 Book 3, Chapter 1, Part 1 of the History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2 by Henry Charles Lee. Book 3, Jurisdiction, Chapter 1, Part 1, Heresy. The Inquisition was organized for the eradication of heresy and the enforcement of uniformity of belief. We shall have occasion to see here after how elastic became the definition of heresy, and we have seen how far afield its extinction led the operations of the Holy Office. But to the last, the suppression of unorthodox belief remained the ostensible object of its existence. It is not easy at the present day for those accustomed to universal toleration to realize the importance attached by statesmen in the past to unity of belief, or the popular abhorrence for any deviation from the standard dogma. These convictions were part of the mental and moral fiber of the community and were the outcome of the assiduous teachings of the Church for centuries until it was classed with the primal truths that it was the highest duty of the sovereign to crush out dissidents at whatever cost, and that hatred of the heretic was enjoined on every Christian by both divine and human law. The heretic was a venomous reptile spreading contagion with his very breath and the safety of the land required his extermination as a source of pestilence. In the earlier periods of the Inquisition or over, when the hierarchy was filled with new Christians of doubtful orthodoxy, it was essential to know that the sacraments necessary to salvation were not vitiated by the apostasy of the ministrant, for his intention is indispensable to their validity. No man could tell how many priests there were, like Andres Gonzalez, parish priest of San Martin de Tiovera, who, on his trial at Toledo in 1486, confessed that for fourteen years he had secretly been a Jew, and that he had no intention when he celebrated Mass, nor had he granted absolution to the penitents confessing to him. There was also a classical story widely circulated afre Garcia de Zapata, prior of the Geronemite monastery of Toledo, who, when elevating the host, used to say, get up, little Peter, and let the people look at you, and who always turned his back on the penitent to whom he pretended to grant absolution. The merciless zeal of the Holy Office might gradually relieve people of this danger, but it intensified by its methods the unreasoning abhorrence of heresy. The Honest Cavalier Oviedo, about the middle of the 16th century, merely phrases the current opinion of the time when he says that all possible punishments prescribed by the cannons and admitted by the laws should be visited on the persons and property of heretics. They eat the bread of the good, they render the land infamous, by their conversations they lead souls to perdition, and, with their marriages and kinships, they corrupt the blood of good houses. As time wore on, this increased rather than diminished. Galcerón Albanal, Archbishop of Granada, who had been tutor of Philip IV, wrote to his former pupil, April 12, 1621, to express his horror at learning that the English ambassador had been allowed to have divine service performed in his house, after the rites of his sect. The king should not allow it. It is the greatest of sins, and unless it is remedied, we shall all perish. It is an accursed reason to allege that the accursed king permits the Spanish ambassadors to have mass celebrated in London. The English ambassador should be dismissed, and the English king can send away the Spanish ambassador. If the Council of State interferes, let Philip show them the way of God. The licenciado de Angulo should have a bishopric, because he resigned his office as Fiscal of the Council, rather than affix his name to a paper in which the English king was styled Defender of the Faith, and Albanal declares his readiness to resign his own sea in Angulo's favor. To a population sedulously trained in such sentiments, the awful ceremonies of the Autodefe were a triumph of faith, of which they fell proud, and they were filled with pious exultation when the flames of the bracero consumed the bodies of heretics who passed through temporal to eternal fire. It was a vindication of the honor of God, and it is necessary to understand and bear in mind this temper when considering the performance by the inquisition of its allotted task. The jurisdiction of the Holy Office over heresy was confined to the baptized, for baptism is a condition precedent to heresy. The unbaptized are outside of the church, and it has no spiritual authority over them. In the Autodefe of 1623, at Vial de Lied, a woman taken out to be relaxed for Judaism declared that she was not baptized, whereupon the proceedings respecting her were stopped and she was remanded for investigation. Although baptism can be validly administered by a heretic, yet in the trial of foreign Protestants minute inquiry was made as to the details of their baptism in their sects, so as to be assured that they were truly baptized. In the case of Jacques Pinzon at Toledo in 1598, his advocate ingeniously, but vainly, argued that this could not be assumed, because it could not be proved that the minister had the proper intention, without which the right wasn't valid. Age placed slender limits on inquisitional jurisdiction. Children were considered capable of committing heresy as soon as they were dolicapaces at six or seven years, but they were not held to be responsible until they reached the years of discretion. This was fixed by Torquemeda at twelve for girls and fourteen for boys, below which they were not to be made to abjure in public. But the limit was frequently infringed. In 1501, in Acita, daughter of Marcos García, between nine and ten years old and Isabel, daughter of Alvaro or Talano, age ten, were sentenced to appear in an Autodefe. They had confessed to fasting once or twice, and the latter had been told by her father not to eat pork. In 1660, Advaya de Lid, Josef Rodriguez, age eight, accused of Judaism, was regularly tried with all the complicated formalities of procedure, occupying a year, and was made to give evidence against his father and brother. He was absolved secretly, and placed in a penitential prison for instruction. Of course there was no maximum limit of age. In 1638, Advaya de Lid, Maria Diaz, a hundred years old, was thrown into the secret prison for Judaism, and her trial went forward. Responsibility to the inquisition varied with the grade of heresy, which was carefully classified by theologians. Material heresy is error in a baptized person arising from ignorance, and, if the ignorance is inculpable, it is scarce to be considered as true heresy deserving of punishment. Formal or mixed heresy is voluntary and pertinacious error, pertinacity being adherence to what is known to be contrary to the teachings of the church. This formal heresy is again distinguished into internal or mental and external. Internal or mental heresy is that which is secretly entertained and is not manifested by either word or act. External heresy is subdivided into occult and public. Occult external is that which is manifested by words or signs, either in secret or to one or two persons only, as though a man in the solitude of his chamber should say there is no God, or should utter his thought in the presence of another. Public external is that which is manifested openly, either in public or to more than two persons. The bearing of these distinctions on the work of the inquisition will be apparent hereafter. There was still another definition of even greater importance. Heresy was both a sin and a crime. As a sin it was subject to the form in turnum, or form of conscience, as a crime to the form externum, or judicial forum. A penitent in sacramental confession admitting to heretical belief might receive sacramental absolution and be pardoned in the sight of God. But the crime, like that of murder or any other violation of human laws, would still remain to be punished in the judicial forum. We shall see that in the inquisition the penitent who confessed and repented and received absolution was still subject to penalties ranging, according to circumstances, from slight penance to death. Prior to the organization of the inquisition in the 13th century, the cognizance of heresy was a natural attribute of the Episcopal office. The duty of persecution was negligently performed. And when the Cateron and Valdencian heresies threatened the predominance of the Latin Church and the Albigencian crusade left at master of the situation, the inquisition gradually sprang up as an assistance to the bishops. There was some rivalry, but the bishops, as a rule, did not share in the confiscations. And as few of them had persecuting zeal sufficient to induce them to perform this gratuitous service, the field was virtually abandoned to the new organization in the lands where it was introduced. Still, the Episcopal rites were undisputed. Jurisdiction over the heresy was recognized to be cumulative. That is, it was enjoyed by both tribunals, either of which was entitled to any case in which it had taken prior action. Finally, in 1312, the Council of Vienna, in response to complaints of the cruelty of inquisitors, formulated a settlement under which the combined action of both jurisdictions was required in all commitments to harsh, detentive prison, in all sentences to torture, and in all final sentences, unless the one called upon to cooperate failed to come within eight days. This, embodied in the acts of the Council technically known as the Clementines, remained the law of the church. The bishops, however, remained indifferent and rarely took independent action. The inquisitorial districts were large, comprehending a number of dioceses. The Episcopal jurisdiction was limited to the subjects of a single diocese. It was impossible for the bishops to assemble at the seat of the tribunal, and when an autode fey was in preparation, they would usually delegate their ordinaries to represent them or commission an inquisitor to act. Such was the somewhat cumbers combination of Episcopal and inquisitorial jurisdiction, which the founding of the Holy Office brought into Spain. Independent action by bishops still continued occasionally, of which we have seen examples, volume one, page 167. And it was recognized, though subordinated to the inquisitorial jurisdiction in a brief of Innocent VIII, September 25, 1487, conferring on Torque Mada appellate power in cases before Episcopal courts, whether they were acting separately or in conjunction with the inquisitors, provided appeal was made before the sentence was rendered. The popes of the period, moreover, were careful to maintain the assertion of Episcopal participation in inquisitorial proceedings, as is manifested in the superscription of their letters addressed ordinarious et inquisitoribus, or assuming that the inquisitors had acted under Episcopal, as well as papal authority. Theoretically, this continued throughout the 16th century. The writers of highest authority treat bishops and inquisitors as possessing cumulative jurisdiction, so that both could prosecute, either separately or conjointly, and the old cannons were still cited, threatening with deposition the bishop who was negligent in purifying his diocese of heresy. Thus there was no legislation depriving the Episcopal order of its traditional jurisdiction over heresy. Yet the inquisition claimed, and made good the claim, that its cognizance was exclusive and that the clementines merely gave to the bishops a consultative privilege in the three sentences specified. No such privative right was conferred in the papal commissions to the inquisitor's general, and the only source of such right is to be looked for in Ferdinand's masterful determination that nothing should interfere with the swift operation of his favorite institution, and no claim be admitted to a share in its pecuniary results. It was natural that he would favor the inquisition, for procedure in the spiritual courts was public and was much less likely to result in conviction than the secrecy of the tribunals, and by 1500 he seems to have established the matter to his satisfaction. For, in a letter of August 19th of that year to the Archbishop of Cagliari, he expressed a surprise that the prelate without his license or a commission from the inquisitor general should have meddled with matters belonging to the inquisition and have collected certain pecuniary penances, although he had already been forbidden to do so. This prohibition is now emphatically repeated. He is to have nothing to do with the affairs of the inquisition, except to aid the inquisitor when called upon, and he is at once to hand over his collections to the receiver Pedro López, who is going to Sardinia. Nothing can be more preemptory in tone than dismissive, although the Sardinian tribunal was thoroughly disorganized and was about to be reconstructed by sending a full core of officials. We may assume from this that if there had been any resistance on the part of the Castilian Episcopate, it had by this time been overcome. That this concentration of exclusive jurisdiction in the inquisition was the work of the royal power and was not universally admitted even by the middle of the 16th century is manifest from the remark of Bishop Simoncus, himself an experienced inquisitor, when he says that it is the duty of bishops to inquire into cases of heresy, but they ought to send the prisoner and the testimony to the inquisitor. For otherwise, their inexperience is apt to result in failure, as he had often found. There ought to be a papal decree prescribing this, and in default of it, the king is accustomed to order it of the bishops. Of this we have an example in 1527 when the vicar general of the Archbishop of Toledo was required by inquisitor general, Manrique, to surrender a cleric whom he had arrested and was prosecuting. Simoncus still recognizes the duty of the bishop to make the preliminary inquiries into heresy, but even this had long before been forbidden, although there was a prolonged struggle before it was surrendered. In 1532, the ordinary of Huyska issued an edict of faith modeled on that of the inquisition, calling for the denunciation of heretics, for which the Empress Regent sharply rebuked him in a letter of March 23rd, calling it an innovation unknown since the inquisition had been introduced and threatening him with fitting measures for the repetition of such intrusion on the jurisdiction of the inquisition. In spite of this, Archbishop Ayala of Valencia in 1565 and his successor, the Blessed Juan de Ribera in 1576 and another bishop in 1567, repeated the indiscretion for which they were promptly called to account. When in 1583, the Bishop of Tortosa committed the same offense, the Suprema wrote January 14th, 1584 that the popes had given the inquisition exclusive jurisdiction over heresy and had prohibited its cognizance by others and that he must not in future intervene in such matters. Undeterred by this, the Council of Tarragona in 1591 reasserted the ancient Episcopal jurisdiction by ordering all bishops to be vigilant in watching their flocks and if they found any disseminators of heresy to see to their condyne punishment according to the canons. How completely justified was the Council in this and how false was the assertion of the Suprema was manifested in 1595 when the Archbishop of Granada complained to Clement VIII that the inquisitors had forbidden him to issue an edict on the subject of heresy and the Pope forthwith wrote to the inquisitor general that this must not be allowed. For the faculties delegated to inquisitors in no way abridged Episcopal jurisdiction. After this, at least, the Suprema could not plead ignorance and yet it persisted in the assertion that it knew to be false. A savage quarrel broke out in Guatemala between the bishop Juan Ramirez and the commissioner of the inquisition, Felipe Ruiz del Caral, who was also the dean of the chapter. Ramirez imprisoned him and undertook to organize a sort of inquisitorial tribunal of his own, whereupon, in 1609, the Suprema presented to Philip III for signature a letter which it describes as drawn in the form customary for cases where bishops interfere in matters concerning the faith. This describes how the Pope in instituting the inquisition evoked to himself all cases connected with heresy and committed them to the inquisitor general and his deputies, inhibiting all judges and ordinaries from intervening in them, in consequence of which they have ceased to take cognizance of such matters and have referred to the inquisitors whatever came to their knowledge. As the bishop has laid his hands on things beyond his jurisdiction, he is ordered in future not to meddle with anything touching the inquisition as otherwise fitting measures will be taken. The only foundation for this mendacious assertion was, as we shall see hereafter, that in the struggle made by Ferdinand and Charles V to prevent appeals to Rome from the inquisition, briefs were sometimes obtained from popes evoking to themselves all cases pending in the tribunals and committing them to the inquisitor general, with inhibition to anyone, including cardinals and officials of the Curia to entertain appeals from him. In this there is absolutely nothing that relates to original jurisdiction and nothing to limit the traditional functions of the Episcopate, but the supreme held the records and could assert what it pleased concerning them. Still, the bishops did not wholly abandon their rights and cases continued occasionally to occur in which of course they were worsted. They were frequent enough to justify in a formulary of 1645, the insertion of a formula framed to meet them. It is addressed to the provisor of Badajoz and recites that the fiscal complains of him is having commenced proceedings against a certain party for heretical propositions as this is a matter pertaining exclusively to the inquisition. He is commanded to surrender it under the customary penalties of excommunication and fine. The fiscal also demands that the provisor be prosecuted so that in future, neither he nor anyone else shall dare to usurp the jurisdiction of the inquisition and the document ends with a statement that the prosecution has been commenced. Such methods were not easily resisted when in 1666, the Barcelona tribunal learned that the bishop of Sosona on a visitation had taken considerable testimony against some parties in a matter of faith. It at once claimed the papers, which he promptly surrendered. It had the audacity to propose to prosecute him, but the suprema wisely ordered it to take no action against him. Yet Benedict XIV repeated the assertion of Clement VIII that the popes in delegating powers to the inquisitors had never intended to interfere with Episcopal jurisdiction or to relieve bishops from responsibility. Not content with thus depriving the Episcopate of its immemorial jurisdiction over heresy, inquisitors sought to obtain cognizance of a class of cases clearly belonging to the spiritual courts on the ground of inferential heresy. Bigamy, disregard of church observances in fractions of discipline and the like. In 1536, the tribunal of Valencia created much excitement by including in its edict of faith a number of matters of the kind, but on complaint from the vicar general, the suprema ordered the omission of everything not in the old edicts. The attempts continued, and in 1552, a decision was required from the suprema that eating pork on Saturdays was not a case for the inquisition. In the Concordia of 1568, contains a clause prohibiting inquisitors from entertaining cases belonging to the ordinaries. In a Cartha Accordata of November 23, 1612, the suprema made an attempt to define the boundaries of the rival jurisdictions, in which it allowed to the spiritual courts exclusive jurisdiction only over ecclesiastic in matters touching upon their duties as pastors. The ministry of the church, simony and cases relating to orders, benefits and spiritual affairs, while admitted cumulative jurisdiction in usury, gambling and incontinence. Restricted as were these admissions, the suprema itself did not observe them. In 1637, Sebastian de Los Rios, Cura of Tombrio de Arriba, who met with one or two accidents in handling the sacrament, feared accusation by his enemies of irreverence, denounced himself to the provisor of Astorga and was fined in 4,000 Maravedis. In spite of this, he was prosecuted in 1640 by the tribunal of Valladolid. He vainly pleaded his previous trial. The suprema assumed its invalidity in ordering his incarceration in the secret prison where he died. This process of encroachment continued and towards the end, when there was little real heresy to occupy its energies, its records are full of cases which, even under its own definitions, belonged unquestionably to the spiritual courts. In observance of ecclesiastical precepts of all kinds, irregularities in the celebration of mass, taking communion after eating, eating flesh on fast days, working in in attendance at mass on feast days and other miscellaneous business wholly formed to its original functions. It does not argue favorably for the Spanish Episcopate that they seem to have welcomed this relief from their duties and strenuously resisted the abolition of the Inquisition in 1813, which restored to them under limitations their original functions. After the restoration, the Archbishop of Seville in 1818 gathered evidence to show that the Cura of San Marcos had not confessed for many years and then, in place of punishing him, handed the papers over to the tribunal. This was probably fortunate for the Peckent Priest as the Supremo ordered that nothing should be done except to keep him under surveillance and that the Archbishop should be warmly thanked and assured that the necessary steps had been taken. There was one formality preserved which recognized the Episcopal jurisdiction over heresy. We have seen that in the Clementines the concurrence of both Bishop and Inquisitor was requisite in ordering severe detentive incarceration in sentencing to torture and in the final sentence. No illusion was made to this in the Bull of Sixtus IV, authorizing the appointment of Inquisitors for Castile. No illusion, in fact, was necessary as it had been for nearly two centuries, a matter, of course, an inquisitorial procedure. But the earliest inquisitors took no account of it and Sixtus, in his brief of February 11, 1482, called forth by complaints of their cruelty, insisted on the concurrence of Episcopal officials in all judgments. Ferdinand was indisposed to anything that threatened interference with the autonomy of the Inquisition and his experience of Valencia with the representatives of Rodrigo Borgia, the absent arch Bishop, showed him how this Episcopal right could be exercised to obstruct proceedings and compel division of the spoils. He doubtless represented to Sixtus that there were many of Jewish blood among the bishops and their officials whom it would not be safe to trust for Sixtus, with Borgia behind him, met such objections with a brief of May 25, 1483. Addressed to all the Spanish arch bishops, in this he ordered them to warn any of their suffragettes of Jewish extraction, not to meddle with the business of the Inquisition, but to appoint an old Christian approved by the arch bishop who should have exclusive powers over all such matters. In case this was not done, the arch bishop was to make the appointment for each diocese and the appointee was to be wholly independent of the bishop. Then a question arose whether Torkimata's appellate jurisdiction as inquisitor general could override judgments in which bishops participated, but this was settled in Torkimata's favor by a brief of Innocent VIII, September 25, 1487, thus completely subordinating Episcopal to inquisitorial jurisdiction. Ferdinand was not satisfied, but he had to acquiesce and adopt the device of the bishops delegating one of the inquisitors as their representative, an expedient for which precedents can be found in the early Inquisition of Long Dock. That this soon became common is indicated in the instructions of 1484, which warns the inquisitor holding the commission that he is not to deem himself superior to his colleagues. Another plan was to require the bishops to issue a commission as vicar general to whomsoever the inquisitors might designate as Ferdinand ordered the bishops of Aragon to do in a letter of January 27, 1484. The individual thus selected became an official of the tribunal and was born on his payroll for a salary to be paid out of the confiscations for which he might vote. Of this we have examples in Martin Navarro, thus serving at Teruel in 1486 on a yearly stipend of 2000 suedeos. And in Martin Garcia included as vicar general at a salary of 3000 suedeos in the Saragosa payroll of the same year. It is possible that the bishops grew rest of under this absorption of their powers and that they remonstrated with the Holy See for in 1494, when Alexander VI issued commissions to the four new inquisitors general, there appeared a new condition requiring them to exercise their functions in conjunction with the ordinaries of the seas or their vicars or officials or other persons deputized by the ordinaries. Ferdinand however was not accustomed to Brooke opposition to his will. The most efficient and economical expedient was the Episcopal delegation to an inquisitor and this he enforced by whatever pressure was necessary. Thus when in 1498 the Bishop of Tarazona demurred to do this, Ferdinand in a letter of November 21st brushed aside his reasons and imperatively ordered the delegation to be sent at once. Still the bishop recalcitrated and Ferdinand wrote in January 4th, 1499 that he must do so at once. No excuse would be admitted and nothing would change his determined purpose but it was not until March that he learned the Bishop's submission. In this same year, 1499, he broke down in similar rude fashion the resistance of two other bishops and when in 1501 the Archbishop of Taragona notified the tribunal of Barcelona not to hear without his participation certain cases committed to them on appeal. Ferdinand expressed his indignant surprise. The Archbishop must remove the obstruction at once and not await a second command. Ferdinand's resolve was to render Episcopal concurrence a mere perfunctory form and when bishops presumed to act or their vickers general were distasteful to him there are various cases which attest to his imperious methods of dealing with them. He had some trouble on this account with his son, Alfonso Archbishop of Saragossa who in 1511 obtained the perpetual administrative of Valencia and who persisted in retaining as his delegate the vicker general of Valencia, Miser Soler, against the commands of his father. So then in 1512 and again in 1513 there was a delay in the celebration of Autos de Fe greatly to Ferdinand's annoyance. These occasional obstructions explain why as he wrote November 27th, 1512 he endeavored to reduce it to a rule that the ordinary should confer his powers on the inquisitors and should not be allowed to see the cases. The people did not view the matter in the same light and regarded the participation of the bishop or his representatives as some guarantee against the arbitrary proceedings of the inquisitors. Among the complaints of the prisoners of Juyan in 1506 to Philip and Juana is one reciting that the inquisitors act independently of the Episcopal provisor and communicate nothing to him so as to be able to work their wicked will without interference. Similarly, the Cortes of Monson in 1512 included among the abuses requiring redress the warrior letters concerning Episcopal concurrence. The delegation of powers to inquisitors and other methods by which the participation of bishops was evaded. And when Leo X, in 1516, confirmed the Concordia, he ordered that the ordinaries should resume their functions. It was the same in Castile where, as we have seen, Volume 1, page 217, one of the petitions of the Cortes of Valladolid in 1518 was that the Episcopal ordinaries should take part in the judgments. End of Book 3, Chapter 1, Part 1. Book 3, Chapter 1, Part 2 of the History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The History of the Inquisition of Spain, Volume 2, by Henry Charles Lee. Book 3, Jurisdiction, Chapter 1, Part 2, Heresy. While the petitions of Valladolid for the most part received scant attention, this one at least bore fruit. Four, with the removal of Ferdinand's pressure, the bishops had an opportunity to reassert themselves. In 1520, a decision of Cardinal Adrien required the presence of both inquisitors and ordinary at abdurations and confessions under the edicts of grace. And in 1527, Manrique and the Suprema declared that the ordinary concurred in the cases required by the law, an ambiguous phrase which seems to have been variously construed. This was not conducive to harmony. The inquisitors grudging any intrusion on the jurisdiction and the ordinaries insisting on their rights under the Clementines. In 1529, when the Suprema chanced to be a Toledo, the matter was brought before it by Diego Arti de Angulo, fiscal of the local tribunal, in a memorial arguing that to require the presence of the ordinary would entail great delay, as he often could not attend when summoned. Besides, he was always in contradiction with the tribunal as was notorious to all connected with the trials. Objecting to pecuniary and light penalties and endeavoring to acquire jurisdiction at the expense of the Holy Office. At Angulo's request, the Suprema had a number of witnesses examined, of whom the most important was Martin Chimenez, who had been occupied for 40 years in the tribunals of Barcelona, Toledo, and Seville. He testified that the ordinaries were only called for in the three acts specified in the Clementines. But in explaining details, he showed that the inquisitors construed them in a fashion to exclude the ordinary from much of his functions. Four, in place of participating in all sentences, he was allowed to join only in convictions for heresy and bore no part in the lighter cases. The object being to prevent his claiming a share in the pecuniary penalties. Although he was summoned to the Consulta de Fe in which they were voted on. Other witnesses bore the same testimony and it is not difficult to understand why the ordinaries took little interest in the exercise of the jurisdiction, thus arbitrarily limited. It was probably owing to this discussion that the Suprema, January 25, 1530, told the tribunals that differences with the ordinary must be avoided. In the same year it notified Valencia that all cases sent up to it must have been voted on by him and in 1532 it sent similar orders to Barcelona, adding that the presence of the ordinary was requisite at all abjurations. Evidently the tribunals were jealous. The ordinaries were rebuffed and discouraged and the cooperation of the two jurisdictions was little more than a formal recognition of a virtually obsolete right. The routine practice and its workings are exemplified in the report of a summons served August 8th, 1534 on Blaise Ortiz, then Vicar General of Toledo. It cited him to come and assist in dispatching the accumulation of cases since the last autodefe held nearly four years before. He was to lay aside all other business and present himself daily at the morning audience to witness the torture in nine specified cases and at the afternoon audience to vote on 10 of which the trials had been completed. He was notified that if he did not come, the inquisitors after the delay specified by law, eight days, would proceed without him. The summons was borne by the fiscal accompanied by a notary who made a formal act of service. When the fiscal stated in his errand, Blaise Ortiz negligently told him that there was no necessity of reading the paper. He was not well, but if he were able, he would be present at all cases. If he did not come, he committed his power to the two inquisitors or to either of them who was willing to accept the commission. Apparently Ortiz did not come for in several sentences rendered this year at Toledo, the inquisitors style themselves apostolic inquisitors holding the powers of the ordinary. From some motive, not clearly apparent, a customer rose to some extent of appointing episcopal ordinaries or provisors as inquisitors. This was frequent enough to lead the Cortes in Madrid in 1552 to complain of the combination of the two offices because when a provisor arrested a layman which he could not do legally, he claimed that he acted as inquisitor with the result that many persons were subjected to infamy. They therefore petitioned that no provisor should also be inquisitor to which the answer was returned that in such cases Royal Seidulas had been issued and that this would be continued. Discouraging as was this reply, the petition seems to have made an impression for in 1556, both Charles V and Philip II rebuked inquisitor General Valdez who was also Archbishop of Seville because his provisor was also inquisitor in that tribunal. His defense was that this had been the case in Seville for half a century owing to the poverty of the tribunal which paid only one third the customary salaries and that he himself defrayed the stipend of the provisor. During the remainder of the century we generally find the participation of the ordinary carefully recorded whether it was by a special representative or by delegation to the inquisitors. In 1561, inquisitor Cervantes takes the Barcelona Tribunal to task for not keeping record of this and he orders the fiscal to observe it sedulously for without the concurrence of the ordinary the sentence is invalid. A carta o kurdata of October 15th, 1574 reminds the tribunals that he must sign all sentences of torture and that all final sentences on which he has a vote but there was a rule that he did not sign sentences of acquittal even though he had voted on them. Yet how purely perfunctory was this participation appears in a case of Fre Heronimo de la Madre de Dios at Toledo in 1618. In a consulte de Fe, Melgoso, the provisor agreed with one of the inquisitors and a consultant on a certain punishment. Another inquisitor voted for a heavier penalty and when the matter was submitted to the Suprema it adopted the latter but Melgoso obediently signed the sentence. The inquisitorial jurisdiction for all practical purposes had absorbed the Episcopal. As the inquisitorial districts usually embrace several diocese it was impossible for the bishop or provisor of those at a distance from the tribunal to be personally present when their subjects were tortured or sentenced. It became customary for them to delegate their powers to some resident of the city which was the seat of the tribunal. That they were not always careful in their selection would appear when the tribunal of Sicily was obliged in 1574 to notify an archbishop that he must appoint ecclesiastics and not laymen to sit in judgment on matters of faith. Taking advantage of this carelessness the inquisition undertook to control the character of the appointees and it issued August 17th, 1637 instructions to bishops that their provisors must be graduates in canon law. But as canonists proved to be scarce it was obliged, October 12th, to modify this and permit the appointment of theologians. In accordance with this there is an entry by the tribunal of Valencia that it will recognize Don Luis Crispi as ordinary of Tortosa although he is a theologian. Thus a further encroachment was made on Episcopal jurisdiction by the inquisition in claiming and exercising the right to determine whom it would recognize as a fit representative of the bishop. How offensively this was sometimes used was manifested in 1752 in Lima when the inquisitors Amusquibar and Rodriguez were involved in a prolonged quarrel with the secular and ecclesiastical organizations. To annoy the inquisitors Archbishop Baruita notified them that in view of their bitter copotenzio with the viceroy he withdrew the faculty of Don Fernando de la Sota as his representative and appointed Padre Francisco Lareta S.J. To this they replied that they recognized his right to withdraw the faculty but as for Lareta he was incapacitated by his profession from exercising the functions. If the Archbishop would appoint someone in accordance with the statutes of the Holy Office in possessing the necessary qualifications he would be received. The assumption that they would recognize only whom they pleased staggered the Archbishop and he asked them to explain the disqualification of Lareta to which they insolently replied that they had already stated what was sufficient for his guidance. He submitted and appointed the Franciscan Thomas de la Concha who was accepted but when the Archbishop transmitted the correspondence to Inquisitor General Prado y Cuesta and asked for reparation he obtained none. Episcopal concurrence had never been more than a bare formality in recognition of the immemorial jurisdiction of bishops over heresy and as time wore on the Inquisition became careless even of this. In a number of trials by the Tribunal of Madrid between 1703 and 1710 the Inquisitors are recorded as acting sometimes with and sometimes without the Episcopal representatives and in the latter half of the century a writer informs us that the concurrence of the ordinary is unusual. It depends on the will of the Inquisitors who sometimes summon him and sometimes do not. Still there were some bishops zealous for the claims of their order who persisted in asserting this remnant of jurisdiction. Antonio Tavera Bishop of Canaries and subsequently of Salamanca expressed their feelings when in 1792 he complained to Carlos IV of the treatment of the Episcopal order by the Inquisition saying that they had ceased to vote in cases of faith in order to escape the humiliation and degradation to which they were exposed. They sent their vickers although this was indecorous and wholly useless but they felt that they must preserve this little shadow of a jurisdiction which was rightly theirs. Under the restoration greater attention seems to have been paid to Episcopal concurrence and the adherence to strict formalities is shown in a duplicate trial of Juan Antonio Monsano a physician of Lumbrales in a diocese of Ciudad Rodrigo an inquisitorial district of Arena. In 1817 he was tried for heretical propositions by the Tribunal of Logroño which inquired of the Suprema whether the ordinary of its own diocese could act and was told that the authority of the culprit's own bishop was imperative and that the bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo must appoint a representative. The next year Monsano was again arrested for the same offense by the Tribunal of Arena and was transferred to Seville because Arena had no prison. April 17th, 1819 the Seville Tribunal asked whether its own ordinary could join in the sentence and received the same answer then it must apply to the bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo to make an appointment. It was all the mere's technicality for by this time the Suprema decided all cases irrespective of how the consul de De Fe might vote and thus the incontestable Episcopal jurisdiction over heresy was practically abolished. As regards the internal form or form of conscience the inquisition claimed and enjoyed a still more absolute jurisdiction than in the external form for which it had been primarily instituted. While in a formal and perfunctory manner it recognized the Episcopal claim in the judicial forum its own ployed its delegated papal authority as to vindicate with the utmost jealousy exclusive control over the form of conscience in matters of heresy. Bishops in fact had long been ousted from this by the invention of papal reserved cases cases in which sacramental absolution could only be had from the Holy See thus creating a profitable market for its indulgences confessional letters and the absolutions of its penitentiary. Heresy was the chief sin anathematized in the early form of the bull subsequently known as enchana domini from its annual publication on Holy Thursday and in 1364 Urban V placed all the offenses enumerated in it under the jurisdiction of the papal chamberlain. The papacy thus assumed exclusive control over the sin of heresy for which no absolution could be granted saved by papal delegation and Paul II in 1469 and Sixtus IV in 1478 issued further decrees to the effect that special license was necessary for this as no general commissions were held to cover it. The Council of Trent in 1563 timidly endeavored to revendicate a fraction of Episcopal rights by asserting that bishops in the form of conscience only could personally absolve for secret or cult heresy but the Roman Inquisition by repeated decisions based on the utterances of Saint Pius V and Gregory XIII overrode the conciliar degree and deprive them of that slender remnant of their functions. This strict reservation of the sin of heresy was imperfectly understood in Spain and so little was known of the laws of persecution that at first the new Christians who apprehended arrest endeavored to escape by sacramental confession and absolution ignorant that already in the 13th century it had been decided that the pardon of the sin in the form of conscience did not cover the crime in the judicial form. This method of evasion could not be allowed and yet the Inquisition was uncertain how to act. A brief was therefore procured November 10th 1487 from Innocent VIII addressed to all the inquisitors and ordinaries in Spain reciting their doubts about proceeding against those who assert that they have secretly confessed and abjured to their confessors. To overcome this it was asserted that the decrees of the fathers required such abjurations to be accompanied by an oath taken before an ordinary in presence of a notary and witness never to return to the abjured heresy wherefore the inquisitors were empowered to proceed against all who had not observed this rule If such a rule had ever existed which is doubtful it had long been forgotten and was wholly unknown in Spain so that all who had had recourse to this device were brought under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The new Christians were not long in realizing the futility of such attempts and we hear little of them in later periods yet there were cases of occult heresy concerning which the functions of the Inquisition seemed to have varied. In the earlier times the edicts of grace brought these to the tribunals and the instructions of 1484 permit the inquisitor to admit them to secret reconciliation and abjuration and do not contemplate his delegating his power to another. There must have been doubts as to his faculties for this since in 1530 Clement VII delegated powers to inquisitors to absolve and reconcile for occult heresy with the imposition of appropriate penance. This evidently contemplates his administering sacramental app solution and yet not long afterwards he was told that he was judge in the external and not in the internal forum and that it was not his business to hear sacramental confessions. In fact the inquisitor was by no means necessarily in priests' orders and when acting in his judicial capacity sentencing a culprit in hearing his abjuration he simply granted license to any approved confessor to absolve him from excommunication and to impose salutary penance. There was however a class of cases by no means infrequent demanding sacramental rather than judicial administration which gave rise to some debate before their treatment was settled. These consisted of good Christians who were assailed by secret doubts or indulged in erroneous speculations and who brought their spiritual troubles to the confessional. Over these priests and bishop had been deprived of jurisdiction and to make sure of this there was a clause in the annual edict of faith prohibiting confessors from granting absolution in any case touching the inquisition and ordering the penitent to be sent to the tribunal. If he refused to go the only alternative was for the confessor to obtain from the inquisitor a license to absolve him for the confession was covered by the seal and prosecution was out of the question but as to this even in the middle of the 16th century there were doubts. Bishop Simanca says that the power of the inquisitor to grant licenses is doubtful and he can only suggest reference of each case to the Suprema. A body of practice of uncertain date asserts that when a confessor reports that a penitent has confessed heresies and asks for a license to absolve him it cannot be given. He must be ordered to induce the penitent to come to the tribunal in case of necessity or of persons in high station the inquisitor may go with a notary to receive the confession which is examined in the tribunal and the consequent absolution or abduration is performed in secret. In the case of nuns who could not be induced to discharge their consciences before a commissioner and a notary there was a concession that the confessor might reduce the confession to writing and send it to the tribunal which would consult the Suprema and frailes were to be compelled to seek the tribunal where they were treated as espontaneados or spontaneous self-denouncers and were absolved or reckons out secretly with spiritual penances. The indisposition to license confessors to absolve for heresy in the form of conscience is easily explicable. By compelling the penitent to come to the tribunal a record was made for use in case of relapse. If he had accomplices he could be forced to reveal them and their prosecution followed and there was an opportunity of inflicting pecuniary penances although confiscation was waived in such cases. These same reasons operated in a contrary sense with the penitent besides the horror which all men felt as to falling into the hands of the inquisition. When he was obstinate the tribunal was powerless for the seal of confession shielded his identity. It finally yielded the point and no longer pretended that licenses could not be given to confessors. In 1562 a case was referred to the Supremah of a person who had confessed sacramentally to certain heresies without having been taught them by anyone. When the confessor general empowered the inquisitors to absolve him in such a way as they thought best and they empowered the confessor. Finally it became the rule that the confessor sought to induce the penitent to apply to the inquisition. If he resolutely refused the confessor applied for a faculty which he was granted or not according to the temper of the tribunal. A case in 1754 shows the inquisition in a favorable light and has interest also as illustrating the tortures of a soul which rejects belief and yet holds belief to be essential to salvation. Frey Thomas de Sos reported to the Toledo Tribunal that while on a mission at Iofen a penitent had asked him to obtain a commission to absolve her for heresies internal and external which yet were a cult and she had never expressed them except to her aunt. She said that on a previous occasion a confessor had done this for her and she wished to avoid the disgrace of personal parents before the inquisition. He was ordered to ascertain all details and reported that the penitent was a poor woman named Maria Lara living with an aunt aged 80. Her heresies were only of a few months standing occasioned by intense grief at the ingratitude of one whom she had benefited. She disbelieved in the trinity, the incarnation, the law of God, the virgin, hell and the devil and at the same time felt herself lost beyond the hope of salvation. She could not say how much of this she had uttered to herself or before her aunt and the importance attached to this point indicates the weight attributed to the distinction between internal and external heresy. The aunt was examined, the cure of Iofrin was called in, the registers were searched and finally after six weeks had been consumed a commission was issued which the good Fraile eager to heal a despairing soul at an hour's notice bore to Iofrin and absolved her. These cases gave the inquisition considerable concern and in 1772 the Supremah called upon all the tribunals to report what was their practice. After carefully weighing their answers it issued November 9th 1772 instructions that when a confessor reported such a case he was to be ordered to use every effort to induce the penitent to denounce himself. Assuring him of merciful treatment and showing that he would thus be saved in case of denunciation by others. He could make this denunciation to the tribunal or to a commissioner or could even authorize a confessor to denounce him giving all the details under oath. If however the penitent obstinately refused then the confessor could absolve him explaining that it was only in the form of conscience. If we may believe Lorenzo Villanueva however this liberal concession was by no means put in practice at least by all tribunals. Confession of formal heresy was not so leniently treated and as it inferred accomplices every effort was made to secure their denunciation. The confessor was ordered to persuade if possible the penitent to come to the inquisition and confess as to himself and others promising secret absolution without confiscation. This was virtually the offer made to those who came forward under an edict of grace and did not exclude arbitrary pecuniary penance. It was not likely to attract self denunciation especially as it included betraying kindred and friends although power to absolve was not granted in the case of refusal. This led to a deadlock and possibly in such cases the confessor was expected to violate the seal of confession under the old rule that it did not cover heresy. At least this may be inferred from a case occurring in Lima about 1580 when Padre Luis Lopez S. J. reported that a penitent in confession had admitted to have Judaized and on being told to go to the inquisition had refused. The matter was regarded as so grave that it was referred to the Supremes which sent orders to deliver Lopez to the viceroy for shipment to Spain. Apparently one who would not violate the seal was too dangerous to be left in Peru. Simancas however characterized this as a most pernicious doctrine and argues that infraction of the seal is much worse than allowing a heretic to escape punishment. When the inquisition was reestablished in 1814 under the restoration it recognized the impossibility of investigating and punishing the innumerable heresies disseminated in the license of years of warfare and exposure to foreign armies. In its zeal for the salvation of souls it therefore by edict of January 2, 1815 granted for a year to all confessors faculties to absolve for heresy external or mixed. The confessor in fact was made a quasi inquisitor and the procedure formatively resembled that of the tribunals. The penitent had a pledge of secrecy but his confession had to be minute and comprehensive. It was reduced to writing signed and sworn to and was then forwarded to the tribunal to be filed among its records. This relieved him from prosecution in case of denunciation by others while if he refused to do this he was to be absolved but only in the forum of conscience. He was to be reported to the tribunal and remained liable to the external forum. In view of the recognized principle that sacramental absolution does not affect the external forum it shows the watchful jealousy with which the inquisition guarded its jurisdiction that it remonstrated against the papal indulgences of Santa Cruzada and the Jubilee. The former granted an indulgencia plenissima. It was a state affair managed by the government and bringing in a large revenue of which a portion accrued to the Holy See. Its sales was pushed in every quarter with utmost vigor and the inquisition punished severely any utterances calculated to diminish the demand. Only extreme sensitiveness as to its jurisdiction could have led the inquisition to cast any doubt as to the unlimited efficacy of the indulgence but when Saint Pius V in 1571 after an interval of five years renewed the concession of the Cruzada it took the alarm In Cartas Acodaras of May 30 in June 131572 the Suprema informs the tribunals that in some places it is asserted that the Cruzada bulls grant faculties for the absolution of heresy. This is not the case and if it were the Pope would be asked to withdraw them. The assertion must be contradicted everywhere and the prelates are to be asked to give corresponding instructions to confessors. A more effective step was taken in 1576 by procuring from Gregory XIII a brief declaring that it never was the papal intention that the indulgence should include heresy and to make this known he authorized the commissioner of the Cruzada to translate the brief into the vernacular and publish it wherever the Cruzada was preached. The Supremes did not trust the commissioner but sent copies of the brief to all the tribunals with instructions to notify the ordinaries and the prelates of the orders so that confessors might be duly informed. A month later in January 1577 it ordered the brief to be published in all the churches. Eventually however its anxieties were removed by a clause in the bulls of the Cruzada specifically accepting heresy from the faculties granted to confessors. A form which they have retained to the present day long after the extinction of the Holy Office. The Cruzada indulgence was a special financial favor to the Spanish monarchy which it could virtually control but it was otherwise with the Jubilee indulgences which about this period the popes began to publish. Plenary remission of sins such as were obtainable by pilgrimage to Rome at the Jubilees celebrated every 25 years. St. Pius V set the example of this on his accession in 1566 which has since been followed by his successors together with special Jubilees decreed at decreasing intervals. The Jubilee published in 1572 on the accession of Gregory XIII accepted heretics and readers of prohibited books and added a positive declaration that in it and all that might be subsequently issued the absolution was only in the form of conscience and did not affect the judicial forum. Taking advantage of this when another Jubilee indulgence appeared in 1578 the Suprema ordered it to be published with the omission of all that concern the inquisition in accordance with the declarations of Gregory. Subsequent Jubilees however of 1589, 1592 and 1595 included heresy and called forth unavailing protests from Spain until finally in the latter year preachers were ordered to declare as of their own motion that under the general clause of the Jubilee absolution could not be had for heresy. While the Roman Inquisition made no protest against these indulgences the Spanish persistently objected to them and it seemed impossible to harmonize the conflict. When Alexander VII on his accession in 1655 published a Jubilee it contained the obnoxious clause. Cabrera, the agent of the Suprema in Rome, warmly remonstrated with him and he promised in future to accept heresy. This did not satisfy Cabrera who asked for a constitution accepting heresy from all Jubilees. Alexander promised to investigate the matter but apparently his investigations were resultless for the subject continued till the end of the century to furnish occasion for repeated discussion. Heresy was an elastic term and the Inquisition stretched it to extend its exclusive jurisdiction in all directions. It did the same to shield itself from the investigation and restraint. We are told that in the numerous cases of appeal to the throne for injustice suffered at its hands if the king ordered the Inquisitor General to report on the subject so that it might be submitted to Junta composed of members of the Suprema and Royal Council. The first business of the Suprema was to examine whether the question arose from matter of faith or was in any way dependent upon faith or concerned the free exercise of the duties of the Holy Office. There were not many things that could not be brought within this charmed circle and then a consulta was addressed to the monarch protesting that he could not refer it to Junta because its nature precluded its consideration by layman and it would be a violation of the secrecy of the Inquisition so that it had to be submitted to the Suprema alone which would make a verbal report to him. It was on record that in a case of this kind Philip II pledged his royal word that he and Don Cristóbal de Morcera alone should be admitted to the confidence and in 1645 Philip IV could only obtain from Arche Irenosa a verbal explanation. Thus between exclusive cognizance and inviolable secrecy the Inquisition realized the ideal of spiritual jurisdiction. It judged all and was judged by none. End of book 3 chapter 1 part 2 Book 3 chapter 2 of the history of the Inquisition of Spain volume 2 This is a LibriVox recording All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org The History of the Inquisition of Spain Volume 2 by Henry Charles Lee Book 3 Jurisdiction Chapter 2 The Regular Orders Over the laity this Jurisdiction of the Inquisition was complete No one was so high placed as to be exempt for heresy was a universal leveler Theoretically the king himself was subject to it for it was based on the principle of the supremacy of the spiritual over the temporal power. The piety of the Spanish monarchs prevented occasion for putting this to the test for we may safely reject its fables the stories concerning Juan a la Loca and Don Carlos But no station exempted him who was suspect in the faith from prosecution and from punishment if he was found guilty. In Valencia nobles who sought to protect their Morisco vassals from the raids of the Inquisition were tried as photos of heresy The most conspicuous of these being Don Sancho de Cordova Admiral of Aragon an ally to the noblest blood of Spain At age 73 he was compelled to abjure for light suspicion of heresy he was fined and confined in a convent where he died We shall have occasion to consider in detail the still more remarkable case of Don Geronimo de Villanueva pro notary of Aragon and favorite of both Olavades and Philip IV and even when the Inquisition was far gone in its decline we shall see how it took steps to assail Don Manuel de Godoy Prince of the Peace and all powerful favorite of Carlos IV With the exception of bishops of whom more hereafter the secular clergy were equally at the mercy of the Holy Office even when as we have seen in the bitter quarrels between the Tribunal of Mallorca and the clergy of the islands the latter obtained the protection of special papal briefs these exempted them only from the royal jurisdiction of the Inquisition and did not affect their liability in matters of faith against which they raised no protest The regular clergy however the members of the religious orders made long and persistent struggles to escape subjection preferring the milder discipline of their own prelates In the 12th to 13th centuries the monastic establishments had for the most part obtained exemption from Episcopal jurisdiction and were amenable only to the Holy See when the mendicant orders were organized in the 13th century they were likewise subject immediately to the Pope It is true that in 1184 Lucius III in his Verona Decree had abolished this immunity in matters of faith and had remanded in so far the regulars back to the Episcopal jurisdiction for as yet the Inquisition had not been thought of But when the mendicants claimed that this did not apply to their subsequently founded orders Innocent IV and 1254 subjected them to the Inquisition which by that time was in full operation Boniface VIII emphatically confirmed this even declaring that for heresy they were to be punished more severely than laymen as the spiritual Franciscans found to their cost under John the 22nd As inquisitors acted under delegation from the Pope there would be no question as to their jurisdiction over the regulars but in the case of the Dominican Meister Eckhart tried in 1327 by the Archbishop of Cologne it was settled that the Episcopal Inquisition also had cognizance Yet, about 1460 Pius II granted to the Franciscans the privilege of being tried only by the vicar general of their order and in 1479 VI in view of the inveterate hostility between Franciscans and Dominicans from which orders nearly all inquisitors were drawn prohibited those of one order from prosecuting members of the other Such was the situation when the Spanish Inquisition was founded conversos were numerous in orders and many were prosecuted Under Torquimada himself a Dominican the inquisitors were largely Dominicans and the Franciscans naturally claimed the privileges of the papal decrees of 1460 and 1479 When, in 1487 some observantine Franciscans were prosecuted Innocent VIII ordered their release and repeated the provisions of 1479 In the following year however by a motu proprio of May 17, 1488 he declared that none of the orders were exempt and especially mentioned the Cistercians, Dominicans and Franciscans Even before this Torquimada had treated the regulars as under his jurisdiction for though he had granted to the Geronamite prelates power to try some of their Freilace he revoked this May 3, 1488 and commissioned the inquisitors of Toledo to prosecute them In Rome the influence of the regular orders was great that of the growing Spanish power was steadily increasing and the contest between those opposing forces is seen in the fluctuating policy of the Holy See The motu proprio of 1488 remained in force for a considerable time but after the death of Ferdinand the Franciscans in 1517 obtained from Leo X the renewal of their old privileges which probably also included the Dominicans The Augustinians soon followed for a letter of the Suprema May 7, 1521 directs the tribunals in view of their privileges to be tried by their prelates to obtain from the superiors delegated power to act in their cases or to get a Freilace assigned to sit as assessor or to remit the cases to the Suprema as they deem best Apparently these exemptions were not always respected for Clement VII by a brief of January 18, 1524 emphatically confirmed the Franciscan privileges and ordered all their cases pending in the tribunals to be transferred within six days to the prelates of the accused So when in a brief of March 1915, 1525 he prohibited descendants of Jews and heretics from acquiring dignities in the observantine branch of the order he gave as a reason that the provincials are judges of their subjects It required but a few months to change all this The inquisition was restive under this restriction on its jurisdiction Inquisitor General Manrique in a letter of June 30, 1524 asserted that a revocation of the Augustinian privileges would be procured and he proved a true prophet The services of Charles V in stemming the tide of the Lutheran revolt were indispensable and his demands could not be refused A brief of April 13, 1525 subjected the prelates again to the inquisition but softened the blow by providing that the provincials should appoint assessors to sit with the tribunals in their cases This did not satisfy Spain and two months later a brief of June 16 subjected them absolutely to the inquisitor general That the inquisition thus obtained an exercised jurisdiction over the regulars is seen in an order by the Suprema July 18, 1534 requiring that it should be consulted and the testimony be submitted to it before proceedings were instituted against the fraile An order repeated June 10, 1555 and subsequently extended to all ecclesiastics In issuing this the Suprema evidently was unaware that some three weeks earlier there had occurred another shifting of the scales The frailates had not been idle The Franciscans and presumably the other orders had won a victory A brief of Clement VII June 23, 1534 recites the various exemptions granted by preceding popes to the Franciscans while numerous complaints showed that some inquisitors continued to prosecute them to their great perturbation and scandal wherefore it was ordered that whenever any of the frailates were suspected of heresy they must be remitted to their superiors for punishment notwithstanding all privileges granted to the Holy Office Confirmation of this was procured from Paul III November 8 of the same year but apparently these commands received slender attention for another confirmation was obtained December 15, 1537 With the addition that all cases pending in the inquisition must be surrendered to the superiors of the order within six days and all sentences and derogation of this were declared invalid Even this did not keep the inquisition in check and Paul issued March 6, 1542 another decree reciting cases in contempt of his orders wherefore all inquisitors in every part of the world were commanded under penalty of excommunication deprivation of benefits and disability for pre-ferment not to proceed against the frailies and to deliver up any who might be imprisoned All bishops and prelates were made executors of the brief with power to invoke the aid of the secular arm The rigor of these provisions is the measure of the resistance encountered and in singular contrast to them is the fact that but a fortnight later Paul by a brief of March 21st annulled all the exemptions of the mendicant orders in upper Italy and the island of chaos and subjected their members with the exception of bishops to the inquisition in matters of faith this put the Spanish inquisition at a disadvantage in comparison with the newly organized Roman congregation although its order of June 10th, 1555 above referred to would indicate that it paid but little attention to the papal utterances It fully recovered its lost ground however when the Holy See recognized that it was the only tribunal that could be relied upon to check the prevalent vise of solicitation or seduction in the confessional the principal offenders being Freyilles When as an experiment Paul IV in 1559 empowered the tribunal of Granada to prosecute these cases he withdrew all privileges and exemptions not only in this offense but in all heretical crimes he authorized the inquisitors to degrade the culprits and to deliver them to the secular arm for execution and the provisions of this brief were extended by Pius IV in 1561 to all tribunals in the Spanish dominions This rendered the inquisition master of the situation while at the same time the inclusion of solicitation among heretical crimes made the regular orders still more solicitous to escape from its jurisdiction The development of the Society of Jesus and the unbounded favor which it enjoyed with the Holy See introduced a new factor in the struggle In 1587 the inquisition discovered that the Jesuits claimed exemption The compendium of their privileges stated that Gregory XIII Vivae Vochis Oroculo on March 18, 1584 had conferred on their general with power of sub-delegation faculty for absolving his subjects from heresy even in cases of relapse Anyone knowing the heresy of another was therefore to denounce him to his superior and not to the inquisition And it was broadly asserted that the members were subject to no judge, episcopal or inquisitorial It was impossible for the inquisition to overlook such denial of its authority and it promptly ordered the suppression of the compendium and of all regulations incompatible with its jurisdiction giving rise to considerable correspondence with Rome The case which led to this proceeding is too suggestive not to deserve relation in some detail solicitation being subjected to the exclusive jurisdiction of the inquisition It became under the edict of faith the duty of everyone under heavy penalties to denounce to the nearest tribunal any case coming to his knowledge In 1583 the Jesuits of the College of Monterey in Galicia learned that one of their number the Padre Sebastian de Brivesca had been guilty of it with certain beotis and also of some Illuminist practices Padre Diego Hernandez was sent to Segovia to report the matter to Antonio Marin the Provincial of Castile To avert from the society disgrace of the prosecution of a member Hernandez was ordered to return and to get the evidence in legal shape so that Brivesca could be secretly tried and punished but Marin warned him that all consultation and action must be under pretext of confession so as to be covered by the seal Hernandez went back to Monterey and consulted with Padre Francisco Larata and Juan Lopez who said it was a dangerous business the case belonged to the inquisition and but for the seal of confession they would be bound to denounce Brivesca however damaging it might be to the society Profound secrecy was enjoined on the beotis Hernandez took the evidence to Marin gave it to him under the seal and was sent with it to Salamanca where it was submitted without names to the theologians of the Jesuit College They reported that the culprit must be denounced to the inquisition and that the beotis could not be absolved unless they denounced him but I'm being told that the society was involved they reversed their opinions Hernandez was sent to Monterey where he absolved the beotis while Marin imprisoned Brivesca obtained a partial confession gave him dismissory letters and the habit of a secular priest and sent him with a companion to Barcelona where he was shipped to Italy he had previously been guilty at Avila of the same practices Hernandez had dutifully obeyed orders but he was becoming thoroughly frightened he begged Marin to allow him to denounce the matter to the inquisition and was told that if through him harm came to the society he would be imprisoned for life in chains he persisted and then reports were spread that he was insane and possessed by the devil he was sent to the college at Oviedo where there was no inquisition and no means of communicating by post and for a year he was unable to discharge his conscience for the confessors were forbidden to absolve him unless he pledged submission to his superiors then promises were tried and he was told that whatever he asked for would be obtained for him from the general and he was further informed that the beotis had retracted their testimony How the inquisition obtained knowledge of the affair is not stated but it was probably through the garrulousness of the beotis who could not be kept from talking as soon as it obtained sufficient evidence it acted vigorously Marin, Larata and Lopez were imprisoned and put on trial in 1585 in the progress of the cause it was found that this was by no means the first time that Marin had defrauded the inquisition of its culprit Padre Cristobal de Trujillo had been guilty of the same offense and Marin had simply dismissed him from the society Also Padre Francisco de Rivera had repeatedly uttered heretical propositions for which some of the brethren demanded that he should be denounced to the inquisition but Marin dismissed him from the society and gave him money to be taken himself to Italy for all of which his defense was that he only obeyed the orders of the general the case was a clear one Marin and his colleagues were convicted but the inquisition had not the satisfaction of punishing them the society did not venture to question the jurisdiction of the inquisition but its influence at Rome was great and it probably had little difficulty in convincing 6th to the 5th that the interests of religion required the suppression of the scandal for which he had only to exercise his right of evoking the case to himself He did so in 1587 and when the Suprema tried its usual dilatory tactics the impetuous pontiff notified Cardinal Quiroga that if the prisoners and the papers were not surrendered forthwith he would be deprived of both the cardinal late and the inquisitor general ship Sixtus was not a man to be trifled with and the surrender was made The treatment of Bridesca, Trujillo and Rivera served to explain why the Frailes were so anxious to avoid the inquisitorial jurisdiction of which the familiars were so eager to avail themselves Description to the inquisition of the crime of solicitation naturally stimulated the desires of the Frailes to recover their exemption and Marcin's case rendered the Jesuits especially active A prolonged agitation in Rome was the result which finally took the shape of submitting to the congregation of the inquisition the question whether in this crime the jurisdiction of the Holy Office was exclusive or whether it was cumulative with that of the prelate depending on the first possession of the case The decision was made December 3, 1592 in the presence of Clement VIII declaring that the jurisdiction of the inquisition was exclusive that the prelates could not exercise it and that all members of the orders were bound to denounce offenders to the tribunals The victory of the inquisition was complete But the Pope expressed to the Suplema through a cardinal his desire that the inquisitors should exercise their functions with the prudence, circumspection, and moderation that would preserve the cult due to the sacrament of penitence and at the same time the good repute of the Frailes Still, the regulars could not be brought to submit to the jurisdiction of the inquisition And Paul V, by a brief of September 1, 1606, evoked to himself all pending cases and committed them to it at the same time decreeing that it should have the exclusive jurisdiction in all cases of suspected heresy Whenever, during a visitation, any member of an order was found to be suspected he was at once to be denounced and any superior refusing obedience was threatened with deprivation and perpetual disability Moreover, this decree was to be read in all chapters of the orders Even this was deemed insufficient and was supplemented November 7, with another prohibiting superiors under any pretext or custom from receiving denunciations or taking cognizance in any way of cases pertaining to the inquisition Every member, whether superior or subject, was required without consulting anyone to denounce to the inquisition or to the ordinary all who were suspected however lightly of heresy Some details in this would seem to point to the Society of Jesus as the Chief Recalcitrant And this is confirmed by a brief of Alexander VII, July 8, 1660 which condemns as pernicious and rash opinions calling in doubt the obligation to denounce and the pretext employed a fraternal correction to prevent denunciation Even the Company of Jesus is ordered to obey the Constitution of Paul V No superiors are to molest or oppress their subjects for performing this duty but must exhort them to it Disobedience is threatened not only with penalties provided by Paul V but with the deprivation of office the right of voting and being voted for perpetual disability and other punishments at the discretion of the Pope and removable only by him The decree is to be read annually on March 1st at the public table and notarial attestation of the fact is to be sent to the nearest tribunal or to Rome and a copy is to be posted where all can read it The Inquisition lost no time in publishing this and the decree of November 7th, 1606 in an edict commanding their observance and pointing out that the alternative of denunciation to the ordinary was invalid in Spain where the Inquisition had exclusive jurisdiction It further ordered that in all books where contrary opinions were taught there should be noted in the margin this opinion is condemned as pernicious and rash by our Holy Father Alexander VII No further papal utterances seem to have been asked for Indeed, there was nothing that the Holy See could add to these comprehensive decrees In time, however, they seem to have been conveniently forgotten for in 1732 Inquisitor General Juan de Camargo reissued them in an edict saying that some persons were ignorant or affected ignorance of the doctrines expressed in them wherefore he ordered them to be posted in the sacrosities of all churches with the announcement that all contraventions would be punished with the utmost rigor Of course it is impossible to say how many may have escaped prosecution through the indisposition of the orders to recognize the jurisdiction of the Inquisition but from the numbers who appear in the registers of the tribunals it is charitable to assume that evasion in this way was exceptional The completeness of the domination assumed by the Inquisition over religious orders is illustrated by its intervention in a matter which would appear wholly beyond any possible definition of its jurisdiction The internecine strife between the different bodies had long been an inextinguishable scandal The old hatred between Franciscans and Dominicans was inflamed to white heat by the quarrel over the immaculate conception The immense success of the Jesuits brought upon them the virulent enmity of the older communities which regarded them as upstarts and were repaid with interest The new moral philosophy of the probabilists was a fresh source of active discord These mutual antagonisms found free expression in the press the pulpit and the professional chair where the rivals derided and insulted each other to the grief of the faithful and the amusement of the godless The Inquisition appeared to be the only authority that could restrain the expression of the mutual wrath of the good fathers Though it might not be easy to define on what grounds it could claim authority on such a matter Scruples, as to this, however, rarely gave it concern and it undertook to affect what popes had repeatedly failed to accomplish March 9, 1634 The Suprema issued a decree which it printed and sent to all superiors with instructions to publish and make it known This recited the evils arising from the discord and rivalry between the orders Scandalous to the Christian people and dangerous as arising from the difference in the manners and customs of the various organizations To bring about peace and concord the Inquisitor General proposed to assemble a council of the superiors of all the orders and meanwhile rigorous proceedings were threatened against all who should provoke or foment these discords Any religious who, by writing or words or in sermons or lectures should insult another order or any of its members would incur major excommunication and be recluded in a convent in another district for a time proportion to the gravity of the offense and Morovo being incapable of holding any position in the Holy Office Superiors were charged to expurgate all offensive expressions in books written by their subjects before according the necessary license to print or if they had not the authority to do this they must refer the objectionable manner to the Suprema and this was binding on those deputed to examine the manuscripts The decree closed with a threat of rigorous punishment for all contravention of its provisions Whether the council indicated was ever assembled or whether any offender was ever punished under this decree does not appear but any effect which it may have produced was transient Old passions and hatreds remained as vehement as ever and the controversy over the claims of the Carmelites to have been found by Elijah furnished fresh material for acrimonious debate In spite of this failure the Inquisition maintained its claim to intervene and Equicitor General Valladades June 24 1688 issued another edict incorporating that of 1634 and deploring that the old quarrels had become more virulent than ever It was doubtful he said whether the previous utterances had been communicated to the orders outside of Madrid So a copy was ordered to be sent to every convent in Spain with orders to be posted in a conspicuous place and the threat that it would be rigidly enforced The belligerent ebullitions of the holy men were as little checked by this as by its predecessor and Inquisitor General Roguberte October 19 1698 took a further step by an edict in which he reprinted the previous ones and sent it to the tribunals with orders to publish it in all towns and have it posted on all church doors thus taking the public into confidence and proclaiming to it not only the disreputable conduct of the frayles but the powerlessness of the Inquisition to reduce them to order and decency In fact, the Inquisition eradicated Judaism it virtually expelled the Moriscos it preserved Spain from the missionary zeal of Protestantism but it failed ignominiously when it undertook to restrain the expression of aversion and contempt mutually entertained by Dominican and Franciscan Jesuit and Carmelite End of Book 3, Chapter 2