_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 Logrono, 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_.
_Berrocosa_ (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 a 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.
_Canuelo_ (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.
Canuelo 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 ete brules,
supprimees ou censures_. 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.
_Ludena_ (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 cure 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 Valdez_ (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 Ludena.
_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.
_Monino_ (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 Cuenca, 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
Cuenca; 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 Logrono, 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 Cuenca. 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.
_Pena_ (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 Pena
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 Pena
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 Pena 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 Pena'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-fe_ 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 Cuenca, 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 Logrono. 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
Logrono 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.
_Valdes_ (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_.
Valdes also composed another called _Acharo_; all these works were
noted as being Lutheran, and the author was declared to be a _formal
heretic_. Valdes left Spain, and thus escaped imprisonment. In 1559,
Fray Louis de la Cruz, a prisoner in the Inquisition of Valladolid,
declared that Valdes 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
Valdes as if he was the secretary of Charles V.; if that was the case,
he must be called _Juan Alonzo de Valdes_. Nicolas Antonio mentions him
as a different person in his _Bibliotheque_.
_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-fe_, 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-fe_ 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 Monino, 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
_Bibliotheque 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 Inigo Ordonez, 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-fe_. The
inquisitor-general Portocarrero was deprived of his office, and banished
to his bishopric of Cuenca.
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 Cure 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 Nino 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 Abbe 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.
_Banueelos_ (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 Logrono, 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-fe_, 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-fe_ 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.
_Monino_ (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 Cuenca, 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.