced me; for I have perceived lately that they
speak to me with an air of mystery, and their questions lead me to
believe that they think me an heretic.

_Q._ Did you tell them the truth?

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ You are then a freemason?

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ How long have you been so?

_A._ For twenty years.

_Q._ Have you attended the assemblies of freemasons?

_A._ Yes, at Paris.

_Q._ Have you attended them in Spain?

_A._ No; I do not know if there are any lodges in Spain.

_Q._ If there were, should you attend them?

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ Are you a Christian, a Roman Catholic?

_A._ Yes; I was baptized in the parish of St. Paul, at Paris.

_Q._ How, as a Christian, can you dare to attend masonic assemblies,
when you know, or ought to know, that they are contrary to religion?

_A._ I did not know that; I am ignorant of it at present, because I
never saw or heard anything there which was contrary to religion.

_Q._ How can you say that, when you know that freemasons profess
_indifference_ in matters of religion, which is contrary to the article
of faith, which teaches us that no man can be saved who does not profess
the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion?

_A._ The freemasons do not profess that _indifference_. But it is
_indifferent_ if the person received into the order be a Catholic or
not.

_Q._ Then the freemasons are an _anti-religious_ body?

_A._ That cannot be; for the object of the institution is not to combat
or deny the necessity or utility of any religion, but for the exercise
of charity towards the unfortunate of any sect, particularly if he is a
member of the society.

_Q._ One proof that _indifference_ is the religious character of
freemasons is, that they do not acknowledge the Holy Trinity, since they
only confess one God, whom they call the _Great Architect of the
Universe_, which agrees with the doctrine of the heretical philosophers,
who say that there is no true religion but _natural religion_, in which
the existence of God the Creator only is allowed, and the rest
considered as a human invention. And as M. Tournon has professed himself
to be of the Catholic religion, he is required by the respect he owes to
our Saviour Jesus Christ, true God and man, and to his blessed mother,
the Virgin Mary, our Lady, to declare the truth according to his oath;
because in that case, he will acquit his conscience, and it will be
allowable to treat him with that mercy and compassion which the holy
office always showed towards sinners who confess: and if, on the
contrary, he conceals anything, he will be punished with all the
severity of justice, according to the holy canons and the laws of the
kingdom?

_A._ The mystery of the Holy Trinity is neither maintained nor combated
in the masonic lodges: neither is the religious system of the natural
philosophers approved or rejected; God is designated as the Great
Architect of the Universe, according to the allegories of the freemasons
which relate to architecture. In order to fulfil my promise of speaking
truth, I must repeat, that in the masonic lodges nothing takes place
which concerns any religious system, and that the subjects treated of
are foreign to religion, under the allegories of architectural works.

_Q._ Do you believe as a Catholic, that it is a sin of superstition to
mingle holy and religious things with profane things?

_A._ I am not sufficiently acquainted with the particular things which
are prohibited as contrary to the purity of the Christian religion; but
I have believed till now, that those who confound the one with the
other, either by mistake, or a vain belief, are guilty of the sin of
superstition.

_Q._ Is it true that in the ceremonies which accompany the reception of
a mason, the crucified image of our Saviour, the corpse of a man, and a
skull, and other objects of a profane nature, are made use of?

_A._ The general statutes of freemasonry do not ordain these things: if
they are made use of, it must have arisen from a particular custom, or
from the arbitrary regulations of the members of the body, who are
commissioned to prepare for the reception of candidates; for each lodge
has particular customs and ceremonies.

_Q._ That is not the question; say if it true that these ceremonies are
observed in masonic lodges?

_A._ Yes, or no, according to the regulations of those who are charged
with the ceremonies of the initiation.

_Q._ Were they observed when you were initiated?

_A._ No.

_Q._ What oath is it necessary to take on being received a freemason?

_A._ We swear to observe secrecy.

_Q._ On what?

_A._ On things which it may be inconvenient to publish.

_Q._ Is this oath accompanied by execrations?

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ What are they?

_A._ We consent to suffer all the evils which can afflict the body and
soul if we violate the oath.

_Q._ Of what importance is this oath, since it is believed that such
formidable execrations may be used without indecency?

_A._ That of good order in the society.

_Q._ What passes in these lodges which it might be inconvenient to
publish?

_A._ Nothing, if it is looked upon without prejudice; but as people are
generally mistaken in this matter, it is necessary to avoid giving cause
for malicious interpretations; and this would take place if what passes
when the brothers assemble was made public.

_Q._ Of what use is the crucifix, if the reception of a freemason is not
considered as a religious act?

_A._ It is presented to penetrate the soul with the most profound
respect at the moment that the novice takes the oath. It is not used in
every lodge, and only when particular grades are conferred.

_Q._ Why is the skull used?

_A._ That the idea of death may inspire a horror of perjury.

_Q._ Of what use is the corpse?

_A._ To complete the allegory of Hiram, architect of the temple of
Jerusalem, who, it is said, was assassinated by traitors, and to induce
a greater detestation of assassination and other offences against our
neighbours, to whom we ought to be as benevolent brothers.

_Q._ Is it true that the festival of St. John is celebrated in the
lodges, and that the masons have chosen him for their patron?

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ What worship is rendered him in celebrating his festival?

_A._ None; that it may not be mingled with profane things. This
celebration is confined to a fraternal repast, after which a discourse
is read, exhorting the guests to beneficence towards their
fellow-creatures, in honour of God, the great architect, creator, and
preserver of the universe.

_Q._ Is it true that the sun, moon, and stars, are honoured in the
lodges?

_A._ No.

_Q._ Is it true that their images or symbols are exposed?

_A._ Yes.

_Q._ Why are they so?

_A._ In order to elucidate the allegories of the great, continual, and
true light which the lodges receive from the great Architect of the
world, and these representations belong to the brothers, and engage them
to be charitable.

_Q._ M. Tournon will observe that all the explanations he has given of
the facts and ceremonies which take place in the lodges, are false and
different from those which he voluntarily communicated to other persons
worthy of belief; he is therefore again invited, by the respect he owes
to God and the Holy Virgin, to declare and confess the heresies of
_indifferentism_, the errors of _superstition_, which mingle holy and
profane things, and the errors of _idolatry_, which led him to worship
the stars: this confession is necessary for the acquittal of his
conscience and the good of his soul; because if he confesses with sorrow
for having committed these crimes, detesting them and humbly soliciting
pardon (before the fiscal accuses him of these heinous sins), the holy
tribunal will be permitted to exercise towards him that compassion and
mercy which it always displays to repentant sinners; and because if he
is judicially accused, he must be treated with all the severity
prescribed against heretics by the holy canons, apostolical bulls, and
the laws of the kingdom.

_A._ I have declared the truth, and if any witnesses have deposed to the
contrary, they have mistaken the meaning of my words; for I have never
spoken on this subject to any but the workmen in my manufactory, and
then only in the same sense conveyed by my replies.

_Q._ Not content with being a freemason, you have persuaded other
persons to be received into the order, and to embrace the heretical
superstitions and pagan errors into which you have fallen.

_A._ It is true that I have requested these persons to become
freemasons, because I thought it would be useful to them if they
travelled into foreign countries, where they might meet brothers of
their order, who could assist them in any difficulty; but it is not true
that I engaged them to adopt any errors contrary to the Catholic faith,
since no such errors are to be found in freemasonry, which does not
concern any points of doctrine.

_Q._ It has been already proved that these errors are not chimerical;
therefore let M. Tournon consider that he has been a dogmatizing
heretic, and that it is necessary that he should acknowledge it with
humility, and ask pardon and absolution for the censures which he has
incurred; since, if he persists in his obstinacy he will destroy both
his body and soul; and as this is the first audience of _monition_, he
is advised to reflect on his condition, and prepare for the two other
audiences which are granted by the compassion and mercy which the holy
tribunal always feels for the accused.

M. Tournon was taken back to the prison; he persisted in giving the same
answers in the first and second audiences. The fiscal presented his act
of accusation, which, according to custom, was divided into the articles
similar to the charges of the witnesses. The accused confessed the
facts, but explained them as he had done before. He was desired to
choose an advocate, but he declined this, alleging that the Spanish
lawyers were not acquainted with the masonic lodges, and were as much
prejudiced against them as the public. He therefore thought it better
for him to acknowledge that he was wrong, and might have been deceived
from being ignorant of particular doctrines; he demanded absolution, and
offered to perform any penance imposed on him, adding, that he hoped the
punishment would be moderate, on account of the good faith which he had
shown, and which he had always preserved, seeing nothing but beneficence
practised and recommended in the masonic lodges, without denying or
combating any article of the Catholic faith.

The fiscal consented to this arrangement, and M. Tournon was condemned
to be imprisoned for one year, after which he was to be conducted under
an escort to the frontiers of France; he was banished from Spain for
ever, unless he obtained permission to return from the king or the holy
office. During the first month of his imprisonment, he was directed to
perform spiritual exercises, and a general confession; to spend half an
hour every morning in reading the meditations on the book of _spiritual
exercises_ of St. Ignatius de Loyola, and half an hour in the evening in
reading the considerations of Father John Eusebius Nieremberg, in his
work on the _difference between temporal and eternal_; to recite every
day part of the Rosary of Our Lady, and often to repeat the acts of
faith, hope, charity, and contrition; to learn by heart the catechism
of Father Astete, and to prepare himself to receive absolution, at
Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost.

A private _auto-da-fé_ was celebrated in the hall of the tribunal, in
which M. Tournon appeared without the _san-benito_, and signed his
abjuration, with a promise never again to attend the assemblies of the
freemasons.

M. Tournon went to France, and it does not appear that he ever returned
to Spain.

The society of freemasons has occupied the learned men, since the middle
of the seventeenth century, and the number of fables which have been
published concerning it have confused the subject, and done much injury
to it. The mysterious initiations of this order first began to attract
observation in England, during the reign of Charles I., who perished on
the scaffold in 1649. The enemies of Cromwell and the republican system
then established the dignity of _grand master_ of the English lodges, to
prepare the minds of the freemasons for the re-establishment of the
monarchy. William III. was a freemason, and though the dynasty was
changed by the accession of George I., it does not appear that
freemasonry was suspected in England. It was introduced into France in
1723, and Ramsay, a Scotchman, established a lodge in London in 1728,
giving out that the society had been founded in 1099, by Godfrey de
Bouillon, King of Jerusalem; preserved by the Knights Templars, and
brought to Edinburgh, where it was established by King Robert Bruce in
1314. In 1729 the order was introduced into Ireland. Holland received it
in 1731, and the first lodges were opened in Russia in the same year: it
appeared in Boston in America in 1733, and in several other towns of the
New World, subject to England. It was also established in Italy in that
year, and two years after freemasons were found at Lisbon.

I believe the first severe measure against the freemasons in Europe,
was that which was decreed on the 14th of December, 1733, by the chamber
of Police of the Chatelet at Paris: it prohibited freemasons from
assembling, and condemned M. Chapelot to a penalty of six thousand
livres, for having suffered them to assemble in his house. Louis XV.
commanded that those Peers of France, and other gentlemen who had the
privilege of the _entry_, should be deprived of that honour, if they
were members of a masonic lodge. The grand-master of the Parisian
lodges, being obliged to quit France, convoked an assembly of Freemasons
to appoint his successor. Louis XV., on being informed of it, declared
that if a Frenchman was elected, he would send him to the Bastile.
However, the Duke d'Antin was chosen, and after his death, Louis de
Bourbon, prince of Conti, succeeded him. Louis de Bourbon, duke de
Chartres, another prince of the blood, became grand-master.

In 1737, the Dutch prohibited the assemblies of freemasons as a
precautionary measure, without charging them with any crimes; the
members of a lodge assembled, they were arrested and prosecuted, but
they defended themselves with so much energy, that they were acquitted,
and the prohibition revoked.

The Elector Palatine of the Rhine also prohibited the order in his
states, and arrested several members at Manheim, in consequence of their
disobedience.

John Gaston, grand duke of Tuscany, published a decree of proscription
against the lodges in the same year. This prince died soon after, and
the masons again assembled: they were denounced to Pope Clement XII.
This pontiff sent an inquisitor to Florence, who imprisoned several
members of the society, but Francis of Lorraine, when he became Grand
Duke, set them at liberty. He declared himself the protector of the
institution, and founded several lodges in Florence, and other towns in
his states.

If I was a member of the society, I would do all in my power to abolish
those things which gave the inquisitors and other ecclesiastics occasion
to say, that sacred and profane things are mingled in the masonic
ceremonies; particularly the following, which have already appeared in
printed works.

In the sixth grade, or rank, which is that of _particular secretary_
(_secretary intime_,) the history of Hiram, king of Tyre, is taken from
the ninth chapter of the third book of Kings for the masonic allegories;
and _Jehovah_, the ineffable name of God, for the _sacred_ word of
freemasonry; this custom is likewise observed with some slight
differences in several other grades.

In the eighteenth, called the _Rosicrusian of Haradom_ of Kilwiniug, is
a representation of columns with inscriptions; the highest is as
follows: _In the name of the Holy and indivisible Trinity_: lower down,
_May our salvation be eternal in God_; still lower, _We have the
happiness of being in the pacific unity of the sacred numbers_. The
history of the second chapter of the first, and the nineteenth of the
second book of Esdras is made use of; the word of order between two
freemasons of the same rank is INRI, which some persons have supposed to
be _Jesus Nazarenus, Rex Judæorum_: the word _passe_ is added, which
means Emmanuel, or _God is with us_.

The rank of Rosicrusiaci, in the Scotch lodges, is the perfection of the
order; the meaning is developed in fifteen sections. In the fifth, the
allegories are the mounts of salvation, mounts _Moriah_ and _Calvary_,
the first for the sacrifices of Abraham, David, and Solomon, the second
for that of Jesus of Nazareth: other allegories relate to the Holy
Spirit, designated as the _Majesty of God_ which descended on the
tabernacle, and on the temple at the moment of its dedication. In the
twelfth section a _holy mountain_ is seen, on which is a large church in
the form of a cross from east to west, in the neighbourhood of a city,
which is the image of the _celestial Jerusalem_; in the thirteenth,
three great lights, symbols of the natural law, the laws of Moses and
of Jesus Christ, and the cabinet of wisdom, designated as the _stable
for oxen_, in which is a faithful chevalier and his holy wife, and the
sacred names of _Joseph_, _Mary_, and _Jesus_; the fourteenth is an
allusion to the descent of our Saviour into the _Limbos_ after his
death, his resurrection and ascension; lastly, the fifteenth has the
words _consummatum est_, which Jesus pronounced on the cross.

In the twenty-seventh grade of the _grand commander of the temple_, a
cross is made on the forehead of the brother with the thumb of the right
hand; the sacred word INRI; the scarf has four crosses, the _disc_ a
triangle of gold, with the Hebrew characters of the ineffable name,
_Jehovah_.

The seal of the order has between the devices of the shield of arms
across, the arch of alliance, a lighted candle in a candlestick on each
side, and above the inscription, Glory to God. (Laus Deo).

All these things, and many others which allude to the sacred history of
the temple of Jerusalem, built by Solomon, re-established by Esdras,
restored by the Christians, and defended by the knights templars,
present a mixture liable to an interpretation similar to that in the
information of the witnesses at Florence, which was the first
apostolical condemnation; it was renewed under Pius VII., in an edict of
Cardinal Gonsalvi, in 1814.

There was not less inconvenience in the execratory oath of the famous
masonic secret, for which no adequate object has been discovered, unless
it was one which no longer exists.

John Mark Larmenio (who secretly succeeded the grand-master of the
Templars, the unfortunate James de Molay, who requested him to accept
the dignity) invented, in concert with some knights who had escaped the
proscription, different signs of words and actions, in order to
recognise and receive knights into the order secretly, and by means of a
novitiate, during which they were to be kept in ignorance of the object
of the association (which was to preserve the order, to re-establish it
in its former glory, and to revenge the deaths of the grand-master, and
the knights who perished with him); when the qualities of the new member
were perfectly well known, the grand secret was to be confided to him,
after a most formidable oath.

The secret signs were intended as a precaution against admitting into
the order those Templars who had formed a schism during the persecution;
they retired into Scotland, and refused to acknowledge John Larmenio as
grand-master, and pretended that they had re-established the order; this
pretension was refuted by a chapter of legitimate knights: after this
the new chief issued his diploma in 1324, and his successors have
followed his example, on attaining the dignity of secret grand-master of
the order of Templars in France. The list of grand-masters until the
year 1776 has been published. Philip de Bourbon, duke of Orleans, was
appointed in 1705, Louis Augustus de Bourbon, duke de Maine, in 1724,
Louis Henry de Bourbon Conde, in 1737, Louis Francis de Bourbon Conti,
in 1745, Louis Henry Timoleon de Cossé Brissac, in 1776, and Bernard
Raymond Fabre, in 1814.

The Knights Templars who retired to Scotland, founded an establishment
in 1314, under the protection of Robert Bruce; their objects and their
measures were the same, and they were concealed under the title of
_architects_; this was the origin of _freemasonry_. They soon, however,
forgot the most criminal part of the execratory oath: since the deaths
of Clement V. and Philip the Fair, the persecutors of the knights,
deprived them of the power of revenging the executions of James de Molay
and his companions, and had no other object but the re-establishment of
the order; this intention shared the fate of the first, after the deaths
of the authors of it, and their first disciples. From these facts it
appears, that the execratory oath is without a motive or object in
modern masonic lodges.




CHAPTER XLII.

OF THE INQUISITION UNDER CHARLES III.


Charles III. succeeded his brother Ferdinand on the 10th of August,
1759, and died on the 17th of November, 1788. The inquisitors-general
during this reign were Don Manuel Quintano Bonifaz, archbishop of
Pharsala; Don Philip Bertran, bishop of Salamanca, and Don Augustin
Rubin de Cevallos, bishop of Jaen. The characters of these persons were
humane, compassionate, and inclined to benevolence; qualities which
caused a remarkable decrease in the number of public _autos-da-fé_. If
the reign of Charles III. is compared with that of Philip V., his
father, they appear as if they had been separated by a period of several
centuries. The progress of knowledge was very rapid under this prince;
even the provincial inquisitors, though the laws of the Inquisition had
not been altered, adopted principles of moderation, which were unknown
under the Austrian princes. It is true, that from time to time great
severity was shown towards unimportant offences; but among the trials of
this reign, I have seen several which were suspended, though the proofs
were much more conclusive than many which were sufficient to condemn the
criminal to _relaxation_, under Philip II.

Yet, though the system was comparatively moderate, the number of trials
was still immense, because all the denunciations were received. The
witnesses of the preparatory instruction were examined immediately, in
order to discover some charge, which the prejudices of the age rendered
serious. If out of an hundred trials which were begun ten had been
concluded, the number of persons subjected to _penances_ would have been
greater than under Ferdinand V.; but the tribunal was no longer the
same. Almost all the trials were suspended before the decree of arrest
was issued. The denounced was sometimes induced to repair to the
tribunal on the pretext of business, and then informed of the charges
against him; he replied to them, and returned home, after having
promised to return a second time when summoned. Sometimes the
proceedings were abridged, and the criminal was only condemned to a
private penance, which might be performed without the knowledge of any
person but the commissary of the tribunal.

Several trials which were commenced against persons of rank, were not
proceeded in after the preliminary instruction; such were those of the
Marquis de Roda, minister secretary of state, of grace and justice; of
the Count de Aranda, president of the Council of Castile, and
captain-general of New Castile, who was afterwards ambassador to Paris,
and lastly, prime-minister; of the Count de Florida Blanca, then fiscal
of the Council of Castile for civil affairs, afterwards successor to the
Marquis de Roda, and prime-minister; of the Count de Campomanes, fiscal
for criminal affairs, and afterwards governor of the same council; of
those of the Archbishops of Burgos and Saragossa, and of the Bishops of
Tarazona, Albarracin, and Orihuela, who had composed the council
extraordinary, in 1767, for the expulsion of the Jesuits. The trials of
all these distinguished men had the same origin.

The Bishop of Cuença, Don Isidro de Carbajal y Lancaster, highly
respectable from his family, which was that of the Dukes of Abrantés,
and from his dignity, his irreproachable conduct, and his charity to the
poor, was less acquainted with the true principles of the canonic law
than zealous for the maintenance of the ecclesiastical privileges.
Influenced by this motive, he was so indiscreet as to represent to the
king, that the _Church was persecuted in its rights, property and
ministers_, and drew a picture of the reign of Charles III., which would
have been more applicable to that of the Emperor Julian. The king
commissioned the Council of Castile to examine if the complaint was
just, and to propose measures to repair the injury, if any had taken
place. The two fiscals of the council both made learned replies, in
which the ignorance of the bishop, and the consequences of his imprudent
zeal, were exposed. These answers, and the other papers belonging to the
proceedings, were printed by the king's order, and though they were
generally approved, some priests and monks, who regretted the inordinate
power once possessed by the Church, denounced several propositions
contained in them, as Lutheran, Calvinistic, or defended by other
parties inimical to the Roman Church.

The two archbishops, and the three bishops, already mentioned, who had
voted for the requisition addressed to the Pope for the expulsion of the
Jesuits, were also denounced, as suspected of professing the impious
doctrines of philosophism, which, it was said, they had only adopted to
please the court. They were commissioned to take cognizance of several
affairs relating to the Jesuits, and only accidentally spoke of the
Inquisition, and expressed opinions contrary to its system. The
inquisitors were all creatures of the Jesuits, without even the
exception of the inquisitor-general: it is not therefore surprising that
they received so many denunciations. The exclusive right possessed by
the Court of Rome to try bishops, never prevented the inquisitors from
secretly examining witnesses against them, because it gave them a
pretence to write to the Pope, and request permission to carry on the
proceedings; and though it was the custom of the holy see to transfer
the trials of bishops to Rome, the _Supreme Council_ of Spain always put
forward its fiscal, in order to justify its conduct in prosecuting
bishops: this was the case in the affair of Carranza.

The denunciations had not the effect expected by the enemies of the
prelates, because no _singular_ and independent proposition, opposed to
true doctrine, was proved to have been advanced. In a less enlightened
age, these prelates would have been exposed to great mortification from
this attack; but at this time the Inquisition found it dangerous to be
too severe, because the court had adopted the system of vigorously
opposing all the ancient doctrines which favoured the pretensions of the
ecclesiastics at the expense of the royal prerogatives; and on the
occasion of the publication of some conclusions on the canonical law,
which were entirely favourable to the Pope and the ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, a royal censor was appointed for each university, without
whose approbation no conclusion could be published or maintained.

The perseverance of the government in the new system prevented the
inquisitors from venturing to sentence the prelates of the extraordinary
council: they however thought proper to endeavour to avert the storm,
and applied to Don Fray Joachim de Eleta, the king's confessor. This man
was an ignorant _Recollet_, and known for his blind attachment to the
Court of Rome. The prelates declared that they condemned several
propositions advanced by the two fiscals in their work called _An
Impartial Judgment of the Monitory of Parma_, which was written by the
king's order, because they thought they tended to the infringement of
the privileges of the church. After this declaration, the prelates used
every means to make the confessor persuade Charles III., that the
printed copies ought not to be published, and that the work should be
reprinted, after the suppression of several propositions. The
inquisitor-general and the Supreme Council being informed of this
circumstance, the affair took another turn, and the faction of the
Jesuits became more calm.

These events exposed to great danger a person who had entered into them
without being aware of it. M. Clement, a French priest, treasurer of the
cathedral of Auxerre, and afterwards bishop of Versailles, arrived at
Madrid in 1768, at the time when the event above mentioned occupied
every mind. He held several conversations on this subject with the
Marquis de Roda, the fiscals of the council, and the Bishops of Tarazona
and Albarracin[77]. The zeal of this theologian for the purity of
doctrine on all points of discipline induced him to say, that the good
dispositions of the Court of Madrid ought to be taken advantage of, and
proposed three measures. The first was to place the Inquisition under
each bishop, who should be the chief, with a deliberative vote, with the
addition of two inquisitors with a consultive vote; the second, to
oblige the monks and nuns to acknowledge the bishop as their chief, and
to obey him as such after renouncing all the privileges contrary to this
arrangement; the third to abolish the distinct schools of theology,
under the titles of Thomists, Scotists, Suarists, or others, and to have
only one system of theology for the schools and universities, founded on
the principles of St. Augustin and St. Thomas.

It is sufficient to be acquainted with Spain, and the state of the monks
at that period, to foresee the persecution which the author of such a
plan would incur. The confessor of the king and the inquisitor-general
were informed of it by their political spies, and several monks
denounced M. Clement to the holy office, as a Lutheran, a Calvinistic
heretic, and an enemy of the regular orders.

M. Clement suspected the existence of this intrigue, from some
expressions made use of by a Dominican, with whom he was intimate. The
inquisitors, who saw that M. Clement was received at court, did not dare
to arrest him, but they requested their chief to oblige him to quit the
kingdom. The treasurer of Auxerre imparted his fears to the Count de
Aranda, and the Marquis de Roda; who being, from his connexion at court,
acquainted with all that had passed, advised him to depart, but without
informing him of what it was useless for him to know. M. Clement
followed his advice, and though he had intended to go to Portugal, he
returned immediately to France, to avoid the _Sbirri_ of the holy
office, who might have arrested him on his return from Lisbon, if the
system of the court was changed. In fact a great number of charges were
brought against him after his departure, but they were not made public,
and he wrote his travels without knowing anything of the plots against
him.

All that passed on the occasion of the apostolical prohibition of the
catechism of Mesengui was made public: Charles III. had ordered that it
should be made use of in the religious instruction of Charles IV.; and
the inquisitor-general was openly and justly blamed, for having
published the brief of prohibition, without waiting to obtain the
consent of the king. This proceeding was the cause of the exile of the
inquisitor-general. His disgrace might have rendered him more prudent,
but in his reply to the king, in 1769, concerning some measures taken by
the extraordinary council of five prelates, he advanced, as certain,
several propositions concerning the Inquisition, which might have been
proved to be false, if the Marquis de Roda had consulted the registers
of the Supreme Council. He said that the Inquisition had met with
nothing but opposition from the beginning; that it was conspired against
in the most cruel manner; that all the proceedings of the council were
made public, except the trials for heresy, but that even those were
always submitted to his Majesty; and that the charge against it of
acting with _entire independence_ was not just, he concluded with
saying, that his Majesty might appoint an ecclesiastic as his secretary
to attend the council, and inform him of all that passed.

It is impossible to find a reason for the necessity here imposed upon
the king to have a _priest_ for his secretary, since the inquisitors
employed seculars in their offices, who were permitted to see the trial,
though obliged to take an oath of secrecy, and two members of the
Council of Castile also attend the Supreme Council. Yet neither an
ecclesiastic nor a layman could prevent fraud: the same may be said of
the members of the Council of Castile, because in case of any intrigues,
for example, in a conflict for jurisdiction, the counsellors assembled
at the house of the inquisitor-general, and their chief sealed their
papers with his private seal.

The most decisive proof of the _entire_ independence of the Inquisition,
exists in two laws of Charles III., concerning bigamy and the
prohibition of books; they were insufficient to restrain the inquisitors
within their jurisdiction.

Yet though these abuses and many others were still continued, I do not
hesitate to say that the inquisitors of the reigns of Charles III. and
his successors were men possessed of extreme prudence and singular
moderation in comparison with those of the time of Philip V. and the
preceding reigns. This is confirmed by the very small number of
_autos-da-fé_ celebrated under the two kings, a period of twenty-nine
years; only ten persons were condemned, four of whom were burnt, and
fifty-six individuals subjected to penances. All the other trials were
terminated by _individual autos-da-fé_; the condemned was taken into a
church to hear his sentence read, when it was confirmed by the Supreme
Council, without waiting for other prisoners to form a particular
_auto-da-fé_. Other trials are concluded by a _lesser auto-da-fé_ in the
audience-hall of the tribunal; another mode, which was the least severe,
was to celebrate the _auto-da-fé_ in the presence of the secretaries of
the Inquisition alone; no greater indulgence than this could be shown.

The individual _auto-da-fé_ was decreed in two famous trials of the
reign of Charles III. Of the first, that of Olavide, an account has been
given in Chapter 26. The second was that of Don Francisco de Leon y
Luna, a priest and knight of the military order of St. Jago. He was
condemned as violently suspected of having fallen into the heresies of
the _Illuminati_ and of Molinos, for having seduced several women, for
communicating several times with the consecrated wafer from
superstitious motives, and for preaching a false and presumptuous
mysticity to several nuns and other women who were the dupes of his
error and their own weakness. Leon was imprisoned for three years in a
convent; he was then banished for seven years from Madrid, and forbidden
to exercise the ministry of a confessor. The council of the orders
requested the king to deprive Leon of his cross and knighthood,
according to the statutes which ordain that measure towards all who
commit a crime which incurs an infamous punishment. But the council
ought to have known that the _suspicion_ of heresy was not sufficient,
since the tribunal always declares, if the condemned desire it, that
this sort of sentence does not prevent them from attaining offices and
dignities.

At Saragossa the Marquis d'Aviles, intendant of Aragon, was accused
before the holy office of having read prohibited books; but this
denunciation, and that of the Bishop of Barcelona for Jansenism at
Madrid, and several others of the same nature, were passed over without
further notice.




CHAPTER XLIII.

OF THE SPANISH INQUISITION UNDER CHARLES IV.


Charles IV. ascended the throne on the 17th November, 1788; he abdicated
on the 19th March, 1808, in consequence of the popular commotions at
Aranjuez. The inquisitors-general under Charles IV. were Don Augustin
Rubin de Cevallos, Bishop of Jaen; Don Manuel de Abad-y-la-Sierra,
Archbishop of Selimbra; the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo, Don Francisco
Lorenzana; and Don Ramon Joseph de Arce, Archbishop of Burgos.

The two obstacles which had principally contributed to impede the
progress of learning during the three preceding reigns, were removed by
the reform of the six grand colleges and the expulsion of the Jesuits.
Before this revolution, all the canonical offices and magistracies were
given to the members and fellows of the colleges; while the immense
influence of the Jesuits prevented all who were not their disciples, or
Jesuits of the _short robe_, from obtaining any offices or honours. The
Marquis de Roda was the author of this politic measure, which caused him
to be hated by the disciples of St. Ignatius. But this minister has
obtained an honourable place in history, because in granting to _all_
classes the rewards due to merit, he excited a general emulation, which
increased the influence of knowledge and a taste for the sciences. This
has caused it to be said that the restoration of good Spanish literature
was the work of de Roda, but the commencement of that change may be more
correctly dated from the reign of Philip V.

During the twenty years preceding the accession of Charles IV. a
multitude of distinguished men had arisen, who would doubtless have led
Spain to rival France in the good taste and perfection of literary
works, if one of the most terrible events recorded in history had not
arrested the impulse these great men had given. The French revolution
caused a great number of works to be written on the rights of man, of
citizens, and of nations; the principles contained in them could not but
alarm Charles IV. and his ministers. The Spaniards read these books with
avidity; the minister dreaded the contagion of this political doctrine,
but in attempting to arrest its progress, he caused the human mind to
retrograde. He charged the inquisitor-general to prohibit and seize all
the books, pamphlets, and French newspapers, relating to the revolution,
and to recommend to his agents to use the greatest vigilance in
preventing them from being clandestinely introduced into the kingdom.
Another measure employed by the government was to suppress the office of
teacher of the natural law in the universities and seminaries.

The Count de Florida-Blanca was then prime-minister; this conduct
entirely destroyed the good opinion entertained of him by the nation. He
was said to be a novice in the art of government, because the
prohibition would only excite greater curiosity. The commissioners of
the holy office received an order to oppose the introduction of the
works of the modern philosophers, as contrary to the sovereign
authority, and commanded every person to denounce whom they knew to be
attached to the principles of insurrection.

It would be difficult to calculate the number of denunciations which
followed this order. The greatest number of the denounced were young
students of the universities of Salamanca and Valladolid. Those who
wished to read the French writings braved the prohibition, and employed
every means to obtain them; so that the laws of nature and of persons
were more studied than before the suppression of the office of teacher.
The severity of the administration only caused the commencement of an
immense number of trials, which were never finished, for want of proofs.

Many Spaniards, some of illustrious birth and others of great learning,
were the objects of secret informations, as suspected of impiety and
philosophism. The history of their trials, and those of many
distinguished persons for Jansenism, have been given in the twenty-fifth
and twenty-sixth chapters.

Don Bernardo-Maria de Calzada, colonel of infantry, and brother-in-law
to the Marquis de Manca, interested me much, when he had the misfortune
to be arrested by the Duke de Medina-Celi, grand provost of the holy
office: I accompanied him as secretary, the notary for the
sequestrations being ill. Don Bernardo was the father of a very large
family, who were reduced to indigence by this event, and it gave me the
greatest grief to witness the sad situation of their mother. I presume
that that lady has not forgotten my conduct on that mournful night and
on the following day, when I returned to visit her. The unfortunate
Calzada, whose appointment in the office of the minister of war was not
sufficient to maintain his very numerous family, had undertaken the
translation of some French books, and composed a satirical work, by
which he made enemies of some fanatics and monks, who, affecting the
most austere morals, were intolerant towards all who did not agree with
their opinions. By their denunciations they ruined this family. Calzada,
after passing some time in the prisons of the holy office, submitted to
an abjuration _de levi_, which is almost equivalent to an absolution,
and was banished from Madrid, after giving up his place and all hope of
advancement.

The Inquisition of the _Court_ was more indulgent towards the Marquis de
Narros: although many witnesses deposed that they had heard him maintain
some heretical propositions of Voltaire and Rousseau, whose works he
boasted that he had read, as well as those of Mirabeau, Montesquieu, the
Baron d'Holbac, and other philosophers of the same school, he was spared
the disgrace of an imprisonment and a public censure. It was thought
more decent to request the Count de Florida-Blanca to write to him by
the ordinary courier to Guipuscoa, where he then resided, and inform him
that the king commanded him to repair to Madrid on some affairs of the
government. The Marquis hastened to court, flattering himself (as he
informed his relation the Duke of Grenada) that he would be appointed
sub-governor to the Prince of Asturias, now Ferdinand VII. On the next
day he received an order not to quit Madrid, and to attend a summons to
the Inquisition. Some time after he confessed the truth of the charges,
and added some other circumstances, protesting at the same time that he
had always been a good Catholic, and that a desire of passing for the
most learned man in his country induced him to advance the propositions.
He abjured _de levi_; some private penances were imposed on him, and the
affair was only known to a few persons.

The inquisitors of Valencia prosecuted Fray Augustine Cabades,
commander of the convent of the nuns of the order of Mercy, and
professor of theology in that city; he abjured, and was then released
from prison. When he had obtained his liberty, he demanded a revision of
his judgment; the Supreme Council acknowledged the justice of his
appeal, and the sentence was declared null and void.

Don Mariano Louis de Urquijo, prime-minister and secretary of state
under Charles IV., was also an object for the persecutions of the holy
office. His great strength of mind, and a careful education, raised him
above the errors of his age. He made himself known in his early youth by
a translation of the _Death of Cæsar_, a tragedy by Voltaire, which he
published with a preliminary _Essay on the Origin of the Spanish
Theatre, and its Influence on Morals_. This production, which only
displays a generous wish to acquire fame, and the ardent genius of its
young author, attracted the attention of the Inquisition. Private
informations were taken concerning the religious opinions of the
Chevalier de Urquijo, and the tribunal ascertained that he manifested
great independence in his opinions, with a decided taste for philosophy,
which the Inquisition called the doctrine of unbelievers. Everything
consequently was prepared for his arrest, when the Count d'Aranda, then
prime-minister, who discovered his merit (and had remarked his name in
the list of distinguished youths destined to serve the state, belonging
to the Count de Florida-Blanca his predecessor,) proposed to the king
that he should be initiated into public affairs. Charles IV. appointed
him to the office of first secretary of state in 1792.

The inquisitors changed their manner of proceeding when they saw the
elevation of their intended victim. Their policy at this time led them
to shew a deference towards the ministry which had not been observed in
preceding ages. They converted the decree of imprisonment into another
called the _audience of charges_, by which de Urquijo was required to
appear privately before the Inquisition of the court whenever he was
summoned. The sentence pronounced him to be only _slightly suspected_ of
partaking the errors of the unbelieving philosophers. He was absolved
_ad cautelam_, and some spiritual penances were imposed on him which he
might perform in private. The tribunal exacted his consent to the
prohibition of his preliminary essay and the tragedy; but as a
remarkable testimony of consideration, his name was not mentioned in the
edict, either as the author or translator. The inquisitors, even of
modern times, have rarely shewn themselves so moderate; but the fear of
offending the Count d'Aranda (who abhorred the tribunal) was the real
motive of their conduct.

Urquijo, at the age of thirty, became prime-minister, and in that
quality exerted himself to extirpate abuses, and to destroy the errors
which opposed the prosperity of his party and the progress of knowledge.
He encouraged industry and the arts, and the public owes to him the
immortal work of the Baron de Humboldt. Contrary to the custom of Spain,
he allowed him to travel in America, and supported him with the zeal of
a person passionately attached to the arts and sciences. With the
assistance of his friend Admiral Mazarredo he raised the navy. He was
the first in Europe who meditated the abolition of slavery; and at that
time concluded a treaty with the Emperor of Morocco for the exchange of
prisoners of war, which is still in force. In the year 1800, when
fortune seemed everywhere to attend the French arms, and the government
persecuted the august house of Bourbon, he had the glory of establishing
a throne in Etruria for a prince of that family, who had married a
daughter of Charles IV., and signed the treaty to that effect at St.
Ildephonso with General Berthier, afterwards Prince of Wagram.

The death of Pius VI. gave him an opportunity of freeing Spain, to a
certain degree, from its dependance on the Vatican. On the 5th
September, 1799, he induced the king to sign a decree which restored to
the bishops the powers which had been usurped by the Court of Rome, and
delivered the people from an annual impost of several millions, produced
by the sale of dispensations and other bulls and briefs.

The reform of the Inquisition ought to have followed this bold step. The
minister wished to suppress the tribunal entirely, and apply its
revenues to the establishment of useful and charitable institutions. He
drew up the edict for that purpose, and presented it to Charles IV. for
signature. Though Urquijo did not succeed in this attempt, he convinced
the king of the necessity of reforming the tribunal.

Among the many wise regulations suggested to the king by Urquijo, was
that published in the form of an ordinance in 1799, on the liberty and
independence of all the books, papers and effects of the foreign consuls
established in the sea-ports, and in the trading towns belonging to
Spain. It was occasioned by an inconsiderate disturbance made by the
commissioners of the holy office at Alicant, in the house of Don Leonard
Stuck, consul for Holland, and at Barcelona, at the residence of the
French consul.

Those happy dispositions of the Court of Spain vanished at the fall of
the minister who had inspired them. The victim of an intrigue, he shared
the fate of those great men who do not succeed in destroying the
prejudices and errors which they oppose. Urquijo was confined, and kept
in the strictest solitude, in the humid dungeons of the citadel of
Pampluna, where he was unable to obtain books, ink, paper, fire, or
light.

Ferdinand VII., on his accession to the throne, declared his treatment
to have been unjust and arbitrary; and forgetting the persecutions he
had suffered for eight years, he blessed, in Ferdinand, the sovereign
who would make the necessary reforms, and had voluntarily put a period
to his sufferings. He repaired to Vittoria, when that prince stopped
there on his way to Bayonne, and used every means to prevent him from
making that fatal journey. The letters he wrote on this subject to his
friend, General Cuesta, contain an exact prophecy of all the miseries
which have since overwhelmed Spain[78], and point out the means of
avoiding them.

Urquijo refused to repair to Bayonne, although Napoleon sent him three
orders to do so, until the renunciation and abdication of Charles IV.,
Ferdinand VII., and the princes of that house, had been made known.
After the royal family had left the place, he went there, and
endeavoured to persuade Napoleon to give up his plans.

He accepted the appointment of Secretary to the Junta of Notables, which
was then assembled at Bayonne, and soon after the office of
Minister-Secretary of State. His generous intentions need no comments;
they are known to all. The eulogium of this great man has just been made
by our energetic and sincere advocate; the public will read it with
pleasure and interest. During his ministry, he had the happiness of
witnessing the decree which suppressed the formidable tribunal of the
holy office, and declared it to be injurious to sovereignty.

Urquijo died at Paris, after an illness of six days, at the age of
forty-nine. He died as he had lived--full of that courage, serenity,
that philosophy, and love of virtue, which belong to the virtuous and
wise alone. He was buried on the 4th of May, 1817, in the cemetery of
Père la Chaise, where a magnificent monument of white Carrara marble has
been erected to his memory.

In 1792 the inquisitors of Saragossa received a denunciation, and
examined witnesses against Don Augustin Abad-y-la-Sierra, Bishop of
Barbastro, who was accused of Jansenism, and of approving the principles
which were the basis of the civil constitution of the French clergy
under the constitutional assembly. During the progress of this affair,
Don Manuel Abad-y-la-Sierra, the brother of Don Augustin, was made
inquisitor-general, and the inquisitors were afraid to carry it on. When
Don Manuel was dismissed from his office, he also was denounced as a
Jansenist, but he was not prosecuted.

The bishop of Murcia and Carthagena, Victoriano Lopez Gonzalo, was
denounced in 1800 as suspected of Jansenism and other heresies, and for
having permitted certain propositions on some points of doctrine to be
maintained in his seminary. The trial of the bishop was not carried
farther than the summary instruction; because, on being informed of the
plots of some scholastic doctors who were partisans of the Jesuits, he
defended himself so ably before the inquisitor-general, that the members
of council did not proceed against him; but they continued the
prosecution of the theses, when they perceived that they were favourable
to some conclusions on miracles, which had been condemned by qualifiers.

The subject of Jansenism created a great sensation in Spain. The
Jesuits, who had been permitted to return to that kingdom in 1798, soon
acquired a numerous party, and accused all who did not adopt their
opinions of Jansenism. Their conduct was so impolitic, that they were a
second time banished from the kingdom. They were the authors of the
denunciations against the Countess de Montijo, and many other
distinguished persons, of whom an account has been given in a former
chapter.

The accusation of Jansenism against Don Antonio and Don Jerome de la
Cuesta was the cause of the trial of Don Raphaël Muzquiz, Archbishop of
Santiago, who had been confessor to Queen Louisa, wife of Charles IV.

The energetic defence of Don Jerome de la Cuesta obliged Muzquiz to
defend himself against the imputation of calumny: he made
representations which injured his cause, for he vilified the inquisitors
of Valladolid, and even the inquisitor-general, and accused them of
partiality and collusion with Cuesta: his rank protected him from the
danger of an arrest which he incurred by this temerity, but he was
condemned to pay a penalty of eight thousand ducats, and the Bishop of
Valladolid four thousand. Muzquiz would have been more severely
punished, if he had not been protected by a person, who obtained from
the Prince of Peace that the affair should not be carried farther.

The same pretence of Jansenism was the cause of the trial of Don Joseph
Espiga, almoner to the king, and a member of the tribunal of the
nunciature in 1799. His accusers represented him as the author of the
royal decree of the 5th of September in that year, after the death of
Pius VI., forbidding any person to apply to Rome for matrimonial
dispensations. Espiga was then the most intimate friend of the minister
Urquijo, but he never allowed any one to influence him in official
affairs. The Nuncio Cassoni made many useless representations to the
king on this subject; however, he partly obtained his end by political
intrigues, for though the bishops had promised to obey the ordinance,
yet most of them avoided granting matrimonial dispensations, and those
who did so were accused of Jansenism. The inquisitors, though they were
all sold to the Nuncio and the Jesuits, were afraid to proceed, and the
trial of Espiga was suspended. When his friend Urquijo was deprived of
his office, he was obliged to retire to the cathedral of Lerida, of
which he was a dignitary.

The year 1796 is remarkable for the prosecution commenced against the
Prince of Peace, the king's cousin, by his marriage with Donna Maria
Theresa de Bourbon, the daughter of the infant Don Louis. It may be
easily supposed that much address was necessary in conducting an attack
against a person so high in favour. Three denunciations were received at
the holy office, accusing him of atheism, because he had not confessed
himself or taken the pascal communion for eight years, and because he
was married to two women at the same time, and the life he led with many
others was a source of great scandal to the public. The three denouncers
were monks, and there is some reason to suppose that they were directed
by the authors of a court intrigue, to cause the prince to be disgraced.

The head of the Inquisition at that time was Cardinal Lorenzana, who was
simple and easily deceived, but too timid not to be on his guard against
anything which might displease the king and queen. Although the
denunciations were presented to him, he did not dare to examine
witnesses, or even the accusers. Don Antonio Despuig, Archbishop of
Seville, and Don Raphaël Muzquiz, who were at the head of this intrigue,
made every effort to induce Lorenzana to cause a private instruction to
be taken, to arrest the prince in concert with the Supreme Council, and
to obtain the approbation of the king, of which they thought themselves
certain, if they could prove that his favourite was an atheist. This
attempt was so repugnant to the disposition of Lorenzana, that the two
conspirators agreed that Despuig should press his friend the Cardinal
Vincenti, famous for his intrigues, to persuade Pius VI. to write to
Lorenzana, and reproach him for the indifference with which he beheld a
scandal so injurious to the purity of the religion professed by the
Spanish nation. Vincenti obtained the letter from the Pope; Lorenzana
promising, that if the Pope decided that the measure was necessary, he
would do what they desired. Napoleon Bonaparte, who was then a general
of the French Republic, intercepted a courier from Italy at Genoa. The
letter of Cardinal Vincenti to Despuig, enclosing that of the Pope to
Lorenzana, was found among his despatches: Bonaparte thought it
necessary to the continuance of the good intelligence then established
between France and Spain, to inform the Prince of Peace of the intrigue,
and he commissioned General Pérignon, ambassador at Madrid, to remit the
correspondence to Godoy. The favourite opposed another intrigue to his
enemies, and succeeded in freeing himself from them by sending
Lorenzana, Despuig, and Muzquiz to Rome, to carry the condolences of the
king to the Pope, on the occasion of the entrance of the French army
into his states. Their commission was dated the 14th March, 1797.

At this period the Inquisition was in imminent danger of being deprived
of the power of arresting individuals without the consent of the king.
This circumstance arose from the trial of Don Ramon de Salas, which is
related in the twenty-fifth chapter. The affair of Jovellanos also took
place at this time.

In 1799 the inquisitors of Valladolid, with the approbation of the
council, condemned Don Mariano and Don Raymond de Santander, booksellers
of that city, to two months seclusion in a convent, to a suspension of
their trade for two years, and to banishment; they were also forbidden
to approach Valladolid, Madrid, and other royal residences, within eight
leagues. They were obliged to pay a penalty, and after having been a
long time in the secret prisons, Don Mariano could not obtain permission
to remove to another place, though he was subject to attacks of
epilepsy. Their only offence was having received and sold prohibited
books; for though some fanatics had accused them of heresy, no proofs
were obtained. On the 10th of November, Don Mariano solicited the
inquisitor-general to allow them to reside in Valladolid, representing,
that if this favour was refused, their families must die in poverty, and
they offered to purchase the permission by paying another penalty.

The affair of a Beata at Cuença created a great sensation. She was the
wife of a labourer at Villar d'Aguilar. Among other fictions which she
invented to make people suppose her a saint, she said that Jesus Christ
revealed to her that he had changed her flesh and blood into the same
substance as his own body. This imposture caused great theological
discussion among the priests and monks. Some maintained that it was
impossible, others that it was not impossible, if the infinite power of
God was considered; others believed all, and were astonished that any
person could be so incredulous, for they thought that the Beata could
have no interest in deceiving them; lastly, there were some who were
witnesses of the life of this _Beata_, and were her accomplices from the
beginning of her imposture, or who were the dupes of their credulity,
and who continued to believe, or appeared to do so, in her supernatural
state. They carried their folly so far as to adore this woman; they
conducted her in procession in the streets and to the churches with
lighted tapers; they burnt incense before her as before the consecrated
host; lastly, they prostrated themselves before her, and committed many
other sacrileges. The Inquisition could not but notice these scenes. The
pretended saint and some of her accomplices were taken to the secret
prisons, where the _Beata_ ended her days. One of the articles of the
sentence commanded that her effigy should be taken to the _auto-da-fé_
on a traineau, and burnt; the curate of Villar, and two monks, who were
her accomplices, were condemned to follow the effigy barefooted, clothed
in short tunics, and with a cord round their necks; they were degraded
and banished for life to the Philippine Isles. The Curate of Casasimarro
was suspended for six years, and two men of the lowest class received
two hundred stripes, and were imprisoned for life; one of her servants
was sent to the house of the _Recogidas_ for ten years. I do not know
any judgment of the Inquisition more just than this.

Another _Beata_ at Madrid, called Clara, did not profit by this
example. She did not carry her phrensy so far as the other, but her
miracles and her sanctity made a great noise; she pretended that she was
paralytic, and could not leave her bed. On this report every one went to
see her. The most distinguished ladies in Madrid repaired to her, and
thought themselves happy in being admitted to see her; she was entreated
to be the mediatrix with God for the cure of different maladies, to
enlighten judges on the eve of an important judgment, and graces and
assistances were implored against many other misfortunes. Clara replied
to them all in an emphatic style, like an inspired person who saw into
the future. She announced that, by an especial call from the Holy
Spirit, she was destined to be a Capuchin nun, and she was extremely
grieved that she had not the strength and health necessary for living in
a community and a cloister. She imposed so well on the persons who
surrounded her, that Pius VII. permitted her, in a special brief, to
make her profession before Don Athanasius de Puyal, bishop coadjutor of
the Archbishop of Toledo, at Madrid, and granted her a dispensation from
the cloistered life, and the exercises of a community. From that moment
nothing was spoken of in society but the miracles and heroic virtue of
sister Clara. The bishop who had received her vows obtained permission
from the Pope and the Archbishop of Toledo to erect an altar in her
chamber opposite her bed; several masses were performed there every day,
and even the holy sacrament was placed there in a tabernacle. Clara
communicated every day, and persuaded those who came to see her that she
took no sustenance but the bread of the eucharist. This delusion lasted
for several years: but in 1802, Clara was taken to the prison of the
holy office; her mother was likewise arrested, and a monk whom she had
taken for her director. They were accused of having assisted the nun in
her impostures, in order to obtain considerable sums of money, which the
ladies of Madrid and other devout persons placed in her hands to be
distributed as alms. When her deceit, her pretended sickness, and the
other circumstances of her life were proved, Clara, her mother, and her
director, were condemned to seclusion and other punishments, much less
severe than they deserved.

Another _Beata_ appeared after these, but the circumstances of her
imposture are not so interesting.

The inquisitors no longer thought of condemning criminals to the flames.
A proof of this laudable change in their system may be seen in the trial
of Don Miguel Solano, curate of Esco in Aragon[79]. It was proved by the
depositions of the witnesses, that he had advanced several propositions
condemned by the church.

He was conducted to the secret prisons of Saragossa, where he confessed
all, alleging, that having meditated for a long time with a sincere
desire to discover the truth of the Christian religion, and that,
without the assistance of any book but the Bible, he had convinced
himself that there was no truth in anything but which was contained in
the Holy Scriptures; that all the rest might be erroneous, because
though several fathers of the church maintained these opinions, they
were but men, and, consequently, liable to err; that he considered all
that had been established by the Roman Church, in opposition to the
proper and literal meaning of the Scriptural text, as false, and that it
was possible to fall into error, in admitting that which did not result
either directly or indirectly from the text; that he considered it
certain that the ideas of purgatory and the limbos were the invention of
man, since Jesus spoke of only two receptacles for souls, paradise and
hell; that it was a sin to receive money for performing mass, although
it was called an alms, and for the support of the celebrator; and that
the priests and other ministers of religion ought to receive their
salaries from the government, like the judges and other officers. He
thought that the introduction and establishment of tithes was a fraud of
the priests, and the manner of explaining the commandment of the church,
which ordained that they should be paid without any deductions for seed,
or the expenses of the harvest, was a shameful robbery; that no
attention ought to be paid to the commands of the Pope, because no God
but avarice is adored at Rome, and all the measures of that government
only tend to take money from the people on religious pretences.

Solano had made a complete body of doctrine of these articles, and had
composed a book on it, which he confided to his bishop and other
theologians, as if he incurred no danger from such a proceeding.

The inquisitors of Saragossa undertook to persuade Solano to renounce
his opinions, and employed for that purpose some respectable
theologians; they exhorted him to acknowledge his errors and repent, and
threatened him with _relaxation_. Don Michel replied that he was aware
of his danger, but if he was induced to retract, he would be condemned
before the tribunal of God, and that if he was in error, God would
enlighten him or pardon him. The infallibility of the church, and the
opinions of the saints and learned men who had decided on the meaning of
the obscure texts, were represented to him; he replied, that in all
their discussions the Court of Rome had interfered, and rendered their
good intentions of no avail.

It was impossible to make Solano recant, and the inquisitors passed
sentence of _relaxation_; it must be confessed that they could not do
otherwise, according to the code of the Inquisition. But the Supreme
Council, wishing to spare the Spanish nation the spectacle of an
_auto-da-fé_, had recourse to the extraordinary measure of examining
some persons who had been mentioned by the witnesses, but had been
neglected, commanding the inquisitors, at the same time, to use every
effort to make Solano retract. It was in vain, and the inquisitors,
though they well knew the motives which led the council to vote against
their sentence, did not dare to disobey the law. They pronounced
sentence of _relaxation_ a second time, and the council took advantage
of a declaration made by one of the witnesses, to order an inquest to be
taken among all the curates, priests, and physicians of Esco and the
neighbourhood, in order to discover if Solano had ever suffered an
illness which weakened or deranged his mind. The result of this inquest
was to be communicated to the council, and in the mean time the trial
was suspended. The physician, who suspected what they wished him to say,
declared that Solano had had a severe illness for several years, before
he was arrested, and that it was not surprising that it had weakened his
mental powers; he said, that from that time he had spoken more
frequently of his religious opinions, which were not those of the
Catholics in Spain. On receiving this deposition, the council decreed,
that, without pronouncing definitively on the subject, every means
should be used to convert the accused. At this juncture, Solano fell
dangerously ill; the inquisitors charged the most able theologians of
Saragossa to endeavour to make him return to the faith, and even
entreated the bishop coadjutor of the Archbishop of Saragossa, Don Fray
Miguel Suarez de Santander, to exhort him with that tenderness and
goodness which were characteristic of that worthy prelate. The curate
appeared to be sensibly affected at all that was done for him, but he
said that he could not renounce his opinions, without fearing that he
offended God by betraying the truth. On the twentieth day of his
illness, the doctor told him that he was dying, and desired him to take
advantage of the few moments which were left him. "I am," said Solano,
"in the hands of God; I have nothing more to do." Thus died the curate
of Esco, in the year 1805; he was refused ecclesiastical sepulture, and
was privately buried within the walls of the tribunal. The inquisitors
reported all that had passed to the Supreme Council, which forbade them
to continue the trial, that Solano might not be burnt in effigy.

Two years after the intrigue intended to ruin the Prince of Peace,
another event which took place at Alicant ought to have been sufficient
to cause the tribunal to be reformed, or even suppressed. On the death
of Don Leonard Stuck, Consul for the Batavian Republic in that city, his
executor, the Vice-Consul of France, put his seals upon the property of
the deceased, until the formalities of the law had been fulfilled. The
commissary of the Inquisition desired the governor of the town to take
off the seals and give him the keys of the house, that he might register
the books and prints, as some of them were prohibited. The governor
demanded time, in order to consult his majesty's minister. The
commissary, who was disconcerted at this delay, went in the night with
his alguazils, broke the seals, opened the door, and made the inventory;
and when he had done, replaced the seals as well as he could, and went
away. The ambassador of the Batavian Republic complained to the
government of this violation of the law of nations, and the king wrote
to the inquisitor-general, through his minister Urquijo, informing him,
that the Inquisition must avoid similar infringements for the future,
and bounding its office to the care of observing that, on the death of
foreign ministers, no prohibited books were sold to Spaniards or
naturalized foreigners. Nearly the same thing happened to the French
consul at Barcelona.

It may have been seen in the preceding chapters, that the Inquisition
has been several times in danger of being suppressed, or subjected to
the general forms of law. These occasions were more frequent during the
reign of Charles IV.

The Counts d'Aranda, de Florida-Blanca, and Campomanes, and the
extraordinary council, represented the continual abuses committed by the
_holy office_ to Charles III., but he contented himself with passing
some ordinances to curtail its power.

In 1794, Don Manuel Abad-y-la-Sierra, inquisitor-general under Charles
IV., wished to reform the procedure of the tribunal, and commanded me to
compose a work, entitled, _A Discourse on the Procedure of the Holy
Office_, in which I represented the vices of the actual practice, and
the means of obviating them, even though the proceedings for heresy
should still continue to be secret. But, by various intrigues, an order
was obtained from Charles IV., which forced the inquisitor-general to
quit Madrid, and resign his office.

Another attempt was made, when the Prince of Peace discovered the plot
against him; the royal decree for the suppression was drawn up, but
never presented for the signature of the king, because Godoy was the
dupe of counter-intrigue. In the following year, Jovellanos wished to
make use of the work I had composed for Don Manuel Abad-y-la-Sierra, of
which I had given him a copy, but he failed in his design; and Charles
IV., who was ill-informed, and deceived by intriguers, commanded that
minister to retire to his house at Gijon in the Asturias. The attempt of
Urquijo has been already mentioned.

In 1808, Napoleon Buonaparte decreed the suppression of the Inquisition,
at Chamastin, near Madrid; he alleged that the tribunal was an
encroachment on the royal authority.

In 1813, the Cortes-general of the kingdom adopted the same measures,
after declaring that the existence of the privileged tribunal of the
holy office was incompatible with the political constitution which had
been decreed, published, and received by the nation.

In spite of these two last suppressions, the tribunal still exists;
because the greatest number of the men who surround the throne have been
and will always be the partisans of ignorance, of the ultra-montane
opinions, and of those which influenced the world before the invention
of printing. These opinions are strenuously supported by the Jesuits,
who have been recently recalled to Spain by Ferdinand VII.




CHAPTER XLIV.

OF THE INQUISITION DURING THE REIGN OF FERDINAND VII.


Charles IV. abdicated the crown in favour of his eldest son, Ferdinand,
who began to reign on the same day, before any public act had proved the
validity of the abdication. The royal and supreme Council of Castile
considered it necessary to observe the national custom on this occasion,
and commissioned the royal fiscals to examine into the validity of the
abdication, that the people might be informed that they were released
from their oath of allegiance to Charles. But a strict order was
immediately sent to the council to renounce the measure, to proclaim the
validity of the abdication, and acknowledge Ferdinand as king. Charles
protested against his abdication; he said that it was not voluntary,
since he had only done it to save his own life and that of the queen, in
the sedition at Aranjuez. Ferdinand paid no attention to this
protestation; the emperor Napoleon took advantage of the event, and the
Bourbons ceased to reign in Spain. While Charles IV. was at Marseilles,
and Ferdinand at Valencé, Joseph Napoleon, King of Naples, was
proclaimed King of Spain; Ferdinand wrote to Joseph to congratulate him,
and request his friendship, and commanded all Spaniards to recognise
him, to prevent the ruin and desolation of their country.

When Joseph was acknowledged King of Spain, the archives of the Supreme
Council and of the Inquisition of the Court were confided to me, in
consequence of an order from his majesty. With his approbation, I burnt
all the criminal processes, except those which belonged to history, from
their importance, and the rank of the accused; but I preserved all the
registers of the resolutions of the council, the royal ordinances, the
papal bulls and briefs, the papers of the affairs of the tribunal, and
all the informations taken concerning the genealogies of the persons
employed in the holy office, on account of their utility in proving
relationship in trials when it is necessary.

I have read in a work, intituled _Acta Latomorum_, that in the month of
October, 1809, a grand national lodge of Spanish freemasons was founded
even in the buildings of the Inquisition of Madrid. This assertion I
consider entirely false, because at that time the keys of the building
were in the possession of a subaltern under my orders, who would never
have consented to give them up for such a purpose. I presume that the
authors of this article wished to astonish, by the striking contrast
between the different destinations of the same edifice.

My acquaintance with the archives already mentioned enabled me to
compose for the Royal Academy of History (of which I have the honour to
be a member), a dissertation, under the title of _A Memorial, in which
the Opinion of the Spaniards concerning the Inquisition is examined_.
The Academy published my work.

The above-mentioned materials, some others which I had collected since
the year 1789, and some which were sent to me from Valladolid and other
towns, enabled me to publish, in 1812 and 1813, two volumes of the
_Annals of the Inquisition_, which comprehended all the events which
passed in the tribunals from 1477 to 1530. I was not able to finish that
work, being obliged to repair to France in 1813.

On the 22d of February, in the same year, the Spanish assembly at Cadiz,
which styled itself the _General Cortes_, suppressed the Inquisition,
restoring to the bishops and secular judges their jurisdictions, that
they might prosecute heretics in the same manner as before the existence
of the Inquisition.

This measure was the cause of long discussions in the tribune, and many
orators pronounced speeches of great eloquence. The liberty of the press
which then existed allowed many works to be published both for and
against the holy office. Its partisans neglected nothing in its defence;
in short, all that could possibly be advanced in favour of such a
tribunal as the Inquisition, was published at Cadiz during this
celebrated discussion. But reason prevailed; not because the majority of
the voters were irreligious persons, or Jacobins (as it has since been
unjustly said), but because the Cortes found an irresistible strength in
the reasoning which condemned a tribunal which had been so fatal to the
prosperity of the nation for three centuries. The representatives of
Spain received an infinite number of letters and addresses, returning
thanks for the benefit bestowed on the nation: several of these letters
were signed by persons employed in the Inquisition. I have the
satisfaction to be able to declare, that this triumph of reason and
humanity was principally owing to the documents which I furnished, and
which became known to the public in 1812, by means of the _Memorial on
the Opinion of the Spaniards concerning the Inquisition_, and the first
volume of the _Annals of the Inquisition_. This is proved by the
manifesto addressed by the Cortes to the Spanish people; in which the
representatives say, that they had seen the apostolical bulls addressed
to the Inquisition, and the complaints and appeals of the prisoners:
these details could only have been obtained from the works above
mentioned, but they were not cited, because I was then a counsellor of
state to King Joseph.

These measures of the Cortes were however useless. Buonaparte restored
the crown of Spain to Ferdinand, by a treaty at Valencé, in 1813, and in
March, 1814, the king re-entered Spain; on his arrival at Valencia, he
was immediately surrounded by persons imbued with the Gothic prejudices
of the age of chivalry, and one of the first measures of his
administration was the re-establishment of the holy office, on the 21st
of July, 1814.

In the preamble to the royal decree, Ferdinand informed the people, that
the object of the restoration of the Inquisition was to repair the evil
caused to the religion of the state by the foreign troops, who were not
Catholics; to forestall that which might be caused hereafter by the
heretical opinions imbibed by a great number of Spaniards, and to
preserve the tranquillity of the kingdom; that this measure was desired
by learned and virtuous prelates, and by different bodies and
corporations, who reminded him that, in the sixteenth century, Spain had
preserved herself from the contagion of heresy, and the errors which
desolated other countries; while the arts and sciences flourished under
many men, who were famed for their learning and sanctity; that this
happy influence of the Inquisition, was the reason why Buonaparte had
destroyed the tribunal, and that the same resolution was afterwards
adopted by the junta, falsely calling itself the _General Cortes_ of the
kingdom, on the pretence that the Inquisition was opposed to the
constitution of Cadiz, and that it was only decreed in the midst of
tumults, and against the wishes of the nation. The decree also declares,
that as it had been found necessary to frame new laws, to correct
certain abuses and to limit privileges, it was his majesty's intention
that they should be observed, and to appoint two members of the Council
of Castile, and two of that of the _holy office_, to propose the
necessary reforms and alterations in the mode of procedure concerning
personal affairs, and the prohibition of books.

It appears that these commissioners were, Don Manuel de Lardizabal Uribe
and Don Sebastian de Torres, of the Council of Castile; Don Joseph
Armarilla, and Don Antonio Galarza, counsellors of the Inquisition.
These persons might have proposed a reform, which would have remedied
several evils, or entirely destroyed them. I do not know what these
commissioners have yet done to justify the confidence placed in them,
but it is certain that hitherto no reform has been made public.

On the 5th of May, 1815, Don Francis Xavier de Mier y Campillo, the
inquisitor-general, published an edict, commanding all those who felt
themselves guilty, to denounce themselves before the end of the year,
and announcing that _Spain was infected by the new and dangerous
doctrines which had ruined the greatest part of Europe_. The
inquisitor-general condemned the _new_ and _dangerous doctrines_ which
followed the entrance of the French army, and did not mention the
systems which were propagated and put in practice by the Spanish
partisans for the war, though they really came under his jurisdiction,
because they were formerly opposed to the letter and spirit of the
Gospel. This circumstance induces me to lay it before my readers, in
order to prove that the _re-established_ Inquisition differs little from
that which was _suppressed_, since, if the latter allowed works
inculcating regicide to be circulated, and condemned books which
supported the royal authority, the former began by condemning the
doctrine which taught us, that men were not slaves or animals to be
bought and sold, and at the same time allowed such maxims as the
following to be acted upon:--

1st. That it was allowable during the invasion, to assassinate any
Frenchman in Spain, whether he was a soldier or not, without distinction
of circumstances or means, because they were all enemies of the country,
the defence of which ought to be the first consideration.

2nd. That according to the same principal it was lawful to kill any
Spaniard, who was a partisan of the superior power, designated as a
_Francisé_.

3rd. That any Spaniards of the same party might be despoiled of their
money, goods, or the produce of their estates, and that their houses,
vineyards, olive-grounds, and other plantations might be burnt.

4th. That an oath of fidelity, taken on the sacrament, might be broken,
even if no mental reservation was made, because the person was persuaded
that it was the only means to avoid the danger threatened by the
superior power, which could execute its threats, according to the
general laws of war.

5. That the priests and monks were authorised to abandon their tranquil
life, and engage in a military career, provided it was against the
French and the Francisés. This doctrine prevailed even when it was seen
that the ecclesiastics and monks had become the chiefs of bands of
robbers, and carried infamous concubines in their suites, and that they
had imposed arbitrary contributions on different towns.

6th. That the war against France was a war of religion, and,
consequently, that those who perished were to be considered as martyrs.

7th. That it was allowable, and even praiseworthy, to refuse sacramental
absolution to a penitent who had submitted to the superior force, unless
he promised to abandon it, and to contribute by every means to its
destruction.

8th. That it was preferable to eat meat on Fridays and other fast-days
without permission, than to receive it from the apostolical
commissary-general of the Holy Crusade of Spain, resident at Madrid, who
was charged by the Pope with this commission.

9th. That it was permitted to preserve an eternal hatred, and to excite
others to an implacable war against the Spaniards who had submitted to
the superior force.

It is not my intention to accuse the Bishop of Almeira, or the present
inquisitors, of abusing their powers. The edict, on the whole, expresses
an intention of pursuing mild measures, and hitherto it does not appear
that they have been unfaithful to this maxim; for I cannot credit
certain reports circulated in Paris, or what was said in 1815, in _Acta
Latomorum_. The author, after announcing the re-establishment of the
Inquisition by Ferdinand VII., adds, that he had forbidden the masonic
lodges, on pain of the punishments for high-treason. In another article
of the same work, on the events of the year 1814, it is said,--

"On the 25th of September, twenty-five individuals were arrested, on
suspicion that they were the members of a masonic lodge, and partisans
of the Cortes: among them were the Marquis Tolosa; the Canon Marina, a
learned and distinguished member of the Academy; Doctor Luque, the court
physician; and some French, and Italians, and Germans, who had settled
in Spain. The brave General Alava, who was chosen by General Wellington
for his aide-de-camp, on account of his merit, has been imprisoned by
the holy office, as a freemason." I consider the latter assertion to be
entirely false, because letters worthy of credit, and the gazettes of
Spain, only stated that an order to leave Madrid had been sent to the
general by the king, but it was revoked, as his majesty discovered that
he had been deceived; it is certain that Ferdinand, some time after,
sent him as his ambassador into the Low Countries.

The account given in the Madrid Gazette on the 14th May, 1816, of an
_auto-da-fé_ celebrated by the Inquisition of Mexico on the 27th
December, 1815, is more worthy of belief. Don Joseph-Maria Morellos, a
priest, had placed himself at the head of his countrymen, with the
intention of freeing his country from the dominion of the King of Spain.
The holy office prosecuted him for heresy, while the viceroy arrested
him for rebellion. The prisons of the holy office were preferred to that
of the government, and some witnesses were found who deposed to certain
facts which the Mexican qualifiers thought sufficient to authorize them
to pronounce Morellos suspected of atheism, materialism, and other
errors. One proof of his guilt was, that he had two children. The
accused abjured, and was absolved in an _auto-da-fé_, which was
celebrated with as much parade as in the reign of Philip II. When the
Inquisitors treated Morellos with so much moderation, they knew that the
viceroy would hang him; before his execution he was degraded from the
priesthood by the Bishop of Antequera in America.

I do not know if the Spanish Inquisition has celebrated an _auto-da-fé_
since its re-establishment. I shall only say, that if its members wish
to follow the precepts of the Gospel more faithfully than their
predecessors, they ought to follow the example of their chief, Pius VII.
A letter from Rome, dated the 31st of March, 1816, announces that his
Holiness had abolished the use of torture in all the tribunals of the
holy office, and that the resolution had been communicated to the
ambassadors of Spain and Portugal[80]. A second letter from the same
city on the 17th of April following, says that the procedure of the
Inquisition was to be similar to that of the other tribunals, and to be
made public[81].

A third letter on the 9th May, states that the Inquisition of Rome had
annulled the sentence which that of Ravenna had pronounced against
Solomon Moses Viviani, who had relapsed into Judaism, after having
abjured it to become a Christian. In confirming the revocation, the Pope
said: "The divine law is not of the same nature as that of man, but a
law of persuasion and gentleness; persecution, exile, and imprisonment,
are only suitable to false prophets and the apostles of false doctrines.
Let us pity the man who does not see the true light, or who even refuses
to see it; the cause of his blindness may tend to fulfil the profound
designs of providence, &c." His Holiness having since presided at a
congregation of the holy office, has decreed that, "in all trials of
heresy, the accuser shall be confronted with the accused, in the
presence of the judges, and has expressed an intention that the trials
shall be so conducted as to avoid the punishment of death[82]."

Another letter from Rome, of the 17th January, 1817, contains the
following article: "It is reported that the holy office will be reformed
this year. It appears that it will only be allowed to proceed in the
same manner as the other tribunals. The government considers it to be
dangerous to allow a body to exist which is useless, and always armed
against the progress of reason. You may believe that the Inquisition has
already ceased to exist[83]."

In March, 1816, the Portuguese ambassador had sent a diplomatic note to
the cardinal-secretary of state to his Holiness, in which he informs
him, in the name of his court, of the condemnation of a work printed by
the Inquisitor Louis de Paramo, of the formal and judicial suppression
of the holy office, and of the re-establishment of the bishops in their
former privileges[84].

These just and moderate measures ought to be the rule and guide of the
Spanish inquisitors; if they would make the proceedings public, and
liberate the prisoners on bail, I confess that I should not be afraid to
present myself to be tried by that tribunal.

Since this article was printed, I have been informed, that the
inquisitor-general Mier Campillo is dead, and that Ferdinand has
appointed Monseigneur Jerome Castillon de Salas, Bishop of Taragona, as
his successor. God grant that he may understand the spirit of the
Gospel, and the necessity of reforming the Inquisition, better than his
predecessor!




NUMBER OF THE VICTIMS

OF

THE INQUISITION.


It is impossible to determine the exact number of persons who perished
in the first years after the establishment of the holy office. Persons
were burnt in the year 1481, and the Supreme Council was not created
until 1483. The registers in its archives, and those of the inferior
tribunals, are of a still later date; and as the inquisitor-general
accompanied the court, which had no fixed residence until the reign of
Philip II., many of the trials must have been lost during these
journeys. These circumstances oblige me to found my calculations on the
combination of certain data, which I found in the registers and writings
of the holy office.

Mariana, in his History of Spain, informs us that, in 1481, the
Inquisitors of Seville condemned two thousand persons to _relaxation_,
that is, to be burnt, and that there were as many effigies; the number
of persons reconciled was one thousand seven hundred. The latter were
always subjected to severe penances.

The _autos-da-fé_ of this period, which I examined at Saragossa and
Toledo, lead me to suppose that each tribunal of the Inquisition
celebrated at least four _autos-da-fé_ every year. The provincial
tribunals were successively organised. I do not speak of those of
Mexico, Lima, Carthagena in America, Sicily or Sardinia, although they
were subject to the Inquisitors-general and the Supreme Council, because
I am only enabled to establish my calculation for those of the Peninsula
and the neighbouring isles.

Andres Bernaldez, a contemporary historian, and very much attached to
the new institution, in which he held the office of almoner to the
second inquisitor, states, in his inedited History of the Catholic
Kings, that from 1482 to 1489, more than seven hundred individuals were
burnt, and more than five thousand subjected to penances, at Seville: he
does not mention the effigies.

In 1481 the number equalled that of the persons burnt. I will, however,
suppose that these were only half that number, to avoid all
exaggeration, though it was in general much more considerable; I may,
therefore, say, that in each year of this period, 88 persons were burnt
at Seville, 44 in effigy, and 600 condemned to different penances;
total, 757. The same mode of calculation may be applied to the other
tribunals of the province which were then founded.

In the castle of Triana, at Seville, where the inquisitorial tribunal
was held, is an inscription, placed there in 1524, importing that in the
space of time from 1492 to that year, about 1000 persons had been burnt,
and 20,000 condemned to penances;--I will suppose that 1000 individuals
were burnt, and 500 effigies, which will give for each year 32 burnt, 16
effigies, and 625 subjected to penances. I might admit a similar result
for all the tribunals of the kingdom, but I prefer taking the half, on
the supposition that the commerce carried on in the kingdom of Seville
drew thither many Jewish families.

With respect to the years 1490, 91, and 92, which elapsed between those
mentioned by Bernaldez and the period of the inscription of Triana, I
prefer calculating according to the thirty-two years after the
inscription.

Such are the foundations of my calculations for the first eighteen years
of the Inquisition. I shall consider it from that time as entirely
belonging to the government of Torquemada, the first inquisitor-general;
for, although his office was not created till 1483, the two preceding
years may be united to his administration, because he was at that time
one of the Inquisitors appointed by the Pope. I shall, however,
carefully distinguish the time when the inferior tribunals began to act,
as a greater number of persons perished in the first year, because they
were not sufficiently observant of their words and actions.

1481. Seville, the only tribunal. Burnt, 2000. Effigies, 2000. Penances,
1700. Total, 21,000.

I do not mention Aragon, where the old Inquisition was in full activity.

1482. Seville. Burnt, 88. Effigies, 44. Penances, 625. Total, 757.

The tribunals of Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and Majorca, belonged to
the old Inquisition.

1483. Seville. Ditto.

Tribunals were established in this year at Cordova, Jaen, and Toledo; it
is probable that as many persons were condemned at these places as in
the first year at Seville, but I shall take the tenth part of that
number.

Cordova. Burnt, 200. Effigies, 200. Penances, 17. Total, 2100. Jaen,
ditto. Toledo, ditto. Total, 7057.

1484. Seville. Burnt, 88. Effigies, 44. Penances, 625. Total, 757.

I calculate half that number for each of the three additional tribunals.
Total, 1892.

1485. Seville, ditto. Cordova, ditto. Jaen, ditto. Toledo, ditto.

Valladolid, Estremadura, Murcia, Calahorra, Saragossa, and Valencia;
each, burnt, 200. Effigies, 200. Penances, 1700. Total, 2100.

For the ten tribunals. Total, 12,930.

1486. Seville, as before.

Cordova, Jaen, and Toledo, ditto.

Valladolid, Llerena, Murcia, Logroño, Saragossa, and Valencia; same
number as Cordova.

For the ten tribunals. Total, 4149.

1487. Seville, and the other tribunals; the same number as the preceding
year.

Barcelona and Majorca, burnt, 200. Effigies, 200. Penances, 1700.

Total for the twelve tribunals, 8359.

1488. Seville, ditto.

Eleven other tribunals, same number as before. Total, 4915.

1489. Same as the preceding year. Here finish the calculations founded
on the statements of Mariana and Bernaldez.

1490. Seville. Burnt, 32. Effigies, 16. Penances, 625. Total, 663.
According to the calculation from the inscription of Triana.

The eleven other tribunals may be considered to have punished half that
number. Total for the twelve, 4369.

1491 to 1498. According to my system of reduction, the total number of
victims for the eight last years of Torquemada, was 34,952.

Total for the eighteen years of his administration, 105,294.

1499 to 1507. _Second inquisitor-general._ Don Fray Diego Deza. For the
twelve tribunals during the eight years of his administration. Burnt,
1664. Effigies, 832. Penances, 32,456. Total, 34,952.

1507 to 1518. _Third inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros.
In 1513 he separated the tribunal of Cuença from that of Murcia.

Number of persons condemned during the eleven years of his
administration. Burnt, 2536. Effigies, 1368. Penances, 47,263. Total,
51,163.

1518 to 1524. _Fourth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Adrian. Number of
tribunals in the peninsula, the same as under his predecessor. Burnt,
1344. Effigies, 662. Penances, 26,214. Total, 28,230.

1524 to 1539. _Fifth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Manrique. For each
year of this administration, I calculate that in each of the tribunals
10 were burnt, 5 in effigy, and 50 subjected to penances; total, 65.
There were thirteen tribunals in the peninsula, and two in the adjacent
isles. According to the preceding calculation, we find that during the
fifteen years of the administration of Manrique, there were, Burnt,
2250. Effigies, 1120. Penances, 11,250. Total, 14,625.

1539 to 1545. _Sixth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Tabera. His
administration may be considered as having lasted seven years. For the
fifteen tribunals during that period, I calculate, Burnt, 840. Effigies,
420. Penances, 4200. Total, 5460.

_Seventh inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Loaisa was appointed in 1546, and
died in the same year; the time of his administration may be said to be
twelve months. In the fifteen tribunals, Burnt, 120. Effigies, 60.
Penances, 600. Total, 780.

_Eighth inquisitor-general._ Don Ferdinand Valdés, Archbishop of
Seville. Twenty years in the fifteen tribunals, Burnt, 2400. Effigies,
1200. Penances, 12,000. Total, 19,600.

_Ninth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Espinosa, six years. Burnt, 720.
Effigies, 360. Penances, 3600. Total, 4680.

_Tenth inquisitor-general._ Don Pedro de Cordova, Ponce de Leon,
succeeded in 1572, and died in January, 1573, before he could enter on
his office.

_Eleventh inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Quiroga, twenty-two years.
Another tribunal was established in Galicia. In the sixteen tribunals
were Burnt, 2816. Effigies, 1408. Penances, 14,080. Total, 18,304.

_Twelfth inquisitor-general._ Don Jerome Manrique de Lara, Bishop of
Carthagena and Avila, one year. Total for the sixteen Inquisitions,
Burnt, 180. Effigies, 64. Penances, 640. Total, 832.

_Thirteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Pedro de Porto-Carrero, Bishop of
Cuença, three years. Burnt, 184. Effigies, 92. Penances, 1920. Total,
2196.

_Fourteenth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Guevara, three years. Burnt,
240. Effigies, 96. Penances, 1728. Total, 2064.

_Fifteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan de Zuñiga, Bishop of
Carthagena, one year. Burnt, 84. Effigies, 32. Penances, 576. Total,
688.

_Sixteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan Bautista de Acebedo, Archbishop
_in partibus infidelium_, five years. Burnt, 400. Effigies, 116.
Penances, 2880. Total, 3440.

_Seventeenth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Sandoval y Roxas, eleven
years. Burnt, 880. Effigies, 352. Penances, 6336. Total, 7568.

_Eighteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Fray Louis de Aliaga, two years.
Burnt, 240. Effigies, 96. Penances, 1728. Total, 2064.

_Nineteenth inquisitor-general._ Don Andres Pacheco, four years. Burnt,
200. Effigies, 128. Penances, 1280. Total, 1664.

_Twentieth inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Mendoza, six years. Burnt, 384.
Effigies, 192. Penances, 1920. Total, 2496.

_Twenty-first inquisitor-general._ Don Fray Antonio de Sotomayor,
Archbishop _in partibus infidelium_, eleven years. Burnt, 704. Effigies,
352. Penances, 3520. Total, 4576.

_Twenty-second inquisitor-general._ Don Diego de Arce y Reynosa, Bishop
of Placencia, twenty-three years. Burnt, 1472. Effigies, 736. Penances,
7360. Total, 9568.

_Twenty-third inquisitor-general._ Cardinal d'Aragon. Dismissed before
he entered on his office.

_Twenty-fourth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan Everard Nitardo, three
years. Burnt, 144. Effigies, 48. Penances, 576. Total, 768.

_Twenty-fifth inquisitor-general._ Don Diego Sarmiento de Valladares,
twenty-six years. Burnt, 1248. Effigies, 416. Penances, 4992. Total,
6656.

_Twenty-sixth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan Thomas Rocaberti, Archbishop
of Valencia, five years. Burnt, 240. Effigies, 80. Penances, 960. Total,
1280.

_Twenty-seventh inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Aguilar. Died before he
entered on his office.

_Twenty-eighth inquisitor-general._ Don Balthazar Mendoza y Sandoval,
Bishop of Segovia, five years. Burnt, 240. Effigies, 80. Penances, 960.
Total, 1280.

_Twenty-ninth inquisitor-general._ Don Vidal Marin, Bishop of Ceuta,
four years. Seventeen tribunals. Burnt, 136. Effigies, 68. Penances,
816. Total, 1020.

_Thirtieth inquisitor-general._ Don Antonio Ibañez de la Riva Herrera,
Archbishop of Saragossa, two years. Burnt, 68. Effigies, 34. Penances,
408. Total, 510.

_Thirty-first inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Judice, six years. Burnt,
204. Effigies, 102. Penances, 1224. Total, 1530.

_Thirty-second inquisitor-general._ Don Joseph Molines, Auditor de Rote
at Rome, two years. Burnt, 68. Effigies, 34. Penances, 408. Total, 510.

_Thirty-third inquisitor-general._ Don Juan de Arzamendi. Died before he
entered on the office.

_Thirty-fourth inquisitor-general._ Don Diego de Astorga y Cespedes,
Bishop of Barcelona, two years. Burnt, 68. Effigies, 34. Penances, 408.
Total, 510.

_Thirty-fifth inquisitor-general._ Don Juan de Camargo, Bishop of
Pampluna, thirteen years. Burnt, 442. Effigies, 221. Penances, 2652.
Total, 3315.

_Thirty-sixth inquisitor-general._ Don Andres de Orbe y Larreategui,
Archbishop of Valencia, seven years. Burnt, 238. Effigies, 119.
Penances, 1428. Total, 1785.

_Thirty-seventh inquisitor-general._ Don Manuel Isidro Manrique de Lara,
Archbishop of Santiago, four years. Burnt, 336. Effigies, 68. Penances,
816. Total, 1020.

_Thirty-eighth inquisitor-general._ Don Francisco Perez de Prado y
Cuesta, Bishop of Teruel. He was confirmed by the Pope in 1746; I do not
know the exact term of his administration, but I have fixed it in 1757,
before the death of Ferdinand VI., who appointed his successor. Burnt,
10. Effigies, 5. Penances, 107. Total, 122.

_Thirty-ninth inquisitor-general._ Don Manuel Quintano Bonifaz,
Archbishop of Pharsala, seventeen years. Burnt, 2. Penances, 10 in
public, a greater number in private.

_Fortieth inquisitor-general._ Don Philip Bertran, Bishop of Salamanca,
nine years. Two were burnt every year of this administration, six
condemned to public, and a great number to private penances[85].

_Forty-first inquisitor-general._ Don Augustin Rubin de Cevallos, Bishop
of Jaen, nine years. Fourteen condemned to public penances, and a
considerable number condemned intra muros.

_Forty-second inquisitor-general._ Don Manuel Abad y la Sierra,
Archbishop of Selimbria, two years. Sixteen individuals condemned to
public, a greater number to private penances.

_Forty-third inquisitor-general._ Cardinal Lorenzana, three years.
Public penances, 14. A very great number condemned to private penances.
One effigy was burnt at Cuença.

_Forty-fourth inquisitor-general._ Don Ramon Joseph de Arce, Archbishop
of Saragossa, eleven years. Twenty individuals were condemned to public,
and a very considerable number to private penances. The Curate of Esco
was condemned to the flames, but the grand-inquisitor and the Supreme
Council would not permit the sentence to be executed.

    Number of persons who were condemned
      and perished in the flames   -   -   31,912
    Effigies burnt     -   -   -   -   -   17,659
    Condemned to severe penances   -   -  291,450
                                         ---------
                                          341,021

THE END.

LONDON:

Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES,
Stamford-Street.

       *       *       *       *       *

The following typographical errors have been corrected by the etext
transcriber:

those already in in prison were excluded from the pardon=>those already
in prison were excluded from the pardon

John Guiterrez de Chabes=>John Gutierrez de Chabes

Don Diego Deza, a Dominician=>Don Diego Deza, a Dominican

entirely composed by Catholics authors=>entirely composed by Catholic
authors

he went out, and was assasinated=>he went out, and was assassinated

more favourably received than at Vallodolid=>more favourably received
than at Valladolid

expences in travelling and maintaining=>expenses in travelling and
maintaining

mind was so much disorderered=>mind was so much disordered

from the secresy of their proceedings=>from the secrecy of their
proceedings

secresy, and two members of the Council of Castile=>secrecy, and two
members of the Council of Castile

inquisitor in ordinary of the diocease=>inquisitor in ordinary of the
diocese

he ackowledges his guilt=>he acknowledges his guilt


Nicholas Antonio say that he died, with the reputation of being a
saint=>Nicholas Antonio says that he died, with the reputation of being
a saint

Haping occasion to say=>Having occasion to say

it appears, from cotemporary=>it appears, from contemporary


made several journies to Valladolid=>made several journeys to Valladolid

The queen and the princes were in tears=>The queen and the princess were
in tears

his death was invitable=>his death was inevitable

afterwards transferred to the the city of=>afterwards transferred to the
city of

when Cazella was arrested=>when Cazalla was arrested

decree of the congregation shuld be revoked.=>decree of the congregation
should be revoked.

Majorca, Bilboa, Valladolid, aud Osma=>Majorca, Bilboa, Valladolid, and
Osma

cemetery of Pére la Chaise=>cemetery of Père la Chaise

there was a third called called Huguenaos=>there was a third called
Huguenaos

       *       *       *       *       *


FOOTNOTES:

[1] The following fact shews that the inquisitors of our own days do not
fall below the standard of those who followed the fanatic Torquemada. *
* * * was present when the Inquisition was thrown open, in 1820, by the
orders of the Cortes of Madrid. Twenty-one prisoners were found in it,
not one of whom knew the name of the city in which he was: some had been
confined three years, some a longer period, and not one knew perfectly
the nature of the crime of which he was accused.

One of these prisoners had been condemned, and was to have suffered on
the following day. His punishment was to be death by the _pendulum_. The
method of thus destroying the victim is as follows:--The condemned is
fastened in a groove, upon a table, on his back; suspended above him is
a pendulum, the edge of which is sharp, and it is so constructed as to
become longer with every movement. The wretch sees this implement of
destruction swinging to and fro above him, and every moment the keen
edge approaching nearer and nearer: at length it cuts the skin of his
nose, and gradually cuts on, until life is extinct. It may be doubted if
the holy office in its mercy ever invented a more humane and rapid
method of exterminating heresy, or ensuring confiscation. This, let it
be remembered, was a punishment of the Secret Tribunal, A.D. 1820!!!

[2] The _absolution ad cautelam_ is that granted by inquisitors to
persons who have been suspected of heresy.

[3] Since the publication of this work, the Author has been informed
that the convicts were only fastened to the statues of the _Four
Prophets_, and not enclosed in them. Andrew Bernaldez, a contemporary
writer, and eye-witness of the executions, from whom this fact was
taken, is not sufficiently explicit to remove all doubt.

[4] Erasmus, letters 884, 907, 910.

[5] Sandoval. Hist. Charles V. B. 24, § 23.

[6] Salazar de Mendoza, Life of Don Bartholomew Carranza, ch. vii.

[7] Mayan's Life of John Louis Vives, in the introduction to the new
edition of his works.

[8] Virues: _Philippics against Melancthon_, in the dedication of the
edition of Antwerp, 1541.

[9] Reginaldus Gonzalvius Montanus, _Sanctæ Inquisitionis Hispanicæ,
artes aliquot detectæ_. This work is now extremely rare; it was
published in 8vo. at Heidelberg in 1567.

[10] Charles V. is the hero of this poem.

[11] Don Antonio Cajetan de Souza has inserted this bull in his
genealogical History of the Royal House of Portugal; Vol. II.

[12] Continued from Gonzales de Montes.

[13] Sandoval's History of Charles V., vol. ii.

[14] Sandoval's History of Charles V., tom. ii.

[15] Cabrera, Hist. Philip II., Book 2. chap. vi.

[16] Cabrera, ibid. B. I. chap. viii. and ix.

[17] Leti, Life of Philip II. Book 17.--Reinaldi, Annales Eccles. An.
1563, No. 146.--Palavicini, Hist. Council of Trent, Book 22, Chap.
viii.--Sarpi, Hist. Council of Trent, Book 8. No. 42.

[18] See Chapter XVI.

[19] Pellecyr, Ensago de Biblioteca de Traductores Españoles. Articles,
_Reina_, _Perez_, and _Valera_.

[20] Regnialdus Gonzalirus Montanus, _Sanctæ Inquisitionis Hispanicæ
artes aliquot detectæ_, in the rubric _Publicato testium_, p. 50.

[21] Fleury, Hist. Ecoles, liv. 154, ann. 1559, No. 14.

[22] Ulloa, _Vita di Carlos V._, edition of Venice; 1589, p. 237.

[23] The _informer_ is admitted as a witness, in contempt of the rule of
right, and the punishment due to a false witness is not inflicted, if he
is discovered to be such.

[24] They never found this measure necessary. The old bulls and the
Cortes had provided that the interlocutory act of arrest should be
consented to, and signed by the inquisitor in ordinary of the diocese.
Reason dictated this measure, because the decree for an arrest does not
permit the summons.

[25] This form is very prejudicial to the prisoner, when the
conversation takes place with one person, because the manner of relating
the fact supposes three, the accused, the interlocutor, and the
individual who has seen or heard.

[26] This inconvenience was the danger to which the secrecy of the holy
office was exposed from the activity of these procurators.

[27] This is false; the advantages on the contrary were very important,
because the procurators who knew the persons capable of proving the
challenge of presumed witnesses, informed them of it, in order to favour
the accused.

[28] The New Christians, the relations, the servants, malefactors,
infamous persons, in fact every man, a wife, a child, are admitted to
depose against the accused, and he cannot call as a witness any person
who is a relation or a servant!

[29] This is an injustice. If an accused person had seen the proved
articles of the examination in his defence, or if they had been
communicated to his lawyer, he would have often derived conclusive
arguments from them against the depositions for the prosecution.

[30] _It was not often used_, because the inquisitors were unwilling to
reveal the secret of their irregular proceedings; they considered it
_dangerous_, because it was favourable to the accused, in the few cases
where it had been employed; they wished it to be used with great
caution, because they felt that those who are not inquisitors act like
judges. The canonical proof takes place in the presence of twelve
persons, who declare upon oath whether they believe the accused to be
innocent or guilty. They were a kind of jury, to whom the inquisitors
were obliged to show the original process, and thus the accused depended
more upon the jury than on the inquisitors.

[31] I have not read any process which proves that more than one
inquisitor has assisted at this execution; I have never seen either the
ordinary, or the consultors present at it; the question was only applied
in the presence of the inquisitor, the notary, and the executioners.

[32] It was afterwards regulated that this should be done in all
definitive sentences.

[33] The trial began in 1558; it had already lasted more than fifteen
years, yet the council said that it went on quickly!

[34] Father Kircher has inserted this letter in his work called
_Principis Christiani Archetipon Politicum_.

[35] Kircher has inserted the whole of this letter in the work before
mentioned.

[36] Estrada: Decades of the War of Flanders. Decade i. b. 7.

[37] This refers to the queen's journey to Bayonne, to confer with her
mother on the political affairs of the League. It took place in 1565.

[38] Cabrera: History of Philip II., chap. 28.

[39] Wander-Hamer: History of Philip II., p. 115. Cabrera: Prudence of
Philip II., b. vii. chap. 22.

[40] Cabrera. Ibid. chap. 28.

[41] Kircher: _Vide_ the Work before mentioned, b. ii. chap. 2.

[42] Estrada: Wars of Flanders, Decade i. b. 7.

[43] Cabrera: Hist. Philip II., b. vii. chap. 28.

[44] Wander-Hamen: Life of Don John of Austria, book i.

[45] Cabrera: Hist. Philip II., book vii. chap. 22.

[46] Retamar is a place situated half-way between Madrid and the Pardo.

[47] Cabrera, book vii. chap. 22.--Wander-Hamen: Life of Don John of
Austria, book i.

[48] St. Jerome is a monastery of the order of Jeronimites, founded by
Henry IV. Near this monastery is the old royal palace called _Buen
Retiro_.

[49] _Atocha_ is a Convent of Dominicans near _Buen Retiro_, on the east
side.

[50] This was not the Saturday following, which was on the 3rd of
January, 1568, but on the 17th of January, the day before Don Carlos was
arrested.

[51] The princes of Bohemia and Hungary, then at Madrid, also Don John
of Austria and Alexander Farnese.

[52] Some galleys which were then being prepared under the command of
Don John.

[53] Grand prior of the order of St. John of Jerusalem: his name was Don
Antonio de Toledo, brother to the Duke of Alva, and a councillor of
state.

[54] The Duke de Feria was captain-general of the king's guards, and a
councillor of state.

[55] Louis Quijada was Lord of Villagarcia, son of him who was
major-domo to Charles V. in his retirement. The Count de Lerma was
afterwards first duke and favourite of Philip III. Don Rodrigo de
Mendoza was the eldest son of the Prince d'Evoli.

[56] Son of Don Gabriel, Count de Siruela.

[57] Mass was afterwards said in the prince's apartment; this shows that
the account was written before the 2nd of March, when the order was
given to have it performed.

[58] The 19th of January, 1568.

[59] Hoyos. His name was Pedro del Hoyo.

[60] That is of the eldest sons who have the right of succeeding to the
crown, which is a _majorat_, or a perpetual substitution by the order of
primogeniture.

[61] Jane, the king's sister, who had brought up Don Carlos before he
had masters.

[62] The _monteros_ are the king's body-guard for the night. All the
individuals of this guard are called _Monteros de Espinosa_, because
they ought to have been born in the borough called _Espinosa de la
Monteros_; this is a privilege which was granted to them by the
sovereign Count of Castile, Ferdinand Gonzalez, as a recompense for a
distinguished act of fidelity.

[63] Watson: History of the Reign of Philip II., in English and French,
Appendix.

[64] De Thou: History of his Time, in Latin, vol. ii. b. 43.

[65] Comentarios del Reverendissimo señor Fray Barthome Carranza de
Miranda, Arzobispo de Toledo, sobre el cathecismo christiano, divididos
en quatro partes, les quales contienent odo lo que profesamos en el
santo bautismo, como se vera en la plana siguiente, dirigida al
serenisimo senor rey de Espana, &c., nuestro senor. En Anveres, en casa
de Martin Nucio, Anno M. D. LVIII., con privilegio real.

[66] Reinaldo: Ecclesiastical Annals for 1563, No. 137. Paul Sarpi:
History of the Council of Trent, b. viii. p. 32.

[67] These expressions show that the Count foresaw that the resolution
of the council would be favourable to the Catechism; and in that case
the holy office of Spain would be dishonoured.

[68] The chief justice of Aragon was an intermediate judge between the
king and his subjects, and independent of him as an officer of justice,
before whom the king only was the pleading party. This magistracy had
been established by the constitution of the kingdom; the person invested
with it was authorized to declare, at the demand of any inhabitant, that
the king, his judges, or his magistrates, abused their power, and acted
against the law in violating the constitution and privileges of the
kingdom; in this case, the chief justice could defend the oppressed by
force of arms against the king, and of course against his agents or
lieutenants.

[69] This expression is ancient in the Aragonese dialect, and taken from
the French, which derived it from the Latin _inquisitio_. It is the
title given in the code of _Fueros_ to the sentence pronounced against
magistrates or other public officers guilty of infidelity, abuse of
power, or other crimes.

[70] Henry IV. of France, then called the Duke of Vendome, and Catherine
de Bourbon, afterwards Sovereign Duchess of Bar.

[71] Molina was then at Madrid, where he had been rewarded by a place in
the council of military orders. He was succeeded at Saragossa by Don
Pedro de Zamora.

[72] See _Relations_ of Perez.

[73] See Chapter XV.

[74] See Chapter 15.

[75] See Chapter 26.

[76] See Chapter 25.

[77] A work, by M. Clement, was printed at Paris, in 1802, called _A
Journal of Correspondences and Journeys for the Peace of the Church_.

[78] These letters will be found in the second volume of the _Memoires
pour servir à l'Histoire de la Révolution d'Espagne_, by Don Juan
Nellerto, Nos. 34, 59, 67.

[79] Don Miguel Juan Antonio Solano was born at Veroline in Aragon.
Nature had endued him with an inventive, penetrating genius, inclined to
mathematical applications; he learned the trade of a joiner, for his own
amusement. He invented a plough which would work without oxen or horses,
and presented it to the government, but little notice was taken of it.
Desiring to make himself useful to his parishioners, he undertook to
fertilize the earth in a ravine situated between two mountains, and
completely succeeded. He had brought into the ravine the waters of a
fountain, which was about a quarter of a Spanish league from the spot. A
long and severe illness had made him lame, and during his convalescence,
he invented a chair in which he could go out into his garden. When his
age inclined him to meditations of another nature, as he had not many
books, he particularly applied himself to the study of the Bible, and
from it he formed his religious system, which differed little from that
of the reformed Protestants, who are most attached to the discipline of
the first ages of the church; he was persuaded that all that is not
expressed in the New Testament, or is opposed to the literal sense of
the text, was invented by man. He put his sentiments in writing, and
sent the work to his bishop, requesting him to instruct him and give his
opinion. The bishop Lopez Gil promised to send him an answer; but as it
did not arrive, Solano communicated his opinions to some professors of
theology in the University of Saragossa, and to some curates in his
neighbourhood: he was in consequence denounced to the Inquisition of
Saragossa, who proceeded to take informations, and arrest the criminal.
A curate, who called himself his friend, received the commission to
arrest the unfortunate Solano, while entire liberty was allowed him to
enable him to recover. Solano, however, found means to convey himself to
Oleron, the nearest town on the French frontier; but soon after,
depending on the goodness of his intentions, hoping that the inquisitors
would respect his innocence, and show him his errors, if he had fallen
into any, he returned to Spain, and wrote to inform them that he would
submit to anything, in order to be enlightened and convinced. His
conduct proved that he was little acquainted with the tribunal of the
Inquisition.

[80] See _Gazette de France_, for the 14th April, 1816, No. 103.

[81] _Gazette de France_, _Journal du Soir_, for the 1st May, 1816.

[82] _Gazette de France_, 22nd May, 1816, No. 41.

[83] _Gazette de France_, January 21st, 1817, No. 31.

[84] _Gazette de France_, April 3rd, 1816, No. 94.

[85] The last person burnt by the Inquisition was a Beata, for having
made a compact with the devil. She suffered on the 7th of November,
1781.










*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION OF SPAIN FROM THE TIME OF ITS ESTABLISHMENT TO THE REIGN OF FERDINAND VII. ***


    

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.


START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

    This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
    other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
    whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
    of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
    at www.gutenberg.org. If you
    are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
    of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
  
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

    • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
        the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
        you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
        to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
        agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
        within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
        legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
        payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
        Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
        Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
        Literary Archive Foundation.”
    
    • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
        you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
        does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
        License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
        copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
        all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
        works.
    
    • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
        any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
        electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
        receipt of the work.
    
    • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
        distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
    

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.