were vexed that Carranza had not been degraded from his dignity. The
suspension for five years appeared to them a singularly slight
punishment, and they feared that the Pope would grant him a dispensation
from it, which he, in fact, did, eight days after the sentence.
Their rage is displayed in several letters written from Rome on the
three first days after the judgment, and which were found among the
papers of the trial at Madrid. Among many things which are disgraceful
to the writers, is the advice given to the king, not to permit Carranza
to return to Spain, and, above all, not to suffer him to govern his see
even after the lapse of the suspension; their envy and animosity making
them suppose, that it would be a disgrace to the diocese of Toledo to be
governed by a man who had been prosecuted by the Inquisition: they said
that it would be better for the king to request the Pope to induce
Carranza to give up his diocese and accept a pension, that some person
might be placed in his see more worthy to occupy it; but God in his
infinite wisdom destroyed, by the death of the archbishop, the cause,
the motive, and the matter for new intrigues. In the writings of the
process I saw with sorrow, that, far from relinquishing their pursuits,
the inquisitors had prepared a fresh persecution for him.
CHAPTER XXXV.
TRIAL OF ANTONIO PEREZ, MINISTER AND FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE TO PHILIP
II.
Antonio Perez was another illustrious victim to the Inquisition and the
evil disposition of Philip II. The misfortunes of Perez commenced when
Philip put to death Juan Escobedo, secretary to Don John of Austria; he
succeeded in making his escape to Aragon, where he hoped to live in
tranquillity under a government which only allowed the sovereign to have
an accusing fiscal in the tribunals. It is not necessary to relate all
that Perez suffered at Madrid during twelve years before he made his
escape; these details may be found in a work published by this minister,
under the title of _Relations_, in the recital which Antonio Valladares
de Sotomayor inserted in the _Seminario erudito_, and in a volume in
octavo which appeared in 1788, entitled _The Trial of Antonio Perez_.
Antonio Perez having retired to Aragon in 1590, Philip issued an order
for his arrest, which took place at Calatayud. Perez having protested
against this measure, and claimed the privilege of the _manifestados_,
he was conducted to Saragossa, and confined in the prison of the
_kingdom_, or of _liberty_. The prisoners were there free from the
immediate authority of the king, and only depended on an intermediate
judge called the chief justice of Aragon. It was also called the prison
of the _Fuero_ or _Constitutional_, because the constitution of the king
alone was named the _Fuero d'Aragon_; it was sometimes named the prison
of the _manifestados_; no persons were received into it except those who
presented themselves, or claimed the benefit of the constitution, in
order to avoid the royal prison, and declared that they submitted to the
laws of the kingdom, and invoked the support of its privileges: those of
a prisoner in the case of Perez consisted in not being put to the
torture; in being set at liberty, after taking an oath to present
himself to reply to the charges, and being allowed even if condemned to
death by any other judge, to appeal to the tribunal of the chief justice
of Aragon[68], who examined if the execution of the sentence was
contrary to any _Fuero_ of the kingdom. This tribunal resembles that of
France called the _Court of Cassation_.
Philip II., after many earnest but useless endeavours to induce the
permanent deputation of the kingdom to transfer Perez to Madrid, sent
the commencement of the trial into Aragon, and gave the necessary powers
to his fiscal at Saragossa, to accuse him of having made false reports
to the king, which had induced him to put Juan Escobedo to death; of
having forged letters from the cabinet, and revealed state secrets.
After many incidents, Perez reduced the king to the necessity of
renouncing the prosecution, by a public act on the 18th of August, in
order to avoid the disgrace of seeing him acquitted.
His majesty, however, reserved to himself the right of making use of his
privileges; and to prevent Perez from obtaining his liberty, he caused
another trial to be commenced, under the form of an _inquest_[69],
before the regent of the royal audience of Aragon. To give occasion for
this trial, it was decided that the domestics of the king were exempted
from the privileges of the _Fueros_, and that Antonio Perez was the
king's servant, in the office of Secretary of State. Perez asserted that
the Secretary of State was a servant of the public, and had never been
confounded with the king's domestics; that supposing he had been of that
class, the law could only extend to the Secretary of State for Aragon;
that the constitution only alluded to those royal domestics who were
natives of Aragon; that no one could be tried twice for the same crime
before two different tribunals; that he had been tried at Madrid in
1582; that he then submitted to much ill-treatment, rather than justify
himself by divulging the private letters of the king, which he had in
his possession; lastly, that though the papers useful in his defence had
been obtained from his wife by fraudulent means, yet he had still
documents enough to justify himself entirely.
Perez had, in fact, retained several notes in the king's own
hand-writing, which were sufficient to exculpate him: he sent copies of
them to the Marquis d'Almenara and other persons attached to the king,
and told them that having been informed that his majesty was vexed that
his letters had been exposed in the trial, he wished to spare him the
pain of seeing other original documents presented, which contained very
important secrets relating to different people; but if the disposition
to persecute him continued, he would produce them, because he was no
longer capable of making useless sacrifices to the prejudice of his wife
and seven children.
The _inquest_ was then given up, and Perez demanded his liberty on his
parole, or at least on giving security; this was refused by the regent:
he then appealed to the privileges of the kingdom against force, before
the tribunal of the chief justice, who did not show him more favour.
It appears that Perez then, with his companion in misfortune, Juan
Francis Mayorini, formed a plan to escape into Bearn. Their design was
discovered at the moment they were about to execute it, but Perez
conducted himself with so much address, that he reduced his part in the
transaction to a simple suspicion.
The deposition of the witnesses before the regent furnished the
Inquisition with a pretext to prosecute Perez; this event was agreeable
to the Court, because no means to prolong the _inquest_ could be
invented.
On the 19th of February, 1591, the regent wrote to the inquisitor,
Molina, that Perez and Mayorini intended to escape from prison to go to
Bearn, and to other places in France, where the heretics resorted, with
intentions which would be proved by the declarations of witnesses.
The proof mentioned in this letter is an attestation, without date,
given by the notary, Juan Montanes, into which had been copied the 8th
chapter of the first additions and the 5th of the second, which had been
made to the principal charges against Perez by the royal fiscal, and the
depositions which had been obtained from Juan Louis de Luna, Anton de la
Almunia and Diego Bustamente. In these chapters an attempt had been made
to prove, "that Antonio Perez and Juan Francis Mayorini intended to
escape from confinement, saying that they intended to go to Bearn, to
Vendome and his sister[70], and to other parts of France, where they
would find many heretics inimical to his majesty; that he hoped to be
well received, because Perez knew a great many state secrets which he
could communicate to them; that they had added to this discourse many
expressions criminal and offensive to the majesty of the king, and that
they were resolved to do him as much harm as they could." I should not
have believed that such depositions would have been sufficient to
denounce Perez to the Inquisition as guilty of heresy, if I had not seen
the writings of the trial.
We may be permitted to suppose, from what passed at Madrid, and the
commencement of the _inquest_ which threatened Perez with capital
punishment, that the accusation of heresy was a stroke of policy of the
agents of the king. They did not dare to present the depositions they
had obtained as being decisive, but they hoped that when the holy office
began the trial of their victim, the charges would be multiplied.
The inquisitors of Saragossa were Don Alphonso Molina de Medrano, and
Don Juan Hurtado de Mendoza: the one was the cousin of the Marquis
d'Almenara, and the other an intriguing and immoral man, who wished to
obtain a bishopric at any price. For this reason the marquis placed more
confidence in him than in his cousin, who was less learned, and too good
to become a persecutor. In fact, Don Juan avoided, as much as possible,
taking any part in this transaction, and even obtained leave to remove
to another tribunal. Molina received the letter of the regent, and the
depositions which accompanied it; but instead of communicating them to
the tribunal, he sent them by the first courier to Quiroga, the
inquisitor-general. The Marquis d'Almenara gave information of the event
to the Count de Chinchon, who communicated it the king; after having
consulted the cardinal, Philip commanded him to take proper measures to
prove the heresy of Perez, and to punish him accordingly. On the 5th of
March, Quiroga ordained that Molina alone should receive the
depositions; that the inquisitors should examine them without the
concurrence of the diocesan and consultors, and send them immediately to
Madrid.
On the 20th of March ten witnesses were examined: Diego Bustamente, the
servant of Perez, and Juan de Basante, a teacher of Latin, who often saw
him in prison, quoted sentences which, in the original, did not prove
anything against him, but which, on being separated from the others, had
a meaning which gave an appearance of justice to the measure employed.
The tribunal remitted the information to Quiroga, who sent it to Fray
Diego de Chabes, who qualified four propositions imputed to Perez, and
one to Mayorini.
The latter was reduced to some indecent oaths, used by Italians, which
had escaped Mayorini in losing at play, and were qualified as _heretical
blasphemies_; this was sufficient to authorize his imprisonment.
_First proposition, taken from the testimony of Diego de
Bustamente._--Some one told Perez not to speak ill of Don John of
Austria: he replied, "After being accused by the king of having
disguised the sense of my letters, and betraying the secrets of the
council, it is just that I should vindicate myself without respect of
persons: _If God the Father put any obstacle in the way of it, I would
cut off his nose for having permitted the king to behave like a disloyal
knight towards me._"--QUALIFICATION. This proposition is blasphemous,
scandalous, offensive to pious ears, and approaching to the heresy of
the Vaudois, who suppose that God the Father has a body.
_Second proposition, taken from the deposition of Juan de
Basante._--Antonio Perez considering the bad state of his affairs, said
to me one day, in a fit of grief and anger: "I shall perhaps no longer
believe in God. _One would say that he sleeps during my trial; if he
does not perform a miracle in my favour, I shall lose all
faith._"--QUALIFICATION. This proposition is scandalous, offensive to
pious ears, and suspected of heresy, because it supposes that God
sleeps, and has an intimate relation with the preceding proposition. The
two remaining accusations were very similar, with similar
qualifications. It appears that the words he used were uttered in
moments of grief and despair. It is remarkable that the Inquisition has
provided for this case, for in one of their ordinances it is decreed,
that no person shall be arrested for uttering a blasphemy, when excited
by impatience or rage. To this may be added, that the proof was
defective, since the second proposition rested solely on the testimony
of Basante. With respect to the three others, I shall quote the third
article of the instruction of Toledo, in 1498. "We also command the
inquisitors to be prudent when a person is to be arrested, and not to
issue the decree _until they_ have obtained sufficient proof of the
crime of heresy imputed to the accused."
However, as religion was only the ostensible motive for this trial, the
Supreme Council, after having seen the censures, decreed on the 21st of
May, that Perez and Mayorini should be arrested and confined in the
secret prisons of the Inquisition, that they should be strictly watched,
and arrested so promptly, that no one should have any suspicion of it.
On the 24th of May, the inquisitors sent an order to the grand alguazil
of the holy office, to seize the persons of the accused. The gaoler of
the prison of the kingdom declared, that he could not give them up
without an order from the chief justice, or one of his lieutenants. The
inquisitors wrote on the same day to the lieutenant, and commanded him
on pain of excommunication, and a penalty of a thousand ducats, to give
up the prisoners in the space of three hours, _without allowing the
Fuero of the manifestation to be any obstacle, since it could not be
applied to a trial for heresy; and for that reason the inquisitors
revoked and annulled any such interpretation of the Fuero, as preventing
the free exercise of the holy tribunal_.
The secretary presented these letters to the chief justice, Don Juan de
la Nuza, in a public audience, in the presence of five judges who formed
his council, and of all the persons employed in his tribunal. The chief
justice submitted to the order of the inquisitors, and the prisoners
were conducted to the Inquisition in separate carriages. It was
afterwards known that the courier, who brought the order from Madrid,
also brought letters from the Count de Chinchon to the Marquis
d'Almenara, who, in a private conversation with the chief justice,
persuaded him not to insist upon his privileges; and that the two
letters of the inquisitors were written on the same night, though they
were dated the 24th, because they were previously informed by the
marquis of what would take place.
Perez, who foresaw his danger, had imparted his fears to the Count
d'Aranda and other nobles, who resolved to oppose this measure as an
infraction of the most valuable privilege of the kingdom. Don Diego
Fernandez de Heredia, baron de Barboles, afterwards declared, in the
trial which brought him to the scaffold, that the Count and Perez agreed
to assassinate the Marquis d'Almenara, because if they got rid of him,
the king and the Count de Chinchon would renounce their plan of making a
Castilian the viceroy of Aragon, who would not fail to destroy all their
privileges in succession.
Perez, in his _Relations_, informs us that the father of the Count
d'Aranda above mentioned, and several other persons, claimed and were
allowed the privileges of the _Fuero de Manifestados_, when arrested by
the Inquisition.
When Perez was transferred to the prison of the holy office, he told his
servants to inform the Baron de Barboles and several other gentlemen of
the circumstance. At this news the Aragonese excited the people of
Saragossa to revolt, by cries of "Treason! Treason! Live the nation!
Live our liberty! Live the Fueros! Death to the traitors!" In less than
an hour, more than a thousand men, under arms, surrounded the house of
the Marquis d'Almenara, and treated him with so much violence, that he
would have been killed if he had not been immediately taken into the
royal prison, where he died of his wounds fourteen days after. The
insurgents insulted the archbishop, and threatened to kill him and burn
his hotel if he did not make the inquisitors give up the prisoners: they
menaced the viceroy Bishop of Teruel in the same manner, and assembling
to the number of three thousand men, began to set fire to the Castle of
Aljaferia, (an ancient palace of the Moorish kings, where the
Inquisition was held,) crying that they would burn the inquisitors if
they did not give up Perez and Mayorini. Many other events occurred in
the city, because Molina de Medrano obstinately persisted in
endeavouring to quell the insurrection, contrary to the entreaties twice
repeated of the archbishop, the viceroy, of the Counts d'Aranda and
Morata, and of many of the first noblemen of Aragon. At last, finding
that the danger increased, he appeared to yield, and announced that he
would not set the prisoners at liberty, but would give them for the
prison of the holy office that of the kingdom, and they were removed
thither on the same day.
The inquisitors were left in a critical situation, and did not dare to
arrest any one; they addressed several letters to the commissioners of
the holy office, some of them accompanied by the order to the
lieutenants and their decree, to show that they had not violated the
prison of the kingdom, but had only received the persons given up to
them by the chief justice: the others were sent with the bull of Pius
V., dated 1st of April, 1569, concerning those who opposed the exercise
of the holy office; they also proposed to publish an edict,
excommunicating several persons already noted in the registers of the
Inquisition as having opposed the execution of the orders of the
inquisitors, but they were persuaded to relinquish the intention by the
archbishop. At this period, some persons who fled to Madrid when the
revolt took place, and who were known to be devoted to the king, were
examined as witnesses; and it appeared from their depositions, that the
Counts d'Aranda and Morata, the Barons de Barboles, de Biescas, de
Purroy, de la Laguna, and many others of the first noblemen of the
country, had excited the people to sedition, and increased the
disturbance by persuading them that the _Fuero_ was attacked.
The members of the permanent deputation of the kingdom thought, that
being interested in the defence of the political constitution, they
might be accused of having failed in their duty; they therefore
endeavoured to justify themselves, by declaring that as theirs was not
an armed body or a judicial authority, they could not prevent the
revolt. They also thought proper to pronounce by a commission of
jurisconsults, that those who had given up the prisoners to the
inquisitors, from the prison of the kingdom, had violated its
privileges. However the secret intrigues of the inquisitors, the
archbishop, the viceroy, and the chief justice were so adroitly
conducted, that some members remarked, that four lawyers were not enough
to discuss the rights of the king and the holy office. This observation
caused nine other jurisconsults to be appointed, and it was decreed that
they should decide by a majority of three votes. They declared that the
inquisitors had exceeded their powers, when they cancelled the
_manifestation_, because no authority could do so, except that of the
king, and the deputies assembled in Cortes; but that if the inquisitors
required the prisoners to be given up to them, and the _privilege of
manifestation was suspended_ during their prosecution, it would not be
contrary to the laws of the kingdom. Antonio Perez wrote to the
deputation, to represent that his cause was that of all the Aragonese;
several of his friends undertook to shew, that the _suspension_ was
equally contrary to the laws, since the prisoner might be tortured, was
deprived of his right to his liberty on oath, and was exposed to the
misery of an interminable trial; these efforts were all in vain. It was
privately decided that the inquisitors should demand the prisoners a
second time, without threats or orders, and resting only on the
_suspension of the privileges_. The king was given to understand that it
would be useful if he wrote to the Duke de Villahermosa, and the Counts
d'Aranda, de Morata, and de Sastago, to engage them to lend assistance
to the viceroy, with their relations and friends, and to aid the
constituted authorities, if any event rendered it necessary. Philip
followed the advice, and his letters to those noblemen were as gracious
and flattering, as if he had been ignorant of the part they had taken in
the late disturbances.
Perez now saw no safety except in flight, and had everything in
readiness to force his prison, when he was betrayed some hours before,
by the perfidious Juan de Basante, his false friend and accomplice.
The removal of Perez was to take place on the 24th of September; the
Inquisition, the viceroy, the archbishop, the deputation of the kingdom,
the municipality, and the civil and military governors, were all to
assist. The inquisitors had summoned to Saragossa, from the neighbouring
towns, a great number of the _familiars_ of the holy office, and the
military governor had in attendance three thousand men, well armed. This
expedition was to have been made without the knowledge of the
inhabitants; but the Barons de Barboles, de Biescas, and de Purroy, and
some other individuals, were informed of it. At the moment when the
prisoners were coming out of the prison, in the presence of the
principal magistrates of the city, and while the avenues and streets
through which they were to pass were lined with soldiers, a furious
troop of insurgents broke through the lines, killed a great number of
men, dispersed the others, put the magistrates to flight, and seizing
Perez and Mayorini, carried them off in triumph, shouting, _Live our
liberty! Live the Fueros of Aragon!_ Perez and Mayorini were received
into the house of the Baron de Barboles; when they had reposed for a few
minutes, they were taken out of the town, and taking different roads,
hastened away from it.
Perez repaired to Tauste, with the intention of crossing the Pyrenees by
the valley of Roncal, but as the frontiers were strictly guarded, he
returned to Saragossa. He entered it in disguise, on the 2nd of October,
and remained concealed in the house of the Baron de Biescas until the
10th of November. He then thought it dangerous to remain there longer,
because Don Alphonso de Vargas was advancing with an army to take the
town, and punish the rebels. This event has been related very
incorrectly in several histories.
The presence of Perez in Saragossa was suspected by means of some
letters from Madrid, which Basante had seen, and of which he had given
information. The inquisitors searched the houses of the Baron de
Barboles and several other persons. Don Antonio Morejon, the second
inquisitor[71], suspected that de Biescas knew the place of his
concealment, and pressed him to discover it, promising that Perez should
be well treated if he presented himself voluntarily. Perez had several
times declared that he would surrender to the holy office, if he was not
almost certain that he should be given up to the government, which would
immediately execute the sentence of death passed upon him in 1590,
without allowing him to be heard. On the 11th of November, Perez went to
Sallen, in the Pyrenees, on the estates of the Baron de Biescas.
On the 18th he wrote to the Princess of Bearn, to ask an asylum in the
states of her brother, Henry IV., or to be permitted to pass through
them to some other country. This letter was given to the princess by Gil
de Mesa, an Aragonese gentleman, and an old and faithful friend of
Perez.
Catherine received Perez into her brother's states on the 24th of
November, when the Barons de Concas and de la Pinilla arrived at Sallen,
with three hundred men, to take him; they had offered to betray him if
they were pardoned: the first had been condemned by the Inquisition, for
having sent horses to France, and the other was to be executed for
having excited a revolt, in an attempt of the same nature.
Perez went to Pau, and while he was in that place the inquisitor Morejon
again requested the Baron de Biescas to persuade him to submit to the
Inquisition; he replied that he would do so, if they would promise to
try him at Saragossa instead of Madrid, and that he should require that
his wife and children should be set at liberty, of which they had been
deprived, although they were innocent. Perez made the same reply to
another requisition.
In order to satisfy the curiosity of the Princess Catherine and her
subjects, Perez composed two little works, the first called _Morceau
Historique, sur ce qui est arrivee a Saragosse d'Aragon, le_ 24th
Septembre, 1591; and the other, _Precis du Recit des Avantures d'Antoine
Perez, depuis le Commencement, de sa premiere Detention jusqu'a sa
Sortie des Domaines du Roi Catholique_. These works were printed at Pau,
without the name of the author; the inquisitors examined them, and
derived from them some additional charges.
Philip II. and the inquisitors offered life, offices, money, and
honours, to any condemned criminal who would kill Perez or bring him as
a prisoner into Spain. I refer the reader for all that relates to this
part of the history to the work entitled _Relations_, in which Perez
takes the name of _Raphael Peregrino_. Perez obtained leave from Henry
IV. to go to London, where he was extremely well received by Queen
Elizabeth and the Earl of Leicester; he afterwards went to Paris, where
he passed the rest of his life, pining unceasingly for his wife and
children.
On the 15th of February, 1592, the inquisitors declared Antonio Perez to
be a fugitive; they affixed an edict on the metropolitan church of
Saragossa, summoning him to appear within one month; this measure was
most revoltingly unjust, since they well knew that Perez was in a
country then at war with Spain, and the laws of the holy office allowed
even the space of a year, according to the distance the accused had to
travel.
The declarations of the witnesses who were interrogated at Madrid, after
the first revolt of Saragossa in 1591, deposed to facts to which no
importance could have been attached, if they had related to other
persons and events. But Antonio Perez was concerned in them, and that
was sufficient to cause them to be censured as _audacious_, and
_suspected of heresy_. I shall not stay to prove the insufficiency of
this act, but shall give the third of the propositions as an example of
the rest. "In speaking of Philip II., and of Vendome, Antonio Perez
said that the king was a tyrant, but that Vendome would be a great
monarch, for he was an excellent prince, and governed the state to the
satisfaction of every one; that he therefore rejoiced on hearing of his
victories, and _that it was not heresy to pay court to him and speak to
him_." QUALIFICATION. "The accused shews himself to be impious in
respect to God and the holy Catholic faith, a favourer and violently
suspected of heresy; and as he now lives in the midst of heretics, it
proves that he is himself an heretic."
The inquisitors, who wished to favour the views of the court at any
rate, took advantage of a vague report, communicated to them by one of
their _familiars_, that Antonio Perez was descended from the Jews,
because in the borough of Hariza, near Montreal, from whence his family
came, there had lived a new Christian called Juan Perez, who was burnt
by the Inquisition as a judaizing heretic. The registers of the holy
office were immediately consulted, and it appeared that one Juan Perez
de Fariza had been burnt, and that Antonio Perez de Fariza had died a
heretic.
Pascual Gilberte, a priest and commissioner of the holy office, was
appointed, on the 16th of April, 1592, to ascertain if there was any
degree of relationship between the condemned heretics and the father of
Antonio Perez. Many witnesses were examined, both in Montreal, and the
neighbouring towns, but they all declared that the two families were
perfectly distinct.
All that is known concerning the genealogy of Perez is, that he was the
natural son of Gonzalez Perez and Donna Jane d'Escobar, and that he was
legitimatized by Charles V. That his paternal grandfather was
Bartholemew Perez, secretary to the Inquisition of Calahorra, that his
grandmother was Donna Louisa Perez del Hierro, of a noble family of
Segovia; that he was great grandson to Juan Perez, an inhabitant of
Montreal, and of Mary Tirado his wife; and that there was no
relationship, direct or indirect, between his family and that of Juan
and Antonio Perez de Fariza. This was afterwards fully proved by the
wife and children of Antonio Perez. It must be observed, that if the
inquisitors had wished to be truly informed, they might have had a copy
of the contract of marriage between Perez and Donna Jane Coello, which
states that his father was born at Segovia. In that city, at Calahorra,
and even in the Supreme Council, they might have found his real
genealogy.
However, the fiscal abused the privilege of secrecy, in the accusation
he brought against Perez, on the 6th of July, by supposing that he was
descended from the Jews, in order to strengthen the suspicion of heresy,
according to the custom of the Inquisition. The accusation was composed
of forty-three articles, each more vague than the others, and only
founded on words uttered without reflection, during a fit of rage, or in
extreme pain, which had no connexion with doctrine, and concerning which
no two witnesses agreed in the time, place, or circumstances.
On the 14th of August the fiscal demanded that the depositions of the
witnesses should be published; and on the 16th the qualifiers again
assembled to censure the propositions already noted, and the works
printed at Pau. They censured sixteen as _audacious_ and _erroneous_;
some others as _blasphemous_, and _approaching to heresy_, and concluded
that Antonio Perez was _suspected of heresy in the most violent
degree_[72].
On the 18th the fiscal required that Perez should be declared
contumaceous, and that the definitive sentence should be pronounced. On
the 7th of September, the diocesan, different consultors, and
jurisconsults (among whom was the first informer, Don Urban Ximenez de
Aragues, regent of the royal audience) were convoked, and voted the
punishment of _relaxation_ in effigy. The Supreme _Council_ confirmed
the sentence on the 13th of October, and on the 20th the judges
pronounced the definitive sentence, condemning Perez as a _formal
heretic_, _a convicted Hugonot_, and _an obstinate impenitent_, to be
_relaxed_ in person when he could be taken, and in the mean time to
suffer that punishment in effigy, with the mitre and San-benito. His
property was confiscated, and his children and grandchildren in the male
line devoted to infamy, besides other penalties. Many other persons
suffered in this _auto-da-fe_, of whom an account will be given in the
next chapter.
Perez was in England when he was condemned to death. A conspiracy
against his life by some Spaniards was discovered there: it was renewed
at Paris by the Baron de la Pinilla, who declared that he had been sent
to kill him by Don Juan Idiaquez, minister to Philip II.
The death of that prince, and the consequent change in the politics of
the government, inspired Perez with the hope of arranging his affairs at
Madrid; but the misfortune of having been prosecuted by the Inquisition
rendered his efforts unavailing. The reader is referred to the
_Relations_ for all that concerns this part of the history.
Perez had, at Paris, been intimate with Fray Francis de Sosa, general of
the Franciscans, then Bishop of the Canaries, and a counsellor of the
Inquisition, who often advised him to give himself up to the holy
office, as the only means of obtaining a reconciliation. Perez replied
that he would do so, and even wished it, but was deterred by the fear of
being arrested by the government, after being set at liberty by the
Inquisition. Sosa then tried to persuade him that he would avoid that
danger by obtaining a safe conduct from the inquisitor-general and the
Supreme Council, promising that he should be set at liberty when his
trial was terminated by the holy office. Sosa, at that time, was little
acquainted with the Inquisition, of which he was afterwards a member.
Perez wrote again to Sosa in 1611 concerning this affair; the bishop
replied, and his letter determined Perez to inform him that he was ready
to surrender to the Inquisition as soon as the safe conduct was sent to
him: he sent at the same time to his wife, a petition addressed to the
Supreme Council, in which he renewed his promise. His wife presented it,
and added to it one from herself, to interest the judges in her
husband's favour. The attempt was fruitless, and Perez died at Paris on
the 3rd of November, in the same year, after giving many proofs of his
Catholicism, which were afterwards useful to his children in obtaining
the revocation of the sentence given at Saragossa in 1592, and in
_rehabilitating_ his memory.
CHAPTER XXXVI.
OF SEVERAL TRIALS OCCASIONED BY THAT OF ANTONIO PEREZ.
The trial of Antonio Perez was the cause of a great number of
prosecutions against persons who had taken part in the tumults and the
flight of Perez and his companion. The censures and penalties of the
bull of Pius V., destined to punish those who opposed the exercise of
the ministry of the holy office, were applied to them.
On the 12th of November, 1591, Don Alphonso de Vargas entered Saragossa
at the head of his army; this expedition re-established the inquisitors,
and they secretly informed against the instigators of the rebellion.
On the 8th of January, 1592, the fiscal of the holy office gave in a
complaint against the rebels in general, as suspected in matters of
faith; and he composed a list of the authors of the sedition, and of
those who were suspected of being implicated in it: it amounted to
three hundred and seventy-two individuals, who had compromised
themselves either by their words or actions.
The inquisitors imprisoned a hundred and seventy, and made arrangements
for the arrest of others who were only suspected, as the charges were
not proved against them. Of this number, only a hundred and twenty-three
individuals were taken, because the others had either been already taken
to the royal prison by the command of Vargas, to be tried by Doctor
Lanz, a senator of Milan, and the king's special commissioner on this
occasion, or had made their escape; some who had only taken an indirect
part in the event came under the jurisdiction of the commissioner, and
obtained permission to remain as prisoners in their own houses. The
following are some of the most remarkable trials, from the high rank of
the individuals:--
Don Juan de la Nuza, Chief Justice of Aragon, not only had not opposed
the exercise of the holy office, but might have been reproached for
having given up more than the privileges of the kingdom allowed. He
however suffered the fate of a rebel subject, because in the struggle
which ensued he was unfortunately the weakest. The oath which the king
had taken to observe the privileges of the kingdom did not allow him to
send into it more than five hundred soldiers. The permanent deputation,
on being informed of the preparations for the entrance of the army of
Vargas, remonstrated; Philip replied that they were destined for France:
the deputies then represented the danger which might arise from their
being permitted to pass through Saragossa; they were then informed that
the army would only remain in their city for the period necessary to
restore the authority of justice, which had been almost entirely
destroyed in the late seditions.
The deputies, on receiving this last reply, consulted thirteen lawyers
on the sense of the _Fueros_; they declared that their rights were
infringed by the entrance of the troops into Aragon, and that every
Aragonese was bound to resist and prevent them. Circulars were then sent
to all the towns, and to the permanent deputation of Catalonia and
Valencia, to demand the aid stipulated by the treaties, in case either
country was invaded. The chief justice, whom the laws of the kingdom
called to the command, was ordered to place himself immediately at the
head of the troops. When the Castilians came within six miles of
Saragossa, the chief justice found himself almost deserted, and
consequently retired and left the passage free to the troops, who
entered the town.
On the 28th of November, Don Francis de Borgia, Marquis de Lombay,
arrived at Saragossa; he was commissioned to treat with the permanent
deputies and the principal gentlemen of the kingdom concerning the
points on which it was asserted the privileges had been infringed.
Several conferences took place without any result, because the deputies
declared that the _Fueros_ did not permit them while the country was
occupied by foreign troops.
Philip II. appointed the Count de Morata to be viceroy in the place of
the Bishop of Teruel, who had retired to his see, alarmed at the danger
he had incurred. The viceroy made his public entry into Saragossa, on
the 6th of December, to the great joy and satisfaction of the
inhabitants; but their joy was of short duration. On the 18th of the
same month, Don Gomez Velasquez arrived with a commission to arrest a
great number of persons, and with a positive order to behead the chief
justice of Aragon, as soon as he entered the town; this order was obeyed
with so much expedition, that on the 28th Don Juan de la Nuza was no
longer in existence. All Aragon was filled with consternation at the
news of this execution. It is impossible to express how much La Nuza was
respected by the people on account of his high office, which had been
filled by the illustrious members of his family for more than a hundred
and fifty years. On this event, many gentlemen fled to France and
Geneva, and those who, from an ill-founded confidence, remained, soon
had cause to repent.
Don Francis d'Aragon, Duke de Villahermosa, Count de Ribagorza, did not
escape the persecution, although he had the advantage of being of royal
blood, being descended from John II. King of Aragon and Navarre, by his
son Don Alphonso d'Aragon. In his trial before the Inquisition he was
not accused of having opposed the measures of the tribunal during the
insurrections, or of taking any part in them: but Don Francis Torralba,
lieutenant to the chief justice (who had been deprived of his office in
consequence of some serious complaints of Perez), pretended that the
duke was, by the nature of his blood, an enemy to the holy tribunal,
since he descended from Jews, who had been burnt and subjected to
penances, by Estengua Conejo, a Jewess, who, on her baptism, took the
name of Mary Sanchez, and afterwards became the wife or concubine of Don
Alphonso d'Aragon, first Duke of Villahermosa, and grandfather to the
present duke, whom he denounced. Torralba minutely detailed the proofs
of what he asserted.
When the inhabitants of Saragossa resolved to oppose the entrance of the
Castilian army in their city, the duke, according to the laws of the
kingdom, offered his services to the chief justice. The royal
commissioner, not satisfied with his trial before the Inquisition,
arrested him on the 19th of December, and sent him into Castile, in
contempt of another law of the _Fuero_. The duke was beheaded at Burgos,
as convicted of treason; his property was confiscated, and the king
bestowed the duchy on the next in succession.
The Count d'Aranda, Don Louis Ximenez de Urrea, was also arrested on the
19th of December, but died in the prison of Alaejos, on the 4th of
August, 1592. It appears from his trial by the Inquisition, that when
Perez was sent to the prison of the kingdom, he declared himself his
protector, according to a promise he had given to the wife of Perez at
Madrid; that he was one of the principal instigators of the popular
commotions; that he had influenced the lawyers, who declared the act, by
which Perez was consigned a second time to the Inquisition, to be
illegal; and lastly, that he had assisted in the military arrangements
for the resistance of the royal troops. It has been already stated, that
Diego de Heredia accused the Count d'Aranda and Antonio Perez of having
conspired against the life of the Marquis d'Almenara. This deposition is
not found in the trial, but Don Diego declared he had already informed
the senator Lanz, while he was imprisoned by that magistrate. But if the
circumstances independent of this conspiracy may be considered as
crimes, why did Philip after the first revolt write to request him to
lend assistance to the authorities, and afterwards to thank him for
having so well performed his mission? It must excite indignation, to see
a powerful monarch deceiving his subjects, and punishing them by
surprise.
The Count de Morata, Don Michael Martinez de Luna, Viceroy of Aragon,
was denounced to the Inquisition, after the insurrection of Saragossa.
It appears that he blamed the conduct of the tribunal and the civil
authorities towards Perez. Some witnesses supposed that he was one of
the principal instigators of the first insurrection; but that afterwards
learning that Philip had said that Perez was an unfaithful minister, he
ceased to defend him. This is certainly an historical error, for the
declaration of the king concerning Perez was made in August, 1590, after
the act by which the king abandoned the prosecution relating to the
death of Escobedo, and the insurrections at Saragossa took place in May,
1591. The change in the opinions of Martinez de Luna must have had some
other cause. Some circumstances in his trial lead to the belief that he
was acquainted with the proceedings of the council appointed at Madrid
to consider the affairs, and that he foresaw that the consequences
would be serious, which induced him to change his system.
When he was made viceroy, the inquisitor suppressed the preparatory
instruction of the trial, and the decree of arrest which had already
been resolved upon. The tribunal had received another information
against the Count in 1577, concerning some _ill-sounding_ propositions,
but they had not sufficient proof to proceed upon.
Although the inquisitors had been so indulgent to the count, he was not
devoted to their party. His indifference induced the fiscal to bring a
complaint against him in 1592, and to require that he should be
arrested. He founded his requisition on the following allegation: the
inquisitor-general Quiroga had published an edict of grace in favour of
all the criminals who had not been arrested, that they might be absolved
from all censures; and this edict having been communicated to the count
before the publication, he declared that it was impertinent, useless,
and ridiculous. The fiscal gave this as an instance of the contempt of
the count for the censures under which he pretended that he had fallen,
as the principal instigator of the first revolt. Some other expressions
were construed into a sign of his hatred of the Inquisition.
It is certain that the count would not have escaped the vengeance of the
Inquisitors, in his quality of viceroy. When he quitted his office they
were fully occupied with other trials, and his affair was too
unimportant, and too old, to attract the attention of their successors.
The opinion of the count on the edict of grace was very just. This
_grace_ was not accorded until the inquisitors had celebrated a solemn
_auto-da-fe_ in which seventy-nine inhabitants of the town were
_relaxed_, and a much greater number of honourable persons condemned to
infamy, on pretence of publicly absolving them from censure; besides
that, those already in prison were excluded from the pardon.
After the executions of the chief justice, the Duke de Villahermosa,
and the Count d'Aranda, the king granted a general pardon on the 24th
December, 1592, with the exception of many individuals who had excited
and directed the sedition. This edict saved the lives of several
thousand Aragonese; palliating circumstances afterwards caused the
capital punishment to be remitted to all those who were excepted in the
general pardon.
The Baron de Barboles, Don Diego Fernandez de Heredia, brother and
presumptive heir to the Count de Fuentes, a grandee of Spain, was to
have been arrested by the Inquisition; but he was taken by order of
Vargas, claimed his privilege, and was taken to the prison of the
_Manifestados_, and on the 9th of October, 1592, had his head struck off
at the back of the neck as guilty of treason. He had made several
depositions before the Senator Lanz, and all that concerned Antonio
Perez was communicated to the inquisitors; he had already been examined
twice on that subject as a witness of the fiscal, and deposed to a great
number of facts which proved that he had excited the people, and kept up
the rebellion with the Count d'Aranda and others, and that he was
engaged in the plan to assassinate the Marquis d'Almenara, but that he
repented and revoked the orders he had given concerning it; nevertheless
some witnesses deposed that they had seen him in the road encouraging
the assassins. The Baron de Barboles also declared that he was the
principal author of the complaint brought by Antonio Perez before the
ordinary judge of Saragossa, against the secretary, major-domo, and
squire of the Marquis d'Almenara and several other persons, whom he
accused of having, by order of the marquis, suborned several witnesses
in 1591, to depose against Perez several facts required by the
inquisitors; that he had directed and instigated the efforts which were
made to find witnesses to confirm by their declarations the articles of
their complaint, and that he had deposed as from himself what he had
only heard from the agent of Perez.
Another inquest against Don Diego existed in the Inquisition, in which
he was accused of having made use of necromancy to discover treasures,
and sending horses to France. The Judge Torralba also deposed that he
had heard it said that Don Diego had been arrested by the Inquisition of
Valencia for having concealed a Moresco from an alguazil; he added that
it was not surprising that Don Diego was an enemy to the holy office,
because though the blood of his ancestors had not been sullied by that
of the Jews, his children had not that advantage, since his wife, the
Baroness d'Alcaraz, was of Jewish origin.
Philip II. wished to show the Count de Fuentes that though he punished
the guilty he knew how to reward a faithful subject, and made him
governor of the Low Countries. The Count hated Perez, whom he considered
as the cause of the misfortunes of de Barboles; it is not therefore
surprising that he took an active part in the conspiracy formed in
London against his life. This attempt did not succeed, and two of the
conspirators were put to death at the requisition of the English fiscal,
who had been commanded by Queen Elizabeth to prosecute the authors of
the plot.
The Baron de Purroy, Don Juan de Luna, a member for the nobility in the
deputation of the kingdom, was executed on the same day with Barboles;
the charges against him were very similar to the preceding. His offences
against the Inquisition were, that he was the cause of the resolution
taken in the committee of the deputation to defend the independence of
the prison of the _Manifestados_ against the pretensions of the
inquisitors; to confine their jurisdiction to the crime of heresy, and
to prevent them from taking cognizance of offences in the revolt and
similar crimes, which they undertook, because they said that some of the
persons concerned in it opposed the exercise of their office; lastly,
Don Juan was implicated in the subornation of witnesses in the affair of
Perez.
The Baron de Biescas, Don Martin de la Nuza, Lord of Sallen and the
towns of the valley of Tena, fled to France, but afterwards returned to
Spain; he was arrested in Tudela of Navarre, and was beheaded. The trial
before the Inquisition states, that besides the crimes committed like
the other rebels, the Baron de Biescas was guilty of having received
Antonio Perez into his house, and concealed him until he could fly to
France; and of entering into the Spanish territory at several points
with a corps of Bearnese troops, and declaring that he would not lay
down his arms until he had driven the Castilian army out of Aragon, and
revenged the death of his relation the chief justice.
The senator Lanz likewise condemned to death many other noble gentlemen,
besides labourers and artisans. Many who fled to France or Geneva were
condemned to death: these individuals remained in exile till after the
death of Philip II. His successor, Philip III., permitted them to return
to their country, and annulled all the articles in the sentences
pronounced against those who had been executed, which were contrary to
the interests of their families; _the king declaring that none of them
were guilty towards the state: and that he acknowledged that each person
had considered himself bound to defend the rights of his country_.
The cruelty of the inquisitors was not satiated by these executions.
They represented to the Supreme Council that they did not dare to demand
the prisoners of the General Vargas, although it would be much better if
they were tried by the Inquisition: but that nevertheless they thought
it would be useful if the Baron de Barboles was given up to them, since
his execution, in that case, would strike more terror into the guilty.
The council rejected the request of the inquisitors; they, however,
retained in their prisons many illustrious persons, among whom were some
women.
When the inquisitors published the edict of grace, more than five
hundred persons presented themselves to demand absolution. Each person
confessed the crime for which they were to be absolved; some of these
are rather ludicrous.
Mary Ramirez declares, that on seeing Antonio Perez taken to prison, she
exclaimed--_Poor wretch! after such long imprisonments, they have not
yet found him an heretic._
Christoval de Heredia _confesses that he has often wished that Perez
might get out of his troubles_.
Donna Geronima d'Arteaga, _that she raised a little subscription for
Antonio Perez, during his imprisonment, because he could not enjoy his
own property_.
Louis de Anton, _that he was the prosecutor of Perez, and that he did
several things to serve him_.
Martina de Alastuey, _that she prepared the food of Perez, in her house,
and that her son Antonio Anoz, who was his servant, carried it to him in
the prison_.
Don Louis de Gurrea _demands absolution only to reassure his conscience,
although it does not reproach him_!
Don Michael de Sese also claims it, _to appease the same scruples_!
Doctor Murillo, _that he visited Perez in the prison when he was ill_.
The following are instances of a spirit quite contrary to the preceding
examples:--
The Doctor Don Gregory de Andia, vicar of the parish of St. Paul, being
informed that a priest had refused absolution to more than two hundred
persons, because they had not been absolved from the censures incurred
by the bull of St. Pius V., could not help saying, _That priest is an
ignorant fellow. Let all those people come to me, and also all those who
revolted: I would absolve them with pleasure of all their sins, and feel
no fear for such an action._ The vicar was arrested for his boldness,
and taken to the secret prisons. Many persons shared his fate, among
whom were,--
Juan de Cerio, a familiar of the holy office, who, on hearing it
remarked that the Aragonese ought not to endure the Inquisition any
longer, replied: "As for me, they may burn the house, the papers, the
prisons, and even the inquisitors: I shall have nothing to say against
it."
A brother of the Trinity, who, on hearing that the Castilians wished to
reduce the Aragonese, and destroy their privileges, said, "_If Jesus
Christ was a Castilian, I would not believe in him._"
Michael Urgel, procurator of the royal audience, confessed that after he
had heard the declaration of the four counsellors, that it was an
infringement of the _Fueros_ to transfer Perez to the Inquisition, he
said: "We must treat the letters of the inquisitors with contempt, and
if the king supports them, he is a tyrant: let us get rid of him and
elect a native king of Aragon, since we have a right to do so."
These are a few instances of the pretended sins for which absolution was
demanded, and for which many persons were arrested, but they are
sufficient to shew the spirit of the people and of the inquisitors.
Donna Juana de Coello, the wife of Perez, and her young children, were
also victims to the events at Saragossa. They had been detained in the
Castle of Pinto, two leagues from Madrid, since the month of April,
1590, where that heroine had favoured the escape of her husband at the
expense of her own liberty. After his second flight from Saragossa,
their imprisonment became still more rigorous. It is proved by the trial
of Perez, that he often said when in prison, that nothing should induce
him to renounce the privileges of the prison of the kingdom, except the
assurance that his wife and children enjoyed their liberty; but that he
was certain if he gave himself up to the inquisitors he should be sent
to Madrid and executed.
This information induced the inquisitors at the end of September, 1591,
to request that Donna Juana and her children might be more strictly
imprisoned, since he would hear of it, and it might induce him to return
to the prison of the kingdom. This idea was inspired by the perfidious
Basante. In fact, Perez was informed that his wife and children were
removed to a sort of bastion or tower of the castle, which was much more
inconvenient than the former prison; however, Donna Juana requested her
husband to think only of his own safety, since the news of his flight
had been sufficient to keep her and her children in good health. Donna
Juana remained in prison during the life of Philip II., who on his death
advised his successor to set her and her family at liberty.
All the events above-mentioned were occasioned by the trial of Antonio
Perez, but the original cause was the extreme attachment of the
Aragonese to a privilege which Philip II. wished to destroy, because it
set bounds to his despotism; they had not forgotten that this prince
made use of the Inquisition, in his political schemes, which they had
experienced in some attempts made twenty years before.
The insurrection offered to Philip the opportunity he had so long
desired, of making himself absolute monarch of Aragon, by the abolition
of the intermediate office of the chief justice, and of all the _Fueros_
of the primitive constitution, which bounded the extent of his power.
Another cause of the revolt was, the policy which disgraced and kept in
a perpetual state of uneasiness, all the first families of the kingdom,
a great number of the second order, and even of the people. It was well
known that these misfortunes were the consequence of the system of the
inquisitors, who were always eager to disgrace and humiliate those who
did not debase themselves before the lowest among them, and to sacrifice
every man who did not acknowledge their tribunal to be the most holy of
institutions, and the only bulwark of faith, which they still declare
and publish through their partisans, though in their hearts they are
convinced of the contrary.
CHAPTER XXXVII.
OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN THE INQUISITION DURING THE REIGN OF PHILIP
III.
Philip II. died on the 13th of September, 1598, and left the crown to
his son, Philip III., whose education had made him more worthy of
wearing the habit of St. Dominic, than of governing a kingdom: the
Inquisition was then as formidable and powerful as before the
constitutions of 1561. As the new king wished to have an
inquisitor-general of his own choice, he took advantage of a bull,
commanding all bishops to reside in their dioceses, to invite Don Pedro
Porto-Carrero to retire to his see of Cuenca, and appointed as his
successor, in 1599, Don Ferdinand Nino de Guevara, cardinal of the Roman
Church, and afterwards archbishop of Seville. This prelate retired to
his diocese in 1602, in consequence of an order from the king; his
successor was Don Juan de Zuniga, bishop of Carthagena, who died in the
same year. Juan Baptiste de Acebedo, bishop of Valladolid, took his
place, and died in it in 1607, with the title of Patriarch of the
Indies. He was succeeded by Don Bernardo de Sandoval Roxas, cardinal
archbishop of Toledo, brother to the Duke de Lerma. At his death Don
Fray Louis Aliaga, a Dominican confessor to the king, was appointed
inquisitor-general; Philip IV., on his accession, deprived him of his
office.
Philip III., in 1607, assembled the Cortes of the kingdom at Madrid,
where they remained for more than a year. The members represented to the
king, that in 1579 and 1586, they had required a reform of the abuses
committed in the tribunal of the Inquisition, to put an end to the
right, which the inquisitors had usurped, of taking cognizance of crimes
not relating to heresy; that Philip II. had promised to do this, but
died before he could perform it, and that in consequence they renewed
the request.
Philip replied, that he would take proper measures to satisfy the
Cortes. In 1611, when he convoked the new Cortes, they made the same
request and received the same answer, but nothing was attempted, and the
inquisitors daily became more insolent, and filled their prisons with
victims.
The archbishop of Valencia, Don Juan de Ribera, represented to Philip
III., that it was impossible to convert the Morescoes of Valencia, and
that their skill in agriculture and the arts gave just cause of
apprehension, that they might some day disturb the public tranquillity,
with the assistance of the Moors of Algiers, and the other African
cities, with whom they held constant intercourse; he therefore advised
his majesty to banish them from the kingdom.
The gentlemen whose vassals the Morescoes were, complained of the
immense loss it would occasion, if their estates were thus depopulated;
they also declared that the statement of the archbishop was shamefully
exaggerated, since the holy office had never failed to punish every
Moresco who returned to his heresy.
The king summoned his council, and after many discussions, it was
resolved to send the Morescoes out of the kingdom of Valencia, on the
11th of September, 1609, and all the others in the following year.
This emigration cost Spain a million of useful and industrious
inhabitants, who all went to Africa: they were invited by Henry IV. to
colonise the _Landes_ in Gascony on condition that they professed the
catholic religion, but they feared that they should be persecuted in the
same manner, at some future period. The inquisitors principally
contributed to induce Philip III. to take this resolution, and they
noted all who had condemned the measure, as suspected of heresy: among
these was the Duke of Ossuna, whose process they began. This trial had
no particular result, because the charges did not offer any heretical
propositions, though some were qualified as audacious, scandalous, and
offensive to pious ears. The duke was appointed Viceroy of Naples, but
was deprived of the office some years after, and imprisoned by the king.
The inquisitors seized this opportunity to renew their charges, but they
were disappointed; the duke died in prison before the definitive
sentence was pronounced.
On the 7th and 8th of November 1610, the Inquisition of Logrono
celebrated an _auto-da-fe_, in which six persons were burnt, with five
effigies, twenty-one individuals were reconciled, and twenty condemned
to different penances; among these were eighteen sorcerers[73].
A sufficient number of the trials of the Inquisition, during the reign
of Philip III., have already been cited; therefore, that of Don Antonio
Manriques, Count de Morata, need only be mentioned: in 1603 he abjured
some heretical propositions without being disgraced by an _auto-da-fe_.
CHAPTER XXXVIII.
OF THE TRIALS AND AUTOS-DA-FE DURING THE REIGN OF PHILIP IV.
Philip IV. ascended the throne on the 31st of March, 1621; and during
the thirty-four years that he reigned, the following persons filled the
office of inquisitor-general: Don Andres Pacheco, in 1621; Cardinal Don
Antonio de Zapata Mendoza, in 1626; in 1632, Don Fray Antonio de
Sotomayor; and in 1643, Don Diego de Arce y Reinoso. Don Diego died on
the same day as the king.
Many circumstances had shewn the necessity of a reform in the
Inquisition, but the indolence of Philip IV. prevented him from
attempting it; on the contrary, he permitted the inquisitors to take
cognizance of the offence of exporting copper money, and to dispose of a
fourth of what fell into their hands.
On the 21st of June, 1621, the Inquisition celebrated the accession of
Philip IV. by the _auto-da-fe_ of Maria de la Conception, a _Beata_, and
famous hypocrite of the preceding reign, who had deceived many persons
by her feigned revelations and pretended sanctity. She appeared in the
_auto-da-fe_ gagged, with the _san-benito_, and the mitre.
On the 30th of November, 1630, another _auto-da-fe_ was held at Seville,
when six persons were burnt in effigy, and eight in person; fifty were
reconciled, and six absolved _ad cautelam_.
On the 21st of December, 1627, a general _auto-da-fe_ was celebrated at
Cordova, composed of eighty-one condemned persons; fifty-eight were
reconciled, among whom were three sorcerers.
In 1532, a grand general _auto-da-fe_ was held at Madrid, at which the
king and all the royal family attended. Seven persons were burnt, with
four effigies, and forty-two reconciled; they were almost all
Portuguese, or of Portuguese parents. The following circumstance has
rendered this _auto-da-fe_ very famous. Miguel Rodriguez, and Isabella
Martinez Albarez, his wife, were the proprietors of a house used by the
condemned as a synagogue. They were accused of having struck the image
of Jesus Christ with a whip, and of having crucified and insulted it in
various ways, as if to revenge themselves upon it for all the evils
which the Christians made them suffer. The holy office caused this house
to be razed to the ground, and an inscription was placed on the spot. A
monastery for the Capuchins was afterwards built on the site, and named
the Convent of Patience, in allusion to the outrages which our Saviour
allowed them to commit on his image: a report was then spread that the
image spoke to the Jews three times, and that they did not hesitate to
burn it. Solemn masses were performed at Madrid and other cities in the
kingdom, to expiate the sacrilege which had been committed.
On the 22nd of June, 1636, another general _auto-da-fe_ was held at
Valladolid, composed of twenty-eight persons. The punishment inflicted
on the Jews seems entirely novel: one hand was nailed to a wooden cross,
and in that state they were obliged to hear read the report of their
trial, and the sentence which condemned them to perpetual imprisonment
for having insulted our Saviour and the Virgin by their blasphemies. A
_Beata_ also appeared in this _auto-da-fe_; she was known by the name of
_Lorenza_: her crimes were the same as those of the other women of her
class; she pretended that she had seen apparitions of the Devil, Jesus
Christ, and the Virgin Mary, and an infinity of revelations, but she
was, in fact, nothing but a libertine woman.
Another _Beata_, who was more celebrated, appeared before the tribunal
of Valladolid, she was called _Louisa de l'Ascension_. M. Lavellee has
spoken of the fragments of the cross which had belonged to this woman,
in his history of the Inquisition, published at Paris in 1809. This
author (_who has only added to the errors of the writers of the two last
centuries_) says, that this cross was one of those which the inquisitors
suspended round the necks of the condemned. This practice was never
known in the Inquisition; the cross belonged to the _Beata_. M. Lavellee
has not explained the inscription correctly. I have seen a cross entire;
on the upper part are the letters I. N. R. I., which are the initials of
_Jesus Nazarenius Rex Judaeorum_; on the mounting and on the arm, and
towards the foot, are these words--_Jesus. La Tres Sainte Marie, concue
sans peche originel. Soeur Louise de l'Ascension, esclave indigne de
mon tres doux Jesus. Jesus. Maria santissima concibida sin pecado
original. Indigna soror Luisa de la Ascencion, esclava de dulcisimo
Jesus_. This _Beata_ gave similar crosses to those who, deceived by her
reputation for sanctity, came to demand her prayers. This cross being
once given, the wish to possess them became so general, that they were
engraved and became the occasion and the subject of a trial: the
Inquisition caused all that could be found to be remitted to them, and
thus several were to be seen at Madrid and Valladolid.
Louisa de l'Ascension must not be confounded with the hypocrites and
false devotees, such as Mary de la Conception, Lorenza de Simancas,
Magdalena de la Croix, and some others, who were vicious women. The
constant virtue of Louisa was acknowledged by the nuns of St. Clara de
Carrion, and by the inhabitants of that place and of the country.
On the 23rd of January, 1639, there was a general _auto-da-fe_ at Lima
in Peru, in which seventy-two persons appeared. Eleven persons were
burnt, and one effigy. In this _auto-da-fe_ were seen, on elevated
seats, six persons who had been accused by false witnesses.
The cities of Toledo, Cuenca, Grenada, and Seville, also celebrated
_autos-da-fe_ in 1651, 1654, and 1660, when many persons were burnt.
Besides the public _autos-da-fe_ and trials mentioned in the Chapters
24, 25, and 26, several others worthy of notice took place in the reign
of Philip IV. Don Rodrigo Calderona, Marquis de Siete Inglesias,
secretary to Philip III., was prosecuted by the Inquisition, which had
not time to condemn him, because he was beheaded at Madrid in 1621,
according to the sentence of the royal judges. The inquisitors accused
him of having bewitched the king, in order to gain his favour. This
charge was also brought against him by the fiscal of the civil tribunal
of Madrid, but the judges paid no attention to it. It is certain that
Calderona was the victim of a court intrigue, and the Count Duke de
Olivares did an irreparable injury to his memory, in coldly witnessing
the execution of a man, who, during his favour, had rendered him great
services.
Don Fray Louis Aliaga, archimandrite of Sicily, confessor to Philip
III., and inquisitor-general, resigned his place by the command of
Philip IV.; and a short time after Cardinal Zapata had succeeded him, he
was prosecuted by the Inquisition of Madrid, for some propositions
suspected of Lutheranism and materialism. Aliaga died in 1626, when his
trial had not advanced further than the preparatory instruction.
In the year 1645, the Inquisition of Madrid prosecuted Don Gaspard de
Guzman, Count Duke de Olivares, favourite and prime-minister to Philip
IV. This took place under the ministry of the inquisitor-general, Don
Diego de Arce, on whom he had bestowed the bishoprics of Tui, Avila, and
Placencia. Don Diego did not forget his benefactor, and it was to his
prudence that the duke owed the favourable issue of an affair, which, in
other hands, might have had the most fatal result.
This minister was disgraced in 1643: a short time after, memorials were
presented to the king, accusing him of the most heinous crimes. The
tribunal, where every false report was received, also seized this
opportunity to prosecute him; he was denounced to the Inquisition as a
believer in judicial astrology; and as a proof that he was an enemy to
the church, it was asserted that he attempted to poison Urban VIII.; the
apothecary at Florence, who prepared the poison, and the Italian monk,
who was to administer it, were mentioned; in fact, proofs were offered
of all the crimes he had committed. The inquisitors commenced the
preparatory instruction, but their proceedings were so dilatory, that
the Count Duke died before the order for his arrest could be issued.
The Jesuit, Count Juan Baptiste de Poza, occupied the Inquisitions of
Spain and Rome for some time with his writings, during the reign of
Philip IV., particularly from the year 1629 to 1636. I have spoken in
Chapter 15 of the memorial presented by the university of Salamanca
against the Jesuits, in order to prevent the imperial college of Madrid,
which was under the direction of these fathers, from being made an
university; Poza wrote several pamphlets in defence of the pretensions
of his order, which were all condemned by the Inquisition of Rome in
1632. The enemies of the Jesuits hoped that the Spanish Inquisition
would do the same, but the inquisitors were afraid of offending the
Count Duke de Olivares, whose confessor was a Jesuit. At this period,
Francis Roales, doctor of the university of Salamanca, almoner and
councillor of the king, professor of mathematics, and preceptor to the
Cardinal-infant Don Ferdinand, published a work which created a great
sensation. The author denounces the writings of Poza to the Catholic
Church in general, and to each of its members in particular, as
heretical and tainted with atheism, and also denounces all the Jesuits
who defended his doctrine.
Urban VIII. would have pronounced Poza to be an heretic, if he had not
feared to offend the Court of Madrid; he therefore contented himself
with depriving him of his professorship, and commanding that he should
be sent to a house of the Jesuits, in some small town in Castile, and
forbade him to preach, teach, or write. Although the Jesuits in their
fourth vow, promised to obey the Pope without restriction, and they
were, generally speaking, the most zealous supporters of his authority,
yet, in this instance, they refused to obey, because they were supported
by the Court of Madrid. At this time the work of Alphonso Vargas[74] was
published out of Spain; Vargas exposes the stratagems, the perfidious
politics, and the bad doctrine of the Jesuits. Their general alleged, as
an excuse for their disobedience, that they were forbidden to execute
the orders of his Holiness by the king of Spain: this was the state of
the affair when Olivares was disgraced. The works of Poza were then
prohibited in Spain, and he was condemned to abjure several heresies.
Juan Nicolas Diana, another Jesuit, known for the very relaxed morals
of his printed works, was prosecuted by the Inquisition of Sardinia for
some propositions contained in a sermon, and was condemned to recant.
The Jesuit published his defence, and went to Spain where he demanded to
be tried by the Supreme Council. The Council, after taking the opinions
of several qualifiers, annulled the sentence, and not only acquitted the
Jesuit, but made him a qualifier.
_Ali Arraez Ferrares_, surnamed the _Renegado_, was tried by the
Inquisition of Sicily in this reign. He was a Moor of Tunis, and high in
the favour of the king of that country: having been taken prisoner to
Palermo, he was ransomed and sent back to Tunis. Some Christian slaves,
who were in that city, expressed their surprise that an apostate had
been ransomed instead of being sent to the dungeons of the Inquisition.
The tribunal, being informed of the opinion of these slaves, published
that they were ignorant that Ali Arraez Ferrares had been a Christian,
and that he was surnamed the _Renegado_. Ali was taken a second time in
1624, and though no other proof of his guilt existed but the report
above-mentioned, he was taken to the prisons of the holy office. A great
number of Sicilians, Genoese, and others, who had known him at Tunis,
were examined; they all declared that he was called the _Renegado_, and
some added that they had heard him say that he had been a Christian. Ali
denied the fact, but the tribunal considered him as convicted, and
condemned him to be burnt. The Supreme Council decided that the proof
was not complete, annulled the sentence, and commanded that the prisoner
should be tortured, in order to obtain additional proofs, and that the
sentence should then be renewed. Ali still persisted in denying that he
had been a Christian, and found means to inform the king of Tunis of his
situation; the Moorish king received his letter at the moment when Fray
Bartholomew Ximenez, Fray Ferdinand de Reina, Fray Diego de la Torre,
and three other Carmelites, were brought in captive; they had been taken
in going to Rome. The king commanded them to write to the inquisitors
of Sicily to set Ali Arraez at liberty, and to accept his ransom, and,
in case they refused, to inform them that he would imprison and torture
all the Christian slaves in his power. The monks excused themselves by
alleging that they did not know the inquisitors, and the affair was
dropped. At this period the Supreme Council commanded that Ali should be
confined in a dungeon and ironed. In 1628, Ali found means to convey
another letter to the Moorish king, informing him that he was imprisoned
in a dark and fetid dungeon, with a Christian captain, and that they
were almost starved. When the king received the letter, the Spanish
monks were negotiating their ransom. He sent for them, and said, "Why do
they endeavour to make this renegado a Christian by their tortures? If
this Inquisition is not suppressed, or if the inquisitors do not send
the renegado immediately to the galleys with the other slaves, I will
burn all the Christians who are in my power: write, and tell them so."
The monks obeyed, and added, that if justice and religion required the
execution of the prisoner, they were ready to suffer martyrdom. The king
of Tunis afterwards accepted the ransom of the monks. After detaining
Ali for sixteen years, the inquisitors had no greater proof of his
crime, and yet they refused to exchange him for a Christian priest,
alleging that the relations of the priest ought to ransom him, and that
it would be taking an active part in the heresy and damnation of the
renegado to set him at liberty: it was represented that their refusal
might have the most fatal consequences to the Christian slaves at Tunis;
but this consideration did not affect them.
An affair, which created a great sensation, occupied the Supreme Council
at this time. A convent for Benedictine nuns had been founded in the
parish of St. Martin. The director and confessor, Fray Francis Garcia
was considered a learned and holy man. Donna Theresa de Sylva, whose
relation had founded the convent for her, was the abbess, though only
twenty-six years of age. The community was composed of thirty nuns, who
all appeared to be virtuous, and had voluntarily embraced the monastic
life. While the new convent enjoyed the highest reputation, the gestures
and words of one of the nuns indicated that she was in a supernatural
state: Fray Garcia exorcised her, and on the 8th of September she was
pronounced to be a demoniac. In a short time, the abbess and twenty-five
nuns were attacked in the same manner. Many consultations took place on
the condition of these women, between men of learning and virtue, who
believed that they were really _possessed_,--their confessor repeated
his exorcism every day, and even spent days and nights in the convent to
renew them. He at last brought the tabernacle of the holy sacrament into
the room where the nuns worked, and they said the prayers of forty
hours. This singular scene lasted for three years, when the Inquisition
of Toledo put a stop to it in 1631, by arresting the confessor, the
abbess, and some of the nuns. Fray Francis Garcia was denounced as an
_illuminati_, and it was said that he had corrupted the nuns, who
pretended to be possessed. The trial was terminated in 1633; the
confessor and the nuns were declared to be suspected of having fallen
into the heresy of the _Alumbrados_. They were condemned to several
penances, and sent to different convents; the abbess was exiled, and
deprived of the privilege of consulting for four, and of voting for
eight years: when this period had expired, she returned to her own
convent, and was commanded by her superiors to demand a revision of her
trial. The abbess obeyed, declaring at the same time, that she did it
solely for the honour of her nuns and those of the other houses of St.
Benedict. The enterprise was difficult, but the power of her relation,
the prothonotary of Aragon, and of the Count Duke de Olivares, overcame
every obstacle. In 1642 the Supreme Council acknowledged the innocence
of the nuns, but not of Fray Francis, became he had been so imprudent
as to hold a correspondence with the demons to satisfy his curiosity,
before he drove them from the nuns. Donna Theresa gives an account of
her own feelings when possessed, and says that she was in a state of
delirium, and did the most foolish things.
Don Jerome de Villanueva, prothonotary of Aragon, that is, the royal
secretary of state for that kingdom, had, in his youth, been the
secretary to the Inquisition. He was prosecuted by the tribunal on the
disgrace of the Count Duke de Olivares, as his creature and principal
confidant. Several heretical propositions were imputed to him, and he
was arrested in 1645, and condemned to abjure: this sentence was
pronounced on the 18th of June, 1647. When he was set at liberty to
accomplish his penance, he appealed to Pope Innocent X., complaining of
the injustice with which he had been treated in depriving him of the
means of defending himself, and protesting that he had only submitted to
the sentence, that he might bring his cause before an impartial
tribunal; he therefore demanded that his trial should be revised by
judges appointed by his Holiness. Don Pedro Navarro, an opulent
gentleman, went to Rome to negotiate the affair, out of friendship to
Villanueva; and although Philip requested through his ambassador that
Navarro should be compelled to leave Rome, his Holiness refused, and
would not allow him to be arrested. The Pope issued a brief of
commission to the bishops of Calahorra, Segovia, and Cuenca, to revise
the trial, but Philip IV., in consequence of the insinuations of the
inquisitor-general, forbade them to accept the commission, because it
was contrary to the prerogatives of the crown. The Pope then commanded
that the process should be transferred to Rome; after some opposition he
was obeyed, and Villanueva was acquitted. The resistance and the
injustice witnessed by the Pope in this case induced him to expedite a
second brief in 1653, in which he declared that he had discovered great
irregularities in the trial of Villanueva, and charged the
inquisitor-general to observe that the laws were more strictly followed,
and the trials conducted with more justice, gravity and circumspection.
New contests soon arose between the Courts of Madrid and Rome, and the
Pope sent Francis Mancini as his nuncio to Madrid, to settle the
dispute, but he could not obtain an audience of the king, and in 1654
was obliged to apply in the name of his Holiness to the
inquisitor-general, who told him that the Pope had offended the king in
the affair above-mentioned; he asserted that the prosecution of
Villanueva had been properly conducted, and that the Pope had approved
it. If this assertion was true, the Pope must have expressed his
approbation before he took cognizance of the trial, for when it was
transferred to the tribunal of Rome, the injustice and defects were
discovered.
CHAPTER XXXIX.
THE INQUISITION DURING THE REIGN OF CHARLES II.
Charles II. succeeded his father on the 17th of September, 1665, when he
was only four years of age. The grand inquisitors, during his reign,
were, Cardinal Don Pascual d'Aragon, archbishop of Toledo; Father John
Everard de Nitardo, a German Jesuit; Don Diego de Sarmiento de
Valladares, bishop of Oviedo and Placentia; Don Juan Thomas Rocaberti,
archbishop of Valencia; Cardinal Don Alphonso Fernandez de Cordova y
Aguilar; and Don Balthazar de Mendoza-Sandoval, bishop of Segovia.
The infancy of Charles II., the ambition of his brother Don John of
Austria, the imperious temper of the queen-mother, Maria Anne of
Austria, and the machiavelism of the Jesuit Nitardo, gave occasion for
a number of scandalous events during this reign. The weakness of the
government was the principal cause of the insolent conduct of the
inquisitors.
When Charles II. married Maria Louisa de Bourbon in 1680, the taste of
the nation was so depraved, that a grand _auto-da-fe_, composed of a
hundred and eighteen victims, was considered as a proper and flattering
homage to the new queen; nineteen persons were burnt, with thirty-four
effigies. None of the cases were remarkable, and may therefore be passed
over in silence, together with another _auto-da-fe_ which was celebrated
in the church of the convent of the nuns of St. Dominic. Some manuscript
notes indicate that some of the condemned avoided the fate which awaited
them, by bribing the inferior officers of the tribunal; I am persuaded
that this assertion is incorrect, because the subalterns had very little
influence after the criminals were arrested.
The most celebrated trial of the Inquisition in this reign is that of
Fray Froilan Diaz, bishop elect of Avila, and confessor to the king. The
habitual weakness of Charles II., and the failure of an heir, created a
suspicion that he was _bewitched_. The Cardinal Portocarrero and the
inquisitor-general Rocaberti believed in sorcery, and after persuading
the king that he was bewitched, they entreated him to suffer himself to
be exorcised according to the formulary of the church. Charles
consented, and was exorcised by his confessor. The novelty of this
proceeding occasioned many remarks, and Froilan was informed that
another monk was at that time exorcising a nun at Cangas de Tineo, in
order to free her from the demons, which, she said, tormented her.
Froilan and the inquisitor-general charged the exorcist of the
_demoniac_ to command the demon, by the formula of the ritual, to
declare if Charles II. was bewitched or not, and if he replied in the
affirmative, to make him reveal the nature of the sorcery; if it was
permanent; if it was attached to anything that the king had eaten or
drank, to images or other objects; in what place it might be found; and
lastly, if there were any natural means of preventing its effects: the
confessor added several other questions, and desired the exorcist to
urge them with all the zeal which the interest of the king and the state
required.
The monk at first refused to question the demon, because it is forbidden
by the church; but on being assured by the inquisitor-general that it
would not be sinful in the present circumstances, he faithfully
performed all that had been requested of him. The demon declared by the
mouth of the demoniac, that a spell had been put upon the king by a
person who was named. According to the private notes of that time, the
criminal was an agent of the Court of Vienna; but Cardinal Portocarrero
and the confessor Diaz were the partisans of France for the succession
of Spain.
Diaz was very much alarmed at this information, and redoubled his
conjurations until he learned some method of destroying the enchantment.
Before this operation was concluded, Rocaberti died, and was succeeded
by Don Balthazar de Mendoza, who was of the Austrian party; he signified
to the king that all that had taken place had arisen from the imprudent
zeal of his confessor, and that he must be removed. The king followed
his advice, and made Froilan Bishop of Avila; but the new
inquisitor-general, not contented with preventing the expedition of the
bulls, prosecuted him for having made use of demons to discover hidden
things.
Mendoza directed this attack in concert with Torres Palmosa, the king's
confessor, who was as eager for the ruin of Froilan Diaz as himself;
this man communicated to Mendoza the letters which Diaz had received
from Cangas, which were found among his papers.
Mendoza examined witnesses, and after combining their declarations with
the contents of the letters, he gave them to five qualifiers who were
devoted to him, and made Don Juan Arcemendi, a counsellor of the
Inquisition, and Don Dominic de la Cantolla, official of the
secretaryship of the Supreme Council, their president and secretary.
However, the five qualifiers declared that the trial offered no fact or
proposition worthy of theological censure.
This decision was very displeasing to Mendoza; but relying on his
influence in the council, he proposed that Diaz should be arrested: the
councillors refused, because the measure was unjust, and contrary to the
laws of the holy office, according to the decision of the five
qualifiers. This resistance irritated the inquisitor-general, who caused
the decree to be drawn up, signed it, and sent it to the council, with
an order to register it with the ordinary forms. The councillors replied
that they could not perform a ceremony which they considered illegal,
because the resolution had not been adopted by a majority of votes.
During these transactions, Diaz made his escape to Rome: Mendoza, who
could depend upon the king's confessor, induced him to persuade the king
that this was an offence against the rights of the crown, and obtained a
letter from him to the Duke de Uzeda, his ambassador at Rome, commanding
him to seize the person of Diaz, and send him under an escort to
Carthagena.
The anonymous author of Anecdotes of the Court of Rome says, that Diaz
went thither to show to the Pope the will of Charles II., by which
Philip de Bourbon was called to the throne of Spain; and that his return
as a prisoner was occasioned by a court intrigue; but there is no
evidence to prove this assertion. The inquisitor-general sent Froilan
Diaz to the prison of the Inquisition of Murcia, and commanded the
inquisitors to begin his trial. They appointed as qualifiers nine of the
most learned theologians of the diocese, who unanimously gave the same
answer as those of the Supreme Council: the inquisitors consequently
declared that there was no cause for the arrest. The inquisitor-general
then caused Diaz to be transferred to Madrid. Mendoza afterwards charged
the fiscal of the Inquisition to accuse him as a dogmatizing
arch-heretic, for having said that an intercourse with the demon might
be permitted, in order to learn the art of curing the sick.
Charles II. died about this time, and Philip was at first too much
engaged with the war against the Archduke Charles of Austria, to
discover the intrigues and artifices of Mendoza. He at last submitted
the affair to the Council of Castile, on the 24th of December, 1703,
which decided that the arrest of Diaz was contrary to the common laws,
and those of the holy office. The Supreme Council then decreed that Diaz
should be set at liberty and acquitted.
It must be observed, that the demon affirmed that God had permitted a
spell to be put upon the king, and that it could not be taken off,
because the holy sacrament was in the church without lamps or wax
candles, the communities of monks dying of hunger, and other reasons of
the same nature. Two other demons who were interrogated, only agreed in
declaring the necessity of favouring the churches, convents, and
communities of Dominican monks; perhaps because the inquisitor-generals
Rocaberti and Diaz were of that order.
This prince convoked the _grand junta_, composed of two councillors of
state, two members of each of the Councils of Castile, Aragon, Italy,
the Indies, the military orders and the finances, and one of the king's
secretaries. The royal secretary informed the junta that the disputes
between the inquisitors and the civil judges had caused so much
disturbance, that the king had resolved to commission the assembly to
propose a plain and fixed rule, to secure to the Inquisition the respect
due to it, and to prevent the inquisitors from undertaking trials
foreign to the jurisdiction of the holy office. The king commanded the
six councils to remit to the junta all the papers necessary for the
examination of the affair.
On the 21st of May, 1696, the grand junta made a report, stating that it
appeared from the papers which had been examined, that the greatest
disorder had long existed in the different jurisdictions, because the
inquisitors had arbitrarily extended their power, so that the common
tribunals had scarcely anything to do; that they punished the slightest
offence against themselves or their domestics with the greatest
severity, as if it was a crime against religion; that not content with
exempting their officers from taxes, they gave their houses the
privileges of an asylum, so that a criminal could not be taken from
them, even by a judicial order; and if the public authorities exercised
their powers, they dared to complain of it as a sacrilegious violation
of the church; that in their official letters, and in the conduct of
their affairs, they showed an intention of weakening the respect of the
people towards the royal judges, and even to make the authority of
superior magistrates contemptible; and that they affected a certain
independent manner of thinking on the subjects of administration and
public economy, which made them forgetful of the rights of the crown.
The junta then stated that these abuses had caused complaints from the
subjects, division among the ministers, discouragement to the tribunals,
and much trouble to his majesty in settling their differences. That this
conduct had appeared so intolerable, even in the beginning, that the
powers of the Inquisition had been suspended for ten years by Charles
V., until it was restored by Philip II., in the absence of his father,
with some restrictions, which had not been well observed; that the
extreme moderation with which the inquisitors had been treated was the
cause of their boldness.
The junta proposed for the reformation of the holy office; 1st. That the
Inquisition should not make use of censures in civil affairs. 2nd. That
in case they employed them, the royal tribunals should be charged to
oppose them by the means in their power. 3rd. That the privileges of the
inquisitorial jurisdiction should be limited, in respect to the
ministers and familiars of the Inquisition, and the relations of the
inquisitors. 4th. That measures should be adopted to ensure the
immediate settlement of affairs relating to competence and mutual
pretensions.
The Count de Frigiliana, councillor of state, added that the inquisitors
ought to be compelled to give an account of the revenues of the holy
office. These observations, and the propositions of the junta, had no
effect; for the inquisitor-general Rocaberti, and Froilan Diaz,
succeeded in changing the favourable inclinations of the king.
CHAPTER XL.
OF THE INQUISITION IN THE REIGN OF PHILIP V.
Philip V. succeeded his uncle Charles II. on the 1st of November, 1700;
he died on the 9th of July, 1746. The grand-inquisitors, during this
period, were, Don Balthazar Mendoza y Sandoval; Don Vidal Marin, Bishop
of Ceuta; Don Antonio Ibanez de la Riba-Herrera, Archbishop of
Saragossa; Cardinal Don Francis Judice; Don Joseph de Molinos; Don Diego
de Astorga Cespedes, Bishop of Barcelona; Don Juan de Camargo, Bishop of
Pampeluna; Don Andres de Orbe Larreategui, Archbishop of Valencia; Don
Manuel-Isidore Manrique de Lara, Archbishop of Santiago; and Don Francis
Perez de Prado Cuesta, Bishop of Teruel, who was still in office at the
death of Philip V.
The court had always been so favourable to the Inquisition, that the
inquisitors thought that a solemn _auto-da-fe_ in celebration of his
accession would be agreeable to the king. It took place in 1701, but
Philip refused to be present at this barbarous scene. He however
protected the tribunal of the holy office, according to the advice of
his grandfather, Louis XIV., who told him, that he must support the
Inquisition as the surest means of maintaining the tranquillity of his
kingdom. This system acquired fresh importance in his eyes when Don
Vidal Marin, the inquisitor-general, published an edict excommunicating
all those who did not denounce the persons who had been heard to say,
that they thought themselves permitted to violate the oath of fidelity
to Philip V. This edict gave occasion for several trials, but none of
them were followed by a definitive sentence.
Judaism was nearly extirpated during the reign of Philip V.; it had been
secretly propagated for the second time in a remarkable manner, after
the reunion of Portugal to Spain. A yearly _auto-da-fe_ was celebrated
by all the tribunals of the Inquisition, during the reign of this
prince; some of them held two, and three were performed at Seville and
Grenada. Thus, without including those of America, Sardinia and Sicily,
seven hundred and eighty-two _autos-da-fe_ took place at Madrid,
Barcelona, the Canaries, Cordova, Cuenca, Grenada, Jaen, Llerena,
Logrono, Majorca, Murcia, Santiago, Seville, Toledo, Valencia,
Valladolid and Saragossa.
In fifty-four of these ceremonies seventy-four persons were burnt, with
sixty-three effigies, and eight-hundred and eighty-one condemned to
penances. From this statement we may calculate, that during the
forty-six years of the reign of Philip V. fourteen thousand and
sixty-six individuals were condemned by the Inquisition to different
punishments.
It has been a common opinion, that the Inquisition began to be less
severe towards heretics, when the princes of the house of Bourbon
ascended the throne of Spain; but other causes seem to have decreased
the number of its victims, which will be considered in the following
chapters.
Among the pretended sorcerers condemned by the Inquisition was Juan
Perez de Espejo, who was punished at Madrid in 1743, as a blasphemous
hypocrite and a sorcerer. This person, after taking the name of _Juan de
St. Esprit_, is said to have been the founder of the _Congregation of
Hospitaliers_ or of the _Divine Shepherd_, which still exists. He was
condemned to receive two hundred stripes, and to be imprisoned ten years
in a fortress.
A number of the disciples of _Molinos_ were also condemned. Don Joseph
Fernandez de Toro, Bishop of Oviedo, was condemned for this doctrine in
1721. The Inquisition of Logrono burnt Don Juan de Causados, a prebend
of Tudela, the most intimate friend and disciple of _Molinos_; he had
promulgated his mystic doctrines with great zeal and enthusiasm. His
nephew, Juan de Longas, maintained this doctrine after his death; he is
still known in Navarre, Rioxa, Burgos, and Soria, by the name of
_Brother John_. The inquisitors of Logrono condemned him, in 1729, to
receive two hundred stripes, and sent him for ten years to the galleys:
he was afterwards imprisoned for life. Unfortunately some monks of his
order had adopted his sentiments, and had communicated them to several
nuns of the Convents of Lerma and Corrella, which gave occasion to
several _autos-da-fe_.
Donna Agueda de Luna was the principal of these: she was born of noble
parents at Corella, in Navarre. In 1712 she entered the Carmelite
Convent at Lerma, with so great a reputation for virtue, that she was
looked upon as a saint. In 1713 she had already adopted the heresy of
Molinos; she passed twenty years in the convent, and her fame was
continually increased by the accounts of her ecstasies and miracles,
which were promulgated by Juan de Longas, the Prior de Lerma, the
provincial, and other monks of the first rank, who were all accomplices
in the imposture of Agueda, and interested in her reputation for
sanctity.
A convent was founded at the place of her birth, and she was made
prioress; in this character she continued her iniquitous course of life
without losing any of her reputation, which, on the contrary, became so
great, that the inhabitants of all the neighbouring countries repaired
to her to implore her intercession with God.
After having passed a life full of iniquity, concealed by an appearance
of sanctity, Agueda was denounced to the Inquisition of Logrono; she was
taken to the secret prison, where she died from the consequences of the
torture, before her trial was terminated. She confessed during the
question that her sanctity was an imposture; she appeared to repent in
her last moments, and received absolution. It was said in the
informations taken during the trial, that Agueda had made a compact with
the demon, and had sold her soul to him. She was also accused of
infanticide, and some bones were found in the spot where it was said
that her children were murdered and buried.
Fray Juan de la Vega, provincial of the barefooted Carmelites, was also
prosecuted as an accomplice of Agueda; he was her spiritual director,
and, according to the evidence in his trial, had participated in her
crimes, and seduced several other nuns. Several persons declared that
Fray Juan had likewise made a compact with the demon; but he denied the
fact, and resisted the severity of the torture, although he was advanced
in years. He only confessed that he had received the money for eleven
thousand eight hundred masses which had not been said. He was declared
to be suspected in the highest degree, and sent to the desert Convent of
Duruelo, where he died a short time after.
The provincial, and the secretary, and the two monks who had held those
offices in the three preceding years, were implicated in the charges,
arrested, tortured, and denied the facts; they were confined in the
convents of their order in Majorca, Bilboa, Valladolid, and Osma. The
annalist of the order confessed his crime, and appeared in the
_auto-da-fe_ with the _San-benito_. The other nuns who were found guilty
were dispersed in different convents.
The trial of Don Balthazar Mendoza-Sandoval, Bishop of Segovia and
inquisitor-general, was equally famous, though from a different cause.
The conduct of this bad prelate towards Froilan Diaz has been related in
the preceding chapter. When the Supreme Council refused to sanction the
enormous abuse of his powers which he meditated, Mendoza ordered the
arrest of three of the councillors who had been the most remarkable in
their opposition; he requested of the king, in a false representation,
the dismissal of Don Antonio Zambrana, Don Juan Arzemendi, and Don Juan
Miguelez, whom he sent loaded with chains to Santiago de Grenada, and
formed the bold design of depriving the council of the right of
intervention in the trials submitted to them, and the members of the
power of voting a definitive sentence.
This act of despotism roused the resolution of Philip V. On the 24th of
December he submitted the affair to the Council of Castile. On the 21st
of January, 1704, the council proposed that the Supreme Council should
be re-established in the possession of the privileges it had enjoyed
since the foundation of the Inquisition, and that the three members
should be restored to their office. The king took this advice, and
commanded Mendoza to give in his resignation and leave Madrid.
Mendoza complained to the Pope, who wrote to the king to remonstrate on
the manner of treating one of his sub-delegates. The king, however,
maintained his resolution with firmness, and Mendoza was obliged to
obey.
The king gave another proof of his firmness in defending the privileges
of the crown, in his conduct towards the Inquisitor-general Judice, in
the affair of Don Melchior Macanaz[75]. Philip, however, endured an
insult from the Inquisition, which it is surprising that he did not
avenge. He had complained of a decree which Cardinal Judice had signed
at Marli in 1714, prohibiting the works of Macanaz. The members of the
Supreme Council had the boldness to reply that his majesty might
_suppress_ the holy office if he thought proper, but _that, according to
the apostolic bulls, he could not prevent it from exercising its office
while it continued in existence_.
The Council of Castile, on the 3rd of November, 1714, gave the king
substantial reasons for the suppression of the holy office. The
ordinance for that purpose was prepared, and the blow would have been
struck, but for the intrigues of the Queen, Isabella Farnese; the Jesuit
Daubenton, her confessor, and Cardinal Alberoni, who made the faithful
and zealous conduct of Macanaz appear in a criminal light. They reminded
the king of the advice of Louis XIV., and obtained another decree
annulling the first. In this ordinance the king acknowledges that he had
paid too much attention to the evil advice of perfidious ministers, and
approves the prohibition of the works of Macanaz as favourable to the
rights of the crown, re-establishes the counsellors who had been
dismissed, and praises the conduct of Cardinal Judice.
The Inquisition prohibited the works of _Barclay_ and _Talon_ in the
same edict with those of Macanaz, because they defended the rights of
the crown against the pretensions of the Court of Rome, and Philip had
the weakness to sanction an act so prejudicial to his own authority. It
was during this reign that the works of Nicolas Belando and Don Joseph
Quiros were prohibited[76].
Among the trials I examined at Saragossa, was one very similar to that
of Corellas, but the criminals had not committed the crime of
infanticide, or made a compact with the demon.
CHAPTER XLI.
OF THE INQUISITION DURING THE REIGN OF FERDINAND VI.
Philip V. left his crown to Ferdinand VI., his eldest son by his first
wife, Gabriella of Savoy. This prince reigned from the 9th of July,
1746, to the 10th of August, 1759; he died without children. He was
succeeded by his brother, Charles III. of Naples, the son of Philip V.
and Isabella Farnese, his second wife. Don Francis Perez del Prado,
Bishop of Teruel, held the office of inquisitor-general at the accession
of Ferdinand. He was succeeded by Don Manuel Quintano Bonifaz,
Archbishop of Pharsala, who was still in office at the death of that
Prince.
The rise of good taste in literature in Spain, the restoration of which
was prepared under Philip V., was dated from the reign of Ferdinand VI.
On this circumstance is founded the opinion that the accession of the
Bourbons caused a change in the system of the Inquisition; yet these
princes never gave any new laws to the institution, or suppressed any of
the ancient code, and, consequently, did not prevent any of the numerous
_autos-da-fe_ which were celebrated in their reigns. But Philip
established at Madrid two Royal Academies for History and the Spanish
language, on the model of that of Paris, and favoured a friendly
intercourse between the _literati_ of the two nations.
The agreement made in 1737 with the Court of Rome, concerning the
contributions to be imposed on the clergy, and some other points of
discipline, had rendered appeals to the Pope more rare; and many
opinions were admitted to be reasonable, which had been long represented
as unfavourable to religion and piety, by the ignorance and superstition
of one side, and the malevolence of the other. The establishment of
weekly papers made the people acquainted with works they had never
before heard of, and informed them of resolutions of the Catholic
princes, concerning the clergy, which a short time before they would
have considered as an outrage against religion and its ministers. The
_Diario de los Literatos_ (Journal de Savans) also opened the eyes of
many persons, who, till then, had not been able to judge of books.
These circumstances, and some other causes, during the reign of Philip
V. prepared the way for the interesting revolution in Spanish literature
under Ferdinand VI. This change was followed by a great benefit to
mankind; the inquisitors, and even their inferior officers, began to
perceive that zeal for the purity of the Catholic religion is exposed to
the admission of erroneous opinions. The doctrine of Macanaz no longer
shocked the people, who heard with tranquillity all that had been
written on the appeal against violence (_fuerzas_), and without dreading
the anathemas fulminated every year by the Popes in the bull _in coena
dominum_.
The effect of this change in opinion was particularly conspicuous in the
reduction of the number of trials for Judaism and, consequently, in the
victims in the _autos-da-fe_. During the reign of Ferdinand, no general,
and not more than thirty-four private _autos-da-fe_ were celebrated; the
persons who appeared in them were condemned for blasphemy, bigamy, and
pretended sorcery. Ten persons only were relaxed, and one hundred and
seventy subjected to penances: those who were burnt had relapsed into
Judaism. The Jews had been so severely persecuted in the preceding
reigns, that scarcely any remained.
Jansenism and Freemasonry particularly occupied the Inquisition under
Ferdinand VI. The Jesuits called those persons Jansenists who did not
adopt the opinions of Molina, on grace and free-will: their adversaries
designated them as Pelagians. These parties reciprocally accused each
other of favouring heresy. But the faction of the Jesuits prevailed
during the reigns of Philip V. and his successor, because their
confessors were of that order.
Freemasonry was an object entirely new to the Inquisition. Clement XII.
had expedited on the 28th of April, 1738, the bull _in Eminenti_, in
which he excommunicates the freemasons. In 1740 Philip issued a royal
ordinance against them, and many were arrested and sent to the galleys.
The inquisitors took advantage of the example, and treated the members
of a lodge discovered at Madrid with great severity. The punishment of
death was decreed against freemasons, in 1739, by the Cardinal Vicar of
Rome, in the name of the high-priest of the God of peace and mercy!
Benedict XIV. renewed the bull of Clement, in 1751. Fray Joseph
Torrubia, examiner of books for the holy office, denounced the existence
of freemasons, and Ferdinand published an ordinance against them in the
same year, in which it was said, that all who did not conform to the
regulations contained in it, would be punished as state criminals guilty
of _high treason_. Charles III., then King of Naples, prohibited the
masonic assemblies on the same day. The following pages contain the
notice of a trial of this nature, which took place at Madrid, in 1757.
M. Tournon, a Frenchman, had been invited into Spain, and pensioned by
the government, in order to establish a manufactory of brass or copper
buckles, and to instruct Spanish workmen. On the 30th of April, 1757, he
was denounced to the holy office as suspected of heresy by one of his
pupils, who acted in obedience to the commands of his confessor.
The charges were: 1st. That M. Tournon had asked his pupils to become
freemasons, promising that the _Grand Orient_ of Paris should send a
commission to receive them into the order, if they should submit to the
trials he should propose, to ascertain their courage and firmness; and
that their titles of reception should be expedited from Paris. 2nd.
That some of these young workmen appeared inclined to comply, if M.
Tournon would inform them of the object of the institution. That in
order to satisfy them, he told them several extraordinary things, and
showed them a sort of picture on which were figured instruments of
architecture and astronomy. They thought that these representations
related to sorcery, and they were confirmed in the idea, on hearing the
imprecations which, according to M. Tournon, were to accompany the oath
of secrecy.
It appeared from the depositions of three witnesses that M. Tournon was
a freemason. He was arrested and imprisoned on the 20th of May. The
following conversation, which took place in the first audience of
_monition_, may be interesting to some readers. After asking his name,
birth-place, and his reason for coming to Spain, and making him swear to
speak the truth, the inquisitor proceeded:--
_Question._ Do you know or suppose why you have been arrested by the
holy office?
_Answer._ I suppose it is for having said that I was a freemason.
_Q._ Why do you suppose so?
_A._ Because I have informed my pupils that I was of that order, and I
fear that they have denounced me; for I have perceived lately that they
speak to me with an air of mystery, and their questions lead me to
believe that they think me an heretic.
_Q._ Did you tell them the truth?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ You are then a freemason?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ How long have you been so?
_A._ For twenty years.
_Q._ Have you attended the assemblies of freemasons?
_A._ Yes, at Paris.
_Q._ Have you attended them in Spain?
_A._ No; I do not know if there are any lodges in Spain.
_Q._ If there were, should you attend them?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ Are you a Christian, a Roman Catholic?
_A._ Yes; I was baptized in the parish of St. Paul, at Paris.
_Q._ How, as a Christian, can you dare to attend masonic assemblies,
when you know, or ought to know, that they are contrary to religion?
_A._ I did not know that; I am ignorant of it at present, because I
never saw or heard anything there which was contrary to religion.
_Q._ How can you say that, when you know that freemasons profess
_indifference_ in matters of religion, which is contrary to the article
of faith, which teaches us that no man can be saved who does not profess
the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion?
_A._ The freemasons do not profess that _indifference_. But it is
_indifferent_ if the person received into the order be a Catholic or
not.
_Q._ Then the freemasons are an _anti-religious_ body?
_A._ That cannot be; for the object of the institution is not to combat
or deny the necessity or utility of any religion, but for the exercise
of charity towards the unfortunate of any sect, particularly if he is a
member of the society.
_Q._ One proof that _indifference_ is the religious character of
freemasons is, that they do not acknowledge the Holy Trinity, since they
only confess one God, whom they call the _Great Architect of the
Universe_, which agrees with the doctrine of the heretical philosophers,
who say that there is no true religion but _natural religion_, in which
the existence of God the Creator only is allowed, and the rest
considered as a human invention. And as M. Tournon has professed himself
to be of the Catholic religion, he is required by the respect he owes to
our Saviour Jesus Christ, true God and man, and to his blessed mother,
the Virgin Mary, our Lady, to declare the truth according to his oath;
because in that case, he will acquit his conscience, and it will be
allowable to treat him with that mercy and compassion which the holy
office always showed towards sinners who confess: and if, on the
contrary, he conceals anything, he will be punished with all the
severity of justice, according to the holy canons and the laws of the
kingdom?
_A._ The mystery of the Holy Trinity is neither maintained nor combated
in the masonic lodges: neither is the religious system of the natural
philosophers approved or rejected; God is designated as the Great
Architect of the Universe, according to the allegories of the freemasons
which relate to architecture. In order to fulfil my promise of speaking
truth, I must repeat, that in the masonic lodges nothing takes place
which concerns any religious system, and that the subjects treated of
are foreign to religion, under the allegories of architectural works.
_Q._ Do you believe as a Catholic, that it is a sin of superstition to
mingle holy and religious things with profane things?
_A._ I am not sufficiently acquainted with the particular things which
are prohibited as contrary to the purity of the Christian religion; but
I have believed till now, that those who confound the one with the
other, either by mistake, or a vain belief, are guilty of the sin of
superstition.
_Q._ Is it true that in the ceremonies which accompany the reception of
a mason, the crucified image of our Saviour, the corpse of a man, and a
skull, and other objects of a profane nature, are made use of?
_A._ The general statutes of freemasonry do not ordain these things: if
they are made use of, it must have arisen from a particular custom, or
from the arbitrary regulations of the members of the body, who are
commissioned to prepare for the reception of candidates; for each lodge
has particular customs and ceremonies.
_Q._ That is not the question; say if it true that these ceremonies are
observed in masonic lodges?
_A._ Yes, or no, according to the regulations of those who are charged
with the ceremonies of the initiation.
_Q._ Were they observed when you were initiated?
_A._ No.
_Q._ What oath is it necessary to take on being received a freemason?
_A._ We swear to observe secrecy.
_Q._ On what?
_A._ On things which it may be inconvenient to publish.
_Q._ Is this oath accompanied by execrations?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ What are they?
_A._ We consent to suffer all the evils which can afflict the body and
soul if we violate the oath.
_Q._ Of what importance is this oath, since it is believed that such
formidable execrations may be used without indecency?
_A._ That of good order in the society.
_Q._ What passes in these lodges which it might be inconvenient to
publish?
_A._ Nothing, if it is looked upon without prejudice; but as people are
generally mistaken in this matter, it is necessary to avoid giving cause
for malicious interpretations; and this would take place if what passes
when the brothers assemble was made public.
_Q._ Of what use is the crucifix, if the reception of a freemason is not
considered as a religious act?
_A._ It is presented to penetrate the soul with the most profound
respect at the moment that the novice takes the oath. It is not used in
every lodge, and only when particular grades are conferred.
_Q._ Why is the skull used?
_A._ That the idea of death may inspire a horror of perjury.
_Q._ Of what use is the corpse?
_A._ To complete the allegory of Hiram, architect of the temple of
Jerusalem, who, it is said, was assassinated by traitors, and to induce
a greater detestation of assassination and other offences against our
neighbours, to whom we ought to be as benevolent brothers.
_Q._ Is it true that the festival of St. John is celebrated in the
lodges, and that the masons have chosen him for their patron?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ What worship is rendered him in celebrating his festival?
_A._ None; that it may not be mingled with profane things. This
celebration is confined to a fraternal repast, after which a discourse
is read, exhorting the guests to beneficence towards their
fellow-creatures, in honour of God, the great architect, creator, and
preserver of the universe.
_Q._ Is it true that the sun, moon, and stars, are honoured in the
lodges?
_A._ No.
_Q._ Is it true that their images or symbols are exposed?
_A._ Yes.
_Q._ Why are they so?
_A._ In order to elucidate the allegories of the great, continual, and
true light which the lodges receive from the great Architect of the
world, and these representations belong to the brothers, and engage them
to be charitable.
_Q._ M. Tournon will observe that all the explanations he has given of
the facts and ceremonies which take place in the lodges, are false and
different from those which he voluntarily communicated to other persons
worthy of belief; he is therefore again invited, by the respect he owes
to God and the Holy Virgin, to declare and confess the heresies of
_indifferentism_, the errors of _superstition_, which mingle holy and
profane things, and the errors of _idolatry_, which led him to worship
the stars: this confession is necessary for the acquittal of his
conscience and the good of his soul; because if he confesses with sorrow
for having committed these crimes, detesting them and humbly soliciting
pardon (before the fiscal accuses him of these heinous sins), the holy
tribunal will be permitted to exercise towards him that compassion and
mercy which it always displays to repentant sinners; and because if he
is judicially accused, he must be treated with all the severity
prescribed against heretics by the holy canons, apostolical bulls, and
the laws of the kingdom.
_A._ I have declared the truth, and if any witnesses have deposed to the
contrary, they have mistaken the meaning of my words; for I have never
spoken on this subject to any but the workmen in my manufactory, and
then only in the same sense conveyed by my replies.
_Q._ Not content with being a freemason, you have persuaded other
persons to be received into the order, and to embrace the heretical
superstitions and pagan errors into which you have fallen.