On the 9th of December, Fray Ambrose de Salazar, Dominican, being summoned to declare if it was true that he had said, that some persons held the same language as the heretics of Germany, replied that it was true, and that he alluded to Dominic de Roxas, Christopher Padilla, and Juan Sanchez. He was pressed to name all those to whom his allusion could be applied, and he said that he did not remember any others. He was then requested to consult his memory, and return the next day to the tribunal of the Inquisition. He obeyed, but did not add anything to his former declaration. He was then told that the inquisitors had been informed that he alluded to some other person, that he must endeavour to recollect him, and then return. The monk repaired to the Inquisition on the 14th of the same month, and said, that he had thought the questions put to him related to the archbishop, particularly after a report that his trial had commenced; that until then he had been far from suspecting the most zealous defender of the Catholic religion of heresy; that his words agreed with his writings; that he had converted many heretics, and burnt some others; that if he adopted certain phrases used by the heretics, he always explained them in an orthodox manner, and that in this case he only followed the example of several saints.

Don Francis Manrique de Lara, bishop of Salamanca, deposed, on the 10th of October, that, at Naxera, he heard it said, that the archbishop had been arrested on account of his catechism, and that Fray Ambrose remarked, _it may not be for that alone; it is possible that his belief in purgatory was suspected_.

When the _publication of the depositions_ took place, the evidence of Salazar was not mentioned, and the defenders of the accused never knew that he had given it. It is thus that the inquisitors in their proceedings violate natural right, in concealing all that may be taken advantage of by a defender.

On the 9th of December, Fray Juan de Regla voluntarily denounced Carranza, for some expressions used by him to Charles V., on the forgiveness of sins. This affair has already been mentioned in the thirteenth chapter. On the 23rd Fray Juan again denounced Don Bartholomew, for having supported the arguments of the Lutherans, in the second session of the council of Trent, concerning the holy sacrifice of ma.s.s; and for having dared to say _ego haero certe_, which scandalized several fathers of the council; he admitted that the accused afterwards explained his words, but said it was without energy. This monk was the only witness who deposed to this fact. Don Diego de Mendoza, amba.s.sador of Spain to the council, who had been punctual in attending the sessions, declared that he did not remember the circ.u.mstance, which had not been denounced before by any of the numerous rivals of Carranza.

Fray Juan was extremely mortified that he could not obtain a bishopric, and we may suppose that nothing but jealousy could inspire him with such scruples, sixteen years after the event. It must be observed that he had been condemned by the Inquisition of Saragossa, that he had abjured eighteen propositions, and had been pursued by the Jesuits, of whom he and Cano had shown themselves the most violent adversaries, while Don Bartholomew was their friend. Cano and de Regla, therefore, endeavoured to mortify Carranza, and persecuted him as being secretly attached to the Jesuits.

The licentiate Hornuza, judge of appeals of the district of Santiago, states in a writing annexed by the fiscal to the trial six weeks after the arrest of the archbishop, that this prelate, having presented to the Council of Trent some arguments in favour of Luther, he acknowledged that they might be answered conclusively; the witness added that Doctor Grados could confirm the truth of his testimony. The doctor was not examined. Who, indeed, can believe that Carranza would have spoken in that manner in the Council of Trent? On the 14th December, Fray Dominic de Roxas presented a writing, containing a confession of his errors and a prayer for pardon: he made the same declarations concerning the archbishop as before; adding, that _he was obliged to confess that he thought_ if the prelate and some _others had not been prepared by the syrup of the Lutheran phrases, the works of the heresiarch would not have made so much impression on their minds_. Fray Dominic said this to palliate his own crime, and in the hope of being reconciled; but being informed, on the 7th October, 1559, that he must prepare to die the next day, he demanded an audience, in order to make a declaration necessary to the repose of his soul; and having obtained it, he said "that he had never heard Don Bartholomew utter any words contrary to the doctrine of the Holy Church, that he always spoke against the Lutherans, and explained those phrases which he (Fray Dominic) had seen in heretical books, and heard from the preachers in Valladolid, in an orthodox sense."

The above are all the declarations contained in the process of the Archbishop of Toledo when a brief was denounced for his arrest. It may even be supposed that there were not so many, since the brief was expedited on the 7th January, 1559, and therefore it must have been demanded, at the latest, in the beginning of December 1558. The censure of the works of Carranza and the opinion of the Bishop of Cuenca were also made use of as a motive for the demand. The qualifiers were Melchior Cano, Dominic Cuevas, Dominic Soto, Pedro Ybarra, and the Master Carlos. The following is a list of the MS. works of the archbishop which are mentioned with the printed Catechism in this part of the process.

1. Notes on the Explanation of the Book of Job, by another author.

2. Notes on the Explanation of the verse _Audi filia_ of the 44th Psalm, by Juan d'Avila, 83.

3. Explanation of Psalm 83.

4. Explanation of Psalm 129.

5. Explanation of Psalm 142.

6. Explanation of the Prophet Isaiah.

7. Explanation of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.

8. Ditto Galatians.

9. Ditto Ephesians.

10. Ditto Philippians.

11. Ditto Colossians.

12. Explanation of the Canonical Epistle of St. John.

13. Treatise on the Love of G.o.d to Man.

14. Ditto on the Sacrament of the Order, with notes on the same subject.

15. Ditto on the holy Sacrifice of Ma.s.s.

16. Ditto on the Celibacy of Priests.

17. Ditto on the Sacrament of Marriage.

18. Ditto on the Utility and Efficacy of Prayer.

19. Ditto on the Tribulation of the Just.

20. Ditto on the Christian Widow.

21. Ditto on Christian Liberty.

22. Remarks on the Commandments of G.o.d and the Sins of Mortals.

23. Apology for the _Commentaries on the Catechism_.

24. Proofs taken from Holy Writ for the defence of the publication of a Catechism in the Spanish language.

25. Abridgment of the _Commentaries on the Catechism_.

26. Sermons for all the Year.

27. Ditto on the Love of G.o.d.

28. Ditto, _Super flumina Babylonis_.

29. Ditto on the Manner of hearing Ma.s.s.

30. Ditto on Holy Thursday.

31. Sermons preached before the Prince at Valladolid.

32. Ditto on the Circ.u.mcision of our Saviour.

33. Ditto, int.i.tuled _Poenitentiam agite_.

34. Ditto, _Si revertamini et quiescatis salviti eritis_.

35. Ditto on Prayer.

36. Ditto, _Hora est jam nos de somno surgere_.

37. Ditto, _Dirigite viam Domine_.

38. Ditto, _Spiritus est Deus_.

39. Ditto on the Psalm _De profundis clamavi_.

40. Ditto, _Filius quidem hominis vadit_.

41. Abridgment of two Sermons sent to Flanders to the Licentiate Herrera.

Some MS. copies which had been given to the Marchioness d'Alcanices, and other persons, before the Catechism was printed, were also annexed to the process; the contents were the same, except some corrections afterwards made by the author. The Marchioness d'Alcanices gave them to Don Diego de Cordova, a member of the Supreme Council, who died soon after. The MSS. were then taken by St. Francis de Borgia, who informed Carranza, on his return from Flanders, that they were in his possession, but that he wanted them to a.s.sist him in composing a sermon. Don Bartholomew being arrested before the MSS. were returned to him, St.

Francis de Borgia sent them to the grand-inquisitor, in whose house they were lost; it is stated in the process that only one of them was found there some time after.

The holy office endeavoured to ascribe to Carranza some other works condemned on the trial: these were the