OF IMPORTANT EVENTS DURING THE FIRST YEARS OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE
EIGHTH INQUISITOR-GENERAL; RELIGION OF CHARLES V. DURING THE LAST YEARS
OF HIS LIFE.
_Trials during the first years of the ministry of Valdes._
Don Ferdinand Valdes was the successor of Cardinal Loaisa in the
archbishopric of Seville, and the office of inquisitor-general. At the
time of his appointment he was bishop of Siguenza, and president of the
royal Council of Castile, after having been successively a member of the
grand College of St. Bartholomew de Salamanca, of the Council of
Administration for the archbishopric of Toledo, for the Cardinal Ximenez
de Cisneros, visitor of the Inquisition of Cuenca and of the Royal
Council of Navarre, a member of the Council of State, canon of the
metropolitan church of Santiago de Galicia, counsellor of the Supreme
Inquisition, bishop of Elna, Orensa, Oviedo and Leon, and president of
the Royal Chancery of Valladolid. So many honours could not render him
insensible to the mortification of not being a cardinal like his
predecessors, and of seeing Bartholomew Carranza elevated to the see of
Toledo. This was the true cause of his cruel persecution of Carranza.
The Pope approved the nomination of Valdes in January, 1547, and he took
possession of his office in the following month. Valdes displayed an
almost sanguinary disposition during his administration. It led him to
demand from the Pope the power of condemning Lutherans to be burnt, even
though they had not relapsed, and had desired to be reconciled. I shall
here make known the most illustrious of the victims sacrificed before
the abdication of Charles V., as it is necessary to make a separate
article for the events of that nature under the reign of Philip II.
Among the condemned persons who appeared in the _auto-da-fe_ of Seville
in 1552, was Juan Gil, a native of Olvera, in Aragon, and a canon in the
metropolitan church of that city; he is better known by the name of
Doctor _Egidius_. He was first condemned, as violently suspected, to
abjure the Lutheran heresy, and to be subjected to a penance; but four
years after his death, in 1556, he was condemned, and, as having
relapsed, his body was disinterred, and burnt with his effigy; his
memory was declared infamous, and his property confiscated, for having
died as a Lutheran. Raymond Gonzales de Montes was his companion in
prison, but succeeded in escaping, and was burnt in effigy. In a work
written on the Spanish Inquisition, he has introduced several
particulars relating to the life of _Juan Gil_. He informs us that
Egidius studied theology at Alcala de Henares, and there obtained the
title of Doctor. He acquired so great a reputation, that he was compared
to Peter Lombard, to St. Thomas d'Aquinas, to John Scott, and other
theologians of the greatest merit. His talents induced the chapter of
Seville to offer him unanimously the office of preacher to the
cathedral. Egidius had very little talent for preaching, and the canons
soon repented of having appointed him.
Rodrigo de Valero told Egidius that the books from which he derived his
knowledge were worth nothing, and that his preaching would never be
admired, if he did not study the Bible. Egidius took his advice, and in
time acquired a style of preaching extremely agreeable to the people,
but his success raised him many enemies.
The emperor gave him the Bishopric of Tortosa in 1550, which increasing
the envy and hatred of his enemies, they denounced him to the
Inquisition of Seville as a Lutheran heretic, for some propositions
which he had advanced in his sermons, and which they separated from the
other parts, to give them a different sense from what they would
otherwise have had; they took advantage of the favour he showed to
Rodrigo Valero in 1540 during his trial, and of some other
circumstances, to injure him.
Egidius was taken to the secret prisons of the holy office in 1550: he
made use of this opportunity to compose his apology, which rendered the
storm his enemies had raised still more violent. His simplicity had made
him, in his apology, establish as certain principles, some propositions
which the scholastic theologians looked upon as erroneous, and tending
to heresy. The conduct and morals of Egidius were so pure, that the
emperor wrote in his favour, the chapter of Seville followed his
example, and (what is still more remarkable) the licentiate, Correa,
Dean of the inquisitors, was touched by his innocence, and undertook to
defend him against his colleague, Pedro Diaz, who bore the greatest
hatred to the accused. This circumstance was particularly mortifying to
Egidius, as his enemy formerly held the same opinions, and had likewise
studied in the school of Rodrigo Valero.
The interest which Egidius had inspired induced the inquisitors to
accede to his proposal of a discussion between him and some learned
theologians. Brother Garcia de Arias, of the convent of St. Isidore of
Seville, was chosen; but his opinion was not deemed sufficient, and Juan
Gil demanded the Dominican friar, Dominic Soto, should be summoned to
the conference. This incidence retarded the trial, but Soto at last
arrived at Seville.
According to Gonzales de Montes, this theologian held the same opinions
as Egidius; but to prevent the suspicions which might arise from this
circumstance, he persuaded Egidius to draw up a sort of confession of
faith. They agreed that both should write their opinions, and only
communicate them to each other in public. This author states that these
confessions of faith were compared, and found to accord perfectly.
The inquisitors being informed of this arrangement, declared that, as
the reputation of a bishop was concerned, it was necessary to convoke a
public assembly, where Dominic Soto should explain the object of the
meeting in a sermon, and read his confession of faith; that Egidius
should afterwards read his, that the assembly might judge of the
conformity of their opinions. The inquisitors caused two pulpits to be
prepared, but, either by chance, or from a private order, they were so
far apart, that Egidius could not hear what Soto said.
Soto[12] read an exposition of his principles entirely different from
that on which they had agreed in their private conferences; and as
Egidius did not hear him, and supposed that he was reading the same
confession which he had approved, he consequently made signs with his
head and hands that be accorded with his propositions. Egidius then
began to read his confession of faith, but those who understood the
subject, soon perceived that there was not the slightest resemblance
between them, and that Egidius held several opinions entirely opposite
to some propositions advanced by Dominic Soto, and acknowledged as
dogmatical by _the tribunal of the faith_: this circumstance effaced the
favourable impressions produced by the gestures of Egidius. The
inquisitors added these writings to those of the trial, and passed
judgment upon Egidius according to the advice of Soto. He was declared
violently suspected of the Lutheran heresy, and condemned to three
years' imprisonment; he was prohibited from preaching, writing, or
explaining theology for the space of ten years, and never to leave the
kingdom on pain of being considered and punished as a formal heretic.
Egidius remained in prison until 1555; he was at first extremely
astonished at his situation, after having perfectly agreed with the
Dominican on all the points in question. He was not undeceived, until
some of his fellow-prisoners informed him of the difference of his
articles with those of Soto, and the treachery of that monk.
Egidius took advantage of the short interval of liberty which followed
his imprisonment to go to Valladolid, where he had an interview with
Doctor Cazalla and other Lutherans in that city: on his return to
Seville he fell sick, and died in 1556. The tribunal being informed of
his intercourse with heretics, instituted another trial, and pronounced
that he died an heretic; his body was disinterred, and burnt with his
effigy, in a solemn _auto-da-fe_, his memory declared infamous, and his
property confiscated: this sentence was executed in 1560.
It will be necessary here to quote a letter of Don Bartholomew Carranza
to Brother Louis de la Cruz, a Dominican, and his disciple. The
archbishop mentions as a well-known circumstance, that his catechism had
been presented to the holy office; Brother Melchior Cano and Dominic
Soto had been commissioned to censure it, and that they had judged
unfavourably of his work. He complained much of this conduct in Soto; he
said he could not comprehend such scruples _in a man who had been so
indulgent to the Doctor Egidius who was considered as an heretic, while,
on the contrary, the author of the Catechism had combated the opinions
of the heretics of England and Flanders_; that Soto had judged the book
of a Dominican monk no less favourably, while he treated an archbishop,
whom he was bound to respect, without consideration; that he would, in
consequence, write to Rome and Flanders, where he hoped that his
propositions would be more favourably received than at Valladolid; but
that, at all events, Pedro de Soto, confessor to the emperor, would
write to Dominic, and he hoped that the Almighty would allay the tempest
which had been raised around him.
Brother Pedro wrote to Dominic Soto, and a correspondence ensued between
him and the archbishop Carranza, on the censure of the catechism, and
other works. These letters were found among the papers of Carranza, when
he was arrested by the Inquisition. They proved that Dominic Soto had
violated the secrecy which he had sworn to maintain before the
Inquisition: some details were found in them relating to the violence
which had been used to make him condemn the catechism of Carranza; he
was arrested by the Inquisition of Valladolid, on account of these
expressions.
It appears from the archbishop's letter, that the censure of Brother
Dominic on Egidius was mild and conciliating, which does not accord with
the substitution of the false exposition of his principles mentioned by
Gonzales de Montes. I must observe that this author writes like a man
blinded by his hatred of his enemies, whom he calls papists, hypocrites,
and idolaters; he even carries his fanaticism so far as to look upon the
deaths of the three judges of Egidius during his lifetime as a
particular effect of divine justice.
As the affair of Juan Gil is connected with the history of Rodrigo
Valero, I shall here relate it. He was born of a good family in Lebrija.
In his youth, he was extremely irregular and dissipated, but all at once
he quitted society, and shut himself up to study the Scriptures with so
much ardour, that his conversation, and his contempt for food and
clothing, made him pass for a madman.
He endeavoured to persuade priests and monks, that the Roman church was
far from holding the pure doctrine of the Evangelists, and became one of
the sect of Luther. His attachment to their doctrine was so great, that
when he was asked from whom he held his mission, he replied from God
himself through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
This fanatic was denounced to the holy office, which paid no attention
to it, being persuaded that Rodrigo was mad. But as he continued to
preach in the streets in favour of Lutheranism, and as no part of his
conduct showed that he was deranged, he was arrested, and would have
been condemned to be delivered over to secular justice, if the
inquisitors had not persisted in believing him to be mad, and if his
disciple Egidius, whose opinions were not then known, had not undertaken
his defence. Nevertheless, he was condemned in 1540 as an heretic and
_false apostle_; he was admitted to reconciliation, deprived of his
property, condemned to the _San-benito_, to perpetual imprisonment, and
to assist on every Sunday at the grand mass of St. Saviour of Seville.
Several times, when he heard the preacher advance propositions contrary
to his own, he raised his voice, and reproached him for his doctrine:
this boldness confirmed the inquisitors in the opinion that he was
deprived of reason: he was shut up in a convent in the town of San Lucar
de Barrameda, where he died at the age of fifty. Gonzales de Montes
considers him as a man miraculously sent by God to preach the truth: he
adds, that his _San-benito_ was suspended in the metropolitan church of
Seville, where it excited great curiosity, as he was the first person
condemned as a _false apostle_.
Although, during the period of which I have related the history, there
were fewer Judaic heretics than in former times, yet there were many
more than might be supposed. Of this number was _Mary de Bourgogne_, who
was born at Saragossa: her father-in-law was a native of Burgundy, of
Jewish extraction. A _New Christian_ slave, (who had renounced the law
of Moses, to obtain his liberty, and was afterwards burnt for having
relapsed,) in 1552, denounced Mary de Bourgogne, who resided in the city
of Murcia, and had attained her eighty-fifth year. This man deposed
that, before his conversion, some person asked him if he was a
Christian; he replied that he was a Jew, and that Mary then said to him,
_You are right, for the Christians have neither faith nor law_. It will
no doubt appear incredible, but the trial proves that in 1557 she was
still in prison, waiting until sufficient proof was found to condemn
her. After having waited in vain, the inquisitors commanded that Mary
should be _tortured, though she was then ninety years old_, and the
council had decreed that in such cases the criminal should only be
intimidated by the preparations. The inquisitor Cano says, that the
_moderate_ torture was applied; but such were the effects of this gentle
application, that the unfortunate Mary ceased to live and suffer in a
few days after.
The inquisitors took advantage of some expressions which escaped from
the unfortunate woman during the torture, to condemn her as a Judaic
heretic, in order to confiscate her property, which was considerable.
Her memory, her children, and her descendants in the male line were
declared infamous, her bones and effigy were burnt, and her property
confiscated.
The Supreme Council showed a certain degree of moderation in another
affair, before the tribunal of Toledo. Michael Sanchez died in prison,
before his sentence, which was a pecuniary penalty, could be announced
to him: the inquisitors were uncertain if his property was liable for
this penalty; they applied to the council, which replied in the
negative.
I now terminate the history of the remarkable events of the reign of
Charles V. After a reign of forty years, this prince abdicated the crown
in favour of his son Philip II., on the 16th of January, 1556. He did
not long survive his abdication; he died in the convent of the
Jeronimites, at Yuste in the province of Estremadura, on the 21st of
September, 1558, aged fifty-seven years and twenty-one days. He had made
his will at Brussels on the 16th of June, 1554, and a codicil in the
monastery of Yuste, twelve days before his death.
_Religion of Charles V._
Some historians have asserted, that Charles V. adopted, in his retreat,
the opinions of the German protestants; that in his last illness he
confessed himself to Constantine Ponce de la Fuente, his preacher, who
was afterwards known to be a Lutheran; that after his death Philip II.
commissioned the inquisitors to examine the affair, and that the holy
office took possession of the emperor's will, to examine if it contained
anything contrary to the true faith. These statements compel me to enter
into some details which will elucidate this point of history.
To ascertain that the report on the religion of Charles V. is only an
invention of the protestants and the enemies of Philip II., it is
sufficient to read the life of that prince, and that of his father,
composed by Gregorio Leti. Although this historian has made use of the
least authentic documents, in his work, he is entirely silent on this
point. He enters into a minute detail of the life and occupations of
Charles V. in his retreat, and he relates many decisive proofs of his
attachment to the catholic faith, and his zeal in wishing that it might
triumph over the Lutheran heresy; and though no dependance can be placed
on what he says concerning the conversations of the emperor with the
Archbishop Carranza, (since there is nothing relating to them in his
trial, which I have read,) yet it must be confessed that his recital is
otherwise very exact.
It is not true that Constantine Ponce de la Fuente attended the emperor
in his last moments, either as his preacher, (which office he had filled
in Germany,) or as a bishop, since he did not possess that dignity, as
foreign authors have asserted without any foundation, or as his
confessor, since he had never directed his conscience, though the
emperor had always looked upon him as one of the most learned and
respectable priests in his kingdom. Lastly, Ponce de la Fuente could not
assist Charles V. in his last moments, since it appears from his trial
before the Inquisition of Seville, that he was in the secret prisons of
the holy office long before the illness of the emperor. Don Prudent de
Sandoval, Bishop of Tui and Pampeluna, speaking of the last
circumstances of the life of Charles V., relates that when that prince
heard of the imprisonment of Ponce, he said, _Oh! if Constantine is an
heretic, he is a great heretic_: an expression very different from that
which he used on hearing that a monk named Dominic de Guzman had been
arrested in the same city: _They might rather imprison him as a fool
than an heretic._
In his codicil, written twelve days before his death, Charles V. thus
expresses himself: "When I had been informed that many persons had been
arrested in some provinces, and that others were to be taken, as accused
of Lutheranism, I wrote to the princess my daughter, to inform her in
what manner they should be punished, and the evil remedied. I also wrote
afterwards to Louis Quixada, and authorized him to act in my name in the
same affair; and although I am persuaded that the king my son, the
princess my daughter, and the ministers, have already, and will always,
make every possible effort to destroy so great an evil, with all the
severity and promptitude which it requires; yet, considering what I owe
to the service of our Lord, the triumph of his faith, the preservation
of his church and the Christian religion, (in the defence of which I
have performed such painful labours at the risk of my life, as every one
knows;) and particularly desiring, above all, to inspire my son, whose
catholic sentiments I know, with the wish of imitating my conduct, and
which I hope he will do, from knowing his virtue and piety, I beg and
recommend to him very particularly, as much as I can and am obliged to
do, and command him moreover in my quality of father, and by the
obedience which he owes me, to labour with diligence, as in a point
which particularly interests him, that the heretics shall be prosecuted
and chastised with all the severity which their crimes deserve, _without
permitting any criminal to be excepted, without any respect for the
entreaties, or rank, or quality of the persons_: and that my intentions
may have their full and entire effect, I desire him to protect the holy
office of the Inquisition, for the great numbers of crimes which it
prevents or punishes, _remembering that I have charged him to do so in
my will_, that he may fulfil his duty as a prince, and render himself
worthy that the Lord should make his reign prosperous, conduct his
affairs, and protect him against his enemies, to my consolation[13]."
I have already stated, that no dependance can be placed on the account
given by Gregorio Leti of the conversations of the emperor with Don
Bartholomew Carranza de Miranda, archbishop of Toledo. It is certain
that the emperor had a great esteem for Carranza, which induced him to
give him the bishopric of Cusco in America, in 1542, and of the Canaries
in 1549; to send him as theologian of the emperor to the council of
Trent, in 1545 and 1551; and to London with his son Philip II., King of
Naples and England, in 1554, to preach against the Lutherans.
Nevertheless, when he was informed, in his retreat at Yuste, that
Carranza had accepted the archbishopric of Toledo, to which King Philip
had appointed him, he began to feel less esteem for him, because he did
not know that Carranza had refused that dignity, and named three persons
whom he considered more worthy to occupy it. Philip was not only
displeased at this refusal, but he commanded him to obey the will of his
sovereign, and wrote to the Pope, who supported his order by a
particular brief addressed to Br. Bartholomew.
Charles V., at this period, had Br. Juan de Regla, a Jeronimite, and a
learned theologian, for his confessor. He had assisted at the Council of
Trent with Carranza, whom he always treated as an enemy, because he was
jealous of his great reputation. I shall hereafter prove the disposition
of Juan de Regla towards Carranza; at present I shall only show that he
had great part in his disgrace with the emperor, for being suspected of
professing the same doctrines as Egidius, Constantine, Cazalla, and
others. Regla became more fanatic than charitable, during the
persecution which he suffered from the Inquisition of Saragossa, when he
was prior of the Convent of Santa Fe; he was condemned to abjure
eighteen Lutheran propositions, of which the inquisitors declared him to
be suspected. The emperor was also informed, through the private
correspondence of his children, that the Inquisition was occupied in
preparing the trial of the archbishop for heresy, when he came to visit
him in his last illness; and his presence was so disagreeable, that,
instead of conversing with him, as Leti affirms, he did not speak one
word. Sandoval, with more probability, thus expresses himself: "This
evening the archbishop of Toledo, Carranza, arrived, but he could not
see the emperor. This prince had waited for him with much impatience
since he had quitted England, because he wished to have an explanation
on certain things which had been reported of him, and seemed to show
that his faith was suspected; for that of the prince was extremely
lively, and anything which appeared contrary to sound doctrine gave him
great pain. The archbishop returned on another day; the emperor who
wished much to hear him, admitted him into his presence, and told him to
sit down, but did not talk to him, and on that night he became much
worse.[14]"
The animosity of Juan de Regla against the archbishop of Toledo, was
soon manifested in two voluntary informations before the
Inquisitor-General Valdes, on the 9th and 23rd of December, in 1558, at
Valladolid. I shall at a future period explain all the articles of the
denunciation of Juan de Regla, but it is necessary to anticipate the
order of time in affairs, to prove that Charles V. was not disposed to
favour Carranza in the latter part of his life.
The first denunciation took place on the 9th of December: it imported,
that on the day before the death of the emperor, the archbishop of
Toledo kissed his majesty's hand, and left the room; that he soon after
returned; and that he did so several times, _though the emperor showed
very little desire to see him_, and that he gave him absolution before
he confessed him; which Juan da Regla imputed to the archbishop as a
sign of contempt or neglect of the sacrament: that in one of these
visits he said to the emperor, _Your majesty may be full of confidence,
for there is not, nor ever has been any sin, the death of Jesus having
sufficed to efface it_; that this discourse appeared bad to him, and
that there were present Br. Pedro de Sotomayor and Br. Diego Ximenez,
Dominicans; Br. Marcos Oriols de Cardona and Br. Francis Villalba, monks
of St. Jerome: the last was his majesty's preacher; the Count de Oropesa
and Don Diego de Toledo his brother; Don Louis d'Avila Zuniga, grand
commander of the military order of Alcantara, and Don Louis de Quixada,
major-domo to the emperor.
The inquisitor-general would not admit the Dominican monks as witnesses,
because he supposed them subject to the archbishop: the evidences of
Count Oropesa and his brother were likewise rejected, because they were
his friends. The monk of St. Jerome declared that the archbishop arrived
at Yuste on a Sunday, two days before the death of the emperor; that
this prince _would not see him or allow him to enter_, but his
major-domo, Don Louis de Quixada, undertook to introduce him; that
Carranza threw himself on his knees in the chamber, and that the
emperor, _without saying a word to him_, fixed his eyes upon him, like a
person who wishes to express himself by a look: that the persons who
were present retired: that when the archbishop came out of the chamber
he appeared discontented, and he the witness believed that he was so,
having heard from William, the emperor's barber, that on the day when
the news of the nomination of Carranza to the archbishopric of Toledo
arrived, his majesty said, _When I gave him the bishopric of the
Canaries he refused it; now he accepts the archbishopric of Toledo; we
shall see what we are to think of his virtue_; that their private
interview lasted a quarter of an hour, and the archbishop called in the
attendants. When they entered, the archbishop threw himself on his
knees, and his majesty made a sign for him to sit down, and repeat some
words of consolation; that the prelate again threw himself on his knees,
and repeated the four first verses of the psalm _De profundis_, not
literally, but paraphrasing the text. His majesty made him a sign to
stop, and Carranza then retired with the other attendants; that on
another day, about the hour of ten in the evening, just before the
emperor expired, Carranza visited him, because he had been informed of
his danger, and gave him the crucifix to kiss, and at the same time
addressed some words of consolation to him, at which the monks Juan de
Regla, Francis de Villalba, Francis Angulo, prior, and Louis de St.
Gregoria, were scandalized. These persons conversed together afterwards,
and said that the prelate ought not to have spoken thus; but the witness
could not recollect what the words were. They were repeated to him, and
he replied that he believed they might be the same, but that he could
not be certain, as he was reading the passion of our Saviour, _according
to St. Luke_, at the time; he only remarked that the monks looked at one
another with a kind of mystery.
Neither Francis Angulo, nor Louis de St. Gregoria were examined, perhaps
they were dead. Francis de Villalba, preacher to the emperor, declared,
that he had not heard anything in the emperor's apartment which was
worthy of being reported to the Inquisition. Being questioned as to what
he thought of the discourse which the archbishop had addressed to the
emperor, he replied that he was only present once, when the prelate
recited some verses of the _De profundis_; that Don Louis d'Avila
afterwards requested him to speak to the emperor, and that he made him
an exhortation. When examined on the subject of the words and the
scandal, he replied that he did not hear or see anything that could
offend him.
Don Louis d'Avila y Zuniga cited the entrance of the prelate; and that
he took a crucifix and knelt down, saying with a loud voice, _behold him
who answers for all; there is no longer any sin, all is pardoned_. The
witness did not recollect if the archbishop said, _and however numerous
the sins may be, they are all pardoned_: that these words did not appear
proper to him, and he requested the emperor's preacher to make him an
exhortation, who afterwards told him that his majesty appeared
satisfied.
Don Louis de Quixada deposed that the archbishop was with the emperor,
three times before his death, that he saw him take a crucifix, and that
he pronounced some words on the subject of Jesus Christ dying for our
sins, but he could not recollect them, because his employment as
major-domo occupied him at the time.
These circumstances show that Charles V. was far from being inclined to
Lutheranism at his death. It is equally false that the inquisitors took
his will, to examine if it contained any sentiments tending to heresy. I
have read or consulted a multitude of books and papers in the archives
of the Inquisition, and could not discover anything to support the
opinion; so that nothing now remains but to seek the origin of this
fable.
A number of circumstances may have caused the Inquisition to be
mentioned in relating the death of Charles V. The first is, that
Carranza, who attended him at his death, was soon after arrested by the
holy office; the second, that his two preachers, Constantine Ponce and
Augustine Cazalla, were condemned by that tribunal; the third, that his
confessor, Juan de Regla, was obliged to abjure certain propositions;
the fourth, that the emperor himself had been threatened with
excommunication three years before, as a favourer of heretics, by Paul
IV.; the fifth, that Philip II. made use of the Inquisition in a variety
of circumstances entirely political.
Charles V. died a Catholic; and it is only to be regretted that he
associated so many superstitions with his Catholicism, and showed so
much attachment to the Inquisition during his life.