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-fe against the Lutherans, in the Presence of some
Members of the Royal Family 196
CHAP. XXI.--History of two Autos-da-fe, 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-fe celebrated in Murcia 253
CHAP. 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. 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-fe 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. Lavallee, 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 "_Supreme_," 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 Farnese, duke of Parma, and
grandson of Charles V.; Don Philip of Arragon, son of the Emperor of
Morocco; of Caesar 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. Irenaeus, 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 Manes was so great, that Archelaues, Bishop of
Caschara, in Mesopotamia, judged it necessary to imprison him, yet he
renounced that design when Marcellus (to whom Manes had written)
proposed another conference with him. Archelaues 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 (Prefet du Pretoire) 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 Recarede 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 Manes. 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.