258 JOHN E. LONGHURST Their lordships of the Council were requested and solicited many times for their reply to my appeals. It appears they did not give a reply; rather, while they replied (in regard) to other matters of this case, they glossed over my appeals. Finally at my insistence and urging, a petition of mine was sent to the Council, expressing my dissatisfaction and asking them to order that a reply be made to my appeals, by replying at the bottom of my petition. And thus almost three months went by... until a reply was brought from their lordships which was read to me on September 26, 1533, and was dated in Madrid four or five days earlier (September 22). This reply was equivocal (and seemed to be an attempt to evade my appeals) ... by saying that in spite of my appeals they were referring the case back to the inquisitors of Toledo. They said nothing about confirming or revoking my imprisonment, on which point I had particularly made my appeal, and not on the case itself, which could very well have proceeded without my being imprisoned in this fashion. For we know that other and more serious cases have been tried here with the accused being allowed the freedom of the city, although some of them probably had less honor to lose (by the shame of imprisonment) than do I. |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 259 my favor, no faith or credit should be given to them for reasons which I shall state below. 2. "Mujercillas." |
260 JOHN E. LONGHURST her to be a liar. It is manifestly clear that she was a prisoner for two years and said nothing, until she found put before her (by the inquisitors themselves) the accusations which she then made, in the manner to be described below. In addition, she clearly appears to have induced her servant (Maria Ramirez) to concur with her in all the testimony she has given. Despite all this and more ... the testimonies of these two still stand up in order to cause such great harm. It is certainly true, as I have believed, that neither these women nor the other witnesses in this publication -- whose testimony is of little moment - were sufficient to bring this ignominy upon me, had there not intervened the suspicion about my letters and counsel to Tovar. (3) Since the latter charges came to nothing, it has been necessary to give substance to these others. But the truth of this matter must already be so well known that I will need to spend but little time in proofs. 3. Vergara is surely right on this point. The inquisitors had been frustrated in their efforts to imprison him until they uncovered the secret correspondence between him and Tovar. Also, for quite some time after seizing Vergara, the Toledo inquisitors kept up the fiction that the only reason for detaining him was to ascertain the details of his letter smuggling and his general suborning of the Holy Office. |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 261 for him as I had done before. Afterward, since I wanted to leave for Flanders, I worked to make sure they were separated before I left, and in order better to achieve this I offered him one of the two benefices which I held, in which he must take up residence. This will be recalled by don Francisco de Mendoza, who is now bishop of Zamora. For when I was going with his lordship to Galicia, at the time his majesty (Charles V) was taking a different road to embark for Flanders, as we were passing through Valladolid where Francisca Hernandez and Tovar were living at the time, I begged don Francisco de Mendoza, in the monastery of San Benito in Valladolid, to talk to Tovar and make him give up that woman. His lordship, as a favor to me, spoke to Tovar while walking through a cloister of the said monastery. And I even remember how his lordship jokingly asked Tovar if his love affair with her was going well, although he expressed it in a more courtly fashion. But in the end he could do nothing to make Tovar change his plans, so I left Tovar in Valladolid and I went to Flanders. After this, Tovar in Alcala wrote Francisca a long letter rebuking her harshly for her activities, as is made clear in the interrogatory. It happened that Francisca Hernandez was brought as a prisoner to this |
262 JOHN E. LONGHURST jail, where she was held for about two years without making any denunciations about anything, as appears from the record of her statements. After the passage of these two years it seems, from what one can infer from the clear indications, that she was questioned - in accordance with the style of the Holy Office - and directed to state what she knew about Tovar, as a person to whom some people referred as an Illuminist, and she was advised in detail of the propositions held by the Illuminists, in order that she might see if she knew anything of such matters. |
263 LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN from any source, including Lutheranism as well as other things, and instructing her servant, point by point, to do likewise without regard to time, nor correctness, nor any truth at all. |
264 JOHN E. LONGHURST when Tovar (I believe) was no longer entering the house of this witness (Francisca Hernandez), I never saw Tovar nor he me ... except for one or two days in 1515 or 1516 when Tovar, at that time a lay student, passed through Alcala and saw me and spoke with me in the colegio, at which time there was as yet no Luther in the world nor had anybody heard his name. 4. As indeed it is. Francisca Hernandez claimed that Vergara did not approve of Luther's position on confession. Vergara himself stated that Luther's position on confession is that confession is of positive law, a view which Pedro Ortiz, witness number seven, claimed Vergara persisted in maintaining over Ortiz' most strenuous objections. |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 265 woman, especially after I had just taken Tovar away from her, to her great annoyance and dissatisfaction. |
266 JOHN E. LONGHURST themselves, and in accordance also with the opinions of ancient and modern Catholic doctors, as Pope Adrian VI points out.... It is even in accord with the opinions held nowadays at (the University of) Paris.... So I could not have attributed to Luther an opinion so old and common and so Catholic as this one. |
267 LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN except for those who have a special positive precept of oral prayer, such as those who are ordained and beneficed and those to whom it is given as penance, or who are ordered to pray orally.... (Vergara goes on to point out, in Latin, the utility of oral prayer in stimulating mental prayer, and how many saints emphasize the primary importance of mental prayer, such as Saint Augustine. All this, he says, is common knowledge; only ignoramuses do not understand it.) |
268 JOHN E. LONGHURST This witness also said she heard a certain person say that papal bulls were a joke and ... that the Moor of Granada who had bought a bull for two reales (sold it again for one real) ... and that they were better off as Moors than they were after becoming Christians, and that he showed better sense in selling that bull for one real than the Christians did in buying them., for we do not buy them to sell. This witness claims she heard Doctor Vergara say the same thing, adding, "They expect me to believe or understand that at the clink of the coin the soul leaves Purgatory, " placing his hands one over the other like someone counting money. This witness also claims she knows that Doctor Vergara holds all the opinions of the Illuminists, because she heard him express and maintain them, and she believes Doctor Vergara does much harm because he is a man of considerable standing, and she heard him say that praying and fasts were superstitious practices ordained for ignoramuses. 5. Vergara is quite correct. The charge in question was that Vergara said he would never believe that by spending two reales on a bull, one was absolved of guilt and punishment. |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 269 forms with any of the new accusations added by her mistress (Francisca Hernandez in 1532). |
270 JOHN E. LONGHURST This witness says she heard me speak about and maintain all the propositions of the Illuminists.... Where did this woman learn which were the propositions of the Illuminists ... if she did not see them all listed together in the edict (of 1525)?.. How else could she have (claimed to have) found them in me, all together and organized in the same way as the edict itself, so many years before the said edict was issued? According to what she says above she heard me say these things in the year 1522 or 1523 when there was no account of such propositions or edicts, and when I had only recently returned from Flanders, where there was no knowledge of such things either. |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 271 witness. Otherwise their statements (supporting her) would have been given in this publication of charges. |
272 JOHN E. LONGHURST others. More briefly, see the "Quaestiones de Indulgentiis" of Pope Adrian, which alleges all this. And you will see that in saying it, there is no heresy or error at all, because the granting of indulgences requires sufficient cause ... and thus they conclude that when a rich man and a poor man buy the same bull of plenary indulgence, the rich man does not gain it if the two reales (he pays) mean nothing to him. However, the poor man who takes (the money) from his living expenses, does gain (the indulgence). The rich man does gain apart of the indulgence, proportionate to his contribution, but the rich man's not gaining (the plenary indulgence) proceeds from papal defect, as the pope cannot voluntarily dissipate the treasure of the Church, since God is the dispenser of that. |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 273 as to the time, I state that the (latest) time she claims to have heard Tovar say these things would be either 1520 or 1521, although I doubt it could have been the latter. For from the year 1520, from what I am advised, they did not see or speak with each other again.... |
274 JOHN E. LONGHURST the exact same words that Tovar (is supposed to have) used two or three years before (in 1520) BEFORE I went to Germany. So I could not have brought recently from Germany the same words she had heard from Tovar so long before; nor could Tovar have heard those words from me, since this witness says she heard Tovar say these things before I went to Germany, and I had not seen Tovar for ten years. |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 275 appears that this woman believed she was sent away (to Medina del Campo) because she said too little (in her Toledo testimony), and so she later continued, always adding something more until she concluded that she had said everything possible.... However, notice well in this ninth part of her accusation that in none of these additions to her original testimony does her maid conform, as she did when the two of them were together, except only in the reference to oral prayer, on which they both agreed when first questioned (at which time they were in the same cell together). What she says in the tenth and last part about having liberty and saying mass without praying, is taken from her testimony against Tovar. She then later availed herself of this charge to use it also against me.... Nor in this addition to her testimony does her maid conform, because (at the time Francisca made this latter charge, Maria Ramirez) had already been separated from her mistress. Vergara concluded his reply to the accusations of Francisca Hernandez by insisting at considerable length that her testimony should be disregarded on the ground that he had clearly established that she was a criminal, liar, perjurer, hypocrite and a vicious person (266r-267r). He then replied to the charges of Francisca's maid, Maria Ramirez, repeating essentially the same points which he had made in his reply to Francisca's testimony (267r-268v). Turning to the third witness against him, friar Francisco Ortiz, Vergara at first failed to identify his accuser, and apparently thought it was Juan de Valdes. Consequently, Vergara's first reply to the charges made by Francisco Ortiz was somewhat confused and off the point (268v-271v). Soon, however, he realized the correct identity of his accuser. Since the third witness was Francisco Ortiz, he said, then the charges of Ortiz are of even less substance. Ortiz, he said, was so blinded by Francisca Hernandez that he would believe anything she told him as inspired from God. Besides, even a cursory examination of his testimony shows clearly that it amounts to nothing at all: For the words of the first part of his charge, stripped of their verbiage, are that about six years ago Francisca Hernandez advised him not to communicate with Tovar. This astonished him greatly, |
276 JOHN E. LONGHURST because (he says) Tovar spoke well of Francisca Hernandez. Then he learned from Francisca that Doctor Vergara's errors about bulls and oral prayer had stuck to Tovar. This witness then recalled that when he was talking with me in Alcala I had praised Erasmus as a person who thought nothing of not saying the Divine Office if one Was studying something important. |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 277 am quite certain she told Ortiz about these supposed errors of mine by somehow communicating with him in jail. (6) Then, too, Francisco Ortiz reports errors he claims I expressed about papal indulgences and bulls during a conversation we had at Valladolid in 1523, according to his own chronology. But when I was in Valladolid with the archbishop in 1523 Francisco Ortiz was not even there. He was in Burgos. In replying to the next witness against him, Vergara properly identified his accuser as friar Bernardino de Flores, and had much to say about his general character and his role in the Comunero revolt of 1520. This witness is an infamous and criminal person, guilty of the crime of lese-majeste, for having devoted all his efforts, as he did, to raising up in this kingdom in disservice and rebellion against the emperor and king (Charles V). He stirred up a great part of the kingdom by means of his sermons and by using the word of God to agitate and stir up the people, inciting them to rob, kill, burn, commit sacrilege and other serious and terrible crimes.... He does not even show any repentance or emendation of his crimes; rather he boasts of and prides himself on them more every day. Not many days ago he boasted in the presence of some people about how he, preaching in this city of Toledo, had induced the people to go to attack the castle of Saint Servand, which favored the king's cause, using the authority of Scripture to persuade them to do so.(7) |
278 JOHN E. LONGHURST hatred and ill will toward me because my former senor, Cardinal Francisco Ximenez (de Cisneros), on learning that certain bulls renouncing the benefice of the curacy of Pinto had been presented in his (Ximenez') council in favor of this witness, he directed that possession (of the said benefice) not be given to this witness. So Cardinal Ximenez directed me to withhold the bulls for many days and to write the pope (expressing oPposition to the appointment of Flores! ... which I did. (Consequently, Flores was given to understand that I was responsible for holding up his appointment, and that is why he hates me so and takes this opportunity to avenge himself upon me). Vergara then replied to the substance of Flores' charges, denying that he had said Saint Augustine did not know what he was talking about in his commentary on the Psalms of David. He might have said that Saint Augustine made some errors in translation because of his weak knowledge of languages, but he certainly said no more than that. If the witness had troubled to look at the writings of the Church fathers he would have found that they often have contrary opinions among themselves. He would also have found that Saint Augustine himself confessed he did not know Hebrew, and that he knew very little Greek either. Just because a man is canonized as a saint it is not to be assumed that everything he ever did or said becomes officially approved doctrine. Only Scripture enjoys such authority. The writings of saints are approved for their general usefulness, and are considered to be worth reading; however, we are not obligated to accept everything in them as indisputable articles of faith. If such were the case we would be expected to accept as authoritative statements of faith a great many contradictory opinions given by the various saints. Insofar as the Quinquagenae of Saint Augustine is concerned, Saint Jerome himself raised a great number |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 279 of objections to what he called errors resulting from lack of knowledge of the languages in that particular work of Augustine's. (8) Furthermore, whatever comments Vergara might have made about the books of Solomon, he probably made because he personally translated Solomon from Greek into Latin - as well as other books of Scripture - for the Polyglot Bible, under orders of Cardinal Ximimez. If it is heresy to point out the differences in meaning resulting from translation, then Saint Augustine himself was a heretic, for he ... likewise noted such differences.... If it is against the Church to give greater authority to the original texts in the languages in which they were written ... then I do not know why the Church itself orders us to avail ourselves of the Old Testament in the (original) Hebrew text and the New Testament in (the original) Greek.... If it is heretical to turn to the original text and look upon it as being the more accurate .., then Saint Augustine must be a heretic, since he often set aside the Church version and followed the Greek original.... Cardinal Cajetan must be a heretic too ... because he corrected the present text to make it conform with the Greek, changing and altering words and sentences even more than Erasmus, being much less fearful of the (ensuing) calumnies of ignoramuses.... Nicholas of Lira must be a heretic too, for making so many annotated revisions of the Old Testament.... Cardinal Francisco Ximenez must be a heretic too, for having had these annotations printed.... Even Pope Leo X must be a heretic, for in two papal briefs he praised the translation and annotations of Erasmus on the New Testament, calling it a holy work and urging Erasmus to publish it as useful to theologians and to the faith. 8. This particular argument is very similar to the one used by Thomas More in 1520 in defending Erasmus against precisely the same charge. See More's lengthy letter to an unknown monk, in Elizabeth F. Rogers, ed., The Correspondence of Sir Thomas More, Princeton, 1947, pp. 165-206. An abbreviated version of this letter, reminiscent of the method used by Peter Abelard in the Sic et non, appears in James Anthony Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus, New York, 1894, pp 143-149. See especially p. 145. |
280 JOHN E. LONGHURST Vergara's reply to the testimony of Tovar, to the effect that a work of Oecolampadius was in Vergara's library, was very brief. He merely pointed out, as Tovar himself had already done, that for many years prior to 1529 he had been absent from Alcala, and Tovar had taken care of his library. Vergara himself had no idea that such a book had been bought by Tovar. The next witness, Hernando de Lunar, had accused Tovar of claiming that the canonical hours had been instituted for rogues, that therefore it was not a sin to forego praying the hours, and that Tovar had learned all this from Vergara, who in turn had heard it from Erasmus in Flanders. Vergara answered this charge by pointing out that it conflicted with the accusation made by Francisco Ortiz, that Vergara maintained it was not a sin to pray the hours if one was studying something important. By clear implication this would mean that if one were not studying something important, it would indeed be a sin to neglect saying the Divine Office. Anyway, Vergara added, the whole thing is ridiculous, because nowhere in the writings of Erasmus does the Dutch humanist even suggest anything similar to these comments attributed to him and to Tovar. Vergara correctly identified the next witness as Doctor Pedro Ortiz, who had said that Vergara insisted Erasmus was right when he said no council had yet determined that confession was of divine law, whereas Ortiz had insisted that such a decision had been made at the Council of Constance. If such a decision had been made, said Vergara, he was not the only one who did not know of it. A great many famous theologians, such as Saint Bonaventure and Peter Lombard, did not know of it either. And if it is said that they did not know because such a decision was not reached until after their time, at the Council of Constance, Vergara could only invite the inquisitors to examine the records of that council, as he had done himself without finding any such decision recorded there. Nor did Pope Adrian VI find it either, for he expressly said that it is not heretical to deny that confession is of divine law. Even King Henry VIII of England, in his Defense against Luther, said no more than that confession is probably of divine law. |
LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN 281 This witness also said that he (Ortiz) told him (Vergara) that a decision had been made in the time of Alonso Carrillo, and was later confirmed by the pope, in which decision confession was stated to be of divine law, and that the contrary opinion, held by a certain doctor (Pedro de Osma) had been condemned as erroneous. Doctor Vergara then (allegedly) consented to this view (that confession is of divine law) and asked this witness how it was then that Erasmus said what he did about confession if the divine law view had been determined in the said Council of Constance. This witness replied that he believed Erasmus had not seen the decision. Then this witness added in his accusation that it distressed him to see Doctor Vergara such a friend to the doctrine of Erasmus, because Doctor Vergara knows that there are, scattered through Erasmus' works, many dangerous errors against the tradition of the Church ... which he (Ortiz) fears will be accepted by men who read such works, unless they are letrados who can detect such errors and avoid them, or unless such errors are first noted and removed from the works of Erasmus. |
282 JOHN E. LONGHURST Paris) ... and Doctor Vergara gave some letters of Castillo to a certain person (namely, Lucena). The next witness, Diego Hernandez, had accused Vergara of several things. He had charged that Vergara did not hear mass, that Vergara was a danado follower of Tovar and an endiosado Lutheran, and that Vergara, in rebuking a sermon given by Doctor Albornoz, had said he did not believe in the Holy Spirit. Vergara, in his reply, does not mention Diego Hernandez by name, and he may have confused him with someone else. To this witness I reply that no greater proof of his enmity toward me is needed than the fact that on three different occasions he came to depose against me about such silly hearsay things as these. It was public knowledge that this witness was my enemy and did not even talk to me, and that he had not spoken to me for two years, which caused many people to gossip about it, and he went around complaining about me to everybody. He claims that other persons (also) heard me say the things of which he accuses me. One assumes, therefore, that these persons were called and questioned on these points. But since in their statements no such charges are made against me, then it is certain that they prove this witness to be a liar. |
283 LUTHER'S GHOST IN SPAIN mass himself. Having lived more than three years in the same house where I lived and where masses were regularly said and heard (and practically never going to mass himself), he must be making these charges on the basis of hearsay. The next witness, friar Gil Lopez de Bejar, had been named by Francisca Hernandez and Maria Ramirez as a witness to the heresies of which they had accused Vergara. Questioned on this point, friar Gil could recall nothing to substantiate the claims of the two women. He did, however, say that he had heard Vergara, in the past, praise some things about Luther and he had advised Vergara, as a friend, to be more moderate in his speech. However, friar Gil could remember no specific points on which Vergara had praised Luther. In his reply to this witness, Vergara pointed out the vague nature of the charges, and guessed correctly that friar Gil's testimony could have resulted only from his having been named by Francisca Hernandez as one who might substantiate some of her charges. It was also 9. It was Tovar, according to Diego Hernandez. |