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 quae 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-fe_, 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-fe_ 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.