By his third wife, Elizabeth or Isabella of France, he had only had two
daughters, and that virtuous princess died of a miscarriage in the same
year, 1568. This misfortune (and the bad opinion conceived by all Europe
of Philip II., who was considered as a cruel and hypocritical prince)
occasioned the imputation of having caused the queen's death. He was
first accused of it by the Prince of Orange, and afterwards by many
other persons. France had proofs of the contrary, since Charles IX. sent
an ambassador extraordinary to Madrid, with compliments of condolence
to the king, who was really inconsolable for the loss of his expected
heir. Juan Lopez del Hoyo, in 1569, published a faithful account of the
illness and death of the queen; and some circumstances which he mentions
seem incompatible with the use of poison, which is said to have
occasioned her death. It is evident that the Prince of Orange suffered
himself to be misled by hatred and revenge. The reality of a crime
cannot be believed when neither the end nor motives for it can be
perceived, and Philip was certainly interested in the queen's life. Some
writers, after having supposed that the crime was committed, have
endeavoured to discover the cause, and some romance-writers have thought
that they discovered it in the pretended intrigue with Don Carlos.
Supposing it to be true, there are historical proofs that it could not
have commenced till after his return from Alcala, and at that time he
ardently wished to marry his cousin, Anne of Austria. This princess
became the fourth wife of Philip, and the mother of his successor,
Philip III.
Philip II., wishing to commemorate the justice of his conduct towards
his son, ordered that the writings of the trial, with the original, and
translation from the Catalonian tongue of that of Don Charles, Prince of
Biana, should be collected and preserved. Don Francis de Mora, Marquis
de Castel Rodrigo, who became the king's confidant after the death of
Rui Gomez de Sylva, in 1592, deposited these writings in a green coffer,
which the king afterwards sent shut, and without a key, to the royal
archives of Simancas, where it is still, if it has not been carried away
by the order of the French government, as it has been reported in
Spain.
CHAPTER XXXII.
TRIAL OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF TOLEDO.
One of the most illustrious victims of the holy office was Don
Bartholomew Carranza de Miranda, Archbishop of Toledo. The writings of
the trial amount to twenty-four folio volumes, each containing one
thousand or twelve hundred pages. This immense mass of writings must
doubtless contain many facts unknown to Don Pedro Salazar de Mendoza,
the author of the life of Carranza. This respectable writer spared no
expense to discover the truth, but could not penetrate the mystery which
envelopes the proceedings of the Inquisition. I have read this trial,
which enables me to fill up the omissions of Salazar de Mendoza, and
correct his involuntary errors.
Bartholomew Carranza was born in 1503, at _Miranda de Arga_, a little
borough in the kingdom of Navarre: he was the son of Pedro Carranza, and
grandson of Bartholomew, both members of the nobility of Miranda. His
true family name, consequently, was _Carranza_; but while he was a
Dominican monk, he was only called Miranda. When he was made Archbishop
of Toledo, he was named Carranza de Miranda, to prove the identity: he,
however, only signed the name Fray Bartholomeus Toletanus, according to
the custom of the times. The family of Carranza has been perpetuated to
the eighteenth century, in the direct male line from Pedro, brother to
the archbishop. At twelve years of age, Bartholomew, through the
interest of his uncle Sancho de Carranza, a doctor in the university of
Alcala de Henares, and the antagonist of Erasmus, was received into the
College of St. Eugenius, which was dependant on the university. When he
attained his fifteenth year, he passed into the College of St. Balbina,
to study what was then called _philosophy and the arts_, which was
confined to some general ideas of logic, metaphysics, and physics. In
1520 he took the habit of a Dominican, in the Convent of _Venalec_, in
the _Alcarria_, which was afterwards transferred to the city of
_Guadalaxara_. As soon as he had professed, he was sent to study
theology in the College of St. Stephen of Salamanca and in 1525 he was
placed in that of St. Gregory of Valladolid.
A proof of the rapid progress of Bartholomew may be seen in his trial.
Fray Michel de St. Martin, a Dominican monk, and a professor in the same
college at Valladolid, denounced him to the holy office, in 1530,
deposing that, two or three years before, he had had several
conversations with Carranza, on subjects concerning his conscience; that
he had remarked that he limited the power of the Pope, relating to the
ecclesiastical ceremonies; and that he had reprimanded him for so
erroneous an opinion. Carranza was also denounced in 1530, by Fray Juan
de Villamartin, as having been the ardent defender of Erasmus, even on
the subject of the sacrament of penance, and the frequent confession of
persons who are only in a state of venial sin; that having opposed to
him the example of St. Jerome, he maintained that it was impossible to
support the fact by the authority of any respectable ecclesiastical
historian; that Carranza also said Erasmus ought not to be contemned,
for saying that the Apocalypse was not the work of St. John the
Evangelist, but of another priest, who bore the same name.
These denunciations were not made use of until the instruction of the
trial of the archbishop was far advanced, when every method was employed
to find materials for accusations; the _denunciations_ and _suspended
trials_ were then looked over, and those above-mentioned were found.
They were noted as declarations of witnesses, under the numbers
ninety-four and ninety-five; while, according to the dates, they ought
to have been the first.
As these denunciations were not known out of the holy office, the
rector and counsellors of the College of St. Gregory de Valladolid
presented Carranza, in 1530, as a professor of philosophy; in 1534 he
was appointed professor of theology, and soon after a qualifier to the
holy office of Valladolid. In 1539 he was sent to Rome, to attend a
general chapter of his order, where he was chosen to maintain the
theses, which were only confided to persons capable of performing their
duty well: the talents he displayed in these exercises obtained him the
rank of Doctor and Master of Theology; and Paul III. permitted him to
read prohibited books.
On his return to Spain, he professed theology, with the greatest
success, in his College of St. Gregory. The harvest having entirely
failed in the mountains of Leon and Santander in 1540, the inhabitants
went to Valladolid in great numbers. Carranza not only maintained forty
of these poor people in his college, but sold his books to assist others
in the city, only retaining his Bible, and the _Summary_ of St. Thomas.
During this period he was continually occupied, either at the holy
office as a qualifier, or at home in censuring books sent to him by the
Supreme Council, or in preaching sermons at the _auto-da-fe_.
In the same year, 1540, Carranza was appointed Bishop of Cuzco, but he
refused to go to South America, except as a preacher of the gospel. In
1544, Carranza was sent to the Council of Trent, as theologian to
Charles V. He remained there three years, and it was there that Cardinal
Pacheco (dean of the Spanish prelates who attended at the council)
engaged him to preach on _justification_ before the Fathers. In 1546, he
published at Rome one of his works, called _The Summary of Councils_;
and another at Venice, of _Theological Controversies_. In 1547 he
published a treatise _On the Residence of Bishops_, which created him
many enemies, and which was attacked by Fray Ambrose Caterino, and
defended by Fray Dominic de Soto, both Dominicans.
On his return to Spain, in 1548, he refused the appointment of
confessor to Philip II., then prince of the Asturias, and in 1549
declined accepting the bishopric of the Canaries. He was elected in the
same year prior of the Dominicans of Palencia, which he accepted. In
1550 he was made provincial of the Convents of Castile, and visited his
province.
The Council of Trent being again convoked in 1651, Carranza was
commanded by the emperor to attend it, and furnished with full powers by
the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo; he assisted at the different
assemblies until 1552, when he was suspended the second time. Among the
different commissions confided to him, was that of preparing an _Index_.
On his return to Spain, the period of his provincialship had expired,
and he re-entered his College of St. Gregory of Valladolid.
The alliance between Philip II. and Mary, Queen of England, being fixed,
Fray Bartholomew, in 1554, went to England in order to assist Cardinal
Pole in preparing the kingdom to return to the Catholic faith. Carranza
passed the greatest part of his time in preaching, and succeeded in
converting a great number of heretics. When the king left England to go
to Brussels, Carranza remained with the queen, to whom he was useful in
supporting the Catholic doctrine in the universities, and arranging
other affairs of the greatest importance. He revised, by the order of
Cardinal Pole, the canons which had been decreed by a national council,
and caused several obstinate heretics to be punished, particularly
Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Martin Bucer; his zeal
often exposed him to great danger.
In 1557 he went to Flanders, where he caused all books infected with the
heresy of Luther to be burnt. He did the same at Frankfort, and also
informed the king that many of these books were introduced into Spain by
way of Aragon. Philip, in consequence, gave the necessary orders to the
inquisitor-general to intercept these works. In order to render this
measure more effectual, Carranza drew up a list of suspected Spaniards
who had fled to Germany and Flanders. The original copy of this list was
found among his papers when he was arrested.
On the death of Cardinal Siliceo, Archbishop of Toledo, the king
appointed Carranza to succeed him; he however refused to accept the
dignity, and named Don Gaspard de Zuniga y Avellanada, Bishop of
Segovia, Don Francis de Navarra, Bishop of Badajoz, and Don Alphonso de
Castro, a Franciscan, as more worthy of the king's choice than himself.
He persisted in his refusal, until the king commanded him on his
allegiance to accept the archbishopric: the original of this royal order
was also found among the papers of Carranza. Paul IV. dispensed with the
usual formalities; he was _preconised_ in a full consistory on the 16th
December, 1557, and his bulls were expedited. Pedro de Merida, canon of
Palencia, administrated until the arrival of the archbishop. The
Inquisition of Valladolid afterwards prosecuted him for some letters
which he had written to Carranza, and which were found among his papers;
he was also implicated by Fray Dominic de Roxas, and by other
accomplices of Dr. Cazalla.
The Archbishop Carranza was consecrated at Brussels on the 27th of
February in the same year, by the Cardinal Granville, afterwards first
archbishop of Malines. He published at Antwerp his Catechism in Spanish,
under the title of _Commentaries of the very Reverend Fray Bartholomew
Carranza de Miranda, Archbishop of Toledo, on the Christian Catechism,
in four parts_[65].
He afterwards returned to Spain, and assisted several times at the
Councils of Castile and the Inquisition. About the middle of September
he went to the monastery of St. Juste, to make a report to Charles V. of
some affairs confided to him by Philip II., and to pay his respects to
the emperor, who was then ill, and died two days after. An account has
been given in the eighteenth chapter of what passed at this visit. He
then repaired to his archbishopric, where he remained six months, and
then went to Alcala de Henares, with the intention of visiting his
diocese. During the six months that he passed in the capital, his
conduct was exemplary, passing his time in preaching, distributing alms,
visiting the prisoners and the sick, and in causing prayers to be said
for the dead. He employed himself in the same manner in all the places
he passed through, until he arrived at Torrelaguna, where he was
arrested by the Inquisition on the 22nd of August. He was taken back to
Valladolid, and imprisoned in a house belonging to the eldest branch of
the family of Don Pedro Gonzalez de Leon, where Don Diego Gonzalez, an
inquisitor, was appointed to guard him.
Carranza had made enemies of several bishops, when he published his
treatise _On the Residence of Bishops_: the reputation which he acquired
for learning in the Council of Trent, at the expense of several
individuals who considered themselves superior to him, rendered them
also his enemies, or at least his rivals. Of this number were Melchior
Cano, who has been already mentioned; their rivalry was changed into
open jealousy on his part, and on that of Fray Juan de Regla, when
Carranza was appointed Archbishop of Toledo. This hatred became common
to others, when, after refusing the archbishopric, Fray Bartholomew
recommended the three persons before mentioned to the king: among them
were Don Ferdinand Valdes, inquisitor-general; Don Pedro de Castro,
Bishop of Cuenca, a son of the Count de Lemos; and a man of much greater
merit, Don Antonio Augustine, Archbishop of Tarragona, who was the
luminary of Spain in sacred literature. These persons endeavoured to
conceal their sentiments, but their words and actions betrayed them.
Besides this principal motive for the conspiracy against the archbishop,
we may be permitted to suppose another. Carranza had given a copy of his
Catechism to the Marchioness d'Alcanices in several detached pieces;
when it was printed, he distributed it as it came from the press.
The Marchioness d'Alcanices intrusted the work to several pupils or
partisans of the archbishop, among whom were Fray Juan de la Pena, Fray
Francis de Tordesillas, and Fray Louis de la Cruz; it was also read by
Melchior Cano, who, in different conversations, plainly insinuated that
it contained propositions tending to the Lutheran heresy. Don Ferdinand
Valdes being informed of these circumstances, bought several copies of
the Catechism, and sent them to persons with whose opinions he was well
acquainted, desiring them to read it attentively, and to observe all
that merited theological censure, but not to give their opinions in
writing until they had again communicated with him. The persons he
selected, were Fray Melchior Cano, Fray Dominic Soto, Fray Dominic
Cuevas, the Master Carlos, and Fray Pedro Ibarra, provincial of the
Franciscans.
This work was also sent to Don Pedro de Castro, Bishop of Cuenca; and it
may be said that his reply, dated from Pareja, April 28, 1558, was the
foundation of the trial of Carranza. It appears from the letter to the
inquisitor-general, that he had requested to know the opinion of de
Castro on the Catechism, and he informs him that he thinks it a
dangerous work, promises to give him his reasons for it, and adds that
the article on _justification_ tends towards Lutheranism. He says that
having heard the author speak in the same manner at the Council of
Trent, he had conceived a bad opinion of his doctrine, although he did
not think that Carranza really held such erroneous sentiments. Don
Pedro further says, that his present opinion is supported by facts,
which he had already communicated to Doctor Andres Perez, a member of
the Supreme Council.
It appears, by a paper signed by the same bishop, on the first of
September, 1559, that his communications to the counsellor were confined
to the following articles: that being present at a sermon preached by
Carranza before the king in London, he observed that he spoke of the
_justification of men by a lively faith in the passion and death of
Jesus Christ_, in terms approaching to Lutheranism; that Fray Juan de
Villagarcia informed him that Don Bartholomew had preached the sermon in
the preceding year at Valladolid, and that he then thought it
reprehensible. The bishop adds, that he spoke to Carranza on the
subject, and attributed his silence to humility; that at another time
when he was preaching before the king, he said, that some sins were
irremissible. At first he thought he had not understood him, but
Carranza afterwards repeated the same proposition several times. The
bishop concluded by stating, that in another sermon preached before the
king, Don Bartholomew spoke of the indulgences granted by the bull of
the Crusade, as if they might be bought for two rials (_ten pence_); and
that he thought such language very dangerous to hold in England in the
midst of heretics. All this accords with the declaration of Fray Angel
del Castillo, after the arrest of the archbishop, who deposed that de
Castro said that _Carranza had preached like Philip Melancthon_.
It appears from this statement, that Don Pedro de Castro did not feel
any scruples until three years after his journey to London, and did not
think himself obliged to denounce Carranza, until he had lost all hope
of becoming Archbishop of Toledo; if Don Bartholomew had remained a
single month, he would never have been accused. The inquisitor-general
gave up the letter he had received from de Castro, to begin the
proceedings, but he did not mention that which he had written himself,
which shows that it was not official. The counsellor Don Andrea Perez
neither deposed nor proved any of the facts related by the bishop, so
that the declaration was not entered in the proceedings when the order
for the arrest was issued; about a year and a half after, it was thought
proper to supply the place of it, by the insertion of a writing signed
by the bishop. The Court of Rome was astonished at the irregularity of
the proceedings, when it received the writings of the trial.
Fray Juan de Villagarcia, being already imprisoned, in 1561, declared
that he perfectly remembered hearing de Castro mention the sermon
preached by Carranza in London, but not that he had been scandalized at
it, or that he had said anything which could produce that effect.
Villagarcia said, that as the confidant of the archbishop, and having
been employed to transcribe his works, he was more capable of defending
the purity of his faith than any other person; and endeavoured to prove
that there was none but Catholic propositions in his works.
It is evident that the trial originated in the malice of the
inquisitor-general, which induced him to give the catechism to the
enemies of Carranza: when he was informed by Cano of the existence of
the propositions which caused the denunciation, he sent the work
officially to him, and to the other _qualifiers_, Soto and Cuevas; but
this did not take place till after some circumstances occurred, during
the trials of several Lutherans, which seem to have caused that of
Carranza, although the fact was entirely false. The inquisitor-general
being informed that Carranza was intimate with the Marquises d'Alcanices
and de Poza, many of whose friends and relations were in the prisons of
the Inquisition, ordered the inquisitors of Valladolid to obtain
information of the prisoners concerning the faith of the archbishop. A
report was also spread, that several persons had discovered a similarity
between the opinions of Carranza and Cazalla; which succeeded so well,
that a partisan of Cano had the audacity to announce from the pulpit,
when Cazalla was arrested, that an order had been issued to arrest the
Archbishop of Toledo.
On the 25th of April, 1558, Donna Antoinia Mella deposed, that
Christopher de Padilla had given her a MS. containing Lutheran
doctrines, which he said was written by Carranza. This declaration was
not communicated to the archbishop, because the work was composed by
Fray Dominic de Roxas. On the 17th of the same month, Pedro de Sotelo
made a similar declaration.
On the 29th of April, Donna Anne Henriquez d'Almanza deposed, that she
asked Fray Dominic de Roxas if he should treat of points of doctrine
with the archbishop, and that he said he should not, because Carranza
had just written a book against the Lutherans. She added that she had
heard Francis de Vibero say, that the archbishop would burn in hell,
because, knowing better than any person that the doctrine of Luther was
orthodox, he had condemned several persons to the flames in England, for
professing it. Francis de Vibero, on being interrogated, declared that
he did not remember to have used these words, and that he thought it
doubtful, because Carranza had always been a Roman Catholic.
Donna Catherine de Rios, prioress of the convent of St. Catherine, at
Valladolid, deposed, on the 24th of April, that she heard Fray Dominic
de Roxas say, that Don Bartholomew had declared that _he did not find
any evidence of the existence of purgatory in the Holy Scriptures_: she
added however, on the following day, that she was persuaded that
Carranza did believe in purgatory, because he always exhorted his monks
to perform masses for the dead; she deposed, that having asked Donna
Anne Henriquez, if the archbishop held the same opinion, that she did;
she replied, that on the contrary he had written a book in refutation of
them; that Donna Bernardina de Roxas told her that she had learnt from
Fray Dominic, that the archbishop had advised him _not to suffer
himself to be led away by his genius_; that Sabino Astete, canon of
Zamora, assured her that he had heard Fray Dominic declare that he had
the greatest compassion for Carranza, because he did not hold the same
opinions as he did. This declaration was not communicated to the
archbishop in the _publication of the depositions of the witnesses_,
because it contained nothing against him. If these declarations had been
made known to his defender, he might have derived great benefit from
them.
Fray Dominic de Roxas being summoned on the proposition relating to
purgatory, declared that Don Bartholomew had always spoken on that
subject like a good Catholic.
Fray Juan Manuelez, a Dominican, deposed on the 18th October, 1560, that
nine or ten years before, he conversed with Don Bartholomew concerning a
Lutheran who was condemned to be burnt, but could not be certain whether
the archbishop advanced the following proposition: _It is certain that
the Holy Scriptures do not assure us that there is a purgatory_,--This
witness makes his deposition a year after the arrest of the archbishop,
and is not certain of the fact. Would he not have denounced him ten
years before, if he had heard him speak in that manner?
On the 4th of May, 1559, Pedro de Cazalla deposed that in 1554 he heard
Don Charles de Seso deny the existence of a purgatory, and repeat the
proposition before Don Bartholomew Carranza, who appeared scandalized,
but did not attempt to refute or denounce him. The deponent also said,
that Fray Dominic de Roxas told him, that he had informed Carranza that
he could not reconcile the doctrines of justification and purgatory, and
he replied that _it would not be a great evil if there was no
purgatory_; that having answered from the decision of the Church, his
master said to him, _You are not yet capable of understanding this
matter_.
Don Charles de Seso being interrogated on this subject on the 27th
June, replied that Don Bartholomew had told him that he ought to believe
in the existence of purgatory, and that if he was not obliged to depart,
he would answer his arguments in a satisfactory manner; that Pedro
Cazalla was the only person to whom he had communicated his conversation
with Carranza; that he had reason to believe his present summons was
occasioned by the declaration of Cazalla, who had not spoken the truth.
On the 20th and 23rd, Fray Dominic declared that Carranza had always
spoken of purgatory like a good Catholic. Thus it appears that the
declarations of Cazalla were proved to be false, before the order for an
arrest was issued.
On the 7th of May, 1559, the inquisitor, William, remitted a letter from
Carranza, in which he mentions Don Charles de Seso, and says that he did
not denounce him, because he thought he had only been led into error;
which was proved by the reply of Seso, when reprimanded by him, that he
would only believe that which was really commanded by the Catholic
religion, and that he then told him he could not do better.
Garcia Barbon de Bexega, an alguazil of the Inquisition of Calahorra,
deposed on the 12th of May, that he arrested Fray Dominic de Roxas, when
he endeavoured to fly from Spain, and that when conversing with him on
the increase of the number of Lutherans, he asked if his master Carranza
was of that sect; Roxas replied in the negative; that he was not going
to seek him in Flanders for that reason, but to obtain from the king the
favour of not being degraded. This declaration was not communicated to
the archbishop in the _publication of the depositions_.
On the 13th of May, Fray Dominic de Roxas declared that Fray Francis de
Tordesillas had expressed pity for him, when he heard him speak of
_justification_, and make use of phrases in his discourses tinctured
with Lutheranism; that this also happened to Carranza. Fray Francis, on
being examined, deposed, that having copied several works of the
archbishop, and translated others into Latin, for the Marchioness
d'Alcanices and different persons, he had introduced a _preface_ into
one MS., stating that the way to avoid falling into error in reading
these works, was to understand in a Catholic sense some propositions on
_justification_, which might be interpreted in a different manner; that
all that Carranza had written was in the spirit of the Catholic
religion; that he, deponent, knew his intentions to be pure, because he
had seen him practise good works, and his sermons, conferences, and
private life, perfectly accorded with the true principles of faith.
Donna Frances de Zuniga, deposed on the 2d of June, that Carranza had
told her, that provided she was not in a state of mortal sin, she might
approach the holy table without confessing; that on the 13th of July she
heard Fray Dominic de Roxas say that Carranza thought as he did on some
of Luther's opinions, but not on all; that the nuns of the convent of
Bethlehem did not believe in purgatory, because Pedro Cazalla had told
them that such was the opinion of Carranza. Fray Dominic, being
summoned, made the depositions relating to purgatory above mentioned: he
added, on the 21st of March, that Don Bartholomew always explained his
propositions in a Catholic sense, and detested the Lutheran doctrine;
and that if he, deponent, had always profited by these explanations, he
would not have fallen into error. Pedro Cazalla being interrogated
concerning the nuns of Bethlehem, replied that he did not remember to
have spoken in that manner, but that he had concluded that such were the
opinions of Carranza when he did not denounce Don Charles de Seso.
On the 13th of July the inquisitors seized all the books composed by
Carranza in the house of the Marchioness d'Alcanices, who on the 28th
deposed, that having read the _Commentaries on the Prophecies of
Isaiah_, written by Carranza, she asked Fray Juan de Villagarcia from
what book the author had taken so much erudition? Fray Juan replied
that it was contained in a work of Luther, and that the book could not
be confided to every person, because the good was too often mixed with
evil in those authors. Fray Juan de Villagarcia being interrogated on
this subject, replied that it was a work of _OEcolampadius_, and that
the archbishop always kept it concealed; that it was true that he had
taken from it materials for the treatise in which he explained the
prophecies of Isaiah; but he was accustomed to say that no confidence
could be placed in the heretical authors; that the archbishop had been
seduced by them, but always defended the Catholic religion. It has been
already stated that Paul III. granted him permission to read prohibited
works; the brief was found among his papers.
On the 3rd of July, Elizabeth Estrada deposed, that Fray Dominic de
Roxas had told her, that it depended upon Don Bartholomew to make her
sister the Marchioness d'Alcanices adopt the errors of Luther, and that
he hoped to see that event take place, because then the king and all
Spain would embrace that religion. The deponent also said that Fray
Dominic told her that Don Bartholomew had read the works of Luther. Fray
Dominic, being examined, replied that he often spoke in that manner to
the nuns who were of his opinions, and to other individuals of his
society of Lutherans, adding that Carranza thought as he did on
_justification_ and purgatory; that he (Roxas) composed an _Explanation
of the articles of faith_, according to his own creed, and attributed it
to Carranza, to give it more consequence; that he always said the
archbishop approved the doctrine of Luther, to persuade those persons to
persevere in the faith, but that he never said that Don Bartholomew had
read the works of Luther, because he did not know that he had. The
deponent declared that the changes in his situation induced him to
confess the truth; that the archbishop had never adopted such doctrines,
and that he always gave a Catholic meaning to those phrases which would
bear a contrary interpretation.
On the 23rd of August, Fray Bernardin de Montenegro, and Fray Juan de
Meceta, (both monks of the convent of St. Francis, at Valladolid,)
voluntarily denounced a sermon, which was preached by the archbishop two
days before, in the convent of St. Paul, and in which he used some
expressions similar to those employed by the heretics. He also said,
that converted heretics should be treated with clemency, and that
persons were sometimes called heretics, illuminati, or quietists, merely
because they were seen on their knees before a crucifix, and smiting
their breasts with a stone: he invoked the authority of St. Bernard, to
support his last proposition, which (according to the denouncers) did
not agree with what he had advanced. The sermon being afterwards found
among the papers of the archbishop, was examined by the qualifiers, and
did not appear to contain any proposition deserving of censure. Yet the
inquisitors presumed to demand officially of the princess Jane,
governess of the kingdom, what she thought of the sermon; the princess
had the complaisance to reply, that she only remembered to have heard
some propositions which appeared to her to be improper.
On the 25th of the same month, Ferdinand de Sotelo denounced Don
Bartholomew, for having said in the presence of Pedro de Sotelo, his
brother, and Christopher Padilla, that if he had a notary with him when
he was dying, he would desire him to draw up an act of _renunciation of
all his good works_. Pedro and Christopher declared that they did not
remember that they had repeated this to Ferdinand de Sotelo. But Fray
Dominic de Roxas deposed, during the torture, on the 10th of September,
1559, that he thought he remembered being once in the village of
Alcanices, and hearing Don Bartholomew say, that at the point of death
he should wish to have a notary, to draw up an act of renunciation of
the merit of his good works, because he relied solely on those of Jesus
Christ, and that he considered his sins as nothing, because Jesus had
expiated them; Dominic added, that Don Louis de Roxas, his nephew,
related the same thing, as having occurred at his return from Flanders
in the king's suite, and that all these expressions did not make him
consider the archbishop as a Lutheran, but as a good Catholic; because
the heretics denied that the good works of the creature could expiate
sin, and attributed the expiation to the merits of Jesus Christ, while
Carranza only asserted, that the expiation by the good works of a sinner
was so little when compared with the infinite merits of our Redeemer,
that the sinner might regard them as nothing if he fervently prayed for
the application of the merits of our Saviour dying on the cross. There
seems to be no doubt that Fray Dominic was the author of the denounced
proposition; he explained it to the advantage of the accused during the
torture.
On the 8th of September, Fray Dominic declared that Don Bartholomew had
said, that the expression, _say the mass_, was not exact; that it would
be more correct to say _perform the mass_, from the Latin, _facere rem
sacram_, and that he used this expression in the pulpit and in his
writings. This accusation was certainly not sufficient to authorize a
decree of arrest.
On the 23rd of September, Doctor Cazalla declared, that ten or twelve
years before, he heard Fray Dominic de Roxas say, that Don Bartholomew
held the doctrines of the Lutherans. Fray Dominic on being examined
denied the fact, but afterwards, on being tortured, confessed, that he
had often declared that Don Bartholomew believed in the doctrines of the
Lutherans, to give weight to his own opinions, and acknowledged that he
did not speak the truth.
The same Doctor Cazalla (being examined on the evidence of Donna Francis
de Zuniga, who said he had instructed her in the doctrine of Luther)
declared, that Donna Frances, and her brother Juan, had told him, that
they were instructed by Don Bartholomew. The brother and sister denied
the fact, and Cazalla being tortured, retracted his declaration.
On the 9th of December, Fray Ambrose de Salazar, Dominican, being
summoned to declare if it was true that he had said, that some persons
held the same language as the heretics of Germany, replied that it was
true, and that he alluded to Dominic de Roxas, Christopher Padilla, and
Juan Sanchez. He was pressed to name all those to whom his allusion
could be applied, and he said that he did not remember any others. He
was then requested to consult his memory, and return the next day to the
tribunal of the Inquisition. He obeyed, but did not add anything to his
former declaration. He was then told that the inquisitors had been
informed that he alluded to some other person, that he must endeavour to
recollect him, and then return. The monk repaired to the Inquisition on
the 14th of the same month, and said, that he had thought the questions
put to him related to the archbishop, particularly after a report that
his trial had commenced; that until then he had been far from suspecting
the most zealous defender of the Catholic religion of heresy; that his
words agreed with his writings; that he had converted many heretics, and
burnt some others; that if he adopted certain phrases used by the
heretics, he always explained them in an orthodox manner, and that in
this case he only followed the example of several saints.
Don Francis Manrique de Lara, bishop of Salamanca, deposed, on the 10th
of October, that, at Naxera, he heard it said, that the archbishop had
been arrested on account of his catechism, and that Fray Ambrose
remarked, _it may not be for that alone; it is possible that his belief
in purgatory was suspected_.
When the _publication of the depositions_ took place, the evidence of
Salazar was not mentioned, and the defenders of the accused never knew
that he had given it. It is thus that the inquisitors in their
proceedings violate natural right, in concealing all that may be taken
advantage of by a defender.
On the 9th of December, Fray Juan de Regla voluntarily denounced
Carranza, for some expressions used by him to Charles V., on the
forgiveness of sins. This affair has already been mentioned in the
thirteenth chapter. On the 23rd Fray Juan again denounced Don
Bartholomew, for having supported the arguments of the Lutherans, in the
second session of the council of Trent, concerning the holy sacrifice of
mass; and for having dared to say _ego haero certe_, which scandalized
several fathers of the council; he admitted that the accused afterwards
explained his words, but said it was without energy. This monk was the
only witness who deposed to this fact. Don Diego de Mendoza, ambassador
of Spain to the council, who had been punctual in attending the
sessions, declared that he did not remember the circumstance, which had
not been denounced before by any of the numerous rivals of Carranza.
Fray Juan was extremely mortified that he could not obtain a bishopric,
and we may suppose that nothing but jealousy could inspire him with such
scruples, sixteen years after the event. It must be observed that he had
been condemned by the Inquisition of Saragossa, that he had abjured
eighteen propositions, and had been pursued by the Jesuits, of whom he
and Cano had shown themselves the most violent adversaries, while Don
Bartholomew was their friend. Cano and de Regla, therefore, endeavoured
to mortify Carranza, and persecuted him as being secretly attached to
the Jesuits.
The licentiate Hornuza, judge of appeals of the district of Santiago,
states in a writing annexed by the fiscal to the trial six weeks after
the arrest of the archbishop, that this prelate, having presented to the
Council of Trent some arguments in favour of Luther, he acknowledged
that they might be answered conclusively; the witness added that Doctor
Grados could confirm the truth of his testimony. The doctor was not
examined. Who, indeed, can believe that Carranza would have spoken in
that manner in the Council of Trent? On the 14th December, Fray Dominic
de Roxas presented a writing, containing a confession of his errors and
a prayer for pardon: he made the same declarations concerning the
archbishop as before; adding, that _he was obliged to confess that he
thought_ if the prelate and some _others had not been prepared by the
syrup of the Lutheran phrases, the works of the heresiarch would not
have made so much impression on their minds_. Fray Dominic said this to
palliate his own crime, and in the hope of being reconciled; but being
informed, on the 7th October, 1559, that he must prepare to die the next
day, he demanded an audience, in order to make a declaration necessary
to the repose of his soul; and having obtained it, he said "that he had
never heard Don Bartholomew utter any words contrary to the doctrine of
the Holy Church, that he always spoke against the Lutherans, and
explained those phrases which he (Fray Dominic) had seen in heretical
books, and heard from the preachers in Valladolid, in an orthodox
sense."
The above are all the declarations contained in the process of the
Archbishop of Toledo when a brief was denounced for his arrest. It may
even be supposed that there were not so many, since the brief was
expedited on the 7th January, 1559, and therefore it must have been
demanded, at the latest, in the beginning of December 1558. The censure
of the works of Carranza and the opinion of the Bishop of Cuenca were
also made use of as a motive for the demand. The qualifiers were
Melchior Cano, Dominic Cuevas, Dominic Soto, Pedro Ybarra, and the
Master Carlos. The following is a list of the MS. works of the
archbishop which are mentioned with the printed Catechism in this part
of the process.
1. Notes on the Explanation of the Book of Job, by another author.
2. Notes on the Explanation of the verse _Audi filia_ of the 44th Psalm,
by Juan d'Avila, 83.
3. Explanation of Psalm 83.
4. Explanation of Psalm 129.
5. Explanation of Psalm 142.
6. Explanation of the Prophet Isaiah.
7. Explanation of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans.
8. Ditto Galatians.
9. Ditto Ephesians.
10. Ditto Philippians.
11. Ditto Colossians.
12. Explanation of the Canonical Epistle of St. John.
13. Treatise on the Love of God to Man.
14. Ditto on the Sacrament of the Order, with notes on the same subject.
15. Ditto on the holy Sacrifice of Mass.
16. Ditto on the Celibacy of Priests.
17. Ditto on the Sacrament of Marriage.
18. Ditto on the Utility and Efficacy of Prayer.
19. Ditto on the Tribulation of the Just.
20. Ditto on the Christian Widow.
21. Ditto on Christian Liberty.
22. Remarks on the Commandments of God and the Sins of Mortals.
23. Apology for the _Commentaries on the Catechism_.
24. Proofs taken from Holy Writ for the defence of the publication of a
Catechism in the Spanish language.
25. Abridgment of the _Commentaries on the Catechism_.
26. Sermons for all the Year.
27. Ditto on the Love of God.
28. Ditto, _Super flumina Babylonis_.
29. Ditto on the Manner of hearing Mass.
30. Ditto on Holy Thursday.
31. Sermons preached before the Prince at Valladolid.
32. Ditto on the Circumcision of our Saviour.
33. Ditto, intituled _Poenitentiam agite_.
34. Ditto, _Si revertamini et quiescatis salviti eritis_.
35. Ditto on Prayer.
36. Ditto, _Hora est jam nos de somno surgere_.
37. Ditto, _Dirigite viam Domine_.
38. Ditto, _Spiritus est Deus_.
39. Ditto on the Psalm _De profundis clamavi_.
40. Ditto, _Filius quidem hominis vadit_.
41. Abridgment of two Sermons sent to Flanders to the Licentiate
Herrera.
Some MS. copies which had been given to the Marchioness d'Alcanices, and
other persons, before the Catechism was printed, were also annexed to
the process; the contents were the same, except some corrections
afterwards made by the author. The Marchioness d'Alcanices gave them to
Don Diego de Cordova, a member of the Supreme Council, who died soon
after. The MSS. were then taken by St. Francis de Borgia, who informed
Carranza, on his return from Flanders, that they were in his possession,
but that he wanted them to assist him in composing a sermon. Don
Bartholomew being arrested before the MSS. were returned to him, St.
Francis de Borgia sent them to the grand-inquisitor, in whose house they
were lost; it is stated in the process that only one of them was found
there some time after.
The holy office endeavoured to ascribe to Carranza some other works
condemned on the trial: these were the
Explanation of the Articles of the Faith, by Fray Dominic de Roxas.
Opinions on the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, by Juan
Valdes, secretary to Charles V., who became a Lutheran.
Treatise on Prayer and Meditation, which appears to have been
written by some other Lutheran author.
Explanation of the Book of Job, of which Carranza only wrote the
notes, which refute the text in several places.
Explanation of the verse _Audi filia_, explanatory notes only by
Carranza.
Several papers which Fray Dominic de Roxas and Christopher de
Padilla had distributed, maliciously attributing them to Don
Bartholomew, although they belonged to Fray Dominic, and other
Lutherans.
As to the _Exposition of the Canonical Epistle of St. John_, the
archbishop declared that, in the state in which it was, he did not
acknowledge it as his work; that he had only given it verbally to his
pupils, and that, doubtless, one of them had written it from memory;
that although the foundation of it was what he had taught, the errors
which it contained could not be imputed to him.
The grand-inquisitor was at first only acquainted with the Catechism of
Carranza, the censure of which was confided to Cano and others. Cano,
whose heart was full of hatred, wanted no incitements to condemn it; of
the inclinations of the others we may judge by letters, in which Fray
Dominic de Soto speaks of his embarrassment at being obliged to censure
some propositions which he considered very orthodox. Of all the works of
Carranza, those only were marked with the theological censure which are
numbered 3, 4, 13, 27, 28, 29, and 30. The Master Carlos, and afterwards
Cano and Cuevas, were employed in this work.
As there were among the Lutherans many persons intimate with the
archbishop, and even some who had been his pupils, he wished to be
informed of the state of their affairs. Fray Juan de la Pena, Fray
Francis de Tordesillas, and Fray Louis de la Cruz, sent the details to
Flanders to Fray Juan de Villagarcia, the companion of the Archbishop,
and by this means he learnt that his Catechism was to be condemned for
two reasons: first, on the pretext that it contained several heretical
propositions; and secondly, because the principle which caused the Bible
in the vulgar tongue to be prohibited in Spain in the present state of
the kingdom, would not admit of the permission of a work on
_justification_, and other points of controversy with the Lutherans, in
the same language. The archbishop first commissioned Villagarcia, and
afterwards the Jesuit Gil Gonzalez, to translate his Catechism into
Latin, with notes on the obscure passages: they began, but never
finished the work.
The archbishop, however, was far from suspecting that he would be
attacked for his personal profession of faith, when he received a letter
from Fray Louis de la Cruz, dated Valladolid, May 21, 1558, in which he
informed him that the Lutherans declared he partook their opinions.
Carranza replied, that he was more grieved for their misfortune in
having embraced heresy than for their false testimony against him. As he
was perfectly convinced of the purity of his faith, and believed that he
had given sufficient proofs of it in combating the opinions of the
heretics, he persuaded himself that only the sense of his _Commentaries_
was to be dismissed. He therefore returned to Spain, expecting to
arrange the affair on a few conferences with the grand inquisitor; and
in order to facilitate the attainment of his object, he obtained
approbations of his work from some of the most famous theologians in
Spain,--Don Pedro Guerrero, archbishop of Granada; Don Francis Blanco,
archbishop of Santiago; Don Francis Delgado, bishop of Lugo and Jaen;
Don Andrea Cuesta, bishop of Leon; Don Antonio Gorrionero, bishop of
Almeria; Don Diego Sobanos, rector of the university of Alcala; Fray
Pedro de Soto, confessor to Charles V.; Fray Dominic Soto, professor of
Salamanca; Don Hernando de Barriovero, canon, magistrate, and professor
of Toledo; and Fray Mancio del Corpus, professor of Alcala; besides
many other Doctors of Salamanca, Valladolid, and Alcala.
While the archbishop was at Valladolid in 1558, he demanded that the
theological censures of his works should be communicated to him, that he
might reply to them, and give any satisfaction required of him. He
thought he had a right to this concession, for several reasons: first,
as he was the author; secondly, as the primate of Spain; and thirdly, as
a man who might expect such an act of deference from the holy office, in
consideration of his labours in its cause. But the grand-inquisitor
Valdes (who was his enemy, though he pretended to be his friend) would
not grant his request, alleging that it was not the custom to hear an
author on the qualification of his works. Carranza then endeavoured to
avail himself of the approbations he had obtained from the illustrious
theologians already mentioned, who were almost all of them fathers of
the council of Trent; but they were not received, and he experienced the
same rejection from the Supreme Council. The mystery which shrouded all
the proceedings of that body was impenetrable, and he departed from
Valladolid in ignorance of the causes of his trial.
He, however, afterwards obtained information, that some witnesses had
been examined on his personal faith, and that the censurers of his work
noted it, as containing _heresies, propositions savouring of heresy,
fomenting heresy, tending to heresy, and capable of causing it_. Some
idea may be formed of the state of his mind from his application to the
king and the pope, to whom he sent an account of all that had passed
between him and the grand-inquisitor, and implored their protection; the
minutes of this account, and the letters which accompanied it, were
afterwards found among his papers.
On the 20th of September, he arrived at Yuste, in Estremadura. His
misfortune, it may be presumed, rendered him prudent in his exhortations
to Charles V.; it is not likely that he would use the phrases
attributed to him by Fray Juan de Regla, without adding expressions to
limit the absolute sense which the denouncer imputed to him. On the 5th
of October he again wrote to the king, on the occasion of the death of
the emperor, and also to Ruy Gomez de Sylva, and to Don Antonio de
Toledo, grand-prior of the order of St. John, both high in favour with
his majesty, and with whom he was intimate, but more particularly with
Don Antonio, who always endeavoured to be useful to him. His letters and
those of many others at Rome, who wished to serve him, were found among
his papers. The papal nuncio in Spain had already informed his court of
what was passing at Madrid, and it was believed that the
grand-inquisitor acted in concert with the king; this circumstance
prevented Paul IV. (though he esteemed Carranza) from interfering in the
affair, until he clearly perceived what was to be thought of it.
Philip II., who then resided at Brussels, was far from being capable of
arresting the progress of a trial undertaken by the inquisitors for a
matter of faith; he contented himself with promising to protect
Carranza, as long as it was compatible with the Catholic religion. The
demand of being heard in his defence, before the condemnation of his
Catechism, might have been granted, if the depositions concerning his
personal faith had not presented an obstacle. Don Ferdinand Valdes
represented to the princess Jane, governess of the kingdom, the
declarations of the witnesses, which, read by a person without
discrimination, and with the intention of injuring, made the archbishop
appear to be a real heretic. The princess communicated this to the king,
her brother, who being naturally suspicious, and knowing that Valdes was
inimical to Carranza, resolved to take the cowardly part of remaining
inactive, and waiting until the affair should be elucidated. It is not
true that Philip repented of having elevated Carranza to the see of
Toledo; the proof of this exists in the procedure: he was favourably
disposed towards the archbishop, till Valdes and the counsellors of the
Inquisition persuaded him that Carranza was an hypocritical heretic. The
absolute inactivity of this prince's character, and the formidable and
continual activity of Valdes, were the cause of the misfortunes of
Carranza.
The archbishop now thought it would be better to submit in order to
avoid the infamy, and without waiting for replies from Brussels and
Rome, on the 21st of September, 1558, he addressed a petition to Don
Sancho Lopez de Otalora, counsellor of the Inquisition, in which he
consented that his Catechism should be placed in the Index, provided his
name was not mentioned, and that the prohibition did not extend beyond
Spain, because the work was in the Spanish language. He hoped by these
means to preserve the reputation of being a Catholic author, the only
fame of which he was ambitious. In November, he sent letters to the
grand-inquisitor and others, and remitted petitions to the Supreme
Council, earnestly requesting, that in order to terminate all
difficulties as soon as possible, his Catechism might be printed in
Spanish, and given to him to be revised, corrected, and translated into
Latin. His efforts were unsuccessful; the grand-inquisitor, far from
wishing to serve him, obtained from the Pope the brief which completed
his disgrace. He perceived that he ought to have followed the advice
which had been given to him in Flanders, to repair to Rome, instead of
Spain. The Bishop of Orense gave him to understand that there were in
his case some things savouring of heresy, when he made the following
reply:--_Unless this crime entered by the sleeve of my habit, I am,
thank God, innocent of any thing of the kind. I shall therefore allow
the affair to take the common course._
On the 7th of June, 1558, Paul IV. declared in full consistory, "that
being informed that the heresies of Luther, and some others, had been
propagated in Spain, he had reason to suspect that several prelates had
adopted them; and in consequence he authorized the grand-inquisitor _for
two years from that day_, to make inquests concerning all the bishops,
archbishops, patriarchs, and primates, of that kingdom: to commence
their trials, and, in case that an _attempt to escape_ was suspected, to
arrest them and lodge them in a place of security, and that the
inquisitor should _immediately_ report the same to the sovereign
pontiff, and send the criminals to Rome as soon as possible, with their
process sealed up." The archbishop received notice of the expedition of
this brief, in a letter from Cardinal Theatire, on the 18th of January.
Valdes also demanded of the king, his permission to put it in execution.
A letter from Don Antonio de Toledo to Carranza, dated Brussels, 27th of
February, informed him, that his majesty had commanded the
grand-inquisitor to suspend the proceedings till he arrived in Spain;
adding, that his majesty was quite convinced of the wickedness with
which the archbishop was treated. Valdes renewed his demand in March,
representing the inconveniences of delay, and at last obtained
permission to execute the brief.
During this period, the inquisitors of Valladolid continued to receive
every possible deposition unfavourable to the archbishop, to justify the
proceedings against him.
On the 20th of February, 1559, Fray Gaspard Tamayo, a Franciscan,
voluntarily denounced the Catechism: he said, he thought it wrong in the
author, to exhort the faithful to read the Scriptures, and not to
address to the saints the prayers beginning _Pater-Noster_ and
_Ave-Maria_.
On the 11th of April, Don Juan de Acuna, count de Buendia, deposed that
the archbishop had recommended him to renounce that practice, and to
pray to the saints in the manner he had taught in his book; that he and
all his family, and Donna Francisca de Cordova, had followed his advice,
until the Bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo had persuaded them to the contrary:
the deponent added, that he knew that Carranza had given the same
advice to several other persons employed in the palace. This deposition
was followed by those of the countess his wife, their chaplain, and
seven of their servants.
On the same day, Fray Dominic de Roxas deposed, that the Marquis de
Roza, his father, asked Carranza if he should cause a thousand masses to
be said for his soul during his life, or after his death, and that the
archbishop replied, "_If my lord the marquis will believe me, he will
say the masses during his life_." The deponent further said, that the
archbishop, in going to Trent to attend the second convocation of the
council, was in company with some Lutherans who were with the King of
Bohemia; that he disputed with one of them in the presence of the Bishop
of Segovia, and though he appeared to have the advantage in the
argument, he afterwards said privately to the deponent, "_I was never so
much embarrassed as to-day; although I am a master of theology, yet I am
not so learned in the Scriptures as this Lutheran, who is only a
layman._" The witness also said, that the archbishop had read and
approved his _explanation of the articles of the faith_, and that he had
even inserted part of it in his Catechism. It has been also stated, that
Fray Dominic recanted all his depositions before his death.
On the 5th of May, Donna Catherine de Castilla, who was a prisoner of
the holy office, declared that she believed the archbishop to be a
Lutheran; but repenting, she retracted her declaration, and said that
she knew that Carranza had maintained to Don Carlos de Seso, her
husband, that he committed a fatal error in denying the existence of
purgatory. She persisted in her recantation.
I appeal to my readers, if the state of the trial and the depositions of
the witnesses were sufficient allegation: Canino the fiscal, reserving
to himself the right of accusing him with more formality hereafter,
demanded that the person of the archbishop should be seized, that he
should be imprisoned, and his goods and revenues sequestrated, to be at
the disposal of the grand-inquisitor. Valdes, after consulting the
Supreme Council, commanded the fiscal to present the papers of which he
had spoken in his requisition: these were the Catechism with the
qualifications of Cano, Cuevas, Soto, and Ybarra; two MSS. bound,
containing the articles of faith by Fray Dominic de Roxas, and the other
works of Carranza mentioned under the numbers 3, 4, 13, 27, 28, 29, and
30, with their qualifications; two sermons sent by Carranza to the
licentiate Herrera, judge of the trials for smuggling, who was under
arrest for Lutheranism; the depositions of the witnesses, with a summary
of them, and to cause the archbishop to be pronounced attainted of
heresy. Valdes, having drawn up, on the 8th of April, a verbal process
of the reception of the powers granted by the Pope, the licentiate
Canino, fiscal of the council of the Inquisition, on the 6th of May,
presented to the grand-inquisitor a requisition, in which he demanded
the execution of the brief, and declared that he would designate, in
time and place, the person which it was to strike. Valdes remitted a
declaration, in which he announced that he was ready to do justice
whenever he was required. On the same day, the fiscal presented another
requisition, in which he stated that Don Bartholomew Carranza,
archbishop of Toledo, had preached, insinuated, written, and taught, in
his conferences, his sermons, and his catechism, and in other books and
writings, several heresies of Luther, according to the depositions of
witnesses, and the books and writings which he presented to support his
charges: the letters were those of the Bishop of Cuenza, Don Pedro de
Castro; a letter from the archbishop to Doctor Cazalla, dated Brussels,
18th of February, 1558, in reply to compliments on his elevation to the
see of Toledo; (in this letter he begs Cazalla to "_pray that he may
have the light necessary to govern his diocese well_;" adding, "_that it
was more needful to ask it then than before, for those who formed part
of the church of God_;") two letters of Juan Sanchez, a Lutheran, in
which he says _that he was going to Flanders, because he hoped to be
well received by Carranza_.
As these formalities were all fulfilled in one day, it is not to be
doubted that it was a concerted scheme between the grand-inquisitor,
some members of the council, and the fiscal: if this had not been the
case, three days would have been necessary for these ceremonies. On the
13th of May, the grand-inquisitor and the council determined that
Carranza should be cited to appear, and reply to the accusations of the
fiscal.
When the king had given his consent that the archbishop should be
prosecuted, he required that he should be treated _with the respect due
to his dignity_: this he repeated in a letter to Cardinal Pacheco, who
informed him that Carranza had demanded that his affair should be judged
at Rome. The king also wrote two letters to Carranza on the 30th of
March, and the 4th April, in which he promised to protect him. The
letter to Cardinal Pacheco induced the grand-inquisitor to write to the
king on the 19th of May, when he informed him of the measure which had
been decreed, adding, that he thought a citation to appear more
moderate, less humiliating, and more private than an arrest by
alguazils. The king, however, had still some regard for Carranza, since
he did not approve of what had been done. At this period Don Antonio de
Toledo, who continued to correspond with Carranza, informed him, that
though he did not think the affair had taken so favourable a turn as
might be wished, yet he thought he still perceived some marks of
attachment for him in the king, in spite of the evil report made of him.
At last, on the 26th of June, the king sent an answer to the
inquisitor-general, in which he gives his consent to what had been
resolved upon; adding, that he hoped the execution of this measure would
be attended _with all the consideration due to the merit of Carranza,
and the dignity with which he was invested_. The prelate was informed of
this event, in a letter written by Don Antonio de Toledo, the next day.
The approbation of the king was received on the 10th of July, and on the
15th the fiscal presented a second requisition, in which he insisted on
the execution of the demand contained in the first, that Carranza should
be arrested, and his goods seized. He represented that the instruction
of the process furnished proofs which ought to have been considered
sufficient on the 13th of May; that nevertheless he would add to them
the deposition of Donna Louisa de Mendoza, wife of Don Juan Vasquez de
Molina, secretary to the king. This lady deposed, that the Marchioness
d'Alcanices told her, that, _according to the instructions of the
archbishop, it was not meritorious in the sight of God to deprive
ourselves of pleasures, and that it was not necessary to wear
haircloth_. The marchioness, who was examined, declared that she had
never said anything of the kind, but only that all these things were
less meritorious; that she had been intimate with the archbishop for
more than twenty years, and had been his penitent, but during all that
time she had never heard him say any thing against the faith.
On the 1st of August, the grand-inquisitor, in concert with the Supreme
Council, and several consultors, issued the order for the arrest of the
archbishop. At this juncture, Philip II. wrote to his sister, the
governess of the kingdom, saying, that in order to avoid the scandal and
inconveniences arising from the measures decreed by the holy office, it
would be proper to send for the archbishop to court upon some decent
pretext. Don Antonio de Toledo having heard some hints of this, hastened
to communicate it to Carranza, on the 19th of July: this was the last
letter that faithful friend wrote to him. Among the papers of the
archbishop, were found letters from persons, who afterwards, from want
of courage, joined his enemies. There was also found the minutes of a
representation in Latin, addressed to the Pope, in the name of the
chapter of Toledo, entreating his holiness not to allow the cause of
Carranza to be judged by the holy office of Spain, alleging that its
members were swayed by human motives, and not from zeal to religion: it
is not certain if this petition reached the Court of Rome, but the
chapter behaved to the prelate with great generosity.
The regent wrote a letter to the archbishop on the 3rd of August, in
which she says, that before the arrival of the king, which would soon
take place, she wished to communicate some affairs to him, and therefore
begged him to repair immediately to Valladolid, adding, that as the
least delay might occasion very disagreeable consequences, she should be
pleased if he came as soon as possible, even if without ceremony or
equipage, and that she sent Don Rodrigo de Castro that he might not lose
time, and might inform her of his arrival.
This Don Rodrigo de Castro was the nephew of the Bishop of Cuenca, the
first denouncer of Carranza: he departed from Valladolid on the 4th of
August; on the 6th he delivered the letter to the archbishop, who, on
the next day, replied to the princess that he would obey her orders. He
immediately sent his equipages and part of his household to Valladolid,
but followed slowly, that he might visit the towns and villages of his
diocese, which he was to pass through.
During this interval, Don Rodrigo wrote several letters to Valdes, one
dated the 4th of August, from Arevalo, and four from Alcala de Henares,
dated the 7th, 9th, 10th, and 14th, from which the inquisitor-general
concluded that the delay of eight days was too long, and concealed some
bad design: he pretended to think that Carranza intended to make his
escape to Rome, yet Don Rodrigo de Castro lodged in the same house, and
never lost sight of him. This pretext, futile as it was, gave Valdes the
opportunity of issuing a mandate on the 17th, appointing Don Rodrigo and
Don Diego Ramirez de Sedeno inquisitors of the districts of Toledo and
Valladolid. He commissioned them and the chief alguazil of Valladolid to
seize the person of the archbishop, to sequestrate his goods, and draw
up an inventory of them.
This order was executed at Torre-Laguna, on the 22nd, before day, and
while the archbishop was still in bed. When he was told that he was
under arrest, he demanded to know by whose order he was made prisoner;
that of the inquisitor-general, and the brief of the Pope, were shown to
him. He replied that the brief was general, and that it ought to be a
special commission expedited with a knowledge of the cause, which was
out of the jurisdiction of the inquisitor-general: that even supposing
him to be competent, the conditions prescribed in the brief were not
observed in his case, since nothing but malice could inspire the fear
that he should attempt to escape; that, from all these considerations,
he protested against the order of the grand-inquisitor, and the violence
of his measures, and demanded satisfaction of the Pope for the insult he
had received. Not being able at that moment to put his intentions into
execution, the archbishop desired Juan de Ledesma, the notary of the
holy office, who was present at his arrest, to write down his replies to
the inquisitors, and that he obeyed the order only to avoid
ill-treatment.
The archbishop requested that great care might be taken of his papers,
some of which belonged to trials concerning the archiepiscopal see, and
were of great importance. All that he requested was complied with on
this subject.
On the 23rd of August he left Torre-Laguna, and arrived at Valladolid on
the 28th; he was imprisoned in the house of Don Pedro Gonzalez de Leon:
his portfolio, and a box containing papers, were sent to the
inquisitor-general, who immediately caused them to be opened, and an
inventory taken of their contents. On the 6th of September he addressed
a letter to the king, giving an account, in his manner, of the arrest,
and alleging his pretended fear of the flight of Carranza, as the
motive for it. He added, that the archbishop appeared to be informed of
his proceedings; an insinuation which might have injured Don Antonio de
Toledo, whose correspondence he had read.
CHAPTER XXXIII.
CONTINUATION OF THE TRIAL UNTIL THE ARCHBISHOP WENT TO ROME.
The enemies of Carranza procured new witnesses, in order to justify
their conduct. Valdes and his coadjutors feared that public opinion
would be against them, if, when they pronounced the definitive sentence,
the archbishop was not proved, to all Europe, to be guilty of heresy.
To attain this end, the inquisitors examined ninety-six witnesses, who,
most of them, unfortunately, added nothing to what had been already
deposed; some of them attested the purity of Carranza's faith, and the
few who were against him deposed only what they had heard from other
persons, who either did not confirm, or denied the facts. It is worthy
of remark, that the greatest number of the witnesses who spoke in favour
of the archbishop were in the dungeons of the Inquisition, and made
their depositions during or after the torture, and when they were liable
to have it renewed, and to be subject to the cruel treatment of the
judges, whose schemes they frustrated. While these miserable people
showed so much courage, the bishops, archbishops, and theologians, who
aspired to the episcopacy, basely retracted their first and true
opinion, and qualified, as _violently suspected of Lutheranism_, the man
whom they had before considered almost as an apostle, and that in the
same trial and for the same work.
On the 26th of August, the grand-inquisitor delegated his powers to the
counsellors Valtodano and Simancas, reserving to himself the right of
pronouncing the definitive sentence; at the same time he appointed Baca,
Riego, and Gonzalez, inquisitors of Valladolid, to take the proper
measures to guard the archbishop, and sequestrate his property.
When the prelate arrived at the house intended for his prison, he was
asked what domestics he wished to have; he named six, but only two were
permitted to attend him. He begged Valtodano and Simancas not to allow
any person to see certain papers and letters from the Pope, Fray
Ferdinand de St. Ambrose, and the licentiate Cespedes, because they
related to a trial for the lordship of Cazorla: he asked the same favour
for a bundle of letters from the king, on some affairs which it had been
improper to make public. He demanded the original of his consultations,
and some approbations of his book, because he wished to present them to
the Pope, who was the only competent judge of his trial; and lastly,
some other writings relative to conferences which took place at the
Council of Trent, in England, and in Flanders, and which were so many
proofs of his efforts in the cause of the Catholic religion.
On the 1st of September, Valtodano and Simancas summoned the archbishop
to take an oath to speak the truth. The prelate replied that he would do
so when he received an order from the Pope or the king; that he
protested against all that had been done, because they were not
competent; that he did not acknowledge the grand-inquisitor as his
judge, until he was furnished with special powers for that purpose;
that, supposing him to have sufficient authority, he did not believe
that he could delegate it; that he should prove his assertions much
better if he had the brief, of which he demanded a copy. His request was
granted the next day; on the 3rd, the grand-inquisitor, after a
consultation with the Council, declared that he was a competent judge,
and that he could delegate his powers; he announced that he should
attend with the Council at the sessions of the tribunal: he attended on
the 4th, and required Carranza to take the oath to speak the truth,
either against himself or any other person, informing him that if he
confessed all he knew, he would be treated with clemency, but in the
contrary case he would be used with all the rigour of justice: he also
told him that if he was reluctant to reply in the presence of the
Council, he would be permitted to do so before two counsellors, or the
inquisitors of Valladolid. Carranza made the same reply as on the
preceding day, adding, that he was not certain that truth had been
spoken in soliciting the brief from the Pope; since at that time there
were no Spanish prelates suspected of heresy; that, if they had him in
view, he was not in Spain at the time, but in Flanders, occupied in
labouring for the defence of the Catholic religion, and converting
heretics; that he exerted himself to destroy all the heresies, and for
that purpose informed the king that heretical books were sold even at
his palace-gates, and that the king, in consequence, gave the necessary
orders to prevent the evil, which would be proved by the testimony of
the king and the noblemen of his court.
Not satisfied with these arguments, the archbishop challenged the
grand-inquisitor for reasons which he explained at the same session, and
in his presence: on the 5th and the following days he continued to give
the motives for his challenge in writing; his charges against Valdes
were numerous, and very serious. He mentions persons, times, subjects,
and reasons, which authorized him to represent Valdes as a perfidious,
envious, vindictive man; to maintain that he continually abused his
authority in order to satisfy his vengeance, which could be proved by
some writings which were registered: he particularly applied himself to
show that Valdes concealed his hatred to him, under the mask of an
hypocritical zeal for religion; that this enmity was caused by his
spite and envy after he (Carranza) was elevated to the see of Toledo,
and had published his work on the Residence of Bishops;--in short, he
filled eight folio sheets in a small hand, with the motives which
induced him to challenge Valdes, and added those concerning the
counsellors Perez and Cobos, promising to establish the proofs.
The archbishop chose for his advocates those men whom he considered most
able to defend him; but they were, by different intrigues, induced to
refuse their assistance: this plan was pursued with all the others whom
he chose in case of their default, so that he was obliged to apply to
some advocates who defended in the chancery his right to the lordship of
some villages, although they knew nothing of the affairs of the holy
office. Don Juan Sarmiento de Mendoza, counsellor of the Indies, for
Valdes, and the licentiate Isunza, judge of the civil court of
Valladolid, for the fiscal, were appointed arbitrators, to decide on the
validity of the challenge. On the 23rd of February, 1560, they
pronounced that the allegations were just, reasonable, and well proved.
The fiscal not being satisfied with the decision, intended to appeal to
Rome, but soon renounced the measure; in fact, how could the
inquisitor-general think of sending a trial to Rome, which, if made
public, would cover him and many others, who afterwards attained the
highest dignities of the church, with eternal infamy? However, this
appeal took place at a later period, after a thousand intrigues, but
Valdes was not the inquisitor-general at that time.
The lodgings assigned to the archbishop were neither commodious,
agreeable, nor airy; he was allowed only two rooms for himself, a monk,
and his page. He complained of the inconvenience, but the fiscal
presented a verbal process, stating that the house was large,
convenient, and healthy: this was true, for he spoke of it in general,
and did not mention the place where Carranza was confined. The rooms
were very remote from all communication; in 1561 there was a great fire
at Valladolid, which consumed four hundred houses in the quarter nearest
to the prison of the archbishop, yet he heard neither the cries of the
people, nor the noise which must have been occasioned by such an event,
and only learnt that it had happened, a long time after, when he was at
Rome. This privation of air and exercise produced in the archbishop a
tertian fever, which weakened him considerably, but the inquisitors had
not sufficient humanity to remove him to a more suitable place. They
dreaded that he would appeal to the Pope, or the king, on whom however
it would not have had any effect, as Valdes had contrived to persuade
him, in some private conversations, that Carranza was really an heretic,
and that all that he had done in England and Flanders was intended to
conceal his opinions.
Although Valdes persisted in maintaining that he had the right of
delegating his powers to prosecute the archbishop, yet as several
counsellors, and particularly Baco de Castro, held a contrary opinion,
he was obliged to appeal to the Pope. Paul IV. was dead, and had been
succeeded by Pius IV., who, on the 23rd of February, confirmed to Valdes
the powers granted to him by his predecessor, and that of delegating
confidential persons to proceed in the trial of the Archbishop of
Toledo. This brief was of no use, because the arbitrators had declared
on the same day that the motives for the challenge were just and valid;
his holiness, in consequence, expedited another special brief,
confirming all that had passed, provided that the proceedings had been
lawful, and authorizing Philip II. to choose judges in his own name, to
whom he gave from that moment the power of continuing the trial until it
was in a state to be terminated, for the space of two years, beginning
from the 7th of January, 1561. This brief was interpreted at Madrid to
be a permission to pass a definitive sentence. The Pope being informed
of this circumstance, on the 3rd of July issued a fourth brief, in which
he disapproved of the interpretation of that preceding it, and commanded
that the trial should be remitted to him, _instructed_ but not judged,
within a certain time.
Philip II. appointed Don Gaspard de Zuniga y Avellanada, archbishop of
Santiago, to be the judge, with the power of delegating his authority.
This choice was pleasing to Carranza, because that prelate was one of
the persons he had proposed for the see of Toledo; in fact, he derived
some advantage from the change of his guards, and other measures. But
Zuniga appointed Valtodano and Simancas, who had begun the trial, to be
the judges. Carranza intended to challenge them, as having voted his
arrest; but being told that the king had said that no person who had
ordered the imprisonment of a criminal could afterwards be his judge, if
this challenge was allowed, he abandoned his design. The right which the
prelate had intended to make use of, is now recognised as a principle
among civilized nations; to it we owe the establishment of _Juries_.
The trial having been commenced more than two years after the arrest of
the archbishop, he was at last permitted, in consequence of an order
from the king, to choose four advocates: these were Doctor Martin
d'Alpizcueta, known by the name of _Doctor_ Navarro; Don Antonio
Delgado, canon of Toledo; Doctor Santander, archdeacon of Valladolid;
and Doctor Morales, an advocate of the Chancery. The two first of these
lawyers were allowed to see the archbishop, but the writings of the
trial were not communicated to any of them, consequently it was
impossible for them to demonstrate the insufficiency of the proofs of
the charges brought against him by the witnesses. It is true that the
answers of Carranza were decided and conclusive.
The unqualified works of Carranza, and even some of those which had been
examined, were confided to Fray Diego de Chabes, who had been the
confessor of Don Carlos, and afterwards of the king; to Fray Juan
d'Ybarra, and to Fray Rodrigo de Vadillo, and Fray Juan de Azoloros, who
were afterwards the bishops of Cephalonia and the Canaries. These
qualified as heretical some propositions contained in works not written
by Carranza, but found among his papers; others were qualified as
approaching to heresy, and likely to cause it; and the author was
declared to be violently suspected of being an heretic. The edicts
condemning the Catechism, and the Explanation of the Canonical Epistle
of St. John, had been already published.
The Council of Trent having been convoked for the third time, Valdes
feared that the Fathers might take notice of the affairs of Carranza,
and he persuaded the king that it was important to the rights of the
crown to prevent them from taking cognizance of the trial. Philip had
appointed the Count de Luna to be the ambassador to the council, and on
the 30th October, 1562, he sent him instructions, in which he says, that
he has been informed that it was intended to form a _general index_ of
the prohibited books contained in the _index_ of Paul IV., which had
occasioned much expostulation. The king added, that he could not allow
this measure to extend its influence into Spain, which had an _index_,
and particular regulations; that this exception might also apply to
other Christian countries, since books, which were dangerous in one,
might not be so in others. The king commanded his ambassador to oppose
such a resolution in the council, because he could not receive into
Spain books approved by the council which had been prohibited in that
kingdom, and _some persons suspected that this project concealed
particular views_; that he had already commanded his ambassador at Rome,
and the Marquis of Pescara, to use every effort, consistent with
prudence, to baffle the scheme.
These instructions show very plainly that the Court of Madrid were
afraid that the Council would approve the Catechism of Carranza, and
the explanation of St. John, which had been prohibited in Spain. The
fathers, who were displeased to see the proceedings so long in the hands
of the inquisitors, addressed several remonstrances to the Pope against
them and the King of Spain, and even refused to open the letters which
that prince wrote to them, until he had atoned for the offence committed
against the episcopal dignity, in the person of one of its members. At
last the fathers declared that they would not assemble, unless his
Holiness did not cause the proceedings, and the person of the
archbishop, to be sent to Rome. The Pope had just prolonged the period
destined for the trial (which would otherwise have expired on the 7th of
January, 1568); he however replied that he would write to Philip, to
demand that the Archbishop of Toledo and the writings of his trial
should be sent to him; and to prove how much he wished to satisfy the
fathers, he sent this letter by Odescalchi, to whom he gave the title of
nuncio extraordinary.
On the 15th of August following, Philip replied, with an energy unusual
to him, that he was very much surprised that the Fathers of the council
occupied themselves with particular affairs, instead of those which
concerned religion in general; that the imperative dispositions of the
brief presented by the nuncio were contrary to the rights of his
sovereignty and the honour of his person, and that he hoped his holiness
would not take it ill, if he did not order it to be published, and
continued the trial. The Pope feared to irritate Philip, who was already
offended that the ambassador of France had obtained the precedence, and
therefore he granted the delay requested by that prince; at the same
time, he charged the cardinal-legate, president of the council, to
pacify the fathers, promising to do what they desired when the process
was _instructed_. His Holiness also commanded that the archbishop should
be treated with as much gentleness as was consistent with the
proceedings.
The resolution of the Pope appeased the fathers of the council for the
present; but they soon began to discuss an affair equally displeasing to
the King of Spain. The bishops and theologians commissioned to examine
books, pronounced the doctrine of the Catechism of Carranza to be
Catholic. They communicated their decision to the Archbishop of Prague,
who was president of the congregation of the _Index_, who, together with
the theologians composing it, approved the Catechism, and resolved to
send an act of their approbation to Carranza, that he might make use of
it in his defence. The decree of approbation was to be confirmed by the
general assembly, but violent measures were employed to prevent it. The
Pope permitted the Catechism to be printed at Rome on the 26th of June.
The Spanish ambassador, the Count de Luna, vehemently protested against
this resolution; he said that, as the Catechism was prohibited by the
Inquisition of Spain, it was an insult to his master and the Supreme
Council to declare it orthodox, and he demanded that the decree of the
congregation should be revoked. Don Antonio d'Augustine, Bishop of
Lerida, was a member of the congregation of the _Index_, and had not
been present on the 2nd of June, when the members approved the
Catechism. This circumstance induced him to support the Count de Luna.
His enmity to Carranza, and his desire to please the king, made him go
so far as to say that _the congregation approved heresies, since the
Catechism contained them_. The Archbishop of Prague, anxious to defend
his honour and that of his colleagues, addressed to the papal legates a
formal complaint against the Bishop of Lerida, demanding in their names
and his own a public reparation for the injury they had received, and
protesting that if it was refused, they would not attend the assemblies.
The cardinal succeeded in reconciling the two parties, by proposing to
maintain the decree of approbation, but to forbid a literal copy to be
given, and to commission the Count de Luna to obtain that which had
been already remitted to the agent of Carranza, on the condition that
the bishop made a public apology to the congregation, and one in private
to the president. The bishop complied, and the Count de Luna, by his
entreaties and promises, at last succeeded in obtaining the decree which
the agent had received; but he had already sent an authenticated copy
into Spain[66].
Philip II., on the 3rd of August, wrote to the Count de Luna,
complaining bitterly of all that had occurred, and charging him to
represent to the Pope and the Council, that this resolution was the
effect of an intrigue which tended to favour particular views, _as
injurious to the Pope_ as to himself, and to give the authors of the
decree to understand that they could not expect to succeed in causing
the trial to be transferred to Rome, as the king would never permit it.
On the 26th of October, the Count de Luna wrote to his master, informing
him of all that he had done. He said that after he had received his
instructions, he endeavoured to suppress the commission for the
examination of books, or to render their decrees concerning books
prohibited in Spain null and void; that the cardinal legates had assured
him that it was impossible to grant his request, because the commission
was the work of the council, and not of the Pope; that he must,
therefore, apply to the general assembly, but that he must not expect to
succeed, and the only thing that he could ask would be that the
commission should not go beyond its powers.
The Count de Luna also said, that though the commission was formed to
examine the book contained in the _Index_ of Paul IV., a particular
brief had been obtained from Pius IV. to extend the examination to the
prohibited books of the other indexes of Christendom; that the affair
concerning the Catechism of Carranza had been carried on unknown to the
Bishop of Lerida, and to Doctor Pedro _Zumel_, canon of Malaga,
commissary of the Inquisition; that in consequence, the Bishop of Lerida
and the Bishop of Caba had appealed against the decree of the
congregation, and demanded that it should be annulled; that he could
still make a remonstrance in full synod, but that he found it necessary
to renounce that intention, _as it might be the occasion of great
inconveniences_[67]; and that the only cause for this event was that the
Cardinal de Lorraine, the Archbishop of Braga, the Bishop of Modena, and
several others, defended Carranza to the Pope.
The fathers of the council could not succeed in their attempt to cause
the trial of Carranza to be transferred to them. When the assembly was
dissolved, the grand-inquisitor, who had now only the Pope to contend
with, commissioned the Council of the Inquisition to request the king to
obtain a brief to allow the trial to be terminated in Spain;
representing to him that he might say that it would be useful in
alarming those Spaniards who had adopted heretical opinions; that the
King of Spain merited such a favour, because he was the only prince who
had used every means to extirpate heresy; that the ancient canons
permitted that the trial should take place where the crime was
committed; that _if that of Carranza was transferred to Rome, the names
of the witnesses would be revealed_, which would occasion serious
consequences; that the trial must be translated into Latin or Italian,
which would take much time, and that none but Spaniards could understand
the strength of the expressions of the witnesses; that the
procurator-fiscal would be obliged to go to Rome, where he would have
the mortification of not being heard or well received, because many
persons of high rank had been zealous in the cause of the archbishop;
that the crimes were committed before he was raised to the episcopal
dignity; that it would not be convenient to allow the archbishop to go
to Rome, and that the trial could not be properly judged unless he did
so; that from all these considerations it would be better for the
sovereign pontiff to appoint persons to finish the trial in Spain, in
concert with the Supreme Council.
On the other side, Don Martin D'Alpizcueta represented to the king all
the ill treatment which the archbishop had suffered, and demanded that
he should be sent to Rome. He represented that the archbishop might have
made his escape to Rome, but that he did not do so, because his majesty
_had commanded him in a letter written with his own hand, not to apply
to any one but himself, and to have confidence in his protection_.
Alpizcueta, speaking of the injustice Carranza had suffered, says that
his arrest was decreed before anything was proved against him, since all
impartial persons would see that the propositions imputed to him were
not heretical; that his Catechism had been approved by the Council of
Trent, and that it was read in every country but Spain, where his
enemies resided.
The advocate states, that suspected judges had been appointed, and that
nothing but the fear of displeasing his majesty could prevent his client
from challenging them;
That his enemies, taking advantage of his captivity, always prevented
him from informing the king and the Pope of the secret intrigues;
That his act of accusation had been divided into fifteen or twenty
parts, and the same charges multiplied into four hundred articles, while
it might and ought to have been reduced to thirty points;
That he had been accused of having advanced heretical propositions, when
they were perfectly Catholic;
That the accusations had been accumulated to embarrass his client, and
cause him to contradict himself;
That the copies of the requisitions of the fiscal were not given to him
until the period allowed for the reply had nearly expired; that the
archbishop might render his detention longer by demanding fresh delays,
or might reply without reflection;
That works had been imputed to him, of which he was not the author;
That consequently he did not expect to be tried fairly unless the
process was transferred to the throne;
That the king ought not to listen to his flatterers; that all Spain
murmured at the treatment the archbishop had received, and that it was
spoken of still more severely than in other countries.
He then goes on to accuse the judges of partiality, and says that their
boldness in preferring their judgment to that of the Council of Trent,
resembles that of the Lutherans who were prosecuted by them.
The advocate continues, "These judges are so offended at this decision,
(concerning the Catechism,) that one of them said to my two colleagues
and myself, _All the council could not defend two propositions contained
in that book_; he quoted one, which I immediately proved to be Catholic,
and told him that if I had the authority of the grand-inquisitors, I
should perhaps denounce him, for I thought there was as much heresy in
looking upon a Catholic proposition as heretical, as in thinking an
heretical opinion Catholic; besides, it is certain that it is heretical,
to suppose that the council can approve a doctrine as Catholic, which is
not so."
That the Lutherans, when they found that the king had more confidence in
the Inquisition of Spain than in the sovereign Pontiff, would take
advantage of the circumstance, to persist in their opposition to the
holy see, and would say that his majesty's faith was subordinate to his
interest;
That he had been informed in a _confession_, that the _real design_ of
these men was to let the archbishop die in prison, _without concluding
his trial_; that such proceedings lead to the supposition, _that the
authors of them dissipate the revenues of the archbishopric to their own
profit, which they really do, without any person to call them to an
account_; besides that such a plan is equivalent to a condemnation,
since every one will suppose that his client is guilty, if the
inquisitors do not judge him; that it even concerned the honour of his
majesty, because it would be said, that he spared heretics of high rank,
and punished those of no importance.
Alpizcueta concludes, by declaring that he believes the archbishop would
be acquitted and received with the greatest honours, if he was sent to
Rome, and conjures the king to grant permission that the trial should be
transferred.
Alpizcueta was doubtless a very learned man, and told the king many
truths; but he did not understand the character of that prince, for the
letter he wrote to the Pope, on the 15th of April, shows that he had
become even more unjust than the judges. Persuaded that Carranza was an
heretic, he resolved to show the world that if he knew how to reward
merit, he also knew how to punish his creatures.
He therefore resolved to demand permission of the Pope to conclude the
trial in Spain. He selected for this commission Don Rodrigo de Castro,
to whom were remitted on the 24th November, 1564, the instructions
decreed by the council, and others from the king, which were private,
and without a date; an alphabet of the cipher, in which he was to
correspond with the king, and letters of credit to the Pope, and many
cardinals.
The king, who foresaw the events which might arise from this journey,
also sent letters to the King and Queen of France, to the constables of
that kingdom, and his own ambassador there, to his ambassador at Genoa,
to the Viceroy of Naples, the Governor of Milan, the Grand Duke of
Tuscany, and Prince Marcantonio Colonna.
Among the instructions, the following may be remarked: "That although it
is to be hoped that God will influence the decision of the Pontiff, yet
the means of succeeding in so just an enterprise ought not to be
neglected: therefore _the persons who have most influence in the affair
must be gained over by any means which may appear most convenient_."
Don Rodrigo de Castro succeeded in obtaining the required permission. On
the 13th of July, 1565, Pius IV. appointed as judges, the Cardinal
Buoncompagni (afterwards Pope Gregory XIII.) with the title of Legate;
the Archbishop of Rosano (afterwards Pope Urban VII.), the auditor of
the _Rota_, Aldobrandini, and the general of the Franciscans (afterwards
Sextus Quintus). The Pope informed Philip of these nominations in a
brief, dated the 21st of August following.
The papal envoys arrived in Spain in the month of November. Philip went
to Alcala to meet the legate, and received him in the most flattering
manner, to induce him to consent that the counsellors of the Inquisition
should be associated with the papal judges: this, the legate, who was
aware of the inexpedience of the measure, refused. Many powerful
intrigues were by the king's order employed to obtain his wish, but they
were in vain; and the Pope dying on the night of the 8th of December,
Buoncompagni, who wished to assist at the conclave, immediately set off
for Rome, without even informing the king of his intention, and leaving
the archbishop and his trial in exactly the same state as in the year
1562.
On the 17th of January, 1566, Pius V. was elected. Buoncompagni was
informed of this event while he was on the road, and stopped at Avignon.
Philip sent a courier to the new Pontiff, to entreat him to confirm the
arrangements of his predecessor, which was complied with; his Holiness
at the same time commanded the cardinal to return to Spain; he replied
that he thought it necessary to have a private conference with his
holiness, before he obeyed his orders, and therefore continued his
journey. As soon as he arrived at Rome, he proved to the new Pontiff
that the trial of Carranza could never be judged with impartiality in
Spain, even by judges appointed by the holy see; Pius IV. then
determined that the Archbishop of Toledo, and the writings of his trial,
should be transferred to Rome, and that Don Ferdinand Valdes should be
deprived of the office of inquisitor-general: this he considered
necessary, in case the proceedings required that fresh witnesses should
be examined in Spain.
Salazar de Mendoza says, that Philip obeyed immediately, but he had not
read the history of the trial: it is certain that a great contest
ensued; that Pius IV. was firm, and the pride of Philip was obliged to
give way, when the Pope threatened to excommunicate him, and to put his
kingdom under an interdict. The writings of the trial are still in
existence; and _I refer to those documents_.
The king appointed Don Diego Espinosa, Bishop of Siguenza, to be
inquisitor-general; and on the 9th of September, the Pope expedited a
bull, in which he says, that on account of the great age and infirmities
of Valdes, he had thought proper to appoint Don Diego Espinosa to be his
coadjutor, authorizing him to act as inquisitor-general, without any
dependance on Valdes. This bull was published, that Valdes might not be
dishonoured; but his holiness privately imparted his intentions to
Espinosa, in a brief on the 1st of October, commanding him to avoid
speaking of the trial of Carranza to Valdes.
The Pope sent Pietro Camayani, Bishop of Asculi, to Spain, with the
title of nuncio-extraordinary, and with the most positive orders not to
return to Rome without the archbishop, and the writings of his trial. On
the 30th of July he addressed a brief to Camayani, which it is necessary
to abridge, though of much importance. His Holiness says, that the delay
of the trial, and the detention of Carranza, had scandalized all
Christendom. He commands him, on pain of excommunication, to signify to
the Archbishop of Seville, the Council of the Inquisition, and the other
persons concerned in the trial of Carranza, with a menace of the same
penalties, the absolute revocation of all the powers intrusted to them;
and a positive order, on pain of _excommunication in its full extent_,
to set Carranza immediately at liberty without delay or protestation,
and even without requiring any security from him; to place all the
papers of the trial in the hands of the nuncio, to be by him transferred
to Rome; to subject the detainers of the papers to the same censures, if
they did not give them up immediately; to inform the archbishop, when
set at liberty, of the order to repair to Rome, and to permit him to
appoint an administrator for his see.
Nothing, however, was done as the Pope had ordained. The archbishop was
not liberated; the king sent a detachment of his guards to escort him to
Carthagena, where he was to embark. He was detained at Valladolid so
long by the preparations for his departure, that he only reached Rome on
the 29th of May in the following year.
The nuncio was obliged to issue fresh menaces of excommunication, before
he could obtain the papers, which detained the archbishop at Carthagena
for four months. The ignorance of the nuncio concerning the affair was
taken advantage of, and only part of the proceedings were remitted to
him, the rest being claimed when the deficiency was discovered at Rome,
and thus the delay of a whole year occurred; in short, it was evident
that the inquisitors wished to defer the conclusion of the trial till
after the death of Carranza. The members of the Chapter of Toledo were
remarkable for their courageous devotion to their chief; they appointed
two of their body to attend him during his detention, and to render him
every service in their power, charging them never to leave him during
his voyage and his residence at Rome.
Carranza left his prison on the 5th of December, 1566, after seven
years, three months, and fourteen days' captivity, which he had passed
in two rooms, from which he could see neither the country nor the
street, and without conversing with any persons but his two domestics,
and his two advocates. He was not permitted to name an administrator to
his archbishopric according to the commands of the Pope: the reason
given for this was, that his holiness did not know that an administrator
had been already appointed by the king, and that Paul IV. had confirmed
the nomination.
Carranza travelled in a litter, and was accompanied by Don Diego
Gonzalez, Inquisitor of Valladolid, and Don Lope de Avellaneda, who had
been appointed his gaoler in 1561. On his arrival at Carthagena,
Gonzalez and the guard returned to Valladolid, as the captain-general of
the province was then responsible for his person.
On the 27th of April, 1567, he embarked, and on the 25th of May he
arrived at Civita Vecchia, where the Spanish ambassador, and Paul
Vislersio, nephew to the Pope and captain of his guards, received him,
and on the 29th he arrived at Rome. Besides his servants and Avellaneda,
he was accompanied by two counsellors of the Inquisition, Don Diego de
Simancas, and Don Antonio Pazos; by Don Pedro Fernandez de Temino,
inquisitor of Callahorra, Don Jerome Ramirez, fiscal to the Supreme
Council, Sebastian de Landeta and Alphonso de Castellon, secretaries to
the Inquisition of Valladolid, and several _familiars_, who all
travelled at the archbishop's expense. He had also with him Don Martin
de Alpizcueta and Don Alonso Delgado, his advocates.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
END OF THE TRIAL OF CARRANZA.--HIS DEATH.
On the arrival of Carranza at Rome, the Pope assigned to him the
apartments occupied by the sovereign pontiffs in the Castle of St.
Angelo: the size of these rooms allowed him to take exercise, and he
enjoyed a view of the country. His health became better, and his
strength returned; he was also allowed three more domestics. The Pope
forbade any person to speak to him of his trial, and while it lasted he
was not permitted to take the sacrament, or to say mass. In Spain he was
not suffered to confess, but in Rome he was allowed to do so four times
in a year.
Pius V. appointed sixteen consultors for the trial: these were Cardinals
Reviva, Pacheco, Gambaya, and Chiesa; the Archbishop of Tarragona; the
Bishop of Ciudad Rodrigo; the Bishop of Pati in Sicily; the Bishop of
Chefalu; Don Pedro Fernandez de Temino, counsellor of the Spanish
Inquisition; Fray Thomas Manrique, a Dominican; the Archbishop of St.
Severin; the Bishop of St. Agatha; the Bishop of Arezzo; the Bishop of
Fiesoli, and Doctor Artimo, auditor of the causes of the apostolical
palace. The Pope also appointed the fiscal of the Supreme Council to the
same office; two Italian secretaries, and the two who came from Spain.
The rest of the year 1567, and part of the following, were employed in
translating the trial into Italian.
The Canons of Toledo presented a letter to the Pope, entreating him to
take into consideration the merit of the archbishop and his high rank,
as well as the honour and consolation of their church, which had been
deprived of its pastor for eight years, and soliciting him to show him
as much favour as was compatible with religion and justice. This his
Holiness promised to do, and expressed great satisfaction at the noble
sentiments contained in the letter, and the tender interest the chapter
displayed for the welfare of their pastor.
The works and MSS. of the archbishop remained in Spain; they were
claimed and sent to Rome in 1570: this circumstance caused fresh delays.
When the translation was finished, the fiscal required that no
conferences of the consultors should take place unless the Pope was
present, which prolonged the affair excessively, as his Holiness was
often unable to attend. The fiscal also challenged Fray Thomas
Manrique, because he was the friend of Carranza. The Pope then appointed
Doctor Toledo, a Jesuit, but he was also challenged, because he was
related to Don Antonio de Toledo, another friend of the archbishop.
Don Gomez Tellez Giron, governor of the archbishopric, dying at this
time, the Chapter of Toledo wrote to the Pope a second time, expressing
the utmost anxiety to see the trial terminated. His Holiness replied to
this letter with peculiar graciousness, excusing himself on account of
his numerous avocations, and the nature of the trial, and promising to
hasten the conclusion, which he said he had already endeavoured to do.
When the writings were arranged, it was discovered that several sheets
were missing; Pius V. therefore considering that it would be difficult
to express in writing what he thought on this subject, sent John de
Bedoya, agent of the Council of the Inquisition, into Spain, with a
brief addressed to the king, requesting him to listen to the commission
of John de Bedoya with his usual benevolence and goodness.
It is not known what Bedoya said to the king, but the trial informs us
that he caused the papers concerning the trial to be sought for, and
that some of these were given by the inquisitor-general to the king, to
be sent to Rome: among these were found some qualifications and
depositions, which were favourable to the archbishop. The persons who
had concealed these documents were so blinded by passion, that they did
not consider that they were cited in the papers which had been sent.
Although his Holiness and Philip intended to transfer all the papers
concerning Carranza, yet all the MS. copies of the Catechism, which were
taken from the Marchioness d'Alcanices, and which had been used in the
qualification of the work, and the duplicates and triplicates of the
unprinted works, remitted by Alphonso de Castro, and Doctor Astete, were
retained in Spain. This omission was not at first supposed to be
occasioned by malevolence, since all the rest had been sent; but it was
afterwards discovered that the papers were retained to be made use of on
some other opportunity, which in fact occurred; and to give occasion for
fresh delays if they were claimed by the Pope.
Pius V. prepared the definitive sentence; but he did not pronounce it
until he knew the inclinations of Philip, whom he did not wish to
offend. In his judgment he declared that the accusation of the fiscal
was not proved, and acquitted the prelate. He commanded that the
_Catechism_ should be restored to the author, to be translated into
Latin, and that he should insert the necessary corrections, and explain
the censured propositions in a Catholic sense; secondly that the
prohibition of that work should be held to be valid, until the
explanations were furnished; that that of the _explanation of St. John_
should remain, and that none of the manuscript works of Carranza should
be printed or published, until he had made the necessary corrections.
The Pope sent this sentence to the King of Spain, by Alessandro Casali,
his chamberlain. He was persuaded that Philip would be pleased to see
that he had acknowledged the innocence of Carranza, and that he would be
satisfied with the measures taken to prevent the books from being
dangerous. The Pope did not understand the character of Philip II., who
considered himself as much dishonoured as the holy office, by the
exoneration of Carranza. He wrote to his Holiness, to prove that it was
impossible that the works of the prelate could contain so many of the
errors of Luther, if he was not an heretic. He therefore requested the
Pope to defer the judgment until the return of his chamberlain, to whom
he would give important documents proving the truth of his statement.
The king ordered a _Refutation of the Apology for the Catechism of
Carranza, published by Alpizcueta and Delgado_, to be composed, and also
another work by the Abbot of Alcala de Henares, under the title of a
_New Qualification of the Catechism of Carranza, and the Faith of its
Author_. Philip sent these two writings to Rome, in 1572, by Casali.
When he arrived, he found that his master, Pius V. was dead, and Gregory
XIII., his successor, received the documents, and joined them to the
trial.
The death of Pius has been attributed to the agents of the Inquisition.
Such reports are not often worthy of credit, but there are letters on
the subject in existence, which contain very bold expressions. One of
them says, "The death of a man who showed himself so much attached to a
Dominican monk, and who compromised by his discourse the honour of the
Spanish Inquisition, ought not to be considered of much importance. It
(the Inquisition) would be benefitted by the death of such a Pope."
Philip II. congratulated the new Pontiff on his accession, and at the
same time requested him to suspend the judgment of the trial, until he
had heard the opinions of four Spanish theologians, whom he intended to
send to throw a new light on the affair: these doctors were, Don Francis
Sancho, professor of theology at Salamanca; Fray Diego de Chabes,
confessor to the king; Fray Juan Ochoa, and Fray Juan de la Fuente,
masters of theology. Their censures were joined to the trial.
Philip II. perceiving the turn which the affair now took, made a last
effort, and the counsellors of the Inquisition, in order to obtain a
recantation of the favourable opinions emitted by respectable
theologians before the arrest of Carranza, made use of terror and
persuasion: the first by making them dread that they would be arrested
as being suspected of professing the errors which they had approved; and
the second, by offering them an honourable pretext for reforming their
first judgment, in the discovery of the inedited works of Carranza, in
which there were a greater number of propositions susceptible of an
heretical interpretation.
The first who fell into the snare was a man truly respectable for his
learning, his virtues, his birth, and many eminent qualities; but his
great age, and his dread of the dungeons of the Inquisition, may be
considered as an excuse for his weakness, as well as for that of the
venerable Osius.
On the 30th of March, 1574, the archbishop qualified, as erroneous,
seventy-five propositions of the same printed Catechism, which he had
before pronounced to be orthodox; he however added, that the errors were
owing to the Castilian language in which the work was written, and that
if it was published in Latin, it would be necessary to suppress,
correct, or explain thirty-one propositions. The prelate also declared,
that there were two hundred and ninety-two errors in the MSS., numbered
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and sixty-six in the explanations and sermons
(of which a list has been given in a former part of this work), and from
thence he concluded that the author was _violently suspected_ of heresy.
Serrano, the reporter of the Supreme Council, who had taken these works
to the Archbishop of Grenada, returned full of triumph to Madrid. The
Supreme Council, in a letter to the king, expresses great satisfaction
on this account, and says, "It is absolutely necessary to send this
qualification to Rome, because the activity with which the affair is
proceeded in makes it likely that it will soon be concluded, and this
measure is the more important as the opinion of the Archbishop of
Grenada will have much influence." This letter was accompanied by a
false estimate of the censures, plainly showing the animosity of the
council towards Carranza.
Serrano then repaired to Don Francis Blanco, then Bishop of Malaga. This
prelate, on the 29th of April, retracted the opinion he had given in
1558. He censured sixty-eight propositions of the Catechism, although he
had formerly praised the work. Serrano immediately informed the council
of it, and that the bishop had pronounced Carranza to be _violently
suspected_ of heresy. The Archbishopric of Santiago being vacant at
this time, the king bestowed it on this prelate.
Don Francis Delgado followed his example, and censured three hundred and
fifteen propositions. Don Francis Delgado obtained the see of Santiago,
on the death of Blanco, but he did not live long enough to take
possession of it.
The king did not send the opinions of the prelates to Rome, but wrote to
the Pope, and told him that he was informed that the archbishops of
Santiago and Grenada had many important things to reveal concerning
Carranza, and that he hoped his holiness would command all that was
necessary to be done on this occasion.
On the 7th of August in the same year, Gregory XIII. expedited a brief,
in which he commissioned Don Gaspar de Quiroga, inquisitor-general, to
receive the declarations of the prelates in the presence of a notary,
and of witnesses, and to send them signed and sealed to Rome. A similar
brief was sent on the 17th of October, to the Bishop of Jaen, the
magistral canon of Toledo, and Professor Mancio. The inquisitor-general
appointed commissioners, to whom he gave written instructions. They were
directed to exact an oath to speak the truth and observe secrecy, to
induce the prelates to declare that the change in their opinion was
founded on a more strict examination of the work, and a knowledge of the
other writings of the author; lastly, to make them state in a separate
paper what they now thought of the works and faith of Carranza, and not
to allow them to say that they did so in obedience to the king, as they
had stated at first, but to declare that they acted according to the
brief.
These declarations were sent to Rome in December. Don Francis Blanco,
who had only censured sixty-eight propositions of the Catechism on the
first examination, now censured two hundred and seventy-three in the
Catechism and pamphlets together, sixty-three of which he pronounced to
be heretical.
This extraordinary change was attributed by the prelates to a love of
justice, to conscience, zeal for religion, and a wish to please God.
The declarations of five new witnesses of so much consequence, entirely
changed the appearance of the trial. Gregory XIII. fell into the snare,
which it was indeed difficult to avoid, since the intrigue which
produced it was conducted by so powerful a sovereign as Philip, and so
formidable and able a body as the Spanish Inquisition. Gregory had
discovered the intrigues when at Madrid, and informed St. Pius V. that
it would be impossible even for foreign judges to terminate the trial in
an equitable manner in Spain; but he was far from supposing that the
animosity of Carranza's enemies would be still more active at Rome.
The Pope loved justice, and thought he was obeying its dictates, in
commanding, on the 14th of April, 1576, that the Archbishop of Toledo
should abjure all heresies in general, and particularly the sixteen
Lutheran propositions which he was _violently_ suspected of believing.
He was suspended for five years from performing his archiepiscopal
duties, and condemned to be confined during that time in the dominican
convent of Orvietta in Tuscany, and for the present in that of the
Minerva at Rome, where some penances were also imposed, one of which was
to visit in one day the seven churches of St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John
de Lateran, Santa Croce of Jerusalem, St. Sebastian, St. Mary Major, and
St. Laurence. The prohibition of the Catechism by the holy office was
maintained.
The sixteen Lutheran propositions abjured by Carranza were the
following:--
1. Works performed without the spirit, of whatever nature, are sins, and
offend God.
2. Faith is the first and principal means of obtaining justification.
3. Man is formally justified by the justice of Jesus Christ; by that,
Christ has merited for us.
4. No one can obtain the justice of Christ, except by firmly believing
that he has obtained it.
5. Those who are in a state of mortal sin cannot comprehend the Holy
Scriptures, or discern things relating to faith.
6. Natural reason is contrary to faith, in all that relates to religion.
7. The _germ_ of sin exists in baptized persons with the quality of sin.
8. True faith does not exist in the sinner when he has lost grace by
sin.
9. Repentance is equal to baptism, and is equal to a new life.
10. Our Lord Jesus Christ has atoned for our sins in so efficacious and
entire a manner, that no other atonement is required of us.
11. Faith without works is sufficient for salvation.
12. Jesus Christ was not a legislator, and it did not enter into his
plan to give laws.
13. The actions and works of Saints can only serve for an example, but
they cannot aid us in any way.
14. The use of holy images, and the veneration for the relics of Saints,
are customs purely human.
15. The Church of the present age has not the same light, or an
authority equal to the primitive Church.
16. The condition of the apostles and a religious life, do not differ
from the common state of Christians.
The declarations of the witnesses do not prove that Carranza ever
uttered any of these propositions, and from this censures we may
perceive that he only advanced in writing some which led the censurers
to suppose that he professed those and many others, since he was not
obliged to abjure several hundred propositions which had been censured,
or the seventy-two which were qualified as heretical. As it could not be
proved that he had ever spoken or expressed in writing any of the
sixteen propositions considered as Lutheran, I do not hesitate to say
that this sentence cannot be approved by upright men.
The archbishop heard his sentence with humility, and was absolved _ad
cautelam_; he performed mass on the four first days of the holy week,
and on the 23rd of April he performed his penance of visiting the
churches. He refused the letter which the Pope offered him, as a public
testimony of his esteem and interest in his fate. He celebrated mass on
another day in the church of St. John Lateran, for the last time in his
life; he expired at three o'clock in the morning of the 2nd of May,
1576, aged seventy-two years, eighteen of which he had passed in prison.
The Pope being informed of his illness, on the 30th of April sent him a
pontifical absolution and exemption of the penance imposed on him; the
holy father did this for the consolation of Carranza, who in fact showed
great satisfaction, and received extreme unction with tranquillity, and
even with some demonstrations of joy.
He made his will in the presence of one of the secretaries of his trial,
and appointed as his executors his faithful friend Don Antonio de
Toledo; the doctors d'Alpizcueta and Delgado, who never forsook him; Don
Juan de Navarra y Mendoza, chanter, dignitary, and canon of the
cathedral of Toledo (he was the son of the Count de Lodosa, and
descended in the direct male line from the kings of Navarre); Fray
Ferdinand de San Ambrosio, his procurator, always faithful to his cause;
and Fray Antonio d'Utrilla, a model of fidelity and affection, who
voluntarily shared his captivity for eighteen years. He had not obtained
the permission which was necessary for bishops, to make a will; but as
the Popes at that time disposed of the revenues of the stewardships, he
approved and confirmed the pious arrangements of the archbishop.
On the 30th of April, after the prelate had received absolution, and
before he pronounced his act of faith, he made the following declaration
in Latin, in the presence of the three secretaries, several Spaniards,
and some Italians, speaking slowly and with a distinct utterance, that
all present might hear him.
"Considering that I have been suspected of having fallen into the errors
imputed to me, I think it my duty to make known my sentiments on this
subject; it was for this purpose that I requested the attendance of the
four secretaries who have been employed in my trial. I call, then, to
witness the celestial court, and for my judge the sovereign Lord, whose
sacrament I am about to receive, the angels who accompany him, whom I
have always chosen as my intercessors; I swear by that Almighty God, by
my approaching death, by the account I shall soon render up to God, that
while I professed theology in my order, and afterwards when I wrote,
taught, preached, and argued in Spain and Germany, Italy and England, I
always intended to make the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ triumphant,
and to combat heretics. His divine Majesty came to my assistance, since
in England I converted several heretics to the Catholic faith; with the
king's permission I caused the bodies of the greatest heretics of those
times to be disinterred, and they were burnt, to secure the power of the
Inquisition. The Catholics, as well as the heretics, have always given
me the title of _First Defender of the Faith_. I can truly affirm that I
have always been one of the first to labour in this holy work, and have
done many things concerning it by the order of the king my master. His
majesty has been a witness of part of what I have asserted. I have loved
him, and I still love him truly; no son could have a greater affection
for him than I have.
"I also declare, that in the whole course of my life I have never
taught, preached, or maintained any heresy, or anything contrary to the
true faith of the Roman Church; that I never fell into any of the
errors of which I have been suspected, from having different meanings
attributed to my words to what I gave them myself; I swear by all that I
have already said, by that God to whom I have appealed as my judge, that
the errors I have mentioned or those reported in my trial never entered
into my mind; that I never had the least doubt of any of these points of
doctrine; but on the contrary I have professed, written, taught, and
preached the holy faith, with the same firmness as I now believe and
profess it at the hour of my death.
"Nevertheless I acknowledge my sentence to be just, because it was
pronounced by the vicar of Christ; I have received and regarded it as
such, because to the quality of vicar of Jesus Christ the person who
pronounced it joins the character of an upright and prudent judge. I
pardon, at the hour of my death, as I have always done, all offences, of
whatever nature, which have been committed against me; I also pardon
those who have shown themselves against me in my trial; also those who
have taken the smallest part in it. I have never felt any resentment
against them; on the contrary, I have always recommended them to God; I
do so at this moment, loving them with all my heart, and I promise that
if I go to that place where I hope to be by the mercy of our Lord, that
I will not ask any thing against them, but pray to God for all."
The corpse of the archbishop was deposited, on the 3rd of May, in the
choir of the convent of _the Minerva_, between two cardinals of the
family of Medicis. The Pope caused an inscription to be engraved on his
tomb, in which he calls him a _man illustrious by his doctrine and his
sermons_. From this it appears probable that he did not consider his
works full of heresies; but, perhaps, it was occasioned by the
protestation of Carranza before his death. Solemn obsequies were
performed at Rome; and those celebrated at Toledo, some time after, were
still more magnificent.