CHAPTER XXIX.
OF THE TRIALS INSt.i.tUTED BY THE INQUISITION AGAINST THE PRELATES AND SPANISH DOCTORS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.
_Prelates._
Eight venerable prelates and nine doctors of theology, who were sent by Spain to the Council of Trent, were attacked in secret by the Inquisition of their country. From particular circ.u.mstances, rather than from the will of the inquisitors, some of these trials were suspended, before any attempt had been made on the liberty of the doctors.
The trial of the Archbishop of Toledo ought to be introduced in this place, but its importance and interest renders it worthy of a separate chapter.
_Don Pedro Guerrero_, born at Leza-de-rio-Leza, in Rioxa, archbishop of Granada, was one of those prelates who, from their learning and virtue, had the greatest influence in the Council of Trent. He was prosecuted by the Inquisition of Valladolid, for the favourable opinion he expressed in 1558, of the Catechism of Carranza, and for the letters he wrote to him in the following year. It was also known that he voted for the archbishop, in the commission employed by the Council of Trent to examine his book, and likewise in the particular congregation of that a.s.sembly, which approved his conduct in 1563. Guerrero averted the danger by retracting his opinion in 1574, when he was informed of the inclinations of Philip on this subject. He then gave a new opinion, entirely different from the first, persuaded that it would be sent to Rome, which in fact was done, in order to strengthen the charges against Carranza: this is proved by the letter of the Supreme Council to Philip II., in which it announces that the censures which his majesty had demanded of the Archbishop of Granada were prepared, and that it was absolutely necessary to send them to Rome, because _it was to be apprehended that the affair would be soon concluded, that the trial went on quickly_[33], and _that it was necessary to send this doc.u.ment, on account of the high esteem in which the opinion of the archbishop was held in Rome_.
It would be difficult to give a just idea of the intrigues which were employed to obtain so contrary an opinion from Guerrero. The Pope commanded, in a particular brief, that those censors who had been favourable to the Catechism should examine and censure it again, and afterwards give their opinions of the inedited works of Carranza. On the arrival of this brief, the Cardinal Quiroga, who was in the king"s confidence, despatched persons whom he could depend upon, to the Archbishop of Granada, to induce him to renew his censure, _without saying that he had done it before, to conform to the king"s intentions, but as if he only did it in obedience to the orders of his Holiness_.
This intrigue is proved by the private instructions which Quiroga gave to his messengers. It must be confessed that the conduct of the Archbishop of Granada does little honour to his memory, but it must also be remembered how formidable the policy of Philip II. rendered him, and that Guerrero was advanced in years.
_Don Francis...o...b..anco_, born at Capillas, in the bishopric of Leon, had been bishop of Orense and Malaga, when he was prosecuted on suspicion of Lutheranism, for the same reason as Guerrero.
The arrest of Carranza alarmed Blanco so much, that he wrote immediately to the inquisitor-general, and sent him several inedited works of the archbishop of Toledo. He received an order to repair to Valladolid, where he entered into the convent of Augustins: he made his declarations on the 14th of September, and on the 13th of October, 1559, acknowledged two of his approbations, but declared that he could not consent to ratify them, until he had re-examined the book, since he had given them without reflection, and was only influenced by the great reputation of Carranza. It is impossible to read his declarations, and the letters which he wrote to the inquisitor-general, without perceiving the extreme terror which had seized him. He had recourse to the same means as Guerrero, to extricate himself from his embarra.s.sment. This prelate died in 1581, after having composed several works, which are mentioned by Nicholas Antonio.
_Don Francisco Delgado_, born at Villa de Pen, in Rioxa, founder of the eldership of the Counts de Berberana, bishop of Lugo, and afterwards of Jaen, and one of the fathers of the council of Trent, was suspected of heresy for the same reasons as the two preceding prelates. He avoided the sentence which threatened him, by retracting his opinions in 1574.
_Don Andres Cuesta_, bishop of Leon, was prosecuted for the same cause.
The inquisitor-general wrote to him before the arrest of Carranza, to know if he had given a favourable opinion of his Catechism. The Bishop replied in the affirmative, and sent him a copy of his opinion. Valdes kept this paper, but could not make any use of it. As the Archbishop of Toledo had then been arrested, the trial of the Bishop of Leon was begun, and the inquisitor-general resolved to summon him to Valladolid.
Valdes informed the king of this resolution, and he wrote to Cuesta, saying, that all that was to be done was in the cause of G.o.d, and the service of his majesty. The Bishop of Leon submitted without resistance; and on the 14th of October, 1559, he was examined in the Council of the Inquisition, and in the presence of all its members. The opinion which he had given of the catechism, in 1558, was shown to him, and he acknowledged it to be his, but said that if he examined it again, he should be able to judge differently of Carranza"s doctrine. He returned to his diocese, and sent another favourable opinion of the catechism to the inquisitor-general; it was founded on many doctrinal considerations and reflections, which he had not made in that which he sent to Carranza. His letters, declarations, and opinions, show a bold and strong mind, which may induce one to believe that he was not provoked to retract in 1574, or that his trial recommenced at that period; for the inquisitor-general and the Supreme Council finding in 1560 that the trial of Carranza caused them much trouble and embarra.s.sment, resolved to _suspend_ the trials of the other bishops, until the result of the first was known.
_Don Antonio Gorrionero_, bishop of Almeria, was prosecuted for his favourable opinion of the Catechism, and some letters which he wrote on the subject. He however attended the third convocation of the council of Trent, which took place in 1560, and the following years.
_Don Fray Melchior Cano_, born in Tarancon, in the province of Cuenca: he had resigned the bishopric of the Canaries, and attended the second session of the Council of Trent, in 1552. He was a member of the order of St. Dominic, as well as Carranza, and his rival in the government and administration of the affairs of his order, particularly after Carranza had obtained the preference, when they were both candidates for the office of Provincial of Castile. When the Catechism was denounced to the Inquisition, Valdes appointed Cano to examine it, affecting to favour its author, by choosing qualifiers from the monks of his order, but not doubting, at the same time, that the opinion of Fray Melchior would be unfavourable.
Fray Melchior examined the catechism, and some inedited works of Carranza; but it appears that he did not strictly observe the secrecy recommended by the inquisitors, since Carranza received information of what was pa.s.sing, while he was in Flanders, and wrote to Fray Melchior, who replied to him from Valladolid, in 1559. About this time, Fray Dominic de Roxas, and some other Lutherans confined in the secret prisons of the holy office, deposed to certain facts, which caused some suspicion of Fray Melchior.
However, the prosecution begun against him had no result; for at the time when Cano was about to be reproved by the inquisitor-general, he offered him the dedication of his Treatise _de Locis Theologicis_, which was accepted; and as he had not time to publish it, he left it to the inquisitor-general in his will, some time before his death, which happened in 1560. His censure of the Catechism of Carranza, and some propositions which he had maintained against the archbishop, and which caused the faith of that prelate to be suspected, contributed to preserve him from punishment. His calumnious discourse concerning Carranza was no doubt the reason why he was thought to be his denouncer.
_Don Pedro del Frago_, bishop of Jaca, was born in 1490, in Uncastillo, in the diocese of Jaca. Pedro studied at Paris, and became a Doctor of the Sorbonne: he learnt Hebrew and Greek, and was considered one of the best Latin poets of his age. He was appointed theologian to Charles V., for the first convocation of the Council of Trent; he a.s.sisted at it in 1545, and when the second a.s.sembly took place in 1551, he preached a Latin sermon to the fathers, on a.s.sumption-day: this discourse forms part of the collection of doc.u.ments relating to the council. In 1561, Philip II. created him Bishop of Alguer in Sardinia, and he attended the third convocation of the council in that quality. Don Pedro was made, first, Bishop of Jaca, in 1572; and in the following year, when he was sixty-four years of age, the Council of the Inquisition commanded the inquisitors of Saragossa to take informations against this worthy prelate, as suspected of heresy, because he had been denounced as not being known to confess himself, and that he had no regular confessor; he was likewise accused of not celebrating ma.s.s with sufficient solemnity.
It is surprising that the council should admit these charges, since a bishop is not obliged to have a regular confessor, and it is not necessary for any person to confess, so that the public may be informed of it. The other charge brought against an old man of sixty-four, shows that there was nothing more serious to accuse him of. Philip II., to reward his services, gave Don Pedro the bishopric of Huesca, in 1577, where he founded an episcopal seminary. He died in 1584. He held a synod at Huesca, in which he established const.i.tutions, which he had drawn up and caused to be printed; he also composed a Journal of the most remarkable events in the Council of Trent, from the year 1542 to 1560, and much Latin poetry.
Among the doctors of theology of the Council of Trent, who were persecuted or punished by the Inquisition, the most celebrated is _Benedict Arias Montano_, perhaps the most learned man of his age in the oriental tongues.
Several towns in Spain have disputed the honour of being the place of his birth. Montano understood Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Greek, Latin, French, Italian, English, Dutch, and German: he was almoner to the king, a knight of the order of St. Jago, and doctor of theology in the university of Alcala.
As there were no more copies in the trade of the _Polyglott_ Bible of the Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros, the celebrated Plantin, a printer at Antwerp, represented to Philip II. the advantages which might arise from a new edition, with corrections and additions. The king approved of the scheme, and in 1568 appointed Arias Montano to be the director of the undertaking; he went to Flanders to fulfil the intentions of that monarch, and to compose the Expurgatory _Index_, known as that of the Duke of Alva"s. In order to make the re-impression of the Polyglott Bible as perfect as possible, a great number of unpublished copies of the Bible, in all languages, were procured; this great work is in eight folio volumes. St. Pius V. and Gregory XIII. expressed their approbation of the execution of this undertaking, in particular briefs addressed to their nuncios in Flanders. Arias Montano went to Rome, and presented a copy to the Pope in person: he made a very eloquent speech in Latin on the occasion, which gave great pleasure to the Pope and cardinals. The King of Spain made presents of these Bibles to all the princes of Christendom: it has been called the _Royal Bible_, because it was done by the king"s command; the _Philippine_, from his name; of _Antwerp_, because it was printed in that place; _Plantinian_, from the name of the printer; _Polyglott_, from being in several tongues; and of _Montano_, because he had the direction of it, though he was a.s.sisted by many learned men of the universities of Paris, Louvain, and Alcala de Henares.
Arias returned to Spain, where the reputation he had acquired caused many persons to become his enemies, particularly among the Jesuits, because he had not consulted Diego Lainez, Alphonso Salmeron, or the other Jesuits of the Council of Trent: he made another enemy in Leon de Castro, a secular priest, professor of the oriental languages at Salamanca, because he did not consult the university, and employ him in the work. The certainty that he should be protected by the Jesuits induced him to denounce Arias Montano to the Inquisition of Rome: this denunciation was in Latin: he addressed another, in Spanish, to the Supreme Council at Madrid. Leon de Castro accused him of having given the Hebrew text of the Bible according to the Jewish MSS., and of having made the version accord with the opinions of the rabbis, without regarding those of the fathers of the church. He also qualified him as suspected of Judaism, because he affected to take the t.i.tle of Rabbi, _master_; this, however, may be looked upon as a calumny, for in a copy of this Bible, which I have seen, his superscription is that of _Thalmud_, which means _disciple_. Other accusations were brought against him by the Jesuits. Leon de Castro, impatient to see Arias arrested, wrote on the 9th of November, 1576, to Don Fernando de la Vega de Fonseca, a counsellor of the _supreme_, and renewed his denunciation, showing by his letter that he was only actuated by resentment, at finding his pretended zeal so ill repaid. There is no doubt that Arias would have been arrested, if he had not been protected by the king, and if the Pope had not signified his approbation of his Bible by a special brief; he, however, thought it necessary to go to Rome to justify himself.
Leon de Castro circulated copies of his denunciation, and the Jesuits did the same. He was attacked by Fray Luis Estrada, in a discourse addressed to Montano, in 1574; and his denunciation was also refuted by Pedro Chacon, another learned Spaniard, who proved the injury that would accrue to the Christian religion, if it was admitted that the Hebrew MSS. were falsified. De Castro published a reply, which he called _Apologetic_.
Arias returned from Rome, and he could depend upon the favour of the king; he was not arrested, but confined to the city of Madrid. The council decreed that a copy of the denunciations should be given to him; Arias replied to and refuted the charges, insinuating that this attack was a plot of the Jesuits.
The inquisitor-general, in concert with the council, appointed different theologians as qualifiers in the trial of Arias, and remitted to them the denunciation of de Castro and his apology, the reply of the accused, and the two writings of Estrada and Chacon. The princ.i.p.al censor was Juan de Mariana, a Jesuit, who was considered very learned in the oriental languages, and in theology. This choice, in which the Jesuits had some influence, induced them to suppose that Arias would be condemned. They were, however, disappointed; for though Mariana declared that the Polyglott Bible was full of errors and inaccuracies, he acknowledged that they were of no importance, and were not deserving of theological censure. This decision induced the council to p.r.o.nounce in favour of Arias, who was soon after informed that he had gained his cause at Rome. Mariana was never forgiven by the Jesuits for his impartiality, and they afterwards made him a victim of the Inquisition.
_Doctor Don Diego Sobanos_, rector of the university of Alcala, a theologian of the third convocation of the Council of Trent, not only expressed a favourable opinion of the Catechism of Carranza, but chiefly by his ascendancy over the theologians of his university, induced them to approve the work. He was tried by the Inquisition of Valladolid, and condemned to a pecuniary penalty, and to be absolved _ad cautelam_, from the censures which he had incurred by approving the Catechism.
_Diego Lainez_, born in Almazan, in the diocese of Siguenza, second general of the Society of Jesus, was denounced to the Inquisition as suspected of Lutheranism, and the heresy of the _illuminati_. The Jesuits did not pardon Valdes for having prosecuted their general, and they contributed to his dismission in 1566. Diego Lainez, who was at Rome, succeeded in evading the jurisdiction of the Inquisition of Spain.
_Fray Juan de Regla_, a Jeronimite, who had been confessor to Charles V., and provincial of his order in Spain, theologian of the Council of Trent at the second convocation, was arrested by the Inquisition of Saragossa, on the denunciation of the Jesuits, as suspected of Lutheranism: he abjured eighteen propositions, was absolved and subjected to a penance.
_Fray Francisco Villalba_, a Jeronimite of Montamarta, born at Zamora, was one of the theologians at the second Council of Trent, and preacher to Charles V. and Philip II. He attended the emperor at his death, and p.r.o.nounced his funeral oration. Philip II. had often consulted him. The Inquisition of Toledo began an action against him as a Lutheran, and being descended from the Jews. This arose from the envy of some monks of his order, who denounced him. The general of his order, and his coadjutors, made inquiries on the genealogy of Villalba, and discovered that he was not descended either from the Jews or any persons punished by the Inquisition. The protection of the king prevented the Inquisition from obtaining witnesses soon enough to substantiate the charges, and they did not dare to arrest him without further information. At this period, in 1575, Villalba died at the Escurial, leaving, among honest Spaniards, the reputation of being a good Catholic.
_Fray Michel de Medina_, a Franciscan, was a theologian of the third convocation of the Council of Trent. He was born at Benalcazar, and became a member of the college of St. Peter and St. Paul at the university of Alcala, and guardian of the convent of Franciscans at Toledo; he died in 1578, in the secret prisons of that city, after having been sentenced as suspected of professing the opinions of Luther. This accusation was occasioned by his great esteem for the theological writings of Fray Juan de Fero, a monk of his order. He published some of his works, which were denounced to the Inquisition, and Medina wrote an apology for them, which was placed in the index by Cardinal Quiroga, in 1583. Nicolas Antonio has given notices of some works of Medina, and a.s.serts that he justified himself on his doctrine.
This statement is inaccurate, for Medina was declared to be suspected, and however innocent he may be supposed, his works were condemned, and he would have been obliged to abjure and receive absolution _ad cautelam_, if death had not arrested the progress of his trial.
_Fray Pedro de Soto_, a Dominican, confessor to Charles V. and first theologian of Pope Pius IV. in the third convocation of the Council of Trent. He was persecuted by the Inquisition of Valladolid in 1560, on suspicion of Lutheranism: this suspicion was founded on the declarations of some accomplices of Cazalla, of the favourable opinion given by Fray Pedro on the Catechism of Carranza, of his letters to the archbishop, his efforts to induce Fray Dominic de Soto to retract his first opinions of the work, and to approve it, and on what he said at the council.
Pedro de Soto was not arrested, as he died at Trent in 1563, during the first forms of his trial. He was taken by Philip II. to England, to labour in the cause of religion. Nicolas Antonio mentions his works.
_Fray Dominic de Soto_, a Dominican, professor at Salamanca, attended the two first convocations of the Council of Trent; he had a great knowledge of theology, but he showed himself full of deceit and without any resolution, when, wishing to favour two adverse parties at the same time, he lost the esteem of both. An account of his conduct towards the Doctor Egidius has been already given. He did not act with more sincerity in the affair of the companion of his studies, the Archbishop of Toledo. The inquisitors of Valladolid commissioned him to examine and censure the Catechism of Carranza: he noted two hundred propositions, as _heretical_, _ill-sounding_, or _favouring the heretics_. The archbishop being informed of his conduct, wrote to Pedro de Soto in September, 1558, to complain of Fray Dominic, and begged that he would take his part and defend him. An epistolary correspondence was the result of this letter, and when Carranza was arrested, the letters were found among his papers: among them was one which deserves particular attention; in it Fray Dominic speaks of the trials he had been put to by the inquisitors of Valladolid, and the violence which was used to make him censure the Catechism as he had done, although he had said that he thought it good and according with sound doctrine. These words were the origin of his trial, and it is certain that he would have been arrested and taken to the secret prisons; but he died on the 17th of December, 1560, when his trial began to a.s.sume a dangerous aspect.
_Fray Juan de Ludena_, Dominican, born at Madrid, prior of the convent of St. Paul at Valladolid, and the author of several controversial works against the Lutherans. He was prosecuted by the Inquisition of Valladolid in 1559 for Lutheranism, because he gave a favourable opinion of the Catechism of Carranza. He was not taken to the prisons, but appeared at the _audiences of the charges_ in the hall of the tribunal.
He justified himself by declaring that he had only read the work through rapidly, on account of his great confidence in the virtue of the author, and because he did not discover any error in doctrine: he was condemned to a private penance, which was not at all humiliating. This precaution, which prevented his trial from becoming public, gave him the liberty of attending the third convocation of the Council of Trent in the quality of procurator to the Bishop of Siguenza, and of preaching before the fathers of that a.s.sembly on the first Sunday in Advent, 1563. If Ludena had had the boldness to defend his censure, he would certainly have been punished severely.
To this account a list of other prelates prosecuted by the Inquisition is added, but those mentioned in the former chapters are omitted.
_Abad y la Sierra_ (Don Augustine), bishop of Barbastro. He was denounced at Madrid in 1796 as a Jansenist, because he corresponded with some of the French bishops who had taken the oaths. This denunciation had no result. He was attacked a second time at Saragossa in 1801. His accusers renewed the charge of correspondence with the French bishops, and his having granted matrimonial dispensations according to a royal order was imputed to him as a crime. This accusation failed as well as the former.
_Abad y la Sierra_ (Don Manuel), archbishop of Selimbria _in partibus infidelium_, inquisitor-general after Don Augustine Rubin de Cevallos.
In 1794 Charles IV. commanded him to quit his office, and to retire to Sopetran, a Benedictine monastery near Madrid. Don Manuel was possessed of great talents and profound learning; his opinions were enlightened in the highest degree. In 1793 this prelate commanded me to make him a plan for an establishment of learned qualifiers to censure books and persons.
After being informed of the principles of my system, he commissioned me to write a work to expose the vices of the procedure of the holy office, and to propose one more useful to religion and the state. When this prelate lost his office of inquisitor-general, he was denounced as a Jansenist by a fanatical monk, but the information was neglected.
_Arrellano_ (Don Joseph Xavier Rodriguez d"), archbishop of Burgos, and a member of the council extraordinary of Charles III. This prelate has composed a great number of works on the theological principles of the _Summary of St. Thomas_, which are taught by the Dominicans, and are in opposition to the moral of the Jesuits. The partisans of the Jesuits, and some friends of the Inquisition, denounced Arellano as a Jansenist, because he expressed opinions favourable to temporal power, and defended the royal and civil authorities against the holy office. The inquisitors could not take any advantage of the denunciation, because it did not express any particular proposition.
_Buruaga_ (Don Thomas Saenz de). He was archbishop of Saragossa, and incurred the same danger as Arellano.
_Muzquiz_ (Don Raphael de), born at Viana in Navarre. He was almoner and preacher to Charles III. and Charles IV., confessor of the Queen Louisa, successively bishop of Avila and archbishop of Santiago. He was implicated in the affairs of Don Antonio de la Cuesta and his brother, and this was sufficient to induce the inquisitors to prosecute him. This prelate was one of the persecutors of the two brothers. Charles IV., having ordered the writings of the trial to be submitted to him, discovered the intrigue, and condemned the archbishop to pay a considerable fine, and receive a reprimand.
_Acuna_ (Don Antonio), bishop of Zamora, commander of one of the armies of Castile, which were raised by the people for the war of the _Commons_ against the oppression of the Flemings, who governed Spain in the name of Charles V. That prince wished that the bishop and the priests who engaged in the war, as soldiers, should be punished by the Inquisition as suspected of heresy, because they acted in opposition to the spirit of peace taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and contrary to the spirit of the Catholic Church. Leo X., however, pretended that it would be a scandal if the bishop was punished by the holy office; and that it would be sufficient if he was judged at Rome, and the priests by their diocesan prelates.
_La Plana-Castillon_ (Don Joseph de), bishop of Tarragona. He was a member of the council-extraordinary convoked by Charles III. The inquisitors noted him as a Jansenist for the same reasons as _Arellano_.
_Mendoza_ (Don Alvarez de), bishop of Avila. He was noted in the registers of the Inquisition as suspected of heresy, from the declarations of some of the witnesses in the trial of Carranza.
CHAPTER x.x.x.
OF THE PROSECUTION OF SEVERAL SAINTS AND HOLY PERSONS BY THE INQUISITION.