whom they had seen baptized.' At the same time he was prosecuting those on whom he could lay his hands. In October, 1523, the fragment of a trial of Haçan, son of En Catola, otherwise Jeronimo, shows that the case turned on the proof of his being among the Moors who were baptized at Játiva. In November testimony is being taken against Haxus, a Moorish girl, whose father and mother must also have been on trial for they testified that they and all their eight children had turned Christians and had then lived as Moors. Haxus said that she had never gone to mass, for fifteen days she had lived neither as Christian nor Moor and then had returned to Moorish ways in which she intended to persevere, but on December 18th she weakened and begged for mercy. There was no disposition to be harsh with such cases and under instruction from the Suprema she was simply penanced by being required to go for two months to the church of San Juan, to give some alms and to learn the Catholic prayers. A reference in the sentence, moreover, to absolution being temporary until an expected brief of the pope is received shows that the perplexities of the situation were recognized and that application had been made to the Holy See for a remedy. It would further appear that Cardinal Adrian adopted the policy of a wise toleration which, after his elevation to the papacy, the advocates of the Moriscos argued amounted to a dispensation for their apostasy.3

1 MS. Informacio.-Danvila, Germanía, p. 473.

2 Archivo Histórico Nacional, Inquisicion de Valencia, Legajo 299, fol. 400.-Danvila, p. 474.

3 Loazes, Tractatus super nova paganorum Regni Valentia Conversione, col. 12 (Valentiæ, 1525).—"Et quod summi pontificis dispen

The situation, in fact, was quite sufficiently complex. In Granada and the Castilian kingdoms, enforced con-) con-X version had been universal. Every Moor had, construc tively at least, become a Morisco or convert and could be legally held to the consequences, but in Valencia conversion had been partial and tumultuous, records were lacking and no one knew what part of the population was Moorish and what part was technically Christian, nor even whether, in any given case, the sacrament so hurriedly and irregularly administered had been rightfully performed. The simplest solution which offered itself seemed to be to complete the work so auspiciously commenced and to convert the whole Moorish population, and for this purpose missionaries were sent to try the art of persuasion, while the opposition of the nobles was averted by conceding that their rights over their Moorish vassals should not be impaired by conversion and that converts should not be allowed to change their domicile.' The most prominent of these missionaries was the wellknown humanist, Fray Antonio de Guevara, subsequently Bishop of Guadix and then of Mondoñedo, who, in a letter of May 22, 1524, says that by command of the emperor

satio intervenerit patet; nam summus pontifex Adrianus, dum in istis Aragoniæ partibus resideret et plenam notitiam dicti baptismi sic violenter recepti et qualiter pagani postea cessante violentia ad primævos ritus redierunt haberet, visus fuerit eos tollerando et aliter non providendo super eorum tollerantiam cum eisdem dispensare.”

Adrian, after his election to the papacy, January 9, 1522, remained in Spain until August 4th, without resigning his office as inquisitorgeneral.

1 Danvila, Germanía, p. 489.

The nobles derived from the Moors double the imposts and revenues that they could from Christians.-Sandoval, Historia de Carlos V., Lib. XIII.

xxviii.

he had labored for three years in Valencia, during which he had done nothing but dispute in the aljamas, preach in the Morerias and baptize in the houses, besides suffering many insults. He reveals one of the secrets which

go far to explain the ill-success of the Spaniards in their efforts to win the Moors to Christianity, for he tells the friend to whom he is writing that, after great labor and the opposition of the whole Morisma of Oliva, he had converted and baptized the honored Cidi Abducarim after which his friend had called Cidi a dog of a Moor and an infidel. When he reproved his friend the latter made matters worse by saying that in his country it was an old custom to call all new converts Moors or Marranos —a term of infinite contempt. Guevara points out to him the evils resulting from this and the depth of insult which it conveys, as it infers perjury, treachery and apostasy.1

Not only thus was there uncertainty as to the baptism of individuals but the question was raised as to the validity of the sacrament as administered under the terrorism of the Agermanados. In Granada the Moors had been rebels and their conversion was a condition agreed to on pacification. In Castile there had been the simple edict of expulsion with a tacit understanding that it would not be enforced on those who asked for baptism. In Valencia however the sovereign was under a solemn oath that no compulsion should be employed; the Agermauados had themselves been rebels and as soon as their

1 Ant. de Guevara, Epistolas familiares, pp. 639-42 (Madrid, 1595). Charles V. in the Edict of Granada, 1526, forbade the mutual calling each other dogs under penalty for a Morisco of ten days' imprisonment and for a Christian of six days, with double for a second offence. -Nueva Recop. Lib. VIII. Tit. ii. ley 13.

power was withdrawn the Moors had universally treated the baptism as invalid and had returned to the rites of their fathers, while the Inquisition had assumed its validity and had prosecuted such apostates as it could reach. A discussion inevitably arose both as to the validity of enforced baptism, the degree of coercion exerted in the present case and the sufficiency of the rite so hastily and irregularly performed.

It was a principle of the Church, handed down from primitive times, that the faith is not to be spread by force or violence. It was also a dogma that the sacrament of baptism impresses an indelible character; that the neophyte belongs irrevocably to the Church. Even before Christianity had so lost its early purity as to render compulsory conversion possible, St. Augustin, in his controversy with the Donatists over the question of the integrity of the sacraments in unworthy hands, had asserted that the belief and intention of him who is baptized has much to do with his salvation but has nothing to do with the validity of the sacrament. A further step was taken when the Spanish Goths undertook to persecute their Jews into Christianity; they formulated the policy which became current in the Church—that the Jews ought not to be coerced to baptism but that when baptized in whatever fashion they were to be forced to remain in the Church lest the name of the Lord be blasphemed and their adopted faith be rendered contemptible—a hideous principle which was duly carried through the canons and served as a justification for vitiating in practice the essential genius of Christianity and as an excuse for unnum

1 S. Augustini de Baptismo, Lib. III. cap. xiv.

1

bered horrors. In the repeated papal instructions to the early inquisitors to treat as heretics all Jews and Saracens who had been converted and relapsed, there is no exception in favor of those whose conversion had been coerced, and Boniface VIII., while pretending to exempt those whose coercion had been absolute, took care to define that the fear of death is not such coercion, a decision which was embodied in the canon law.2 When the schoolmen came to reduce these incongruities to a system they discovered that there were two kinds of coercion, conditional or interpretative and absolute, and that coerced volition is still volition, while their definition of conditional coercion was so elastic that there was nothing left for absolute save that if a man were tied hand and foot and was baptized in that condition while uttering protests, the baptism would be invalid.3 The sacrament thus

1 Concil. Toletan. IV. ann. 633, cap. 57.—Ivonis Decret. P. 1. cap. 276. Gratiani Decret. P. I. Dist. xlv. cap. 5.

2 Gregor. PP. X. Bull. Turbato corde, ann. 1273; Nicholai PP. IV. Bull. Turbato corde, ann. 1288; Gregorii PP. XI. Bull. Admodum, ann. 1372 (Bullar. Roman. I. 155, 159, 263).-Cap. 13 in Sexto, Lib. v. Tit. ii.

3 Hostiensis Aurea Summæ Lib. III. de Baptismo 11; Lib. v. de Judæis 5.-S. Th. Aquin. Summæ P. III. Q. lxviii. Art. 8 ad 4; Q. lxix. Art. 9 ad 1.-S. Bonaventura in IV. Sentt. Dist. IV. P. i. Art. 2, Q. 1.-S. Antonini Summæ P. II. Tit. xii. cap. 2, 1.--Summa Sylvestrina s. v. Baptismus IV. ? 10.-Loazes, Tractatus, col. 14. Albertus Magnus, however, admits that a protest uttered at the time of baptism invalidates it (In IV. Sentt. Dist. VI. Art. 10). Duns Scotus agrees with this and adds that internal opposition prevents the reception of the sacrament although the Church assumes consent and coerces the convert to the observance of the faith (In IV. Sentt. Dist. IV. Q. 4, 5). Towards the end of the fifteenth century Angiolo da Chivasso admits that the question is doubtful and that some doctors deny validity under coercion (Summa Angelica s. v. Baptismus VI. ?? 6, 12).