The History of the Inquisition of Spain from the Time of its Establishment to the Reign of Ferdinand Part 31

Spain regretted the death of Don Carlos, as the king had no other son.

By his third wife, Elizabeth or Isabella of France, he had only had two daughters, and that virtuous princess died of a miscarriage in the same year, 1568. This misfortune (and the bad opinion conceived by all Europe of Philip II., who was considered as a cruel and hypocritical prince) occasioned the imputation of having caused the queen's death. He was first accused of it by the Prince of Orange, and afterwards by many other persons. France had proofs of the contrary, since Charles IX. sent an amba.s.sador extraordinary to Madrid, with compliments of condolence to the king, who was really inconsolable for the loss of his expected heir. Juan Lopez del Hoyo, in 1569, published a faithful account of the illness and death of the queen; and some circ.u.mstances which he mentions seem incompatible with the use of poison, which is said to have occasioned her death. It is evident that the Prince of Orange suffered himself to be misled by hatred and revenge. The reality of a crime cannot be believed when neither the end nor motives for it can be perceived, and Philip was certainly interested in the queen's life. Some writers, after having supposed that the crime was committed, have endeavoured to discover the cause, and some romance-writers have thought that they discovered it in the pretended intrigue with Don Carlos.

Supposing it to be true, there are historical proofs that it could not have commenced till after his return from Alcala, and at that time he ardently wished to marry his cousin, Anne of Austria. This princess became the fourth wife of Philip, and the mother of his successor, Philip III.

Philip II., wis.h.i.+ng to commemorate the justice of his conduct towards his son, ordered that the writings of the trial, with the original, and translation from the Catalonian tongue of that of Don Charles, Prince of Biana, should be collected and preserved. Don Francis de Mora, Marquis de Castel Rodrigo, who became the king's confidant after the death of Rui Gomez de Sylva, in 1592, deposited these writings in a green coffer, which the king afterwards sent shut, and without a key, to the royal archives of Simancas, where it is still, if it has not been carried away by the order of the French government, as it has been reported in Spain.

CHAPTER x.x.xII.

TRIAL OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF TOLEDO.

One of the most ill.u.s.trious victims of the holy office was Don Bartholomew Carranza de Miranda, Archbishop of Toledo. The writings of the trial amount to twenty-four folio volumes, each containing one thousand or twelve hundred pages. This immense ma.s.s of writings must doubtless contain many facts unknown to Don Pedro Salazar de Mendoza, the author of the life of Carranza. This respectable writer spared no expense to discover the truth, but could not penetrate the mystery which envelopes the proceedings of the Inquisition. I have read this trial, which enables me to fill up the omissions of Salazar de Mendoza, and correct his involuntary errors.

Bartholomew Carranza was born in 1503, at _Miranda de Arga_, a little borough in the kingdom of Navarre: he was the son of Pedro Carranza, and grandson of Bartholomew, both members of the n.o.bility of Miranda. His true family name, consequently, was _Carranza_; but while he was a Dominican monk, he was only called Miranda. When he was made Archbishop of Toledo, he was named Carranza de Miranda, to prove the ident.i.ty: he, however, only signed the name Fray Bartholomeus Toleta.n.u.s, according to the custom of the times. The family of Carranza has been perpetuated to the eighteenth century, in the direct male line from Pedro, brother to the archbishop. At twelve years of age, Bartholomew, through the interest of his uncle Sancho de Carranza, a doctor in the university of Alcala de Henares, and the antagonist of Erasmus, was received into the College of St. Eugenius, which was dependant on the university. When he attained his fifteenth year, he pa.s.sed into the College of St. Balbina, to study what was then called _philosophy and the arts_, which was confined to some general ideas of logic, metaphysics, and physics. In 1520 he took the habit of a Dominican, in the Convent of _Venalec_, in the _Alcarria_, which was afterwards transferred to the city of _Guadalaxara_. As soon as he had professed, he was sent to study theology in the College of St. Stephen of Salamanca and in 1525 he was placed in that of St. Gregory of Valladolid.

A proof of the rapid progress of Bartholomew may be seen in his trial.

Fray Michel de St. Martin, a Dominican monk, and a professor in the same college at Valladolid, denounced him to the holy office, in 1530, deposing that, two or three years before, he had had several conversations with Carranza, on subjects concerning his conscience; that he had remarked that he limited the power of the Pope, relating to the ecclesiastical ceremonies; and that he had reprimanded him for so erroneous an opinion. Carranza was also denounced in 1530, by Fray Juan de Villamartin, as having been the ardent defender of Erasmus, even on the subject of the sacrament of penance, and the frequent confession of persons who are only in a state of venial sin; that having opposed to him the example of St. Jerome, he maintained that it was impossible to support the fact by the authority of any respectable ecclesiastical historian; that Carranza also said Erasmus ought not to be contemned, for saying that the Apocalypse was not the work of St. John the Evangelist, but of another priest, who bore the same name.

These denunciations were not made use of until the instruction of the trial of the archbishop was far advanced, when every method was employed to find materials for accusations; the _denunciations_ and _suspended trials_ were then looked over, and those above-mentioned were found.

They were noted as declarations of witnesses, under the numbers ninety-four and ninety-five; while, according to the dates, they ought to have been the first.

As these denunciations were not known out of the holy office, the rector and counsellors of the College of St. Gregory de Valladolid presented Carranza, in 1530, as a professor of philosophy; in 1534 he was appointed professor of theology, and soon after a qualifier to the holy office of Valladolid. In 1539 he was sent to Rome, to attend a general chapter of his order, where he was chosen to maintain the theses, which were only confided to persons capable of performing their duty well: the talents he displayed in these exercises obtained him the rank of Doctor and Master of Theology; and Paul III. permitted him to read prohibited books.

On his return to Spain, he professed theology, with the greatest success, in his College of St. Gregory. The harvest having entirely failed in the mountains of Leon and Santander in 1540, the inhabitants went to Valladolid in great numbers. Carranza not only maintained forty of these poor people in his college, but sold his books to a.s.sist others in the city, only retaining his Bible, and the _Summary_ of St. Thomas.

During this period he was continually occupied, either at the holy office as a qualifier, or at home in censuring books sent to him by the Supreme Council, or in preaching sermons at the _auto-da-fe_.

In the same year, 1540, Carranza was appointed Bishop of Cuzco, but he refused to go to South America, except as a preacher of the gospel. In 1544, Carranza was sent to the Council of Trent, as theologian to Charles V. He remained there three years, and it was there that Cardinal Pacheco (dean of the Spanish prelates who attended at the council) engaged him to preach on _justification_ before the Fathers. In 1546, he published at Rome one of his works, called _The Summary of Councils_; and another at Venice, of _Theological Controversies_. In 1547 he published a treatise _On the Residence of Bishops_, which created him many enemies, and which was attacked by Fray Ambrose Caterino, and defended by Fray Dominic de Soto, both Dominicans.

On his return to Spain, in 1548, he refused the appointment of confessor to Philip II., then prince of the Asturias, and in 1549 declined accepting the bishopric of the Canaries. He was elected in the same year prior of the Dominicans of Palencia, which he accepted. In 1550 he was made provincial of the Convents of Castile, and visited his province.

The Council of Trent being again convoked in 1651, Carranza was commanded by the emperor to attend it, and furnished with full powers by the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo; he a.s.sisted at the different a.s.semblies until 1552, when he was suspended the second time. Among the different commissions confided to him, was that of preparing an _Index_.

On his return to Spain, the period of his provincials.h.i.+p had expired, and he re-entered his College of St. Gregory of Valladolid.

The alliance between Philip II. and Mary, Queen of England, being fixed, Fray Bartholomew, in 1554, went to England in order to a.s.sist Cardinal Pole in preparing the kingdom to return to the Catholic faith. Carranza pa.s.sed the greatest part of his time in preaching, and succeeded in converting a great number of heretics. When the king left England to go to Brussels, Carranza remained with the queen, to whom he was useful in supporting the Catholic doctrine in the universities, and arranging other affairs of the greatest importance. He revised, by the order of Cardinal Pole, the canons which had been decreed by a national council, and caused several obstinate heretics to be punished, particularly Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Martin Bucer; his zeal often exposed him to great danger.

In 1557 he went to Flanders, where he caused all books infected with the heresy of Luther to be burnt. He did the same at Frankfort, and also informed the king that many of these books were introduced into Spain by way of Aragon. Philip, in consequence, gave the necessary orders to the inquisitor-general to intercept these works. In order to render this measure more effectual, Carranza drew up a list of suspected Spaniards who had fled to Germany and Flanders. The original copy of this list was found among his papers when he was arrested.

On the death of Cardinal Siliceo, Archbishop of Toledo, the king appointed Carranza to succeed him; he however refused to accept the dignity, and named Don Gaspard de Zuniga y Avellanada, Bishop of Segovia, Don Francis de Navarra, Bishop of Badajoz, and Don Alphonso de Castro, a Franciscan, as more worthy of the king's choice than himself.

He persisted in his refusal, until the king commanded him on his allegiance to accept the archbishopric: the original of this royal order was also found among the papers of Carranza. Paul IV. dispensed with the usual formalities; he was _preconised_ in a full consistory on the 16th December, 1557, and his bulls were expedited. Pedro de Merida, canon of Palencia, administrated until the arrival of the archbishop. The Inquisition of Valladolid afterwards prosecuted him for some letters which he had written to Carranza, and which were found among his papers; he was also implicated by Fray Dominic de Roxas, and by other accomplices of Dr. Cazalla.

The Archbishop Carranza was consecrated at Brussels on the 27th of February in the same year, by the Cardinal Granville, afterwards first archbishop of Malines. He published at Antwerp his Catechism in Spanish, under the t.i.tle of _Commentaries of the very Reverend Fray Bartholomew Carranza de Miranda, Archbishop of Toledo, on the Christian Catechism, in four parts_[65].

He afterwards returned to Spain, and a.s.sisted several times at the Councils of Castile and the Inquisition. About the middle of September he went to the monastery of St. Juste, to make a report to Charles V. of some affairs confided to him by Philip II., and to pay his respects to the emperor, who was then ill, and died two days after. An account has been given in the eighteenth chapter of what pa.s.sed at this visit. He then repaired to his archbishopric, where he remained six months, and then went to Alcala de Henares, with the intention of visiting his diocese. During the six months that he pa.s.sed in the capital, his conduct was exemplary, pa.s.sing his time in preaching, distributing alms, visiting the prisoners and the sick, and in causing prayers to be said for the dead. He employed himself in the same manner in all the places he pa.s.sed through, until he arrived at Torrelaguna, where he was arrested by the Inquisition on the 22nd of August. He was taken back to Valladolid, and imprisoned in a house belonging to the eldest branch of the family of Don Pedro Gonzalez de Leon, where Don Diego Gonzalez, an inquisitor, was appointed to guard him.

Carranza had made enemies of several bishops, when he published his treatise _On the Residence of Bishops_: the reputation which he acquired for learning in the Council of Trent, at the expense of several individuals who considered themselves superior to him, rendered them also his enemies, or at least his rivals. Of this number were Melchior Cano, who has been already mentioned; their rivalry was changed into open jealousy on his part, and on that of Fray Juan de Regla, when Carranza was appointed Archbishop of Toledo. This hatred became common to others, when, after refusing the archbishopric, Fray Bartholomew recommended the three persons before mentioned to the king: among them were Don Ferdinand Valdes, inquisitor-general; Don Pedro de Castro, Bishop of Cuenca, a son of the Count de Lemos; and a man of much greater merit, Don Antonio Augustine, Archbishop of Tarragona, who was the luminary of Spain in sacred literature. These persons endeavoured to conceal their sentiments, but their words and actions betrayed them.

Besides this princ.i.p.al motive for the conspiracy against the archbishop, we may be permitted to suppose another. Carranza had given a copy of his Catechism to the Marchioness d'Alcanices in several detached pieces; when it was printed, he distributed it as it came from the press.

The Marchioness d'Alcanices intrusted the work to several pupils or partisans of the archbishop, among whom were Fray Juan de la Pena, Fray Francis de Tordesillas, and Fray Louis de la Cruz; it was also read by Melchior Cano, who, in different conversations, plainly insinuated that it contained propositions tending to the Lutheran heresy. Don Ferdinand Valdes being informed of these circ.u.mstances, bought several copies of the Catechism, and sent them to persons with whose opinions he was well acquainted, desiring them to read it attentively, and to observe all that merited theological censure, but not to give their opinions in writing until they had again communicated with him. The persons he selected, were Fray Melchior Cano, Fray Dominic Soto, Fray Dominic Cuevas, the Master Carlos, and Fray Pedro Ibarra, provincial of the Franciscans.

This work was also sent to Don Pedro de Castro, Bishop of Cuenca; and it may be said that his reply, dated from Pareja, April 28, 1558, was the foundation of the trial of Carranza. It appears from the letter to the inquisitor-general, that he had requested to know the opinion of de Castro on the Catechism, and he informs him that he thinks it a dangerous work, promises to give him his reasons for it, and adds that the article on _justification_ tends towards Lutheranism. He says that having heard the author speak in the same manner at the Council of Trent, he had conceived a bad opinion of his doctrine, although he did not think that Carranza really held such erroneous sentiments. Don Pedro further says, that his present opinion is supported by facts, which he had already communicated to Doctor Andres Perez, a member of the Supreme Council.

It appears, by a paper signed by the same bishop, on the first of September, 1559, that his communications to the counsellor were confined to the following articles: that being present at a sermon preached by Carranza before the king in London, he observed that he spoke of the _justification of men by a lively faith in the pa.s.sion and death of Jesus Christ_, in terms approaching to Lutheranism; that Fray Juan de Villagarcia informed him that Don Bartholomew had preached the sermon in the preceding year at Valladolid, and that he then thought it reprehensible. The bishop adds, that he spoke to Carranza on the subject, and attributed his silence to humility; that at another time when he was preaching before the king, he said, that some sins were irremissible. At first he thought he had not understood him, but Carranza afterwards repeated the same proposition several times. The bishop concluded by stating, that in another sermon preached before the king, Don Bartholomew spoke of the indulgences granted by the bull of the Crusade, as if they might be bought for two rials (_ten pence_); and that he thought such language very dangerous to hold in England in the midst of heretics. All this accords with the declaration of Fray Angel del Castillo, after the arrest of the archbishop, who deposed that de Castro said that _Carranza had preached like Philip Melancthon_.

It appears from this statement, that Don Pedro de Castro did not feel any scruples until three years after his journey to London, and did not think himself obliged to denounce Carranza, until he had lost all hope of becoming Archbishop of Toledo; if Don Bartholomew had remained a single month, he would never have been accused. The inquisitor-general gave up the letter he had received from de Castro, to begin the proceedings, but he did not mention that which he had written himself, which shows that it was not official. The counsellor Don Andrea Perez neither deposed nor proved any of the facts related by the bishop, so that the declaration was not entered in the proceedings when the order for the arrest was issued; about a year and a half after, it was thought proper to supply the place of it, by the insertion of a writing signed by the bishop. The Court of Rome was astonished at the irregularity of the proceedings, when it received the writings of the trial.

Fray Juan de Villagarcia, being already imprisoned, in 1561, declared that he perfectly remembered hearing de Castro mention the sermon preached by Carranza in London, but not that he had been scandalized at it, or that he had said anything which could produce that effect.

Villagarcia said, that as the confidant of the archbishop, and having been employed to transcribe his works, he was more capable of defending the purity of his faith than any other person; and endeavoured to prove that there was none but Catholic propositions in his works.

It is evident that the trial originated in the malice of the inquisitor-general, which induced him to give the catechism to the enemies of Carranza: when he was informed by Cano of the existence of the propositions which caused the denunciation, he sent the work officially to him, and to the other _qualifiers_, Soto and Cuevas; but this did not take place till after some circ.u.mstances occurred, during the trials of several Lutherans, which seem to have caused that of Carranza, although the fact was entirely false. The inquisitor-general being informed that Carranza was intimate with the Marquises d'Alcanices and de Poza, many of whose friends and relations were in the prisons of the Inquisition, ordered the inquisitors of Valladolid to obtain information of the prisoners concerning the faith of the archbishop. A report was also spread, that several persons had discovered a similarity between the opinions of Carranza and Cazalla; which succeeded so well, that a partisan of Cano had the audacity to announce from the pulpit, when Cazalla was arrested, that an order had been issued to arrest the Archbishop of Toledo.

On the 25th of April, 1558, Donna Antoinia Mella deposed, that Christopher de Padilla had given her a MS. containing Lutheran doctrines, which he said was written by Carranza. This declaration was not communicated to the archbishop, because the work was composed by Fray Dominic de Roxas. On the 17th of the same month, Pedro de Sotelo made a similar declaration.

On the 29th of April, Donna Anne Henriquez d'Almanza deposed, that she asked Fray Dominic de Roxas if he should treat of points of doctrine with the archbishop, and that he said he should not, because Carranza had just written a book against the Lutherans. She added that she had heard Francis de Vibero say, that the archbishop would burn in h.e.l.l, because, knowing better than any person that the doctrine of Luther was orthodox, he had condemned several persons to the flames in England, for professing it. Francis de Vibero, on being interrogated, declared that he did not remember to have used these words, and that he thought it doubtful, because Carranza had always been a Roman Catholic.

Donna Catherine de Rios, prioress of the convent of St. Catherine, at Valladolid, deposed, on the 24th of April, that she heard Fray Dominic de Roxas say, that Don Bartholomew had declared that _he did not find any evidence of the existence of purgatory in the Holy Scriptures_: she added however, on the following day, that she was persuaded that Carranza did believe in purgatory, because he always exhorted his monks to perform ma.s.ses for the dead; she deposed, that having asked Donna Anne Henriquez, if the archbishop held the same opinion, that she did; she replied, that on the contrary he had written a book in refutation of them; that Donna Bernardina de Roxas told her that she had learnt from Fray Dominic, that the archbishop had advised him _not to suffer himself to be led away by his genius_; that Sabino Astete, canon of Zamora, a.s.sured her that he had heard Fray Dominic declare that he had the greatest compa.s.sion for Carranza, because he did not hold the same opinions as he did. This declaration was not communicated to the archbishop in the _publication of the depositions of the witnesses_, because it contained nothing against him. If these declarations had been made known to his defender, he might have derived great benefit from them.

Fray Dominic de Roxas being summoned on the proposition relating to purgatory, declared that Don Bartholomew had always spoken on that subject like a good Catholic.

Fray Juan Manuelez, a Dominican, deposed on the 18th October, 1560, that nine or ten years before, he conversed with Don Bartholomew concerning a Lutheran who was condemned to be burnt, but could not be certain whether the archbishop advanced the following proposition: _It is certain that the Holy Scriptures do not a.s.sure us that there is a purgatory_,--This witness makes his deposition a year after the arrest of the archbishop, and is not certain of the fact. Would he not have denounced him ten years before, if he had heard him speak in that manner?

On the 4th of May, 1559, Pedro de Cazalla deposed that in 1554 he heard Don Charles de Seso deny the existence of a purgatory, and repeat the proposition before Don Bartholomew Carranza, who appeared scandalized, but did not attempt to refute or denounce him. The deponent also said, that Fray Dominic de Roxas told him, that he had informed Carranza that he could not reconcile the doctrines of justification and purgatory, and he replied that _it would not be a great evil if there was no purgatory_; that having answered from the decision of the Church, his master said to him, _You are not yet capable of understanding this matter_.

Don Charles de Seso being interrogated on this subject on the 27th June, replied that Don Bartholomew had told him that he ought to believe in the existence of purgatory, and that if he was not obliged to depart, he would answer his arguments in a satisfactory manner; that Pedro Cazalla was the only person to whom he had communicated his conversation with Carranza; that he had reason to believe his present summons was occasioned by the declaration of Cazalla, who had not spoken the truth.

On the 20th and 23rd, Fray Dominic declared that Carranza had always spoken of purgatory like a good Catholic. Thus it appears that the declarations of Cazalla were proved to be false, before the order for an arrest was issued.

On the 7th of May, 1559, the inquisitor, William, remitted a letter from Carranza, in which he mentions Don Charles de Seso, and says that he did not denounce him, because he thought he had only been led into error; which was proved by the reply of Seso, when reprimanded by him, that he would only believe that which was really commanded by the Catholic religion, and that he then told him he could not do better.

Garcia Barbon de Bexega, an alguazil of the Inquisition of Calahorra, deposed on the 12th of May, that he arrested Fray Dominic de Roxas, when he endeavoured to fly from Spain, and that when conversing with him on the increase of the number of Lutherans, he asked if his master Carranza was of that sect; Roxas replied in the negative; that he was not going to seek him in Flanders for that reason, but to obtain from the king the favour of not being degraded. This declaration was not communicated to the archbishop in the _publication of the depositions_.

On the 13th of May, Fray Dominic de Roxas declared that Fray Francis de Tordesillas had expressed pity for him, when he heard him speak of _justification_, and make use of phrases in his discourses tinctured with Lutheranism; that this also happened to Carranza. Fray Francis, on being examined, deposed, that having copied several works of the archbishop, and translated others into Latin, for the Marchioness d'Alcanices and different persons, he had introduced a _preface_ into one MS., stating that the way to avoid falling into error in reading these works, was to understand in a Catholic sense some propositions on _justification_, which might be interpreted in a different manner; that all that Carranza had written was in the spirit of the Catholic religion; that he, deponent, knew his intentions to be pure, because he had seen him practise good works, and his sermons, conferences, and private life, perfectly accorded with the true principles of faith.

Donna Frances de Zuniga, deposed on the 2d of June, that Carranza had told her, that provided she was not in a state of mortal sin, she might approach the holy table without confessing; that on the 13th of July she heard Fray Dominic de Roxas say that Carranza thought as he did on some of Luther's opinions, but not on all; that the nuns of the convent of Bethlehem did not believe in purgatory, because Pedro Cazalla had told them that such was the opinion of Carranza. Fray Dominic, being summoned, made the depositions relating to purgatory above mentioned: he added, on the 21st of March, that Don Bartholomew always explained his propositions in a Catholic sense, and detested the Lutheran doctrine; and that if he, deponent, had always profited by these explanations, he would not have fallen into error. Pedro Cazalla being interrogated concerning the nuns of Bethlehem, replied that he did not remember to have spoken in that manner, but that he had concluded that such were the opinions of Carranza when he did not denounce Don Charles de Seso.

On the 13th of July the inquisitors seized all the books composed by Carranza in the house of the Marchioness d'Alcanices, who on the 28th deposed, that having read the _Commentaries on the Prophecies of Isaiah_, written by Carranza, she asked Fray Juan de Villagarcia from what book the author had taken so much erudition? Fray Juan replied that it was contained in a work of Luther, and that the book could not be confided to every person, because the good was too often mixed with evil in those authors. Fray Juan de Villagarcia being interrogated on this subject, replied that it was a work of _OEcolampadius_, and that the archbishop always kept it concealed; that it was true that he had taken from it materials for the treatise in which he explained the prophecies of Isaiah; but he was accustomed to say that no confidence could be placed in the heretical authors; that the archbishop had been seduced by them, but always defended the Catholic religion. It has been already stated that Paul III. granted him permission to read prohibited works; the brief was found among his papers.

On the 3rd of July, Elizabeth Estrada deposed, that Fray Dominic de Roxas had told her, that it depended upon Don Bartholomew to make her sister the Marchioness d'Alcanices adopt the errors of Luther, and that he hoped to see that event take place, because then the king and all Spain would embrace that religion. The deponent also said that Fray Dominic told her that Don Bartholomew had read the works of Luther. Fray Dominic, being examined, replied that he often spoke in that manner to the nuns who were of his opinions, and to other individuals of his society of Lutherans, adding that Carranza thought as he did on _justification_ and purgatory; that he (Roxas) composed an _Explanation of the articles of faith_, according to his own creed, and attributed it to Carranza, to give it more consequence; that he always said the archbishop approved the doctrine of Luther, to persuade those persons to persevere in the faith, but that he never said that Don Bartholomew had read the works of Luther, because he did not know that he had. The deponent declared that the changes in his situation induced him to confess the truth; that the archbishop had never adopted such doctrines, and that he always gave a Catholic meaning to those phrases which would bear a contrary interpretation.

On the 23rd of August, Fray Bernardin de Montenegro, and Fray Juan de Meceta, (both monks of the convent of St. Francis, at Valladolid,) voluntarily denounced a sermon, which was preached by the archbishop two days before, in the convent of St. Paul, and in which he used some expressions similar to those employed by the heretics. He also said, that converted heretics should be treated with clemency, and that persons were sometimes called heretics, illuminati, or quietists, merely because they were seen on their knees before a crucifix, and smiting their b.r.e.a.s.t.s with a stone: he invoked the authority of St. Bernard, to support his last proposition, which (according to the denouncers) did not agree with what he had advanced. The sermon being afterwards found among the papers of the archbishop, was examined by the qualifiers, and did not appear to contain any proposition deserving of censure. Yet the inquisitors presumed to demand officially of the princess Jane, governess of the kingdom, what she thought of the sermon; the princess had the complaisance to reply, that she only remembered to have heard some propositions which appeared to her to be improper.

On the 25th of the same month, Ferdinand de Sotelo denounced Don Bartholomew, for having said in the presence of Pedro de Sotelo, his brother, and Christopher Padilla, that if he had a notary with him when he was dying, he would desire him to draw up an act of _renunciation of all his good works_. Pedro and Christopher declared that they did not remember that they had repeated this to Ferdinand de Sotelo. But Fray Dominic de Roxas deposed, during the torture, on the 10th of September, 1559, that he thought he remembered being once in the village of Alcanices, and hearing Don Bartholomew say, that at the point of death he should wish to have a notary, to draw up an act of renunciation of the merit of his good works, because he relied solely on those of Jesus Christ, and that he considered his sins as nothing, because Jesus had expiated them; Dominic added, that Don Louis de Roxas, his nephew, related the same thing, as having occurred at his return from Flanders in the king's suite, and that all these expressions did not make him consider the archbishop as a Lutheran, but as a good Catholic; because the heretics denied that the good works of the creature could expiate sin, and attributed the expiation to the merits of Jesus Christ, while Carranza only a.s.serted, that the expiation by the good works of a sinner was so little when compared with the infinite merits of our Redeemer, that the sinner might regard them as nothing if he fervently prayed for the application of the merits of our Saviour dying on the cross. There seems to be no doubt that Fray Dominic was the author of the denounced proposition; he explained it to the advantage of the accused during the torture.

On the 8th of September, Fray Dominic declared that Don Bartholomew had said, that the expression, _say the ma.s.s_, was not exact; that it would be more correct to say _perform the ma.s.s_, from the Latin, _facere rem sacram_, and that he used this expression in the pulpit and in his writings. This accusation was certainly not sufficient to authorize a decree of arrest.

On the 23rd of September, Doctor Cazalla declared, that ten or twelve years before, he heard Fray Dominic de Roxas say, that Don Bartholomew held the doctrines of the Lutherans. Fray Dominic on being examined denied the fact, but afterwards, on being tortured, confessed, that he had often declared that Don Bartholomew believed in the doctrines of the Lutherans, to give weight to his own opinions, and acknowledged that he did not speak the truth.

The same Doctor Cazalla (being examined on the evidence of Donna Francis de Zuniga, who said he had instructed her in the doctrine of Luther) declared, that Donna Frances, and her brother Juan, had told him, that they were instructed by Don Bartholomew. The brother and sister denied the fact, and Cazalla being tortured, retracted his declaration.