The History of the Inquisition of Spain from the Time of its Establishment to the Reign of Ferdinand Part 34

The unqualified works of Carranza, and even some of those which had been examined, were confided to Fray Diego de Chabes, who had been the confessor of Don Carlos, and afterwards of the king; to Fray Juan d'Ybarra, and to Fray Rodrigo de Vadillo, and Fray Juan de Azoloros, who were afterwards the bishops of Cephalonia and the Canaries. These qualified as heretical some propositions contained in works not written by Carranza, but found among his papers; others were qualified as approaching to heresy, and likely to cause it; and the author was declared to be violently suspected of being an heretic. The edicts condemning the Catechism, and the Explanation of the Canonical Epistle of St. John, had been already published.

The Council of Trent having been convoked for the third time, Valdes feared that the Fathers might take notice of the affairs of Carranza, and he persuaded the king that it was important to the rights of the crown to prevent them from taking cognizance of the trial. Philip had appointed the Count de Luna to be the amba.s.sador to the council, and on the 30th October, 1562, he sent him instructions, in which he says, that he has been informed that it was intended to form a _general index_ of the prohibited books contained in the _index_ of Paul IV., which had occasioned much expostulation. The king added, that he could not allow this measure to extend its influence into Spain, which had an _index_, and particular regulations; that this exception might also apply to other Christian countries, since books, which were dangerous in one, might not be so in others. The king commanded his amba.s.sador to oppose such a resolution in the council, because he could not receive into Spain books approved by the council which had been prohibited in that kingdom, and _some persons suspected that this project concealed particular views_; that he had already commanded his amba.s.sador at Rome, and the Marquis of Pescara, to use every effort, consistent with prudence, to baffle the scheme.

These instructions show very plainly that the Court of Madrid were afraid that the Council would approve the Catechism of Carranza, and the explanation of St. John, which had been prohibited in Spain. The fathers, who were displeased to see the proceedings so long in the hands of the inquisitors, addressed several remonstrances to the Pope against them and the King of Spain, and even refused to open the letters which that prince wrote to them, until he had atoned for the offence committed against the episcopal dignity, in the person of one of its members. At last the fathers declared that they would not a.s.semble, unless his Holiness did not cause the proceedings, and the person of the archbishop, to be sent to Rome. The Pope had just prolonged the period destined for the trial (which would otherwise have expired on the 7th of January, 1568); he however replied that he would write to Philip, to demand that the Archbishop of Toledo and the writings of his trial should be sent to him; and to prove how much he wished to satisfy the fathers, he sent this letter by Odescalchi, to whom he gave the t.i.tle of nuncio extraordinary.

On the 15th of August following, Philip replied, with an energy unusual to him, that he was very much surprised that the Fathers of the council occupied themselves with particular affairs, instead of those which concerned religion in general; that the imperative dispositions of the brief presented by the nuncio were contrary to the rights of his sovereignty and the honour of his person, and that he hoped his holiness would not take it ill, if he did not order it to be published, and continued the trial. The Pope feared to irritate Philip, who was already offended that the amba.s.sador of France had obtained the precedence, and therefore he granted the delay requested by that prince; at the same time, he charged the cardinal-legate, president of the council, to pacify the fathers, promising to do what they desired when the process was _instructed_. His Holiness also commanded that the archbishop should be treated with as much gentleness as was consistent with the proceedings.

The resolution of the Pope appeased the fathers of the council for the present; but they soon began to discuss an affair equally displeasing to the King of Spain. The bishops and theologians commissioned to examine books, p.r.o.nounced the doctrine of the Catechism of Carranza to be Catholic. They communicated their decision to the Archbishop of Prague, who was president of the congregation of the _Index_, who, together with the theologians composing it, approved the Catechism, and resolved to send an act of their approbation to Carranza, that he might make use of it in his defence. The decree of approbation was to be confirmed by the general a.s.sembly, but violent measures were employed to prevent it. The Pope permitted the Catechism to be printed at Rome on the 26th of June.

The Spanish amba.s.sador, the Count de Luna, vehemently protested against this resolution; he said that, as the Catechism was prohibited by the Inquisition of Spain, it was an insult to his master and the Supreme Council to declare it orthodox, and he demanded that the decree of the congregation should be revoked. Don Antonio d'Augustine, Bishop of Lerida, was a member of the congregation of the _Index_, and had not been present on the 2nd of June, when the members approved the Catechism. This circ.u.mstance induced him to support the Count de Luna.

His enmity to Carranza, and his desire to please the king, made him go so far as to say that _the congregation approved heresies, since the Catechism contained them_. The Archbishop of Prague, anxious to defend his honour and that of his colleagues, addressed to the papal legates a formal complaint against the Bishop of Lerida, demanding in their names and his own a public reparation for the injury they had received, and protesting that if it was refused, they would not attend the a.s.semblies.

The cardinal succeeded in reconciling the two parties, by proposing to maintain the decree of approbation, but to forbid a literal copy to be given, and to commission the Count de Luna to obtain that which had been already remitted to the agent of Carranza, on the condition that the bishop made a public apology to the congregation, and one in private to the president. The bishop complied, and the Count de Luna, by his entreaties and promises, at last succeeded in obtaining the decree which the agent had received; but he had already sent an authenticated copy into Spain[66].

Philip II., on the 3rd of August, wrote to the Count de Luna, complaining bitterly of all that had occurred, and charging him to represent to the Pope and the Council, that this resolution was the effect of an intrigue which tended to favour particular views, _as injurious to the Pope_ as to himself, and to give the authors of the decree to understand that they could not expect to succeed in causing the trial to be transferred to Rome, as the king would never permit it.

On the 26th of October, the Count de Luna wrote to his master, informing him of all that he had done. He said that after he had received his instructions, he endeavoured to suppress the commission for the examination of books, or to render their decrees concerning books prohibited in Spain null and void; that the cardinal legates had a.s.sured him that it was impossible to grant his request, because the commission was the work of the council, and not of the Pope; that he must, therefore, apply to the general a.s.sembly, but that he must not expect to succeed, and the only thing that he could ask would be that the commission should not go beyond its powers.

The Count de Luna also said, that though the commission was formed to examine the book contained in the _Index_ of Paul IV., a particular brief had been obtained from Pius IV. to extend the examination to the prohibited books of the other indexes of Christendom; that the affair concerning the Catechism of Carranza had been carried on unknown to the Bishop of Lerida, and to Doctor Pedro _Zumel_, canon of Malaga, commissary of the Inquisition; that in consequence, the Bishop of Lerida and the Bishop of Caba had appealed against the decree of the congregation, and demanded that it should be annulled; that he could still make a remonstrance in full synod, but that he found it necessary to renounce that intention, _as it might be the occasion of great inconveniences_[67]; and that the only cause for this event was that the Cardinal de Lorraine, the Archbishop of Braga, the Bishop of Modena, and several others, defended Carranza to the Pope.

The fathers of the council could not succeed in their attempt to cause the trial of Carranza to be transferred to them. When the a.s.sembly was dissolved, the grand-inquisitor, who had now only the Pope to contend with, commissioned the Council of the Inquisition to request the king to obtain a brief to allow the trial to be terminated in Spain; representing to him that he might say that it would be useful in alarming those Spaniards who had adopted heretical opinions; that the King of Spain merited such a favour, because he was the only prince who had used every means to extirpate heresy; that the ancient canons permitted that the trial should take place where the crime was committed; that _if that of Carranza was transferred to Rome, the names of the witnesses would be revealed_, which would occasion serious consequences; that the trial must be translated into Latin or Italian, which would take much time, and that none but Spaniards could understand the strength of the expressions of the witnesses; that the procurator-fiscal would be obliged to go to Rome, where he would have the mortification of not being heard or well received, because many persons of high rank had been zealous in the cause of the archbishop; that the crimes were committed before he was raised to the episcopal dignity; that it would not be convenient to allow the archbishop to go to Rome, and that the trial could not be properly judged unless he did so; that from all these considerations it would be better for the sovereign pontiff to appoint persons to finish the trial in Spain, in concert with the Supreme Council.

On the other side, Don Martin D'Alpizcueta represented to the king all the ill treatment which the archbishop had suffered, and demanded that he should be sent to Rome. He represented that the archbishop might have made his escape to Rome, but that he did not do so, because his majesty _had commanded him in a letter written with his own hand, not to apply to any one but himself, and to have confidence in his protection_.

Alpizcueta, speaking of the injustice Carranza had suffered, says that his arrest was decreed before anything was proved against him, since all impartial persons would see that the propositions imputed to him were not heretical; that his Catechism had been approved by the Council of Trent, and that it was read in every country but Spain, where his enemies resided.

The advocate states, that suspected judges had been appointed, and that nothing but the fear of displeasing his majesty could prevent his client from challenging them;

That his enemies, taking advantage of his captivity, always prevented him from informing the king and the Pope of the secret intrigues;

That his act of accusation had been divided into fifteen or twenty parts, and the same charges multiplied into four hundred articles, while it might and ought to have been reduced to thirty points;

That he had been accused of having advanced heretical propositions, when they were perfectly Catholic;

That the accusations had been acc.u.mulated to embarra.s.s his client, and cause him to contradict himself;

That the copies of the requisitions of the fiscal were not given to him until the period allowed for the reply had nearly expired; that the archbishop might render his detention longer by demanding fresh delays, or might reply without reflection;

That works had been imputed to him, of which he was not the author;

That consequently he did not expect to be tried fairly unless the process was transferred to the throne;

That the king ought not to listen to his flatterers; that all Spain murmured at the treatment the archbishop had received, and that it was spoken of still more severely than in other countries.

He then goes on to accuse the judges of partiality, and says that their boldness in preferring their judgment to that of the Council of Trent, resembles that of the Lutherans who were prosecuted by them.

The advocate continues, "These judges are so offended at this decision, (concerning the Catechism,) that one of them said to my two colleagues and myself, _All the council could not defend two propositions contained in that book_; he quoted one, which I immediately proved to be Catholic, and told him that if I had the authority of the grand-inquisitors, I should perhaps denounce him, for I thought there was as much heresy in looking upon a Catholic proposition as heretical, as in thinking an heretical opinion Catholic; besides, it is certain that it is heretical, to suppose that the council can approve a doctrine as Catholic, which is not so."

That the Lutherans, when they found that the king had more confidence in the Inquisition of Spain than in the sovereign Pontiff, would take advantage of the circ.u.mstance, to persist in their opposition to the holy see, and would say that his majesty's faith was subordinate to his interest;

That he had been informed in a _confession_, that the _real design_ of these men was to let the archbishop die in prison, _without concluding his trial_; that such proceedings lead to the supposition, _that the authors of them dissipate the revenues of the archbishopric to their own profit, which they really do, without any person to call them to an account_; besides that such a plan is equivalent to a condemnation, since every one will suppose that his client is guilty, if the inquisitors do not judge him; that it even concerned the honour of his majesty, because it would be said, that he spared heretics of high rank, and punished those of no importance.

Alpizcueta concludes, by declaring that he believes the archbishop would be acquitted and received with the greatest honours, if he was sent to Rome, and conjures the king to grant permission that the trial should be transferred.

Alpizcueta was doubtless a very learned man, and told the king many truths; but he did not understand the character of that prince, for the letter he wrote to the Pope, on the 15th of April, shows that he had become even more unjust than the judges. Persuaded that Carranza was an heretic, he resolved to show the world that if he knew how to reward merit, he also knew how to punish his creatures.

He therefore resolved to demand permission of the Pope to conclude the trial in Spain. He selected for this commission Don Rodrigo de Castro, to whom were remitted on the 24th November, 1564, the instructions decreed by the council, and others from the king, which were private, and without a date; an alphabet of the cipher, in which he was to correspond with the king, and letters of credit to the Pope, and many cardinals.

The king, who foresaw the events which might arise from this journey, also sent letters to the King and Queen of France, to the constables of that kingdom, and his own amba.s.sador there, to his amba.s.sador at Genoa, to the Viceroy of Naples, the Governor of Milan, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and Prince Marcantonio Colonna.

Among the instructions, the following may be remarked: "That although it is to be hoped that G.o.d will influence the decision of the Pontiff, yet the means of succeeding in so just an enterprise ought not to be neglected: therefore _the persons who have most influence in the affair must be gained over by any means which may appear most convenient_."

Don Rodrigo de Castro succeeded in obtaining the required permission. On the 13th of July, 1565, Pius IV. appointed as judges, the Cardinal Buoncompagni (afterwards Pope Gregory XIII.) with the t.i.tle of Legate; the Archbishop of Rosano (afterwards Pope Urban VII.), the auditor of the _Rota_, Aldobrandini, and the general of the Franciscans (afterwards s.e.xtus Quintus). The Pope informed Philip of these nominations in a brief, dated the 21st of August following.

The papal envoys arrived in Spain in the month of November. Philip went to Alcala to meet the legate, and received him in the most flattering manner, to induce him to consent that the counsellors of the Inquisition should be a.s.sociated with the papal judges: this, the legate, who was aware of the inexpedience of the measure, refused. Many powerful intrigues were by the king's order employed to obtain his wish, but they were in vain; and the Pope dying on the night of the 8th of December, Buoncompagni, who wished to a.s.sist at the conclave, immediately set off for Rome, without even informing the king of his intention, and leaving the archbishop and his trial in exactly the same state as in the year 1562.

On the 17th of January, 1566, Pius V. was elected. Buoncompagni was informed of this event while he was on the road, and stopped at Avignon.

Philip sent a courier to the new Pontiff, to entreat him to confirm the arrangements of his predecessor, which was complied with; his Holiness at the same time commanded the cardinal to return to Spain; he replied that he thought it necessary to have a private conference with his holiness, before he obeyed his orders, and therefore continued his journey. As soon as he arrived at Rome, he proved to the new Pontiff that the trial of Carranza could never be judged with impartiality in Spain, even by judges appointed by the holy see; Pius IV. then determined that the Archbishop of Toledo, and the writings of his trial, should be transferred to Rome, and that Don Ferdinand Valdes should be deprived of the office of inquisitor-general: this he considered necessary, in case the proceedings required that fresh witnesses should be examined in Spain.

Salazar de Mendoza says, that Philip obeyed immediately, but he had not read the history of the trial: it is certain that a great contest ensued; that Pius IV. was firm, and the pride of Philip was obliged to give way, when the Pope threatened to excommunicate him, and to put his kingdom under an interdict. The writings of the trial are still in existence; and _I refer to those doc.u.ments_.

The king appointed Don Diego Espinosa, Bishop of Siguenza, to be inquisitor-general; and on the 9th of September, the Pope expedited a bull, in which he says, that on account of the great age and infirmities of Valdes, he had thought proper to appoint Don Diego Espinosa to be his coadjutor, authorizing him to act as inquisitor-general, without any dependance on Valdes. This bull was published, that Valdes might not be dishonoured; but his holiness privately imparted his intentions to Espinosa, in a brief on the 1st of October, commanding him to avoid speaking of the trial of Carranza to Valdes.

The Pope sent Pietro Camayani, Bishop of Asculi, to Spain, with the t.i.tle of nuncio-extraordinary, and with the most positive orders not to return to Rome without the archbishop, and the writings of his trial. On the 30th of July he addressed a brief to Camayani, which it is necessary to abridge, though of much importance. His Holiness says, that the delay of the trial, and the detention of Carranza, had scandalized all Christendom. He commands him, on pain of excommunication, to signify to the Archbishop of Seville, the Council of the Inquisition, and the other persons concerned in the trial of Carranza, with a menace of the same penalties, the absolute revocation of all the powers intrusted to them; and a positive order, on pain of _excommunication in its full extent_, to set Carranza immediately at liberty without delay or protestation, and even without requiring any security from him; to place all the papers of the trial in the hands of the nuncio, to be by him transferred to Rome; to subject the detainers of the papers to the same censures, if they did not give them up immediately; to inform the archbishop, when set at liberty, of the order to repair to Rome, and to permit him to appoint an administrator for his see.

Nothing, however, was done as the Pope had ordained. The archbishop was not liberated; the king sent a detachment of his guards to escort him to Carthagena, where he was to embark. He was detained at Valladolid so long by the preparations for his departure, that he only reached Rome on the 29th of May in the following year.

The nuncio was obliged to issue fresh menaces of excommunication, before he could obtain the papers, which detained the archbishop at Carthagena for four months. The ignorance of the nuncio concerning the affair was taken advantage of, and only part of the proceedings were remitted to him, the rest being claimed when the deficiency was discovered at Rome, and thus the delay of a whole year occurred; in short, it was evident that the inquisitors wished to defer the conclusion of the trial till after the death of Carranza. The members of the Chapter of Toledo were remarkable for their courageous devotion to their chief; they appointed two of their body to attend him during his detention, and to render him every service in their power, charging them never to leave him during his voyage and his residence at Rome.

Carranza left his prison on the 5th of December, 1566, after seven years, three months, and fourteen days' captivity, which he had pa.s.sed in two rooms, from which he could see neither the country nor the street, and without conversing with any persons but his two domestics, and his two advocates. He was not permitted to name an administrator to his archbishopric according to the commands of the Pope: the reason given for this was, that his holiness did not know that an administrator had been already appointed by the king, and that Paul IV. had confirmed the nomination.

Carranza travelled in a litter, and was accompanied by Don Diego Gonzalez, Inquisitor of Valladolid, and Don Lope de Avellaneda, who had been appointed his gaoler in 1561. On his arrival at Carthagena, Gonzalez and the guard returned to Valladolid, as the captain-general of the province was then responsible for his person.

On the 27th of April, 1567, he embarked, and on the 25th of May he arrived at Civita Vecchia, where the Spanish amba.s.sador, and Paul Vislersio, nephew to the Pope and captain of his guards, received him, and on the 29th he arrived at Rome. Besides his servants and Avellaneda, he was accompanied by two counsellors of the Inquisition, Don Diego de Simancas, and Don Antonio Pazos; by Don Pedro Fernandez de Temino, inquisitor of Callahorra, Don Jerome Ramirez, fiscal to the Supreme Council, Sebastian de Landeta and Alphonso de Castellon, secretaries to the Inquisition of Valladolid, and several _familiars_, who all travelled at the archbishop's expense. He had also with him Don Martin de Alpizcueta and Don Alonso Delgado, his advocates.

CHAPTER x.x.xIV.

END OF THE TRIAL OF CARRANZA.--HIS DEATH.

On the arrival of Carranza at Rome, the Pope a.s.signed to him the apartments occupied by the sovereign pontiffs in the Castle of St.

Angelo: the size of these rooms allowed him to take exercise, and he enjoyed a view of the country. His health became better, and his strength returned; he was also allowed three more domestics. The Pope forbade any person to speak to him of his trial, and while it lasted he was not permitted to take the sacrament, or to say ma.s.s. In Spain he was not suffered to confess, but in Rome he was allowed to do so four times in a year.

Pius V. appointed sixteen consultors for the trial: these were Cardinals Reviva, Pacheco, Gambaya, and Chiesa; the Archbishop of Tarragona; the Bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo; the Bishop of Pati in Sicily; the Bishop of Chefalu; Don Pedro Fernandez de Temino, counsellor of the Spanish Inquisition; Fray Thomas Manrique, a Dominican; the Archbishop of St.

Severin; the Bishop of St. Agatha; the Bishop of Arezzo; the Bishop of Fiesoli, and Doctor Artimo, auditor of the causes of the apostolical palace. The Pope also appointed the fiscal of the Supreme Council to the same office; two Italian secretaries, and the two who came from Spain.

The rest of the year 1567, and part of the following, were employed in translating the trial into Italian.