war, over
the Protestants of Germany; greater than any which had been won by the
arms of Cortes or Pizarro in the New World. Their contest had been with
the barbarian; the field of Philip's labors was one of the most potent
and civilized countries of Europe.

The work of conversion was speedily followed by that of persecution. To
what extent Philip's influence was exerted in this is not manifest.
Indeed, from anything that appears, it would not be easy to decide
whether his influence was employed to promote or to prevent it. One fact
is certain, that, immediately after the first martyrs suffered at
Smithfield, Alfonso de Castro, a Spanish friar, preached a sermon in
which he bitterly inveighed against these proceedings. He denounced them
as repugnant to the true spirit of Christianity, which was that of
charity and forgiveness, and which enjoined its ministers not to take
vengeance on the sinner, but to enlighten him as to his errors, and
bring him to repentance.[122] This bold appeal had its effect, even in
that season of excitement. For a few weeks the arm of persecution seemed
to be palsied. But it was only for a few weeks. Toleration was not the
virtue of the sixteenth century. The charitable doctrines of the good
friar fell on hearts withered by fanaticism; and the spirit of
intolerance soon rekindled the fires of Smithfield into a fiercer glow
than before.

Yet men wondered at the source whence these strange doctrines had
proceeded. The friar was Philip's confessor. It was argued that he would
not have dared to speak thus boldly, had it not been by the command of
Philip, or, at least, by his consent. That De Castro should have thus
acted at the suggestion of his master is contradicted by the whole tenor
of Philip's life. Hardly four years elapsed before he countenanced by
his presence an _auto da fe_ in Valladolid, where fourteen persons
perished at the stake; and the burning of heretics in England could have
done no greater violence to his feelings than the burning of heretics in
Spain. If the friar did indeed act in obedience to Philip, we may well
suspect that the latter was influenced less by motives of humanity than
of policy; and that the disgust manifested by the people at the
spectacle of these executions may have led him to employ this expedient
to relieve himself of any share in the odium which attached to
them.[123]

What was the real amount of Philip's influence, in this or other
matters, it is no