A History of the Inquisition of Spain; vol. 3

by Henry Charles Lea

The ceremony of public formal degradation was impressive. The culprit marched in the procession bearing the mitre and sanbenito of relaxation, which were removed on the staging in order that he might be seen in his priestly vestments and tonsure. In the case of Fray Joseph Díaz Pimiento, a relapsed Judaizer, burnt at the Seville auto de fe of July 25, 1720, we are told that an immense crowd was assembled, for no degradation had been witnessed there since 1623. The auto was celebrated in the church of San Pablo but, as soon as Fray Joseph’s sentence was read, he was taken by a number of officials to a scaffold in the Plaza de San Francisco, where the Bishop of Lycopolis, the assistant of the archbishop, performed the ceremony. His tongue, the palms of his hands and finger tips were scraped and rubbed with tow, the tonsure was erased by cutting his hair and he was deprived of his orders one by one in the reverse order of their bestowal. He was then handed over to his superiors of the Mercenarian Order, who stripped him of the habit, after which the mitre and sanbenito with painted flames were replaced on him and he was taken to the juzgado, or secular court, and delivered to the deputy Assistente of the city to be formally sentenced and conducted to the brasero.[527]

CHAPTER IV.
THE STAKE.

THE condemnation of a human being to a death by fire, as the penalty of spiritual error, is so abhorrent to the moral sense and so oppugnant to the teachings of Christ, that modern apologists have naturally sought to relieve the Church from responsibility for such atrocity. On the surface a tolerably plausible argument can be made. The ministers of religion, the spiritual courts, the Inquisition itself rendered no judgements of blood. Any ecclesiastic who might be concerned in them incurred “irregularity” requiring a dispensation before he could validly perform his functions or obtain preferment. The execution of heretics was a matter purely of secular law and burning them alive is not prescribed in canon or decretal. The earliest recorded example of concremation is that administered by Robert the Pious of France to the Cathari of Orleans in 1017, and its embodiment in positive law has not been found earlier than in the decrees against Waldenses by Pedro II of Aragon in the Council of Gerona in 1197. In 1231 Frederic II included it in the Sicilian Constitutions and, in 1238, by his Cremona decree, extended it throughout the empire, while Alfonso the Wise of Castile, in 1255, adopted it for Christians who turned Jews or Moors.[528] It thus became part of the public law of Christendom, not so much from the initiative of rulers, as from a recognition of what had become a custom through the spontaneous ferocity of popular fanaticism.

The Inquisition, through whose agency heretics were consigned to the stake, did not itself condemn them to it, but merely pronounced them to be heretics of whose conversion no hope was entertained; it cut them off from the Church, which had nothing further to do with them, and abandoned or “relaxed” them to the secular arm for due punishment. It assumed that it condemned the crime and the civil judge the criminal and, in relaxing him, it adjured the judge to spare his life and not to spill his blood. This latter was a device invented by Innocent III, before the Inquisition existed, to preserve from irregularity the spiritual courts in degrading clerics guilty of forgery and handing them over to the secular authorities for execution.[529]

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHURCH

This shifting of responsibility to the civil power was not through any sense that the laws punishing heresy with burning were cruel or unjust, for the Church taught this to be an act so eminently pious that it accorded an indulgence to any one who would contribute wood to the pile, thus assuming the responsibility and expending the Treasure of the Merits of Christ in stimulating popular ferocity. That this indulgence was well known in Spain appears in the evidence in the trial of Jan of Antwerp for Lutheranism at Toledo in 1561.[530] In fact, when Luther argued that the burning of heretics was contrary to the will of the Spirit, Leo X included this among his heresies condemned in the bull Exsurge Domine.[531] Consequently the secular power had no choice as to what it should do with heretics delivered to it; its act was purely ministerial, and if it listened to the hypocritical plea for mercy, it was liable to prosecution as a fautor of heresy and to deprivation of its functions.[532] The Church enforced this by embodying in the canon law a provision that princes and their officials must punish duly and promptly all heretics delivered to them by inquisitors, under pain of excommunication, which became heresy if endured for a year; and inquisitors were required to proceed against them, but were cautioned to speak only of executing the laws, without alluding to the death-penalty, in order to escape irregularity.[533]

As elsewhere, so in Spain. The Inquisition abandoned the unrepentant or relapsed heretic to the secular arm, which was bound to sentence and execute him. In the hurried informality of the early period, it seems to have been indifferent whether the magistrate pronounced a sentence or not. A contemporary account of the Toledo auto of August 14, 1486, describes the reading of the sentences of the inquisitors and the condemned being carried at once to the Vega for execution, where they were burnt till not a bone remained, without any allusion to the formality of intervention by the secular power.[534] When, however, the form of a condemnation by the alcalde was observed, as at Córdova in 1484, he uttered it by virtue of the sentence of the inquisitors, which rendered unnecessary anything more than condemning the culprit to be burnt alive, wherefore he ordered the alguazil mayor to carry it into effect.[535] In the inquisitorial sentences of the period the adjuration for mercy is generally lacking. In that of Mencia Alonso, condemned at Guadalupe, November 21, 1485, not only is it absent but the duties of the secular officials are treated as purely ministerial, for it ends “As a limb of the devil and accursed and excommunicate, she shall be taken to the place of burning so that by the secular justice of this town, or by other laymen, justice shall be executed upon her according to the custom of these kingdoms.”[536]

That the function of the magistrate was not judicial is manifested in the refusal to communicate the trial to him. When those of Brescia, in 1486, refused to execute the sentences of the inquisitor without seeing the trials, Innocent VIII ordered the inquisitor to excommunicate them if they delayed more than six days, no matter what the local laws might be, for heresy was a purely ecclesiastical crime.[537] In accordance with this is the assertion of the Repertorium de Pravitate Hæreticorum, printed at Valencia in 1494, that the magistrate has no right to have the process shown to him that he may judge as to the justice of the sentence; inquisitors are not to concede any such right, for his sole duty is to execute it without delay, and if he hesitates he is subject to deprivation of office and condemnation as a heretic.[538] This principle was fully admitted by secular jurists themselves. Torreblanca, who was attached to the royal Chancellery of Granada, states that the duty of the civil magistrate is purely executive and he has no right to examine into the merits of a case or to act in a judicial capacity.[539]