Among this number was one of whom Vives could not give a particular account. I speak of Alphonso Virues, a Benedictine, born at Olmedo, and one of the best theologians of his time. He had a profound knowledge of the oriental languages, and had composed several works. He was a member of the commission which judged the works of Erasmus in 1527, and preacher to Charles V., who listened to his discourses with so much pleasure that he took him to Germany, and on his return to Spain would not hear any other person. These distinctions excited the envy of the monks, and they would have succeeded in their endeavours to ruin him, but for the firmness and constancy of the emperor in protecting him.

Virues was suspected of being favourable to the opinions of Luther, and thrown into the secret prisons of the holy office at Seville. The emperor, who knew him well, both from his sermons, and the intercourse which took place during their travels in Germany, felt this blow acutely, and not doubting that Virues was the victim of an intrigue which the inquisitor-general ought to have prevented, he exiled Manrique, who was obliged to retire to his archbishopric of Seville, where he died in 1538. Not content with this, Charles commanded the Supreme Council to address an ordinance to all the tribunals of the Inquisition, importing, that in case of a preliminary instruction sufficiently serious to cause the arrest of a monk, the decree of imprisonment should be delayed, and that the inquisitors should send an entire and faithful copy of the commencement of the proceedings to the Supreme Council, and wait for the orders which would be sent them after the examination of the writings.

The unfortunate Virues, nevertheless, suffered all the horrors of a secret imprisonment for four years. During this period, as he writes to Charles V., "he was scarcely allowed to breathe, or to occupy himself with anything but charges, replies, testimonies, defences, libels, means, acts (_nomina quae et ipso poene timendo sono ... words which cannot be heard without terrors_), or with heresies, blasphemies, errors, anathemas, schisms, and other monsters, which, with labour that may be compared to those of Hercules, I have at last conquered with the aid of Jesus Christ, so that I am now justified through your majesty's protection[8]."

One of the means employed by Virues for his defence, was to demand that the tribunal should pay attention to the points of doctrine which he had established, and prepared to attack Melancthon and other Lutherans before the diet of Ratisbon; but this demand did not gain the object which he had in view, which was a complete absolution, because his enemies had denounced propositions advanced in public. Although he proved that they were extremely Catholic, when examined with the text, yet he could not prevent them from incurring the theological censure in the form given by the denunciation: he was obliged to submit to an abjuration of all heresies, particularly that of Luther and his adherents. The definitive sentence was p.r.o.nounced in 1537: he was declared to be suspected of professing the errors of Luther, and condemned to be absolved from the censures _ad cautelam_; to be confined in a monastery for two years, and prohibited from preaching the word of G.o.d for two years after his release.

The emperor, when informed of these transactions, complained to the Pope, who, in 1538, addressed a brief to Virues, which contained a dispensation from the different penances to which he had been condemned: it also re-instated him in his office of preacher; and declared, that what had pa.s.sed could not exclude him from any office, not even from episcopacy.

It is surprising that the affair of Virues, and many others, did not make Charles V. perceive the nature of the Inquisition, and that he still continued to protect that inst.i.tution. However, the trial of his preacher, and several other crosses which he experienced about that time, were the reasons why he deprived the holy office of the royal jurisdiction in 1535, and it was not restored until the year 1545. This favour for Virues was so constant, that he soon after presented him to the Pope for the bishopric of the Canaries; but the Pope refused him, alleging that the suspicions raised against the purity of his faith rendered him improper to be invested with the dignity of a bishop, although the bull had declared him to be eligible. The emperor insisted, and the Pope at length yielded to his pressing solicitations. Virues was made Bishop of the Canaries in 1540.

In 1527 the Inquisition of Valladolid was occupied by an affair, of which it is necessary to give an account, that the compa.s.sion and indulgence which the inquisitors always professed in their acts, and other forms of justice, may be justly appreciated.

One Diego Vallejo, of the village of Palacios de Meneses, in the diocese of Palencia, having been arrested for blasphemy by the Inquisition, declared, among other things, that two months before, on the 24th of April, 1526, two physicians, named Alphonso Garcia and Juan de Salas, were disputing on the subject of medicine, before him and Ferdinand Ramirez, his son-in-law: the first maintained his opinion on the authority of certain writers; Salas affirmed that these writers were deceived; Garcia replied that his opinion was proved by the text of the evangelists, which caused Salas to say _that they had lied as well as the others_. Ferdinand Ramirez (who had also been arrested upon suspicion of Judaism) was examined the same day; his deposition was the same as that of Vallejo, but he added, that Salas returned to his house some hours after, and in speaking of what had pa.s.sed, said, "_What folly I have a.s.serted!_" When the tribunal had finished the affair of Ramirez and Vallejo, they arrested Juan de Salas.

The inquisitors (without the concurrence of the diocesan, without consultors or qualifiers, and without communicating with the Supreme Council) decreed the arrest of Juan de Salas on the 14th of February, 1527, as if the declarations of Ramirez and Vallejo had been sufficient.

The audiences of _admonition_ were granted, and the depositions were communicated without the names of the persons or place. He replied that the circ.u.mstances were not correctly stated. The other physician was then called, who declared, that in conversing with Salas on the evangelists, he heard him say, _that some of them had lied_. He was asked if any one had reproached Salas for this expression; Garcia replied, that an hour after he had advised him to give himself up to the Inquisition, and that he had promised to do so. The inquisitor then asked if he was inimical to the accused; the witness replied in the negative. On the 16th of April the ratification of Ramirez and Garcia took place. On the 6th of May the prisoner presented two requisitions or means of defence: in the first he protested against all that had been said contrary to his declaration, and pointed out the differences in the depositions of the witnesses; the second was an _interrogatory_ in thirteen questions, two of which tended to prove his orthodoxy, and the others to justify the motives of the challenge which he had presented against certain persons who had been called upon to depose in his trial.

This piece contains, in the margin, the witnesses to be consulted for each question. It will be seen that the prisoner took advantage of the laws of the holy office in his defence; but the inquisitors, instead of conforming to their own regulations, erased the names of several persons designated in the list of the accused witnesses on his side, and would not hear them. Nevertheless, the facts mentioned in the interrogatory were proved by fourteen witnesses, and on the 25th of May the fiscal gave his conclusions.

The fact related by Ramirez, the contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses; the difference in the report of both, from that of the accuser; the important advantages gained by the prisoner in justifying his challenge, in only having two witnesses against him (who had both been prosecuted, one for blasphemy, the other for Judaism), and in being accused of only one proposition; lastly, the possibility that the accused had forgotten many things during the s.p.a.ce of a year, are circ.u.mstances which would make any one suppose that Juan de Salas would have been acquitted, or that they would, at least, (if they supposed that he had denied the truth,) have contented themselves with imposing the penance of the suspicion _de levi_ upon him; but instead of this, the inquisitor Moriz, without the concurrence of his colleague Alvarado, decreed that Salas should be tortured, as guilty of concealment. In this act the following deposition is found:--"We ordain that the said torture be employed in the manner and during the time that we shall think proper, after having protested as we still protest, that, in case of injury, death, or fractured limbs, the fault can only be imputed to the said licentiate Salas." The decree of Moriz took effect: I subjoin the verbal process of the execution.

"At Valladolid, on the 21st of June, 1527, the licentiate Moriz, inquisitor, caused the licentiate Juan de Salas to appear before him, and the sentence was read and notified to him. After the reading, the said licentiate Salas declared, that _he had not said that of which he was accused_; and the said licentiate Moriz immediately caused him to be conducted to the chamber of torture, where, being stripped to his shirt, Salas was put by the shoulders into the _chevalet_, where the executioner, Pedro Porras, fastened him by the arms and legs with cords of hemp, of which he made _eleven turns_ round each limb; Salas, during the time that the said Pedro was tying him thus, was warned to speak the truth several times, to which he always replied, _that he had never said what he was accused of_. He recited the creed, "Quic.u.mque vult," and several times gave thanks to G.o.d and our Lady; and the said Salas being still tied as before mentioned, a fine wet cloth was put over his face, and about a pint of water was poured into his mouth and nostrils, from an earthen vessel with a hole at the bottom, and containing about two quarts: nevertheless, Salas still persisted _in denying the accusation_. Then Pedro de Porras _tightened the cords_ on the right leg, and poured a second measure of water on the face; the cords _were tightened a second time_ on the same leg, but Juan de Salas still persisted in _denying that he had ever said any thing of the kind_; and although pressed to tell the truth several times, _he still denied the accusation_. Then the said licentiate Moriz, having declared that _the torture was_ BEGUN BUT NOT FINISHED, commanded that it should cease. The accused was withdrawn from the chevalet or rack, at which execution, I, Henry Paz, was present from the beginning to the end.--Henry Paz, notary."

If this execution was but the beginning of the torture, how was it to finish? By the death of the sufferer? In order to understand this statement, it is necessary to know that the instrument, which in Castilian is called _escalera_ (and which has also the name of _burro_, and is translated into French by the word _chevalet_), is a machine of wood, invented to torture the accused. It is formed like a groove, large enough to hold the body of a man, without a bottom, but a stick crosses it, over which the body falls in such a position, that the feet are much higher than the head; consequently, a violent and painful respiration ensues, with intolerable pains in the sides, the arms, and legs, where the pressure of the cords is so great, even before the _garot_ has been used, that they penetrate to the bone.

If we observe the manner in which the people who carry merchandise on mules or in carts tighten the cords by means of sticks, we can easily imagine the torments which the unfortunate John de Salas must have suffered. The introduction of a liquid is not less likely to kill those whom the inquisitors torture, and it has happened more than once. The mouth, during the torture, is in the most unfavourable position for respiration, so much so, that a person would die if he remained several hours in it; a piece of fine wet linen is introduced into the throat, on which the water from the vessel is poured so slowly, that it requires an hour to consume a pint, although it descends without intermission. In this state the patient finds it impossible to breathe, as the water enters the nostrils at the same time, and the rupture of a blood-vessel in the lungs is often the result.

Raymond Gonzales de Montes (who, in 1558, was so fortunate as to escape from the prisons of the holy office at Seville) wrote a book in Latin, on the Inquisition, under the name of _Reginaldus Gonsalvius Monta.n.u.s_[9]. He informs us that the cord was wound eight or ten times round the legs. Eleven turns were made round the limbs of Salas, besides those of the _garot_. We may form an idea of the humanity of the Inquisition of Valladolid, from the definitive sentence p.r.o.nounced by the licentiate Moriz and his colleague, Doctor Alvarado, without any other formality, after they had taken (if we may believe them) the advice of persons noted for their learning and virtue, but without the adjournment which ought to have preceded it, and without the concurrence of the diocesan in ordinary. They declared that the fiscal had not entirely proved the accusation, and that the prisoner had succeeded in destroying some of the charges; but that on account of the suspicion arising from the trial, Juan de Salas was condemned to the punishment of the public _auto-da-fe_, in his shirt, without a cloak, his head uncovered, and with a torch in his hand; that he should abjure heresy publicly, and that he should pay ten ducats of gold to the Inquisition, and fulfil his penance in the church a.s.signed. It is seen, by a certificate afterwards given in, that Juan de Salas performed his _auto-da-fe_ on the 24th of June, 1528, and that his father paid the fine: the trial offers no other peculiarity. This affair, and several others of a similar nature, caused the Supreme Council to publish a decree in 1558, commanding that the torture should not be administered without an order from the council.

_Letter-Orders, relating to the Proceedings._

The abuse of the secrecy of the proceedings caused a number of complaints to be addressed to the inquisitor-general. He usually referred them to the Supreme Council, which, during the administration of Manrique, addressed several circulars to the provincial tribunals: it is necessary to make known the most important.

In one of these writings, dated March 14th, 1528, it is said, that if an accused person (when asked a general question) declares at first that he knows nothing on the subject, and afterwards, when questioned on a particular fact, confesses that he is acquainted with it (in case the inquisitors think proper to take down the second declaration, to make use of it against a third), they should insert the first question and the answer of the accused in the same verbal process, because it might a.s.sist in determining the degree of confidence to be placed in his declarations.

On the 16th of March, 1530, another instruction of the council appeared.

It directed that the facts related by the witnesses in favour of the prisoner should be mentioned as well as those against him. This direction, however just, has not been strictly followed, since it was never observed in the extract of the publication of the depositions given to the accused and his defender; consequently, no advantage could be derived by the prisoner from the declarations in his favour.

Another circular of the 13th of May in the same year, says, that if an accused person challenges a witness, he must be interrogated on the foundation of the proceedings, as he might have facts to depose against the accused.

On the 16th June, 1531, the council wrote to the tribunals, that if the accused challenged several persons, on the supposition that they will depose against him, the witnesses whom he calls to prove the facts which caused the challenge, shall be examined on each individual, although they have not made any deposition, in order that the accused may not suppose at the time of the publication of the depositions, from an omission (if there should be any), that some have deposed against him, and that the others are not mentioned, or have not said anything.

Another instruction on the 13th of May, 1532, directs, that the relations of the accused shall not be admitted as witnesses in the proof of the challenge.

In another decree of the 5th March, 1535, it is ordained that the witness shall be asked if there is any enmity between them and the accused.

On the 20th of July, the council obliged the tribunals to insert in the extract of the publication of the depositions, the day, the month, and the hour when each witness gave his evidence.

In March, 1525, it was decreed, that when the extract was given to the accused, he was not to be informed that any witness had declared the fact to be known to others, because if they said nothing against him, it was not proper to inform the accused of it, as he would learn, from that circ.u.mstance, that some persons had spoken in his favour, or at least had declared that they knew nothing against him.

Another regulation of the 8th of April, 1533, prohibited the inquisitors from communicating the extract of the publication of the depositions to the accused, before the ratification of the declarations.

The council decreed, on the 22d December, 1536, that in transacting any business relating to circ.u.mstances which took place in the house of a person deceased, so that the corpse was still exposed to view, and that its position, figure, or other circ.u.mstance, might tend to discover if he died a heretic or not, the name of the defunct, his house, and other details, should be communicated to the witnesses, that they might be enabled to recollect the event, and to a.s.sist them in making their declaration.

Yet the council, on the 30th August, 1537, decreed that the time and place of the events should be inserted in the extract of the publication of the depositions, because it was of consequence to the interests of the accused; it would be done even in supposing that he would learn from it the names of the witnesses.

This rule is too contrary to the inquisitorial system, not to inspire a wish to seek for the principle and the cause; it may be found in the bad reputation which the Inquisition had acquired by the proceedings against Alphonso Virues, which induced Charles V. to deprive it of the royal jurisdiction: but although the council registered the order of the sovereign, he decreed, on the 15th of December, in this year, and on the 22nd of February, 1538, that the extract should not contain any article which could make known the witnesses; thus annulling the order imposed in the preceding year. During the last years of the Inquisition, neither the time nor place were indicated in the act of the publication of the depositions.

In June, 1537, the council being consulted by the Inquisition of Toledo, decreed, as general rules--1st, that all who _calmly_ uttered the blasphemies, _I deny G.o.d, I abjure G.o.d_, should be punished severely; but those who uttered these words in anger, should not be subject to prosecution: 2nd, to punish all Christians accused of bigamy, if the guilty person supposed it permitted; and in the contrary case to abstain from prosecution; 3rdly, to ascertain, in cases of sorcery, if there had been any compact with the devil; if the compact had existed, the Inquisition was directed to judge the accused--if it had not, they were to leave the cause to the secular tribunals.

The second and third of these regulations are contrary to the system of the holy office, which leads me to suppose that the temporary disgrace and exile of Manrique contributed to this moderation, which could not last long: the inquisitors have always proceeded against persons guilty of these crimes, on the pretence of examining if any circ.u.mstance might cause suspicion of heresy. The same spirit is found in another order of the 19th February, 1533: it obliges the inquisitors to receive all the papers which the relations of the accused wish to communicate to them.

The council made this rule, because these writings (though useless on the trial) might yet be serviceable in proving the innocence or guilt of the accused.

On the 10th May, 1531, the council decreed, that if bulls of dispensation from the use of the _San-benito_, imprisonment, or other punishments, were presented to the Inquisition, the procurator-fiscal should demand that they should be suppressed, as well as those obtained by the children and grandchildren of persons declared infamous by the holy office: the council supported this rule by alleging that children always followed the example of their heretical ancestors, and that it was a scandal to see them occupying honourable employments.

On the 22nd of March in the same year the council wrote to the tribunal of the provinces, that it had remarked, in one of the trials, that certain writings had not been digested in the places where the facts mentioned had happened; whence they concluded that these formalities had not been fulfilled at the proper time, but at the moment when the proceedings were to begin: the council then recommended them to avoid these abuses, as contrary to the instructions. But the orders of the council were not obeyed: the same irregularity was renewed, and produced another still more dangerous, which during my time had the most serious consequences. In order to supply what might be omitted in the course of the trial, the inquisitors adopted the custom of writing each act, declaration, and deposition, on separate sheets of paper. As in these tribunals they did not make use of stamped paper, and as the pieces of the process were not numbered, it often happened that those which they wished to conceal from the council, the diocesan in ordinary, or other interested parties, were changed or suppressed. This manoeuvre was employed by the inquisitors in the affair of the Archbishop of Toledo, Carranza, and I have myself seen several attestations of the secretary changed at the request of the inquisitors of Madrid.

The circular of the 11th of July in the same year is more remarkable, and had more success than the preceding. The inquisitors of the provinces were directed to refer to the Supreme Council all sentences p.r.o.nounced without the unanimity of the inquisitors, the diocesan and the consulters, even supposing that there was only one dissentient voice. The inquisitors were afterwards obliged to consult the council on all the judgments which they pa.s.sed; and I must confess that this measure was extremely useful, because, in a difference of opinion, the decisions of the _supreme_ were much more just than those of the tribunals of the provinces, from being composed of a greater number of enlightened judges.

The council displayed the same love of justice in 1536, when it decreed that those convicted of making use of gold, silver, silk, or precious stones, should be punished by pecuniary fines, and not by fire, although they had been prohibited from so doing on pain of being _relaxed_.

The decree most contrary to the wisdom which ought to have animated the council, was that of the 7th of December, 1532, in which it was ordained that each provincial Inquisition should state the number and rank of the persons condemned to different punishments within their jurisdictions, since their establishment, and to deposit in the churches those _San-benitos_ which had not been placed there, without even excepting those of persons who had confessed and suffered their punishment during the term of grace. This direction was executed with a severity worthy of the Inquisition; at Toledo those San-benitos were renewed which had been destroyed by time, and they were likewise sent to the parishes of the condemned persons. The consequences of these proceedings were the ruin and extinction of many families, as the children could not establish themselves according to the rank they had possessed; while the condemnation of their ancestors by the Inquisition remained unknown. The council discovered too late the injustice it had committed in respect to the _San-benito_ since it revoked the decree seven years after, in 1539.

It is not necessary to give the history of the quarrels which took place between the Inquisition and the different civil authorities, during the administration of Manrique. A scandalous enterprise of the Supreme Council ought nevertheless to be mentioned. In 1531, it presumed to condemn the president of the royal court of appeals, in Majorca, to ask pardon of the holy office, to attend ma.s.s (as a penitent), with a wax taper in his hand, and to receive the absolution of censures, for having defended the jurisdiction of the criminal tribunal in an affair which involved several persons, among whom was one Gabriel Nebel, a servant of the summoner of the holy office.

CHAPTER XV.

PROSECUTIONS OF SORCERERS, MAGICIANS, ENCHANTERS, NECROMANCERS, AND OTHERS.

Under the administration of the inquisitor-general, Manrique, the Inquisition was particularly occupied by the sect of sorcerers.

Pope Adrian VI. (who had been inquisitor-general in Spain), published a bull on the 20th July, 1523, in which he says, that in the time of his predecessor Julius II. a numerous sect had been discovered in Lombardy, which abjured the Christian faith, and abused the ceremonies of religion and the eucharist. These sectarians acknowledged the devil as their patron, and promised obedience to him.

They sent maladies to animals and destroyed the fruits of the earth by their enchantments. An inquisitor having attempted to arrest and bring them to punishment, the ecclesiastical and secular judges opposed him, which led Julius II. to declare that these crimes were within the jurisdiction of the Inquisition, as well as all other heresies. In consequence Adrian VI. reminded the different Inquisitions of their duty in this respect.

This bull was not necessary in Spain, as the Inquisition of Aragon had taken cognizance of magic and sorcery, since the pontificate of John XXII.

It appears that the Inquisition of Calahorra, burnt more than thirty women as sorceresses and magicians in the year 1507. In 1527, a great number of women who practised magic were discovered in Navarre.

These crimes increased so much in the province of Biscay, that Charles V. found it necessary to notice it. Persuaded that the ignorance in which the people were left by the priests was the cause of these superst.i.tions, he wrote in December, 1527, to the Bishop of Calahorra, and to the provincials of the Dominicans and Franciscans, to select a number of able preachers from their communities, to teach the doctrine of the Christian religion on this point. But these ministers of the gospel, even those who had acquired a reputation for learning, believed as well as the enchanters in these illusions.

Nevertheless, Father Martin de Castanaga, a Franciscan monk, composed in that time, a book in Spanish, ent.i.tled, _A Treatise on Superst.i.tions and Enchantments_. I have read this work, and I acknowledge (with the exception of a few articles, in which the author appears too credulous,) that it would be difficult even in the present time to write with more moderation or discernment. The Bishop of Calahorra, Don Alphonso de Castilla, having read this treatise, had it printed in quarto, and sent it to the priests in his diocese, with a pastoral letter, in 1529.

The Inquisition of Saragossa condemned several sorceresses who had formed part of the a.s.sociation in Navarre, or had been sent into Aragon to gain disciples. The inquisitors, the ordinary, and the consulters, were not of the same opinion; the greatest number voted for the execution of the sorceresses, the others for reconciliation and perpetual imprisonment. The minority gave up their opinion in deference to the greater number, and thus relaxation was p.r.o.nounced unanimously, without any of the formalities prescribed, and the unfortunate women perished in the flames. The _Supreme_ Council which was informed of this event by one of its members, who had learnt it from an inquisitor of Saragossa, addressed a circular on the 23rd of March, 1536, to all the tribunals, stating the Inquisition of Saragossa had failed in its duty, in not having consulted the council, after having found that the opinions of its members were different.