* AHN, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 223, no. 42, Proceso contra Juan de Vergara. This document consists of 387 numbered folios, followed by 38 unnumbered folios, all of it arranged haphazardly, without regard to chronology. It has been summarized elsewhere, from differing perspectives, by Marcel Bataillon, Erasmo y Espana, Mexico, 1950, vol. 2, pp. 13-52, and by Manuel Serrano y Sanz, "Juan de Vergara y la inquisicion de Toledo," in Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, V (1901), pp. 896-912, and VI (1902), pp. 29-42, 466-486.

Chapter One
The Depositions of 1530

(Note: Quotations from the manuscript are in italics)

Testimonies of Francisca Hernandez
July, 1530 - December, 1530
(58r-70v; 7r-8v)

Toledo, July 27, 1530

Francisca Hernandez said that ... many times she heard Bernardino de Tovar, in conversation with her and other persons, say that he took no care to pray at all and that he regularly said mass without praying, claiming it was not necessary to pray and he thought nothing of it. This witness told him that was wrong, that he should not do such things and that he ought to pray, and that if he did not, this witness would not listen to his masses. Despite the fact that she always told him this, Tovar persisted in his opinion and was very aggravated with her for rebuking him, and this witness never saw Tovar pray.

She said that Tovar also held the very decided opinion, which this witness heard him express, that oral prayer was not necessary and that mental prayer was sufficient. Sometimes he expressed this opinion, and this witness noticed it and rebuked him for it.... Despite her rebukes, Tovar always held to his opinion. She said that ... sometimes she heard Tovar say it was not necessary to confess one's bad thoughts. This witness rebuked him for it many



times, citing as authority the evangel where it says (Matthew, 5:28) "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. " Despite this, Tovar persisted in his opinion.

     She said that another thing she heard Bernardino de Tovar say... was that he considered Luther's teachings, or most of them, to be very good ... and Tovar carried with him some Lutheran tracts. She particularly heard him say that in what he said about the bulls granted by our holy father to faithful Christians, alive and dead, from the treasury of the Church, Luther spoke truly when he called them a joke. When Tovar repeated this he laughed mockingly and said, "Are they trying to make me believe that when the money clinks in the chest, the spirit leaves Purgatory, or that those indulgences help faithful Christians? " In his talk Tovar showed that he favored the person of Luther and most of his opinions. This witness scolded Tovar for this and rebuked him severely but Tovar, despite her rebukes, held to his opinions.

     Asked for how long it seemed to her that Tovar had subscribed to these opinions, she replied that from the time she first met him until she stopped talking with him, which would be for about three years, she always knew him to hold to these opinions very tenaciously.

   She said that Doctor Vergara, brother of the said Bernardino de Tovar, likewise held to and favored the opinions of Luther as very good and he said that except for Luther's rejection of confession which seemed wrong to him -- all the other opinions of Luther seemed very good to him. This witness also believes the said Doctor Vergara had some writings of Luther's because she heard him say so.

   Asked if there were any other persons present when the above mentioned Bernardino de Tovar and Doctor Vergara said the above, she replied that there were always other persons present but she does not now recall who they were. However, when Doctor Vergara said the above, there were present friar Gil (Lopez de Bejar) of the Franciscan order and a companion of his whose name she believes was friar Moreno, preacher, and she believes that Pedro de Cazalla, citizen of Val/ado lid, was also present, although she does not recall too clearly.


Asked if she remembers that the said Doctor Vergara uttered any particular propositions and opinions of Luther or of his brother Tovar .., she said that he held the same opinions as his brother Bernardino de Tovar in the matter of bulls and indulgences of our holy father, mocking them just as does his brother. There were read to her one by one the condemned propositions held by the dejados and alumbrados (i.e., Illuminists) and she declared as follows. (1)

4. That God entered into a man's soul more fully than He appeared in the Host, if the man behaved as he should, because the Host was a small amount of flour, whereas man was created in God's likeness.

In regard to this fourth proposition, she said she knows that Bernardino de Tovar held this to be certain and true, because she heard him say it many times, saying that God entered more perfectly and fully into a man's soul than He did into the Host. This witness often rebuked him for this, but he always persisted in his opinion.

7. He referred to those who wept over their sins as penance seekers, wrapped up in themselves, and as crybabies ("lloraduelos").

1. In their questioning of a cooperative witness like Francisca Hernandez the inquisitors did not hesitate to prompt her by reading to her the propositions condemned in the edict of 1525 against the Illuminists. Her replies were then included in the charges against Vergara in such a way as to indicate that they were spontaneous denunciations by the witness. Vergara, in his lengthy defense of March 6, 1534, was not fooled by this device, and pointed out that Francisca had been prompted in just this way by her questioners. Inserted in the text above are the propositions from the original edict to which, according to Francisca Hernandez, Tovar and/or Vergara subscribed.


In regard to the seventh proposition, she said she heard Tovar speak of those who wept for their sins as crybabies, making (un of them and saying that God wanted none of that, but only good intentions.

8. That confession is not of divine, but of positive law.

     In regard to the eighth proposition, she said she knows that Tovar maintained that confession was not of divine law, but of positive law, because she heard him say so and this witness rebuked him for it.

9. That the Love of God in man is God.

     In regard to the ninth proposition, she said she heard Tovar say that he who loves God is God and he maintained that God is charity, etc., and this witness rebuked him for it.

13. That the exterior acts of prayer serve no purpose and are not necessary and that to perform them is imperfection ... and that when speaking of exterior works a certain person said that it was all the same to him whether he said mass or did not say mass, whether he prayed or did not pray.

     In regard to the thirteenth proposition, she said that Tovar said the exterior acts of prayer serve no purpose and are not necessary and that to perform them is imperfection. It seems to her that he also said it mattered little to him whether he said mass or did not say mass, whether he prayed or did not pray... and she rebuked him (or this.

28. That there was no need of bulls.

     In regard to the twenty-eighth proposition, she said she has already declared how Tovar and his brother Doctor Vergara mocked and joked about bulls and indulgences.


     Asked if she heard Tovar say any things other than what she has declared, she replied that it seems to her Bernardino de Tovar doubted there was a Purgatory, and this witness rebuked him for all these things.

     Asked if she knows that Bernardino de Tovar told any persons they should believe and hold the opinions which he held, she said she remembers that some persons told her how Bernardino de Tovar had instructed them not to pray, and that those who told her this were people whom Tovar used to send to her from Alcala so they might talk with this witness.

(She reaffirmed her earlier statement that Tovar taught) that God wanted love from us and that we should not get tied down to these exterior things, which had been provided for the imperfect, because by loving God one would be giving himself to God more completely than he would by eating meat or fish.

(She said) that she certainly looks upon Tovar as an Illuminist tram what she knows of him and that he is a man prepared to do harm wherever people may give credence to these things, because despite all the rebukes of this witness, she could not dissuade him from the above mentioned opinions. Asked if she heard Bernardino de Tovar say he had any works of Luther's, she said it seems to her she heard him say that his brother Doctor Vergara had certain of Luther's works.

     Asked if she has any recollection that Doctor Vergara held to other propositions besides those she has already declared and if he held to the opinions and propositions to which she said Bernardino de Tovar held, she said she does not recall any particular propositions which Vergara held and so cannot say exactly, but she believes that the said Doctor Vergara holds and believes the same opinions which she has declared against his brother Bernardino de Tovar, because this witness so gathered from the words spoken to her by Doctor Vergara. Further, she said, Doctor Vergara greatly favored Lutheran things, approving both of Luther's person and his teachings. At present she does not recall anything else except that she remembers Doctor Vergara held the same opinion as his brother Bernardino de Tovar when he said that oral prayer was not necessary.


Toledo, August 16, 1530

     She recalls that Bernardino de Tovar used to say that ceremonies connected with mass were superfluous, that consecration alone was sufficient, and that the latter could be performed while people were seated or in any position whatever, and that the other ceremonies were gimmicks of the friars ("cosas frailescas "). This witness rebuked him severely and scolded him, telling him that all those ceremonies were ordained by the Holy Spirit and were in remembrance of the Passion of our lord Jesus Christ ... but Bernardino de Tovar, despite her rebukes, snapped his fingers and remained in his opinion.

     She said she remembers hearing Bernardino de Tovar and his brother Doctor Vergara say there were two superfluous saints in the world who were of little service to God. One was the santa inquisicion and the other was the santa cruzada, and they mocked and joked about them both. This witness severely rebuked them about the cruzada because it seemed to her that such talk would take away the sense of devotion of simple people. She had also rebuked them for their remarks about the santa inquisicion, but not with such special emphasis (as she used in regard to the santa cruzada) because at that time she did not appreciate - as she now does - the great goodness of the Inquisition. Despite her rebukes, Tovar and Vergara always kept to their opinion.

     Asked if she remembers which persons were present when the above mentioned (Tovar and Vergara) made the above statements, she replied that other persons were always present, but she does not now recall anyone except Pedro de Cazalla, who was present on most of the occasions when Doctor Vergara came to this witness' home (in Valladolid). Also, her maids Maria Ramirez and Inez Lopez were always present.

Toledo, September 22, 1530

      Francisca Hernandez, beata, prisoner in the jail of this Holy Office ... said that about four years ago, in Valladolid, she was talking with Miguel de Eguia, the printer of Alcala, about the Illuminists. Miguel de Eguia praised them greatly, saying that not without reason were


they called Illuminists, because they were illuminated in order to serve God, and those who persecuted them were not Christians. He also said ... he would give his soul and property and all he had for them. Among the many other erroneous things which this witness heard him say was that there was no Purgatory. When this witness rebuked him, Miguel de Eguia replied, "Say whatever you wish; the whole world won't change my opinion." He also expressed doubt that there was a Hell. This Miguel de Eguia used to confess to Tovar.

     (She said) Miguel de Eguia greatly praised the clerics Juan Lopez (de Calain) Diego Lopez (Husillo) and Tovar, and she heard both Eguia and Juan Lopez say that Luther was a great servant of God. She also heard all three of them say that they wanted to form (a group of) twelve apostles and go out to convert the whole world to their views and to tell how everything else was superstition and a joke. She also heard Miguel de Eguia say papal bulls were worthless.

     She said that in Valladolid four years ago she heard Pedro de Cazalla say there had never been a (Mary) Magdalene, etc. She also heard Pedro de Cazalla say papal bulls were a joke. While talking about this subject, she heard him tell about the Moor in Granada who had bought a bull for two dollars (reales) and then sold it to someone else for one dollar. Cazalla said the Moors were better off when they were Mohammedans and there was more truth and virtue among them before they became Christians, and that in selling the bull for one dollar they were smarter than we Christians who buy them and don't resell them. She heard Doctor Vergara say the same thing, adding, "Are they trying to make me believe that when the money clinks in the chest, the spirit leaves Purgatory? " putting one hand over the other like someone counting money. She knows that Doctor Vergara holds all the opinions of the Illuminists because she heard him express them and she believes Doctor Vergara does much harm, because he is a man of considerable standing. She also heard him say that praying and fasting were superfluous and for ignoramuses.

Toledo, September 24, 1530

     Inquisitor (Pedro) Vaguer told her that (since) she has said that (Gaspar del Villafana is a heretic and Juan Lopez (de Calain) and


Diego Lopez (Husillo) are likewise heretics, that she now state what she knows about them. She replied that Villafana never spoke with her except on one occasion, when he brought her a letter from Bernardino de Tovar in which Tovar recommended Villafana very highly, saying that he was a very saintly person and a man of great promise.

     On that occasion she spoke to Villafana through a window and he told her ... that he never said the Divine Office. She knew he was a heretic because he told her the light was beginning to come, thereby giving her to understand that he was waiting for the light and that our Redeemer had not yet come and that he was awaiting Him.

     Asked what other things Tovar said to her in that letter, she replied that (he said) he would be extremely grateful to her if she would see and talk with Villafana because the latter was a man to whom might be imparted all she might wish in order for him to indoctrinate other persons.
     She said what she did about Juan Lopez and Diego Lopez because she heard them say Luther was a great servant of God and his writings were very holy and Catholic and good, and she knew and understood from them that they wanted to go and form that group of apostles they were talking about in order to go there (to Germany) and be with Luther. And Tovar sent maestro (Juan del)Castillo, who is from Alcala, to Juan Lopez and Miguel de Eguia so they might receive him as an apostle. (Juan Lopez and Miguel de Eguia) were in Medina de Rioseco, where Lopez had Eguia hidden because they wanted to include him in that company (of apostles.

     Asked how she knows all this, she replied that maestro (Juan del) Castillo came to Valladolid with a letter from Tovar and spoke with this witness, telling her everything that was going on, what they were trying to do with the twelve apostles movement and how Tovar was to be the head of it. Also at that time, Pero Hernandez, the canon of Palencia, and one (Diego del) Castillo, a merchant and citizen of Burgos, told her they wanted to bring to her house a Flemish girl whose name this witness believes is Ana del Valle. (Hernandez and Diego del Castillo) said that (Ana del Valle) scorned the writings of Scripture and they praised her a great deal, saying she was remarkable. However, this witness never saw her, because these two praised her so much. This witness also knows that the merchant (Diego del)


Castillo also wanted to be an apostle; he was very fond of Tovar and Juan Lopez and Diego Lopez and went around with them. She knows that he (Castillo) gave Diego Lopez a mule and some money in order to come and go with messages to Tovar. And she knows that the merchant Castillo is an Illuminist and holds all the opinions of the Illuminists.

     After that, Juan Lopez and Miguel de Eguia came to Valladolid and Miguel de Eguia told her how they wanted to form twelve apostles ... and that Tovar had told him to disregard his studies and make haste to form the said apostolate.

     Asked what other persons Tovar sent to her, she replied that he sent a bachiller, Geronimo del Olivares, (2) cleric and citizen of Pastrana, and he also sent Fernando del Santo Domingo, cleric and citizen of this city (of Toledo), and the licentiate Cristobal del Gumiel. Asked for what purpose he sent them to her, or what he told her in the letters he wrote her, she replied that as all these people looked upon Tovar as their teacher, and Tovar upon them as disciples, he recommended them to her and asked that she see them and talk with them because she had the ability to implant in them whatever she might wish; and she remembers that Tovar wrote and told her that the bachiller Olivares was a lamb, and Tovar sent to her many other persons whom she does not remember.

     Asked if she knows whether any of the above persons held the opinions of the Illuminists, she replied that she knows (Fernando de) Santo Domingo was an Illuminist and disciple of Tovar, but about six months after he came to Valladolid, this Santo Domingo spoke with this witness and she learned that he had changed, saying he did not want to talk any more with Tovar. She knows Tovar can do great

2. This is in direct contradiction of the statement of Olivares himself. Testifying in Pastrana on February 16, 1525, when he was still an admitted admirer of Francisca Hernandez, Olivares said he was sent to Francisca in Valladolid on the urging of Francisco Ortiz, and dated his visit to her as "sixteen months before" (i.e., late 1523). Universitaets Bibliothek (Halle, Germany), vol. II, Yc20, 2, 2, Proceso contra Francisco Ortiz, fols. 42r-v.


harm and can implant (false doctrine) in people with whom he communicates, because he knows well how to implant what he wishes in the minds of people with whom he speaks. She knows this from the letters written to her by Tovar and by his young sister (Isabel de Vergara) who lives with him. The sister wrote this witness letters which showed that she was lost in these Illuminist doctrines and this witness knows that both Tovar and his sister regularly wrote, to many clerics, letters which were full of Illuminist doctrines and which were very harmful.

     This witness said she believes friar Francisco Ortiz and his brother the Doctor (Pedro Ortiz) know many things about Doctor Vergara, of which they expressed their disapproval in front of this witness, although this witness does not recall what these things were that Doctor Vergara said.

     Asked for what reason she has not declared these things until now, since she realized then that they were bad, she said she has always been such an enemy of doing evil to one's neighbors that she never could bring herself to speak evil of anyone and she made no effort to investigate the matter further, except that since it seemed wrong to her she parted company with them and persuaded others to do the same, such as friar Francisco Ortiz, whom she persuaded to separate from Tovar; and she did the same with Santo Domingo, although not in such a frank way (as she did with Francisco Ortiz).

     The several testimonies of Francisca Hernandez were sent by the Toledo Inquisitors to the Council of the Holy Office. The Council, after examining Francisca's many charges, sent to the Toledo tribunal a list of questions to be asked of Francisca, seeking elaboration of certain points. This led to another three rounds of testimony by Francisca in October of 1530.

Toledo, October 12, 1530

     Asked about the first article, where she says she heard Tovar say it was not necessary to confess one's bad thoughts, if Tovar spoke of voluntary bad thoughts or involuntary ones, she replied that what


Tovar said was that no thoughts - voluntary or otherwise - needed to be confessed, and therefore this witness told Tovar she knew well enough she was not obligated to confess involuntary thoughts. Not only this, but Tovar said that confession (itself) was not necessary, that contrition was sufficient because, he said, confession was not of divine law. She also said she knows that in all the time Tovar conversed with her before he was ordained as a priest, although she knew that he used to say mass in his quarters, she never knew nor heard that he made confession.

     Asked if Tovar could have confessed without her knowing it, she replied that he
seldom left his house, but he could have confessed without her having seen or
known about it.

     She was asked if, during the period Tovar was in her company, she heard any of his clerical companions grumble about his saying mass without confession. She replied that she heard Antonio de Medrano talking with other clerics, or with Antonio de) Sayavedra, about Tovar's confession habits. Medrano said, "For a man who is in Heaven, this Tovar is really something. " (3) She does not recall hearing anything else.

     Asked about the second article, in which she says she heard Tovar say that indulgences granted by the pope were of no benefit, she was asked if Tovar said that the defect of indulgences lay in the power of the pope or in the persons who received the indulgences. She replied that she knows for certain that Tovar placed the defect in the pope and not in the persons who received them. And she knows that Doctor Vergara likewise (held the same view on this subject). Asked how she knows this ... she replied that she heard Tovar and Vergara talking this way about indulgences and she remembers that when they were discussing this subject and praising Luther they said the reason the pope persecuted Luther was that the latter rebuked papal claims and not because Luther's teachings did not come from God.

     She was asked if she recalls what she and Tovar were discussing, or what point Tovar was making when he said God entered more perfectly into a man's spirit than He did into the Host. She replied that

3. "Para hombre que esta en el cielo, es mucho."


she does not recall the details, but she heard him say it many times, and the reason Tovar gave for saying this was that the end is more important than the means, and the sacrament (of communion) was the means, while the spirit was the end ... and she often heard him say that after a man had received the holy sacrament he could not be worshipped any more or any less than the custos where the sacrament is. She also heard him say this whenever he spoke about the worshipping of images, claiming that such worship meant nothing. She was asked about the fourth article where she says she heard Tovar say that excommunication was not binding.... She replied that many times when Tovar was talking with her about excommunication, she heard him say that excommunication is to separate one from God and nobody had the power to separate anybody from God.

     Asked about the fifth chapter in which she says Tovar doubted there was a Purgatory... she replied that she cannot recall the details of their conversation because they discussed this subject many times, but she does remember Tovar ... saying that since papal indulgences were worthless, then what need was there for Purgatory, that the spirit could suffer pains just as well on a mountain or a rock or any other place.

     Asked when she heard Tovar and Doctor Vergara utter these propositions ... she replied that she knows Tovar held these opinions and discussed them with her and with other persons during the time Tovar kept company with her, and this was about nine or ten years ago and that after Tovar left her company he wrote letters on the same subjects to her.

     Asked in whose presence Doctor Vergara and his brother Tovar generally uttered the above mentioned propositions and the other things to which she has testified against them, she replied that Doctor Vergara very seldom spoke with this witness alone. Sometimes Pedro de Cazalla was present, because Vergara and Cazalla were very good friends, and this witness saw how much pleasure Cazalla derived from the conversations of Doctor Vergara. She does not recall in whose presence Tovar spoke ... but it seems to her that those who would best know this are (Diego de) Villareal and (Antonio de) Medrano. Especially would they know how this witness quarrelled with Tovar, speaking against the opinions he expressed.


     She said she remembers that Tovar sent some clerics to her, and she knows that when they came to her, (the custom of) not praying was already embedded in them. Asked who these clerics were, she replied that one Hernando Mohedano was a companion of Tovar in Valladolid and Tovar used to send him to her for her to talk with him, and she knows that this (Mohedano) often said mass without praying.

     Asked how she knows Mohedano did not pray, she replied that Mohedano told her so and he also told her that Tovar had told him it meant nothing not to pray, and that he (Mohedano) should not stop saying mass because of this.

     Asked where this Mohedano is, she replied that licentiate (Cristobal de) Gumiel will know, because she believes Mohedano is also from Cuenca. And she said that another of the clerics who did not pray was one Francisco Diaz, son of Doctor Olmedilla from Valladolid.

     Asked how she knows that Diaz did not pray, she replied that she knows because when Francisco Diaz told Tovar he did not want to take holy orders because he was not disposed to pray, Tovar told him he should not let this prevent him from taking holy orders, because it mattered nothing whether one prayed or neglected to pray. Villareal will know about this because it all happened in his presence. And this witness knows that Francisco Diaz used to say mass without praying. And after Tovar went to Alcala he wrote many letters to Francisco Diaz (in Valladolid) , most of which letters this witness saw. In his letters Tovar told Diaz to have no scruples about not praying, and Tovar importuned Diaz in order to bring him to Alcala.

     Asked in what place or places this witness heard Tovar and Doctor Vergara and the others she has named say all these things, she replied that it was in Valladolid at the home of licentiate Bernardino where she lived a year and a half and that although she lived after that in the house of Pedro de Cazalla, she had no communication with them except by letters or through third persons because ( direct) communication with them was already forbidden to her (by the Inquisition of Valladolid).

     She said that one of the times bachiller Tovar spoke about (Church) censures not being binding, was at the home of licentiate Bernardino in Valladolid. They were having dinner - Bishop (Juan


de Cazalla, Tovar, Villareal, (Rodrigo de) Cueto and this witness. The inquisitors had forbidden Medrano to talk with her, although he did say mass for her and she prepared his meals for him. So on that day, and on other occasions too, Medrano came to the door and said to Bishop Cazalla, "Make my daughter eat for me, your reverence. " The bishop, laughing, replied, "Don't think of coming in; you would do well to fear censure and excommunication. " Then Tovar, laughing and mocking, said, "I'm glad to see that your reverence appreciates the comedy in these censures, "and he spoke at length, making fun of censures, saying they were not binding and there was no need to observe them, the two of them (Tovar and Bishop Cazalla) speaking very openly and without restraint on the subject. Asked about the second statement... in which she says Miguel de Eguia greatly praised the Illuminists, let her state and declare which persons he praised as Illuminists. She replied that the persons praised by Miguel de Eguia were the clerics Diego Lopez (Husillo) and Juan Lopez (de Calain) and Tovar, whom Eguia described as the captain whom he esteemed above all the rest, and (Diego del) Castillo from Burgos. He also praised Isabel de La Cruz and Pedro Ruiz de Alcaraz.

     Isabel de la Cruz and Ruiz de Alcaraz being in prison at that time, she heard Eguia say he wished in the name of God that he too were a prisoner for the same reasons they were, and he said it was always thus, that the servants of God were persecuted. He also named as Illuminists Francisco Ximenez and the bachiller (Geronimo de) Olivares, citizens of Pastrana, and (Francisco) Gutierrez, chaplain of (Diego Lopez) Pacheco, marques de Villena ... and also (Pedro de) Marquina, a page of the marques. This Gutierrez and Marquina sent letters to this witness, which letters were full of Illuminist doctrine and in which they said many things regarding Illuminist matters, which this witness does not recall at present. Asked what she did with these letters, she replied that she burned them after reading them because they were diabolical.

Toledo, October 13, 1530

     Asked ... what Miguel de Eguia was discussing when he said there was no Purgatory, and how long ago this happened, and where, she


replied that she recalls clearly that this discussion with Miguel de Eguia took place in Valladolid in the home of Pedro de Cazalla.... Eguia had just come from Medina de Rioseco and he was telling this witness how they were getting along with their plans to form twelve apostles. In the course of this conversation, while he was praising Diego Lopez and Juan Lopez and Tovar on point after point, he came to the subject of Purgatory and spoke the words to which this witness has testified, strongly affirming this point of view (on Purgatory). He also said many other erroneous things which this witness does not remember clearly.

     Asked ... to state in detail what are the (Illuminist) opinions held (by Doctor Vergara), she replied that... he praised all Luther's teachings, saying that except for Luther's rejection of confession, everything else he taught was good. Also he holds that oral prayer is not necessary, because he said that praying aloud only broke one's head, and this witness believes he does not say the Divine Office.... Also, the said doctor held that all exterior works of fasting, disciplines and giving alms, and all the others, were superfluous, and (he holds) other Illuminist opinions which she does not recall.

     Asked if she had much conversation with Doctor Vergara, she replied that she saw him and spoke with him many times. Before he went to Flanders (in 1522) she spoke with him a great deal.... She recalls that Doctor Vergara praised those who had liberty and said mass without praying. Asked if she heard him say this often, she replied that she does not recall how many times, but she heard him say it sometimes. Asked if she knew Doctor Vergara to have these opinions before he went to Flanders or afterward, she replied that he held these errors after his return because before he left she never heard him express them.

     Asked ... (about her testimony) that she heard Juan Lopez (de Calain) and Diego Lopez (Husillo) praise Luther, to state and declare how long ago this happened and how she knew and understood that they were planning to form twelve apostles, she replied that it seems to her this happened about five years ago more or less. This witness was in Valladolid in the home of Pedro de Cazalla and the above mentioned (Juan Lopez de Calain and Diego Lopez Husillo) came there individually and told her themselves how they


were working to form that apostolate and that their plans were common knowledge. Asked what persons should know about this, she replied that maestro (Juan del) Castillo knows about it, for he wanted to be one of them, as did Miguel de Eguia; and she believes Alonso (Perez de) Bivero could know about it because Diego Lopez stayed in Bivero's house (in Valladolid). Others who know about it are dona Juana de Baeza and dona Francisca (de Zuniga), wife of Antonio de Baeza; also dona Mencia (de Baeza), who is a nun and sister of dona Juana (de Baeza), and the conde de Ribadeo, because she believes Juan Lopez stayed in the same house. (4) Asked how she knows that they could know this, she replied because she heard Juan Lopez and Diego Lopez talk about it, and she also heard dona Juana and dona Mencia speak of it. She believes dona Francisca knows about it because she wrote to this witness about how scandalous she thought (Juan and Diego Lopez) were.

     Asked ... to state and declare to what clerics and other persons (Tovar and his sister Isabel de Vergara wrote Illuminist letters), she replied that she knows they wrote to maestro (Juan del) Castillo when the latter was in Valladolid, and Tovar wrote to Castillo and Diego Lopez, writing many letters to the latter, which letters this witness saw with her own eyes. Tovar also wrote to (Alonso Perez de) Bivero in Valladolid, and to (Diego de) Villareal, although only a few times. She believes Tovar also wrote to (Fernando de) Santo Domingo, and she knows he wrote also to licentiate (Miguel) Ortiz here in Toledo, and to (Cristobal de) Gumiel, who both (Ortiz and Gumiel)told her so when they came to see her in Valladolid. She does not know what Tovar said in these letters, but she read his letters to Diego Lopez, Bivero, and Francisco Diaz, and they contained the bad opinions of the Illuminists.

4. "Y el conde de Ribadeo porque poso cree que en la misma casa Juan Lopez." It is not clear just who stayed in whose house with whom.


Toledo, October 17, 1530

     Asked if Doctor Vergara and Tovar, and the other persons she has named .., said to her the things she has said they said, with the object of inducing her or attracting her to these errors she has mentioned and to their own opinions, advising her to hold and accept these same opinions, or if she heard them express these opinions in discussion with other persons, she said that all the things which they said were said to induce her to accept their opinions, and she knows that if she had been willing to hold to the same opinions as they did and to approve of the opinions she has mentioned, they would have held her in the highest esteem, but she spoke against their opinions and consequently they were not on good terms with her.

     Asked if she has any of the letters written to her by the above mentioned persons or if she knows where any of such letters may be so that they can be examined, she replied that she does not know that any of them exist because she burned them.

     Asked if in these confessions the above mentioned persons or any one of them counselled her to hold the same errors they held, she replied that she remembers Tovar told her there was no need to make confession and that contrition ( alone) was sufficient.

     Asked if Tovar told her this because she did not confess any mortal sins to him or if he said it because (he believed I confession (of any kind) was not necessary, she replied that he did not advise her on this except to say that confession was not necessary, as she has already stated.

     Asked why she confessed to Tovar and the others when she knew they held these errors, she replied that she confessed to them only when she could not find another confessor and because of her own confidence that Tovar could not pervert her to his own errors and also because at first this witness was not so much aware of Tovar's holding to those errors as she was later, and that after she was aware of this she did not confess to him.

     Apparently the Council of the General Inquisition was still not satisfied with all the details of Francisca's voluminous denunciations. In December, licentiate Hernando Nino, a member of the Council, came to Toledo personally to quiz Francisca further.


Toledo, December 2, 1530

     Among certain questions which were asked in Toledo of Francisca Hernandez on December 2, 1530, by licentiate Hernando Nino of the Council of the Holy General Inquisition and the inquisitors Mejia and Vaguer, is a question, number eight, as follows.

     Let her be asked at what time it was when she says Tovar wrote to her about Villafana and later about other persons, telling her she would do him a great favor by seeing them and speaking with them because they were persons who were in the proper frame of mind to be indoctrinated in whatever beliefs she might wish, and let her declare what doctrine it was that Tovar wanted and asked her to indoctrinate them with.

     Asked about this eighth question, she replied that it seems to her it happened about five or six years ago more or less, although she does not recall the time too well. Tovar wrote her about Villafana and she remembers that it was about four months before Villafana was seized (by the Inquisition), and it was at almost this same time when he wrote her about the other persons she named in her deposition. What this witness understood from Tovar's letters was that the persons he wrote her about were to indoctrinate this witness with their opinions (5) and that is how she interpreted the words Tovar wrote her when he described Villafana as a man of good ability. When (for example, Pedro Ruiz de) Alcaraz came to Valladolid to see and talk with her and she refused to talk with him, Antonio de Baeza told this witness he had heard that Alcaraz had said, "She refused to see me when I came to teach her and to tell her of my opinions. " Likewise on this same day she was asked another question, which is number nine ... as follows. Tell her that since Tovar, after she no longer saw him as she says, sent to her Villafana and the other persons she has named, so that she might indoctrinate them, it seems likely that this witness must have shared, and not opposed the opinions which she ascribes to Tovar.

5. Francisca here reverses her earlier account on this point, a fact which does not escape her questioners.


     She replied that she has just now stated that the persons Tovar sent to her so that she might indoctrinate them - that this is incorrectly written, because the truth of the matter is that Tovar sent them to her in order for them to teach her, which is why Tovar, in his letters, dared not say anything more than that somebody had good ability.

     For if Tovar had said more than that (and thereby revealed his true intentions), she would not have listened to them and would have let them go to the devil. But (instead) Tovar wrote in a devious way to this witness, judging from how she understood his letters.

     Asked about the tenth question ... she said that of the persons whom she has named and deposed against, Tovar was the only one who had veneration and reverence for her ... but this veneration which he showed was put on and feigned, and Tovar has such a fine opinion of himself that he thought he could say anything at all before this witness although he might be ten times more than she. (6) This witness has never held any of the errors held by any of the persons she has named. Rather, many witnesses can be found who will tell how this witness was very much an enemy of those opinions and errors to which she has testified. That is why this witness refused to talk to Alcaraz as she has said, considering him to be "pasmado," which is what she used to call him. That she was an enemy of the opinions to which she has testified and of the persons who held them, will be told also by friar Francisco Ortiz and one (Fernando de) Santo Domingo, citizen of this city of Toledo. Friar Francisco Ortiz, in the presence of a companion of his, friar Antonio de Burgos, begged this witness to talk with Alcaraz and other people from Pastrana and Guadalajara who kept coming to talk with her, so that she might take away their blindness. (7) This witness told friar Francisco

6. "Aunque fuera diez mas que ella."
7. Francisca's claim in regard to Alcaraz is supported by Francisco Ortiz. Dec. 16, 1529, Ortiz told the Toledo inquisitors that about six years before (1523), in Alcala, he prevailed on Alcaraz to visit Francisca Hernandez in Valladolid so that he (Alcaraz) might be turned from his Illuminist errors. Alcaraz returned in great annoyance, however, because Francisca Hernandez had refused to see him. Proceso contra Francisco Ortiz (note 2, above), fol. 203r. If what


(Ortiz) what opinions were held by these persons who used to come to talk with her, because until this witness told him these things, friar Francisco considered these persons to be servants of God.

     Asked if she knew that Alcaraz and the other persons whom she says used to come to talk with her, and with whom she refused to talk, held any (Illuminist) errors and for what reason she called them "pasmados," she replied that she did so because she had been told that those persons expressed and held the opinion that those who were to be servants of God should be in a state of recogimiento, without thinking of anything, and without praying or talking, and that this was publicly known about them.

     She said she told some persons not to have anything to do with Tovar ... and she told friar Francisco Ortiz to give up his connection with Tovar. It seems to her she even told Ortiz that Tovar had been infected with some of the teachings of his brother Doctor Vergara. Let there be read to her what she replied to a question which the Inquisitor asked her on December 1 last year, 1529, where it appears that the Inquisitor, asking her If the persons who communicated with her and looked upon her as a saint, if they believed what she said, and she replied that some believed her and others cursed her (and among the latter) were Diego Lopez (HusilIo) and Juan Lopez (de Calain) and friar Gil (Lopez de Bejar) and Tovar, who had thrown the stone and hidden his hand. (8) Let her be asked what she meant by these words when she says Tovar had thrown the stone and hidden his hand. Also let her be asked in particular if she has any feeling of enmity or hatred toward the persons against whom she has deposed or who are mentioned in her statements and depositions and

Francisca and Ortiz say is true, Francisca's motives were almost certainly other than is implied here; most likely she did not want competition, and Alcaraz was hardly the type she could dominate. On the other hand, she could be lying. As for Ortiz, he probably would not lie, but he seems to have been able to believe only what Francisca told him.
8. "Tirado la piedra y escondido la mano." An old Spanish saying: to do harm to another while hiding it from him.


if she has had any disagreements or been annoyed with any of them, which might have led to such enmity or hatred.

     She replied that what she meant by her remark that Tovar had thrown the stone and hidden his hand was that Tovar used to tell the friends of this witness that he had no other good or other mother except this witness. He wrote this to dona Maria Brochera, citizen of Salamanca. Later, because this witness refused to receive or read any of the letters which Tovar sent her through the cleric Diego Lopez (Husillo), who at that time was living in Valladolid, Tovar became angry and wrote to this witness that since she did not want to read his letters she should have them read by one of her servants and he asked her please to drop him at least a line and not leave him so lost. (9) And because this witness refused to read his letters or (even) receive them, as she has said, Tovar became angry and had drawn up the accusation made against this witness in Valladolid in her own name, (10) and all those who since have accused this witness have done so because they were put up to it by Tovar, who has done all he can (against her).

Toledo, December 4, 1530

     Francisca Hernandez ... was asked by licentiate Nino if she has remembered anything she should say... in addition to what she has already stated and deposed. She said she does not remember anything in particular in addition to what she has already stated, although ... to clear her conscience she states that she saw nothing that appeared to her to be Christian in Tovar nor in Diego Lopez (Husillo) and Juan Lopez (de Calain).

9. Francisca claims she had refused even to receive letters from Tovar, much less read them. Yet she must have read this one at least.
10. Francisca may be referring here to Tovar's denunciation of her in Toledo on December 6, 1529. On that occasion Tovar testified to Francisca's erotic intimacies with Antonio de Medrano in Valladolid. AHN, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 104, no. 15, Proceso contra Antonio de Medrano, fols. 152v-153r.


     Asked about the fifteenth question ... she replied that she has not had nor does she ( now) have hatred nor enmity nor any rancor at all toward any of the persons against whom she has deposed. Rather, she loves them as she loves her own mother and she would die for each of them as (she would) for the salvation of her soul, and with the help of Jesus Christ she is very much disposed to this end. What she has said has been said to unburden her conscience and because they (the Inquisitors) told her she was obligated to do so under pain of excommunication ... and she said further ... that between herself and the persons about whom she has testified there has never occurred any disagreement or dispute which could have prompted this witness to wish them ill nor to feel hatred or enmity toward them, because although she knows that Diego Lopez and Tovar spoke badly about her, she still has not wished nor does she now wish them ill.

Testimonies of Maria Ramirez
August, 1530 - December, 1530
(76r-79v; 9r-10r)

Toledo, August 3, 1530

     She said she remembers hearing Doctor Vergara, in some conversations with her mistress Francisca Hernandez, say that oral prayer was not necessary and that what was the point in saying an Ave Maria to a saint, for that was just breaking one's head; that the (inner) thought was sufficient for drawing near to God. Francisca Hernandez rebuked him and told him that was not a proper opinion, rather that it was good to pray orally, but Doctor Vergara persisted in his opinion.... Pedro de Cazalla, citizen of Valladolid, was present (at these conversations) and he used to say that what Vergara held and believed in this matter was good, and he approved it, saying what good were these Pater Nosters. Asked if she remembers who else was present at these conversations ... she replied that she recalls that one of those present was friar Gil (Lopez de Bejar), preacher, and a companion whose name was Valenzuela, and some other friars whose names she does not recall, except that one of them was a preacher. (11)

11. That is, friar Moreno.


     She also said she heard Doctor Vergara greatly praise Luther and his teachings and say that he carried with him some of Luther's writings, and she particularly heard him say that what Luther said about the bulls granted by our very holy father to faithful Christians, both alive and dead, was that Luther spoke truly when he said it was a joke. In saying this Vergara laughed a great deal, showing what a joke he thought it was and how it was a lot of (hot) air what the pope granted. She also heard him say that except for his rejection of confession, all of Luther's opinions seemed very good to him. Present at this conversation were Pedro de Cazalla and others whose names this witness does not recall at present.... Francisca Hernandez rebuked Doctor Vergara for all the above because she was very much opposed to those who held such opinions, referring to such persons as "pasmados. " Despite her rebukes Doctor Vergara remained in his opinion. All this happened six years ago or more.

     This witness never saw or communicated with Bernardino de Tovar, but she has heard that he was a very important Illuminist and that he held many of the opinions of the Illuminists, and that Pedro de Cazalla had sent two sons of his (12) as students to Bishop (Juan de) Cazalla, which sons used to communicate with Tovar, and they began to write to their father from there (Alcala) telling him to leave himself to God and (telling him) other things which the Illuminists taught. When Francisca Hernandez saw those letters she advised their father to send for them lest that kind of doctrine be implanted in their minds while they were still young. So Cazalla sent for them and brought them back home.(13)

12. One of these sons was Agustin de Cazalla, who was burned at the stake in Valladolid as a Lutheran in 1559.
13. This is a strange story. Pedro de Cazalla, whom Maria, in concert with her mistress Francisca Hernandez, has just denounced as a supporter of Vergara's Illuminist and Lutheran views, now appears as an opponent of such views. In her enthusiasm to denounce Tovar, Maria apparently forgot what she had just said about Pedro de Cazalla.



Toledo, August 17, 1530

     She heard Doctor Vergara say that among the other good ideas held by Martin Luther was that of saying mass after eating. When Francisca Hernandez rebuked him for this Doctor Vergara said that ... our Lord had consecrated after eating. He also said that except for the consecration, none of the ceremonies of the mass were necessary.

     Francisca Hernandez replied that 12that was heresy because the Church, governed by the Holy Spirit, had ordained the place and time and the ceremonies of the mass. But Doctor Vergara remained in his opinion, so Francisca Hernandez refused to see him any more.

     Francisca Hernandez also told him that what Jesus Christ had done was done in order to put an end to the old law and implant the new law. Present at this were two or three persons among whom was a canon of Palencia who was called canon Francisco. She does not recall if the other person present was Pedro de Cazalla. She also heard Doctor Vergara say there were two superfluous saints in the world, who had not been baptized or canonized: the santa inquisicion and the santa cruzada. She heard Pedro de Cazalla say there were in the world three saints - the santa cruzada, the santa junta and the santa inquisicion by which our Lord was very poorly served, and which drew their sustenance from Lady Avarice.... Francisca Hernandez rebuked them both.

Toledo, September 22, 1530

     She said that about four years ago when she was in Valladolid, in company with Francisca Hernandez, Miguel de Eguia ... came to Valladolid to talk with Francisca. In their conversation she heard Eguia praise the opinions of the Illuminists, saying that they were properly called Illuminists because they were illuminated by God to serve Him, and those who did not follow them were not Christians, and that he would stand up for them even if his life and property depended on it.

     And among other things she heard him say at that time was that there was no Purgatory... and that nobody could make him believe otherwise. Francisca Hernandez told him he was in error, to which


     Miguel de Eguia replied, "You believe what you like; this is what I believe." He also told her he did not believe there was a Hell although he would not, he said, repeat this to others, but he believed it himself. This witness believes Tovar taught him this latter ( error), because when Eguia had come on previous occasions to talk with Francisca Hernandez he had not held those errors - not until after he had spoken with Tovar. But after speaking with Tovar she saw how he came to hold these errors.

     Asked how she knows that this Miguel de Eguia had communication with Tovar, she replied that Miguel de Eguia said so himself, and he praised Tovar greatly. Also, other persons told her so: Juan Lopez (de Calain), cleric, and Diego Lopez (Husillo), cleric, and (Juan del) Castillo from Toledo and the other (Diego del) Castillo from Burgos, and (Fernando de) Santo Domingo, cleric, citizen of Toledo. She heard all these talk about how they wanted to form twelve apostles to convert the Christians to their opinion and in order to travel about the world (doing missionary work), and how Tovar was to be the leader of the group. She used to hear them say to one another, "You are God and God is you." All these people whom she has named praised the teachings of Luther, saying that he was a servant of God and everything he said and did was good. She never heard Tovar say any of these things because she never saw or met him, except that she heard him praised by those whom she has mentioned, every time they spoke about Illuminist matters. Asked who were present when these discussions took place, she replied that on those occasions there were present Maria de Villareal and sometimes Inez Lopez, although she believes Maria de Villareal was there more regularly.

     When Hernando Nino, member of the Council of the General Inquisition, came to Toledo to ask further questions of Francisca Hernandez, in an effort to clarify some points in her testimonies, he also questioned Maria Ramirez for the same reason. The striking similarities between the testimony of Francisca and her maid Maria, who were sharing the same cell, convinced Nino that the. two ladies were regularly comparing notes. Nino accordingly asked Maria Ramirez some pointed - and rather obvious - questions.


Toledo, December 2, 1530

     She was asked if before she entered this jail to be in the company of Francisca Hernandez, her mistress, she had communicated with any people, saying to them, "I saw so and so do or say such and such," and who were the persons with whom she so communicated.

     She said she did not communicate anything nor did she speak with anyone. Asked if, while in this jail, she has communicated with any persons about the things to which she has testified before the Inquisitors, she replied that she has communicated with nobody except insofar as her mistress Francisca Hernandez told this witness that according to the Inquisitors, they (Francisca and Maria) were obligated to tell all they knew and had heard of those teachings and heresies about which this witness has testified and which were discussed in the home of her mistress; otherwise they were (automatically) excommunicated. Her mistress told her to recollect what she knew and to unburden her conscience, and this witness told her mistress she had heard that people who know about heresies could not be absolved by their confessors unless they told what they knew to the Inquisition. She was asked if, when her mistress returned from the audience chamber (to her cell), this witness asked her what questions the Inquisitors had asked her and what answers she had given, and whether, when this witness appeared in the audience chamber, her mistress Francisca asked her in turn what questions the Inquisitors had asked her and what answers this witness had given, and what transpired between them. She replied that nothing of the kind ever passed between this witness and her mistress, that her mistress never asked this witness anything about her depositions or the questions put to her, and vice-versa. She was then directed, under pain of excommunication, to keep this secret, and it was ordered that she be returned to the company of her mistress.

     She said she recalls that many clerics, students from Alcala, and (other persons) from Pastrana and Toledo, used to come to talk with Francisca Hernandez in Valladolid, saying that Bernardino de Tovar had sent them. Francisca Hernandez refused to talk with them


because they came on recommendation from Tovar. Asked if she recalls the names of some of these clerics, she replied that she recalls only one (Juan del) Castillo and Santo Domingo, citizens of Toledo.

     Two others, she recalls, came from Pastrana and she believes one of them was called (Geronimo de) Olivares. Many of them used to throw money through the window (for Francisca) and this witness threw it back to them (14) because Francisca Hernandez refused to receive them ... because they came from Tovar and they were all Illuminists and held to the errors mentioned above.

     Asked if she knew (Gaspar de) Villafana, cleric, she replied that she did, because he came several times to talk with Francisca Hernandez. Asked if she knows who sent him to talk with Francisca, she replied that he said Tovar sent him, and she does not remember if he brought with him a letter (from Tovar). One time he spoke with this witness through a window, and among other things he said he was seeking a small opening through which he might see some light. Another time this witness saw him talk with Francisca Hernandez, telling her that that night he had seen a little light and that he had not opened his eyes and that he was awaiting the advent of Christ.

     She also heard Villafana say he did not say the Divine Office nor was it necessary. When Francisca heard him say this she sent him away with harsh words, saying that it seemed quite clear he had come from the hand of Tovar.

     Asked if she knew Juan Lopez and Diego Lopez, clerics, she replied in the affirmative. Asked if she heard them say anything against our holy Catholic faith, she replied that she heard them speak many bad words which were not the words of Christians but of heretics. However, she does not remember the words. Asked if she heard Juan Lopez and Diego Lopez say that Luther was a great servant of God and his writings were true and Catholic, she replied that sometimes she heard them say this, and she heard them say that if they could go to Luther they would do so. She also heard them say they were to be part of the twelve apostles which they and Tovar wanted to form and that they were going about in

14. The well-documented predatory habits of Francisca Hernandez make this a barefaced lie.


search of persons in order to have them prepared for the time when Tovar would come (to lead them). She knows that maestro (Juan del) Castillo also went to Medina de Rioseco to be an apostle, where they had Miguel de Eguia in hiding in order to make him one of the apostles, and his (Eguia's) brothers were looking for him but could not find him. (15) It was common knowledge that the Admiral (Fadrique EnrIquez of Castile) had them all there thinking they were very good persons, but after he saw that it was all a matter of the devil he threw them out.

     Asked how she knew this to be so she replied because (Juan del) Castillo returned from there (to Valladolid) and spoke with her mistress Francisca Hernandez and told her they had not wanted to make him an apostle because he was not cut out for it. Miguel de Eguia also came and told her mistress Francisca Hernandez (about the movement) and how they wanted to make Tovar their captain to convert the world.

     Asked if she recalls which persons Tovar sent with letters to Francisca Hernandez so that she might see them and talk with them, she replied that she recalls that he sent maestro (Juan del) Castillo to her and also two clerics from Pastrana whose names she does not recall, and one (Fernando de) Santo Domingo from Toledo and one (Miguel) Ortiz and others whose names she does not recall. (16) Asked if she knows or recalls what Tovar wrote to Francisca Hernandez in the letters he sent her with the above named persons, she replied that she recalls that in the letter he sent with Villafana he said Villafana was a man with a talent which would accommodate anything.

15. "Eguia's brothers..." - including the future Jesuit, Diego de Eguia (above, p. 106).
16. Here Maria Ramirez appears to support Francisca's first account of these events, namely, that these people were sent by Tovar to be instructed by Francisca. This is the account which Francisca will later claim was incorrectly recorded in her own testimony and which she will insist should have stated that Tovar sent these people to Valladolid to indoctrinate Francisca.


     Asked if she knew that the above mentioned persons who came to Valladolid looked on Tovar as their teacher and leader, she replied that she knew this from the way they spoke, but afterward she spoke with Santo Domingo, who said that Tovar and his teachings could go to the devil.

     Asked if she at any time heard friar Francisco Ortiz and Doctor Vergara discuss in the presence of Francisca Hernandez the teachings of Luther or the opinions of the Illuminists, she replied that she has already said she heard them discuss Luther's opinions and papal bulls.

     Another time she saw and heard them discussing something else and it seemed to her that what Doctor Vergara was saying was not good. However, she does not recall just what he said, only that she saw friar Francisco Ortiz get up very angrily and say that such matters should be left to the schools.

     Asked what is the reason she has not, until now, given this testimony, since she realized these things were wrong and against the faith, she replied that she has not done so because she thought she was not obligated to do so, nor had she heard the letters of excommunication (for those who failed to come forth and denounce); rather she thought she would be offending God by speaking against her neighbors.

Testimony of Bernardino de Flores

Madrid, September 6, 1530

     He said that about twenty or twenty five days or a month ago, more or less, when he was in this city of Madrid in the residence of (Alonso Fonseca), the archbishop of Toledo, and in his presence, they were discussing the Latin translations of Holy Scripture presently being made from Hebrew and Greek. This witness said he thought the translation presently being used by the holy mother Church was much better and more accurate and that he did not want another new translation; it would open the door to the suggestion that some things in the present edition are inaccurate and would allow anyone who took the notion, to maintain that the substantial points of Holy


Scripture have not been properly translated and consequently hold them in little regard, which would be contrary to our holy faith.

     Among those present was Doctor Vergara, secretary of the archbishop. He replied thai Saint Augustine, not knowing Greek, did not know what he was saying in his commentary on the Psalms of David, in the book called "Quinquaginae." This witness replied that such a remark seemed to him very bad and irreverent because the book in question was held in great veneration by the entire universal Church, and it seemed to him that anyone who spoke in such manner about it did not feel properly about the faith, since the book was approved by the Church and when Saint Augustine wrote it he was filled with the Spirit. The said Doctor Vergara replied to this witness with many insults and said this witness did not know what the Spirit was.

     He said that when Doctor Vergara said Saint Augustine had not known Greek, this witness replied that such a sentiment did not originate with Doctor Vergara, but with one of Vergara's teachers (at Alcala) , the comendador (griego) Hernan Nunez, because this witness had heard the comendador Hernan Nunez express substantially the same thought in Alcala, and Vergara had taken this idea from the comendador. A t this the said Doctor Vergara uttered his many insults and the archbishop (of Toledo, Alonso Fonseca) ordered them both to be silent. This witness believes that the archbishop did not hear clearly the words spoken by the said Doctor Vergara because his lordship was reading some letters and was busy with other things.

     Being asked, he said that those present during the above mentioned conversation were (Rodrigo de) Acevedo, canon of Toledo, and Pedro de Bazan, who is now corregidor of Segovia, and a chamberlain or the archbishop, named (Francisco Osorno) Gutierrez, and other persons whose names this witness does not recall. Asked if he has heard the said Doctor Vergara say any other things which, although not contrary to our holy faith, might be scandalous and which might have seemed to this witness to have been badly said, he replied that he looks upon the said doctor as a person of a freer understanding than is necessary, which is generally reflected in the things the said doctor says.

     Asked if he has heard that the said Doctor Vergara or any other person personally approved of the heretic Luther or any of his works,


he replied that he recalls nothing of this kind about Doctor Vergara. About a year ago, in Pinto, when he believes the (imperial) court was at Toledo, two German friars of the Franciscan order came through Pinto. While talking with the said friars about the Inquisition's imprisonment of friar Francisco Ortiz, (he noted) that they held to some of Luther's opinions. He does not recall just what these opinions were, except that these friars appeared upset whenever this witness called Luther a heretic. This witness does not recall the names of the said friars.

     Asked what insulting words Doctor Vergara said to this witness, he replied that Vergara generally said friars were fools and did not know what they were talking about, and other such things.


      This deposition of Bernardino de Flores was taken in Madrid by Hernando Nino of the Council of the General Inquisition. Flores' statement was then sent by the Council to the Toledo tribunal, with a letter dated September 17 (fol. 2r). In its letter, the Council advised the Toledo Inquisitors of the great need for following proper procedures in the Vergara case, and directed the Toledo Inquisitors to keep the Council informed of any new developments. "Do not be surprised at this," the letter continues, "It is necessary to do so because of the considerable clamor being raised here in regard to this affair, and it has been of great help in quieting everyone down to have seen this new report with its so highly reputable witnesses." The Council also sent along to Toledo five books which Vergara had delivered to the Council two weeks before, in response to an Inquisition edict ordering the surrender of all books by Luther and his followers. It also appeared that information about the proceedings in the trial of Tovar had been leaking out to unauthorized persons. "In due time," the Council promised, "we shall be ready to take steps to find out through whom, when and how this information is being leaked out."


Testimony of Francisco Ortiz
(11r-11v bis)

Toledo, October 10, 1530

     Friar Francisco Ortiz ... said that about six years ago Francisca Hernandez advised him to have no (further J communication with Tovar, brother of Doctor Vergara. This witness was greatly surprised at this because the said Tovar had spoken very well of her and had even sent the cleric from Toledo, (Fernando de J Santo Domingo, to confer with her for the edification of his spirit. (17) Later this witness learned from Francisca Hernandez that the said Tovar had adhered to the errors of his brother Vergara regarding bulls and oral prayer. This witness also remembered that one time when he was talking with Doctor Vergara in the college at Alcala, Vergara praised Erasmus as a person who thought nothing of not saying the Divine Office if one were studying something important. Later, this witness saw how the above mentioned Tovar was a mortal enemy and hostile critic of Francisca Hernandez, beata, without having seen her nor received a letter from her since (they broke off relations).

     This witness was also told -- he believes by friar Francisco de Osuna - that Tovar described Saint Bernard's use of Holy Scripture for his own purposes as a lot of filth and horse manure. Later this witness saw a copy of a letter to Erasmus, shown him by friar

17. Francisco Ortiz, like Maria Ramirez, supports the first version of Francisca's story, namely that Tovar sent people to Francisca for the latter's instruction. It is apparent that Francisca did not have time to inform Ortiz of her new explanation of these events. Although Francisca and Ortiz were in separate cells, so disordered was the security system in the cell block that Francisca was able to make regular visits to Francisco Ortiz in his cell, and there is no doubt that Francisca Hernandez was coaching Ortiz as well as her maid Maria Ramirez. AHN, Inquisicion de Toledo, Legajo 110, no. 21, Proceso contra Maria de Cazallao See unnumbered folios (226r, 22 7r-v) at the end.


Dionisio in (the monastery of) San Agustin in Toledo, in which Erasmus expressed his great gratitude to Doctor Vergara for the favor he and Tovar and another brother of theirs - (Francisco de Vergara) the Greek ( scholar) - were doing for him. Later, this witness' own brother, Doctor (Pedro) Ortiz, told him that one time when he was talking with Vergara, the latter spoke badly about the doctors of (the University of) Paris, having little regard for them. (18) Vergara swore in the name of God that there was in his opinion no heresy of any kind against the Church in Erasmus. Doctor Ortiz replied to Vergara, "Well, I swear on your own oath that there is (such heresy in Erasmus), and I will show you the Church councils in which such heresy is condemned." Doctor Ortiz told his brother, the present witness, how wrong the said Doctor Vergara was, because he (Doctor Ortiz) showed him (Doctor Vergara) a book which Doctor Ortiz said was one of the most pernicious books in Christendom, to which Doctor Vergara replied that he had gone through it and he swore in God's name that the book contained no heresy at all, and this witness thinks that the idea that one should be free not to say the Divine Office for any reason is a very bad idea.

     Asked if he spoke with Doctor Vergara about papal indulgences and bulls, he said he recalls that a little over six years ago in Valladolid, this witness preached one morning in church on the composition of bulls. On the afternoon of the same day he spoke with the said Doctor Vergara at the home of Francisca Hernandez, and he believes they had some dispute about the worth of bulls.

     However, at that time this witness did not get the impression that Doctor Vergara held obstinately to any error; at least this witness in his heart did not attribute Vergara's assertions on this matter to obstinacy. However, several days later this witness heard Francisca Hernandez say that Tovar had adhered to his brother Vergara's errors about bulls and oral prayer, (which remark) made this witness believe that Doctor Vergara must take the same improper liberties with regard to bulls as this witness felt he took with regard to oral prayer.

18. The Sorbonne faculty of the University of Paris condemned Erasmus in 1527.


     Asked if he spoke with Doctor Vergara or his brother Tovar on any other occasions, he said he spoke with Tovar another time in Burgos in the house of the archbishop of Toledo (Alonso Fonseca) but not on any disputed subject, and he does not remember having spoken with him any other times. He spoke with Tovar two or three times in Alcala, at which time Tovar spoke very well of Francisca Hernandez and told this witness he thought he (Ortiz) was very fortunate to go there (to Valladolid and Francisca) and that he fervently wished he might go to see her himself: and he gave this witness a letter for her, which letter, as this witness recalls, he heard Francisca read in Valladolid.

Testimony of Hernando de Lunar

Toledo, October 28, 1530

     Hernando de Lunar ... said ... that about two or three years ago, more or less, this witness was talking with the prisoner, the cleric Bernardino de Tovar, in Alcala, about certain matters of Holy Scripture and o(' conscience. He saw and heard Tovar say that the practice o(' praying the canonical hours according to the breviary had been established ('or rogues because in former limes they did not pray but studied Holy Scripture continually. However, as time went on, the clergy began 10 be composed of shiftless rogues who did not want to study, so the Church ordered them to pray and not amuse themselves with something else. This witness gathered that Tovar held the opinion that prayer served no purpose except to keep the clergy occupied.

     Asked who instilled in Tovar the opinion that one should not pray, he replied that when he commented to Tovar, "Then a cleric does not sin if he stops praying? " Tovar replied, "Well, listen to the doubter." This witness asked, "Is there some authority for the idea that one can stop praying without committing sin? " and Tovar replied, "My brother Doctor Vergara told me Erasmus had told it to him in Flanders, and if Erasmus says so, what more can you want? " He said he also recalls Tovar's talking about bulls in a belittling way like someone joking.


Testimony of Pedro Ortiz (16v-19r)

Toledo, November 4, 1530

     He was asked if he has spoken with any person or persons about whether priests are obligated to say the Divine Office or whether sacramental confession is of divine or positive law, or about indulgences granted by the pope, or if he knows that the person or persons who spoke with him on these matters might have held to some errors regarding them. He replied that it may well be that on some occasions some people may have spoken with this witness regarding the said propositions, which he does not recall at present. However, he particularly remembers that a year ago this past Lenten season, or a little before, when he was talking with Doctor Vergara, the latter was trying to speak in favor of the cause of Erasmus, complaining that Erasmus' doctrines had been maltreated in Paris. As far as this witness can remember, Vergara said that in the works of Erasmus which he had read, he knew of no errors. This witness recalls that among other errors of Erasmus, he spoke of how Erasmus insisted on casting doubt on confession as a divine institution of our Redeemer and how in his works Erasmus kept demanding to be shown that it was, to which this witness replied that since the Church had decided this question in the affirmative, it was wrong to raise doubts about it and to insist in public writings that he wanted proof of it. He remembers that Vergara replied that Erasmus did not deny confession; (what Erasmus said was) that if it had been decided that confession was of divine law, he would like to know about it. This witness replied that it was so decided in the Council of Constance and in other councils ... and the said Doctor Vergara swore that it had not been so decided in the Council of Constance.

     On a later occasion this witness remembers having spoken with the said Doctor Vergara on the same subject and this witness told Vergara it was true I that it had been decided that confession was of divine law J and also that on this point a resolution had been made in Alcala in the time of Alonso Carrillo, which had later been confirmed by the pope and in this resolution it had been decided that confes-


sion was of divine law and the contrary view, held by a Doctor (Pedro) de Osma, had been condemned. (19) Doctor Vergara then agreed with this witness, being persuaded (that this was correct), and asked how it was that Erasmus said what he did if it had been determined (to the contrary) in the Council of Constance. The witness replied that he believed Erasmus had not seen (the statement to this effect issued by the Council of Constance).

19. The opinion that sacramental confession was not of divine law was widely held both by Erasmus and by his Spanish admirers. The Inquisition, in its trials of Erasmists, regularly treated this view as a condemned heretical proposition. In the above instance, witness Pedro Ortiz, a theologian of considerable repute, lends the weight of his authority to the Inquisition's position. There is no doubt that the Inquisition accepted Ortiz' conclusions. Inserted in the Vergara trial (between folios 188v and 189r) is a brief unsigned memorandum, dated November 4, 1530, the date of Ortiz' testimony, which reads: "It is in the Council of Constance and the determination of the universal Church, which determination was given in Alcala by Archbishop (of Toledo) Alonso Carrillo, that confession is de derecho divino, and that this was afterward confirmed by the pope and the contrary view condemned as error." If this is true, then it seems strange that a man of learning like Erasmus, or Vergara, would insist that such was not the case. The explanation lies in the fact that Erasmus and his Spanish friends were technically correct. Pedro de Osma, a professor at Salamanca, was required by Archbishop Carrillo to abjure a number of propositions about confession in 1479. Among these propositions was one which held that confession is not of divine law. The following year (1480) Pope Sixtus IV issued a bull approving of the decision against Osma. It seems very likely that Pedro Ortiz, who was himself a professor at Salamanca, learned of this episode during his association with the university. This bull of Sixtus IV was not published until 1534, four years after the above testimony of Pedro Ortiz, when it appeared in the first edition of Alfonso de Castro's Adversus omnes haereses. In the bull, one finds that Sixtus IV did approve of the condemnation of the views of Pedro de Osma, including the proposition that confession was not of divine law. However, in speaking of the Council of Constance and its condemnation of heretical propositions of John Huss regarding confession, Sixtus IV cites only that council's condemnation of Huss' (and Osma's) view that contrition alone suffices in the sacrament of penance. We know that this was no oversight on the part of Sixtus IV. The view that confession was not of divine law had never been officially declared heretical at the time of Pedro Ortiz' testimony. It was obviously a controversial matter, but the controversy was not settled until the Council of Trent (Session 14, chapter 5) officially ruled that confession is of divine law. Alfonso de Castro, Adversus omnes haereses, Paris, 1534, fols. 80r-81r; Catholic Encyclopedia, 16 vols., New York, 1913, "Penance"; Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana, 70 vols. in 72, Barcelona, 1907-1930, "Confesion"; Henry C. Lea, A History of the Inquisition of Spain, New York, 1922, vol. III, p. 412; Marcelino Menendez y Pelayo, Historia de los heterodoxos espanoles, Santander, 1947, vol. II, p. 388.


     This witness does not remember any further discussion on this point, except that it distressed this witness to see the said Doctor Vergara so friendly to the doctrine of Erasmus, because this witness knew and knows that Erasmus' doctrine is shot through with dangerous errors against the traditions of the Church and contrary to some things which of a certainty must be believed, and this witness fears that such errors might be followed by men who find them in such works, unless they are letrados who can detect such errors and avoid them, or unless such errors are previously noted and removed from his works.

     Asked if Doctor Vergara said there were no errors in the works of the said Erasmus ... this witness replied that during this conversation Doctor Vergara, with annoyance and indignation, and arguing with this witness, said there were no errors in Erasmus as this witness said . there were.

     About a month ago in Madrid, Doctor Vergara asked this witness what he thought of the proposition that a priest is not obligated to pray the canonical hours. This witness replied that when a priest is occupied in a work of charity of such importance that there is no time to pray, then he is not obligated to pray, but serves God better


by putting the other work first; however, unless it is a work of such perfection and unless there is not enough time left for prayer, then he is obligated to pray and if he does not, he is committing a mortal sin.

     He was asked what good works could excuse the priest from praying. He replied that being occupied in correcting those who are in mortal sin, and establishing concord and peace among those who feel rancor and hate, putting an end to scandalous deaths and wars, consoling the deeply afflicted, helping one's neighbors to avoid falling into mortal sins (were justifiable excuses for not praying) ... but that if a priest who is not occupied in such works as these fails to pray, even though he has the time, he commits a sin.

     Asked if one cleric should tell another that he is not obliged to pray the canonical hours, whether this would be a heretical proposition, he replied that such a proposition, taken universally... and with full knowledge of the precepts of the Church which all priests are obligated to know, then such a proposition is erroneous and creates vehement presumption of heresy.

     In regard to indulgences, this witness believes that he and the said Doctor Vergara discussed them and this witness agreed with Vergara that the preachers of indulgences preached many abuses which ought to be corrected, but that as a matter o( certain faith one should believe in the benefits and worthwhile nature of indulgences and that it was not even necessary that for any small pious work whatever all punishments should be forgiven in the indulgences, but that this idea should not be preached.

     Asked how it was that he spoke on this subject with the said Doctor Vergara, if Vergara doubted that the pope could concede indulgences at all, he replied that this discussion came up when the said Doctor Vergara wanted to give an example of how some abuses are permitted in the Church in the matter of bulls of indulgence, and this witness replied that the abuses were committed by individuals who preached the indulgences improperly and not by the Church.

     Asked if the said Doctor Vergara blamed the abuses on the power of the pope or of the individuals who preached the indulgences or of the persons who bought the bulls, he replied that this came up when they were talking about the Church and the pope committing and


permitting abuses.

     Asked if he knows of and has seen in the works of Erasmus any heretical, erroneous or scandalous errors, this witness replied (that there are) very many and very pernicious ones and he is afraid that serious harm will result to the faithful. In his judgment the prelates and inquisitors, by virtue of the godly offices they hold for this purpose, are obligated to make note of such errors and reprobate the works in which they appear, or have such errors removed from these works and let everyone know, who takes these works in their hand, that they contain such errors. Some works should be taken completely out of circulation, such as the "De esu carnium" and the "Encomium matrimonii," while others should be purged of their errors and then be made available, such as the "Colloquies" ... and in regard to his being asked the particular errors of Erasmus, he said first that they are so great in number it would take a lot of paper and a lot of time (to list them). They are so numerous and have been criminally neglected for so long that it is necessary to prevent them lest they spread and the danger grow more serious and become more difficult to eradicate.

     In particular, this witness remembers that Erasmus speaks badly of the tithes and ceremonies of the Church. Although in some of his later books he expresses opinions in which he attempts to suggest that some of his previous remarks have been twisted, still the bad remarks remain in his other works; and never in his works does he include a section - as he should - in which he explains that he stands corrected (or whatever wrong he has spoken.... Erasmus also speaks perniciously of fasts and ecclesiastical precepts. He speaks badly of continence and ... the religious orders and sometimes of the cult of saints. He speaks reprovingly of the prayers which the common people recite in Latin. He speaks badly... (when he says) that all the books of Holy Scripture should be in Romance and that the common people should be allowed to read them. He speaks very badly when he says one ought not weep over or lament the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. He speaks very badly when he says it would be fitting for children, when they reach the age of discretion, to be asked if they wish to hold firmly to what their godfathers promised for them at baptism, and if they should answer in the negative,


perhaps it would be fitting not to force them but to let them follow their own free will. He says that he is not clearly certain that Our Lady knew for certain that Her Son was God when she lost Him....

     This witness further said that the multitude of errors in the works of Erasmus is so great that one could give a lengthy dissertation on them.