The History of the Inquisition of Spain from the Time of its Establishment to the Reign of Ferdinand VII.

by Juan Antonio Llorente.

PREFACE.

Although a tribunal has existed for more than three hundred years in Spain, invested with the power of prosecuting heretics, no correct history of its origin, establishment, and progress has been written.

Writers of many countries have spoken of Inquisitions established in different parts of the world, where the Roman Catholic faith is the religion of the state, and yet not one is worthy of confidence. The work of M. Lavallee, ent.i.tled the "History of the Inquisitions of Italy, Spain, and Portugal," and published in 1809, has only added to the historical errors of the authors who preceded him. The Spanish and Portuguese writers on the same subject deserve no higher credit; and have not detailed, with accuracy, the circ.u.mstances which led to the establishment of this dreadful tribunal. These writers even differ in their statements of the period of its origin, and place it between the years 1477 and 1484. One affirms, with confidence, that the latter date is the true one, because in that year the regulations of the tribunal were enacted; another decides that it originated in 1483, because in that year Thomas Torquemada was appointed inquisitor-general by the Pope.

The inquisition of Spain was not a new tribunal created by Ferdinand V.

and Isabella, the queen of Castile, but only a reform and extension of the ancient tribunal, which had existed from the thirteenth century.

No one could write a complete and authentic history of the Inquisition, who was not either an inquisitor or a secretary of the holy office.

Persons holding only these situations could be permitted to make memoranda of papal bulls, the ordinances of sovereigns, the decisions of the councils of the "_Supreme_," of the originals of the preliminary processes for suspicion of heresy, or extracts of those which had been deposited in the archives. _Being myself the secretary of the Inquisition at Madrid_, during the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, I have the firmest confidence in my being able to give to the world _a true code of the secret laws by which the interior of the Inquisition was governed, of those laws which were veiled by mystery from all mankind_, excepting those men to whom the knowledge of their political import was exclusively reserved. A firm conviction, from knowing the deep objects of this tribunal, that it was vicious in principle, in its const.i.tution, and in its laws, notwithstanding all that has been said in its support, induced me to avail myself of the advantage my situation afforded me, and to collect every doc.u.ment I could procure relative to its history.

My perseverance has been crowned with success far beyond my hopes, for in addition to an abundance of materials, obtained with labour and expense, consisting of unpublished ma.n.u.scripts and papers, mentioned in the inventories of deceased inquisitors, and other officers of the inst.i.tution, in 1809, 1810, and 1811, when the Inquisition in Spain was suppressed, _all the archives were placed at my disposal_; and from 1809 to 1812, I collected everything that appeared to me to be of consequence in the registers of the council of the Inquisition, and in the provincial tribunals, for the purpose of compiling this history.

Never has a prisoner of the Inquisition seen either the accusation against himself, or any other. No one was ever permitted to know more of his own cause than he could learn of it by the interrogations and accusations to which he was obliged to reply, and by the extracts from the declarations of the witnesses, which were communicated to him, while not only their names were carefully concealed, and every circ.u.mstance relating to time, place, and person, by which he might obtain a clue to discover his denouncers, but even if the depositions contained any thing favourable to the defence of the prisoner. The maxim on which this was founded, is, that the accused ought not to occupy himself but in replying to the chief points of his accusation, and that it was the province of the judge afterwards to compare the answers that he had made with those which had been given favourable to his acquittal. Philip Limborch, and many more of veracity, have erred in their histories, from their ignorance of the method of conducting an inquisitorial trial.

Those authors relied wholly on the accounts of prisoners, who knew nothing of the groundwork of their own case; and the details in Eymerick, Paramo, Pegna, Carena, and some other inquisitors, are too limited to yield the necessary information.

These facts make me hope that I shall not transgress the bounds of propriety when I say, that I only can give a true history of the Inquisition, as I only possess the materials necessary for the undertaking.

I have read the most celebrated trials of the modern Inquisition, and the details given by me differ essentially from those of other historians, not excepting those of Limborch, who is the most exact of them. The trials of Don Carlos of Austria, prince of the Asturias, of Don Bartholomew Carranza, archbishop of Toledo, and of Antony Perez, the first minister and secretary of Philip II., have been greatly ill.u.s.trated in many important particulars.

I have established the truth of that which concerns the Emperor Charles V.; Jeanne of Albret, queen of Navarre; Henry IV., king of France, her son, and of Margaret of Bourbon, the sovereign d.u.c.h.ess of Bar, her daughter; of Don James of Navarre, son of Don Carlos, prince of Biana, surnamed the Infant of Tudela; of John Pic de Mirandola; of Don John of Austria, son of Philip IV.; of Alexander Farnese, duke of Parma, and grandson of Charles V.; Don Philip of Arragon, son of the Emperor of Morocco; of Caesar Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI., and relation of the king of Navarre; of Jean Albret, duke of Valentinois, peer of France; of Don Peter Louis Borgia, last grand-master of the military order of Montessa, and of many other princes against whom the Inquisition exercised its power. The lover of history will find the details of the trials of seven archbishops, twenty bishops, and a great number of learned men, among whom are many of the members of the Council of Trent, who were unfortunately suspected of entertaining or favouring the Lutheran doctrines. To this list I have added the suits inst.i.tuted by the _holy office_ against many _saints_, and other personages, held in reverence by the Church of Spain, and also of many literati persecuted by this tribunal. These, for the sake of perspicuity, I have divided into two cla.s.ses; the first cla.s.s comprises those learned theologians who were accused of Lutheranism, for having, in their zeal, corrected the text of Bibles already published, or Latin translations from the Greek and Hebrew editions. The second cla.s.s consists of those learned men, designated by the holy office under the t.i.tle of False Philosophers, and who were persecuted for having manifested a wish to destroy, in Spain, superst.i.tion and fanaticism.

This history will make known numberless attempts perpetrated by the inquisitors against magistrates who defended the rights of sovereign authority, in opposition to the enterprises of the _holy office_ and the court of Rome; and which enables me to state the trials of many celebrated men and ministers who defended the prerogatives of the crown, and whose only crimes were having published works on the right of the crown, according with the true principles of jurisprudence. These trials will display the Counsellors of the Inquisition carrying their audacity to such a height, as to deny that their temporal jurisdiction was derived from the concession of their sovereign, and actually prosecuting all the members of the council of Castile, as rash men, suspected of heresy, for having made known and denounced to the king this system of usurpation. In addition to these intolerable acts, will be found accounts of their a.s.sumption of superiority over viceroys, and other great officers of state. I have also shewn, that these ministers of persecution have been the chief causes of the decline of literature, and almost the annihilators of nearly all that could enlighten the people, by their ignorance, their blind submission to the monks who were qualifiers, and by persecuting the magistrates and the learned who were anxious to disseminate information. These monks were despicable scholastic theologians, too ignorant and prejudiced to be able to ascertain the truth between the doctrines of Luther and those of Roman Catholicism, and so condemned, as Lutheran, propositions incontestably true.

The horrid conduct of this _holy office_ weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain, by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling mult.i.tudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors; and by immolating on its flaming piles more than _three hundred thousand victims_!! So replete with duplicity was the system of the inquisitors-general, and the council of this _holy office_, that if a papal bull was likely to circ.u.mscribe their power, or check their vengeance, they refused to obey, on the pretext of its being opposed to the laws of the kingdom, and the orders of the Spanish government. By a similar proceeding, they evaded the ordinances of the king, by alleging that papal bulls prevented them from obeying, under pain of excommunication.

Secrecy, the foe of truth and justice, was the soul of the tribunal of the Inquisition; it gave to it new life and vigour, sustained and strengthened its arbitrary power, and so emboldened it, that it had the hardihood to arrest the highest and n.o.blest in the land, and enabled it to deceive, by concealing facts, popes, kings, viceroys, and all invested with authority by their sovereign. This _holy office_, veiled by secrecy, unhesitatingly kept back, falsified, concealed, or forged the reports of trials, when compelled to open their archives to popes or kings. The Inquisitors constantly succeeded, by this detestable knavery, in concealing the truth, and facilitated their object by being careful not to number the reports. This was practised to a great extent in the trials of the archbishop of Toledo, of the Prothonotary, and others.

Facts prove beyond a doubt, that the extirpation of Judaism was not the real cause, but the mere pretext, for the establishment of the Inquisition by Ferdinand V. The true motive was to carry on a vigorous system of confiscation against the Jews, and so bring their riches into the hands of the government. Sixtus IV. sanctioned the measure, to gain the point dearest to the court of Rome, an extent of domination. Charles V. protected it from motives of policy, being convinced it was the only means of preventing the heresy of Luther from penetrating into Spain.

Philip II. was actuated by superst.i.tion and tyranny to uphold it; and even extended its jurisdiction to the excise, and made the exporters of horses into France liable to seizure by the officers of the tribunal, as persons suspected of heresy! Philip III., Philip IV., and Charles II., pursued the same course, stimulated by similar fanaticism and imbecility, when the re-union of Portugal to Spain led to the discovery of many Jews. Philip V. maintained the Inquisition from considerations of mistaken policy, inherited from Louis XIV., who made him believe that such rigour would ensure the tranquillity of the kingdom, which was always in danger when many religions were tolerated. Ferdinand VI. and Charles III. befriended this _holy office_, because they would not deviate from the course that their father had traced, and because the latter hated the freemasons. Lastly, Charles IV. supported the tribunal, because the French Revolution seemed to justify a system of surveillance, and he found a firm support in the zeal of the inquisitors-general, always attentive to the preservation and extension of their power, as if the sovereign authority could find no surer means of strengthening the throne, than the terror inspired by an Inquisition.

_During the time I remained in London, I heard some Catholics affirm that the Inquisition was useful in Spain, to preserve the Catholic faith, and that a similar establishment would have been useful in France._

These persons were deceived, by believing that it was sufficient for people to be good Catholics not to have any fear of the _holy office_.

They knew not that nine-tenths of the prisoners were deemed guilty, though true to their faith, because the ignorance or malice of the denouncers prosecuted them for points of doctrine, which were not susceptible of heretical interpretation, but in the judgment of an illiterate monk, is considered erudite by the world, because he is said to have studied the theology of the schools. The Inquisition encouraged hypocrisy, and punished those who either did not know how, or would not, a.s.sume the mask. This tribunal wrought no conversion. The Jews and Morescoes, who were baptized without being truly converted, merely that they might remain in Spain, are examples which prove the truth of this a.s.sertion. The former perished on the pyres of the Inquisition, the latter crossed over into Africa with the Moors, as much Mahometans as their ancestors were before they were baptised.

I conclude with declaring that the contents of this history are original; and that I have drawn my facts with fidelity, from the most authentic sources, and might have greatly extended them[1].

HISTORY OF THE INQUISITION.

CHAPTER I.

FIRST EPOCH OF THE CHURCH TILL THE CONVERSION OF THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE.

The Christian religion was scarcely established before heresies arose among its disciples. The Apostle St. Paul instructs t.i.tus, the Bishop of Crete, in his duty towards heretics, saying, that a man who persists in his heresy, after the first and second admonition, shall be rejected: but St. Paul does not say that the life of the heretic shall be taken; and our Saviour, addressing St. Peter, commands that a sinner shall be forgiven, not only seven times, but seventy times seven, which infers that he ought never to be punished with death by a judgment of the church. Such was the doctrine of the church during the three first centuries, until the peace of Constantine. Heretics were never excommunicated until exhortation had been employed in vain. As this system was adopted, it was natural that some persons should write against heresy to prevent its increase. This was done by St. Ignatius, Castor Agrippa, St. Irenaeus, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Justin, St.

Denis of Corinth, Tertullian, Origen, and many others.

These faithful imitators of the benevolence of their Divine Master were averse to oppressive measures. Although the evil produced by the religion of the impious Manes was so great, that Archelaus, Bishop of Caschara, in Mesopotamia, judged it necessary to imprison him, yet he renounced that design when Marcellus (to whom Manes had written) proposed another conference with him. Archelaus succeeded in converting the heretic, and not only gave up his intention of detaining him, but saved his life when the people would have stoned him to death.

It is possible that the church was in a certain degree compelled to act in this manner, from the impossibility of employing the coercive measures of temporal power against heretics during the reigns of the heathen princes; but this was not the only motive for her tolerance, since it is certain that when no edicts of persecution existed against the Christians, the emperors received the appeals of the bishops in the same manner as those of their other subjects: this is proved by the history of the heretic Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch.

The council of that town, a.s.sembled in 272, perceiving that Paul had relapsed into heresy, after the abjuration which he had made before the council of 266, deposed him, and elected Domnus in his place. The episcopal house being still occupied by the deposed bishop, he was ordered to quit it, that his successor might take possession. Paul having refused to obey, the bishops applied to the Emperor Aurelian, who had not then begun to persecute the Christians: he received their complaint, and replied, that as he did not know which of the two parties was right, they must conform to the decision of the Bishop of Rome and his church. The holy see was then occupied by Felix I., who confirmed the decision of the council, and the Emperor Aurelian caused it to be executed.

As toleration was universal in the Christian church, it is not to be supposed that the church of Spain followed different principles.

Basilides and Marcial, Bishops of Astorga and Merida, apostatized; they were reconciled to the church without any punishment but degradation, to which they submitted before the year 253, when they appealed to Pope Stephen.

The Council of Elvira in 303 decreed, that if an heretic demanded to be re-admitted into the bosom of the church, he should be reconciled, without suffering any punishment but a canonical penance of ten years, which was the more remarkable, as this council established more severe punishments for many crimes which appear less heinous. This seems to prove that the Spanish bishops who composed this council, among whom were the great Osius of Cordova, Sabinus of Seville, Valerius of Saragossa, and Melantius of Toledo, were persuaded, like Origen, that leniency was the means to convert heretics, in order to prevent them from falling into obstinacy and impenitence.

SECOND EPOCH.--_From the Fourth to the Eighth Century._

If the primitive system of the church towards heretics had been faithfully pursued, as it ought to have been, after the peace of Constantine, the tribunal of the Inquisition would never have existed, and, perhaps, the number and duration of heresies would have been less; but the popes and bishops of the fourth century, profiting by the circ.u.mstance of the emperors having embraced Christianity, began to imitate, in a certain degree, the conduct which they had reprehended in the heathen priests.

These pontiffs, though respectable for the holiness of their lives, sometimes carried their zeal for the triumph of the Catholic faith, and the extirpation of heresy, to too great a height; and to ensure success, engaged Constantine and his successors to establish civil laws against all heretics.

This first step, which the popes and bishops had taken contrary to the doctrine of St. Paul, was the principle and origin of the Inquisition; for when the custom of punishing a heretic by corporeal pain, although he was a good subject, was once established, it became necessary to vary the punishments, to augment their number, to render them more or less severe, according to the character of each sovereign, and to regulate the manner of prosecuting the culprit.

The Emperor Theodosius published, in 382, an edict against the Manicheans, decreeing that they should be punished with death, and their property confiscated for the use of the state, and commissioning the prefect (Prefet du Pretoire) to appoint inquisitors and spies to discover those who should conceal themselves.

It is here that inquisition and accusation are first mentioned in relation to heresy, for until that time only those great crimes which attacked the safety of the empire were permitted to be publicly denounced. The successors of Theodosius modified these edicts, some of which menaced heretics with the prosecutions of the impartial judges, if they did not voluntarily abjure their errors. Notices were given to known heretics who did not abjure after the publication of the edicts, that if they were converted in a certain time, they would be admitted to a reconciliation, and would only suffer a canonical penance.

When these conciliatory measures were unavailing, various punishments were adopted. Those doctors who, in contempt of the laws, promulgated their false opinions, were subjected to considerable fines, banishment from cities, and even transportation. In certain cases, their property was confiscated; in others they were obliged to pay a fine of ten pounds of gold, or they were scourged with leathern thongs, and sent to islands from whence they could not escape. Besides these punishments, they were forbidden to hold a.s.semblies, and the offenders were liable to proscription, banishment, transportation, and even death in some cases.

The execution of these decrees was intrusted to the governors of provinces, magistrates charged with the administration of justice, commanders of towns and their princ.i.p.al officers, who were all liable to various punishments in case of negligence.

The establishment of most of these laws had been solicited by popes and bishops of known sanct.i.ty, and it must be allowed that it was not their intention to carry those which decreed the punishment of death into execution; they only desired to intimidate innovators by their publication.

The church of Spain continued faithful to the general discipline, under the authority of the Roman emperors; the Arian heresy was afterwards established among them under the Goths; but since their princes have embraced the Catholic faith, the laws and councils of Spain inform us of their treatment of heretics.

The fourth Council of Toledo, a.s.sembled in 633, at which St. Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, a.s.sisted, was occupied with the Judaic heresy: it was decreed, with the consent of King Sisinand, that they should be at the disposal of the bishops, to be punished, and compelled by fear to return to Christianity a second time: they were to be deprived of their children, and their slaves set at liberty.

In 655, the ninth Council of Toledo decreed, that baptized Jews should be obliged to celebrate the Christian festivals with their bishops, and that those who should refuse to conform to this discipline should be condemned either to the punishment of scourging, or abstinence, according to the age of the offender.

We find that greater severity was shown towards those who returned from Christianity to idolatry. King Recarede I. proposed to the third Council of Toledo, in 589, that the priests and civil judges should be commissioned to extirpate that species of heresy, by punishing the culprits in a degree proportioned to the crime, yet without employing capital punishment.

These rigorous measures did not appear sufficient, and the twelfth Council of Toledo, in 681, at which King Erbigius a.s.sisted, decided that, if the offender was n.o.ble, he should be subject to excommunication and exile; if he was a slave, he should be scourged and delivered to his master loaded with chains, and if the proprietor could not answer for him, that he should be placed at the disposal of the king.