_Talavera_ (Don Ferdinand de), first archbishop of Grenada. See Chapter 10.
_Tobar_ (Bernardine de). See Chapter 14.
_Tordesillas_ (Fray Francis de), Dominican, member of the college of St.
Gregory of Valladolid, and pupil of Carranza: he was a learned theologian. Tordesillas was imprisoned a short time after his master, on the suspicion that he entertained the same opinions. He appears to have justified this suspicion, by the care which he took to copy all his treatises on theology, and other works. He abjured _de levi_, submitted to a penance, and was obliged to relinquish giving lessons on theology.
_Tormo_ (Don Gabriel de), bishop of Orihuela. See Chapter 26.
_Urquijo_ (Don Marianno Louis de), secretary of state under Charles IV.
See Chapter 43.
_Valdes_ (Juan de), author of some works which are mentioned by Nicolas Antonio; one of them, the _Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians_, is prohibited in the Index. He was tried on account of this treatise and another, which was found among the papers of Carranza, and which was at first supposed to be his composition; this work is called _Thoughts on the Interpretations of the Holy Scriptures_.
Valdes also composed another called _Acharo_; all these works were noted as being Lutheran, and the author was declared to be a _formal heretic_. Valdes left Spain, and thus escaped imprisonment. In 1559, Fray Louis de la Cruz, a prisoner in the Inquisition of Valladolid, declared that Valdes was living at Naples; that his _Thoughts_, &c. had been sent twenty years before to Carranza, in the form of a letter, but that it had its origin in the _Christian Inst.i.tutions_ of Thaulero. Fray Dominic de Roxas (another prisoner in the Inquisition) spoke of this Valdes as if he was the secretary of Charles V.; if that was the case, he must be called _Juan Alonzo de Valdes_. Nicolas Antonio mentions him as a different person in his _Bibliotheque_.
_Vergara_ (Juan de). See Chapter 14.
_Vicente_ (Doctor Don Gregory de), priest and professor of philosophy at Valladolid. The tribunal of this city tried and imprisoned him in 1801, for some theses which had been maintained and printed in Spanish, on the manner of studying, examining, and defending true religion. He abjured _naturalism_ publicly in a lesser _auto-da-fe_, and several penances were imposed on him. His theses appear to be orthodox, if they are understood literally. The masters of scholastic theology declared against Vicente, because he had attacked the manner of teaching and studying religion practised in his time; he was also accused of having preached against the pious exercises of devotion. The sermon which was the origin of this accusation was severely examined, and it was found that he had said, that true devotion consists in the actual practice of virtue, and not in exterior ceremonies; his theses were publicly condemned, and he was detained in prison for eight years. He was nephew to an inquisitor of Santiago, which induced those of Valladolid to p.r.o.nounce him to be insane, in order to save him; but when he returned home he gave such unequivocal proofs of being in his senses, that the inquisitors thought the honour of the tribunal would not allow the affair to be left in this state, and again arrested him. He had been in the prison more than a year when the _auto-da-fe_ was celebrated.
_Villagarcia_ (Fray Juan), Dominican, a pupil of Carranza, and his companion during his travels in Germany, England, and Flanders. He was one of the greatest theologians of his age. His arrest took place at Medemblick, in Flanders, at the same time as that of the Archbishop of Torrelaguna, in Spain. He was imprisoned at Valladolid, on the 19th of September, 1559. Several letters were found among his papers, and those of the archbishop, from Fray Louis de la Cruz, and Fray Francis de Tordesillas, in which they gave an account of all that they could learn concerning the trial of the archbishop. The same errors were imputed to Villagarcia as to Carranza, princ.i.p.ally because he had copied part of the prelate"s MS. works. Some person having told him that Carranza"s Catechism would be better in Latin than in the vulgar tongue, he occupied himself in translating it, during his stay in England. This was the source of another accusation, and a consultation took place to decide if he ought not to receive the question _in caput alienum_, in order to make him confess certain facts brought against the archbishop, but without any proof concerning his having read the works of _OEcolampadius_ and other prohibited books. The opinions were different, and the council decreed, that Villagarcia should first be formally examined on some other propositions. His replies were so favourable to the archbishop, that he could not have answered more conclusively for himself. Villagarcia remained four years in prison; he abjured, and was subjected to several penances, one of which was, never again to teach or write on theology.
_Villalba_ (Fray Francis de). See Chapter 29.
_Villegas_ (Alphonso de). See Chapter 13.
_Virues_ (Don Alphonso de). See Chapter 14.
_Yeregui_ (Don Joseph de), secular priest, doctor of theology and canon law, born at Vergara de Guipuzcoa: he was preceptor to the infants Don Gabriel and Don Antonio de Bourbon, and knight of the royal order of Charles III. He published a good catechism, and was denounced three times to the Inquisition of Madrid, on suspicion of being a Jansenist.
In 1792, he was commanded not to go out of the city of Madrid. He lived in this kind of captivity for six months, and was then acquitted by the inquisitors of the court. Unfortunately he had enemies in the Supreme Council, who wished to order the trial to be suspended, and they would have succeeded if the inquisitor-general, Rubin de Cevallos, had not died at that time. His successor, Don Manuel Abady-la-Sierra, archbishop of Selimbria, professed the same opinions as Yeregui, who at last received a certificate of absolution, and regained his liberty; the king then appointed him to be an honorary inquisitor. Yeregui in his new office incurred other inconveniences, because he had spoken to his friends of the circ.u.mstances of his trial, which was interpreted as a sign of contempt for the holy office, which always enjoins secrecy to those who appear before it. Yeregui however apologized, and refuted all that had been published concerning his opinions of the Inquisition.
_Zeballos_ (Jerome de), native of Escalona; he was a professor in the university of Salamanca, and a member of the munic.i.p.ality of Toledo. In 1609 he published at Rome a volume in folio, containing several treatises on jurisprudence; the first is a _Discourse on the princ.i.p.al Reasons of the King of Spain and his Council, for taking Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Trials, or Trials between Ecclesiastics, when a Writ of Error is brought in_. Among the questions which he discusses, is the following: "Is an ecclesiastical judge permitted to arrest and imprison laymen in a trial on canonical affairs, without the intervention of the royal judge?" The same author published at Salamanca, in 1613, another volume in folio, ent.i.tled, _Of the Cognizance of Ecclesiastical Trials, between Ecclesiastics, when an Appeal is made by one of the Parties to the Royal Authority_. He wrote some other works recorded by Nicolas Antonio. Some priests, who thought it heresy to defend the privileges of the king against the power of the clergy, denounced Zeballos to the Inquisition of Toledo. The members of this tribunal did not arrest him, but sent him the heads of the accusations against the two works already mentioned; he justified himself completely, and they were permitted to be in circulation. Some time after the Inquisition of Rome placed them on its Index, and that of Spain suppressed some pa.s.sages, which are not found in the modern editions.
This list might have been augmented by the names of many less distinguished men, and I did not think it necessary to include those Spaniards whose works have been prohibited, but who were not personally attacked by the holy office. Those already mentioned are sufficient to show the danger of attempting to introduce the taste for good literature in Spain.
Charles III., wishing to be made acquainted with the affairs of the Jesuits, and some other circ.u.mstances relating to them, a.s.sembled a council in 1768, composed of five archbishops and bishops; they were occupied in consulting upon the tribunal of the Inquisition, and particularly of the prohibition of books. Don Joseph Monino, Count de Florida-Blanca, and Don Pedro Rodriguez de Campomanes, Count de Campomanes, the king"s procurators in the Council of Castile, made a report to the a.s.sembly. Some extracts from it will be interesting in this part of the history.
Speaking of the clandestine introduction of a brief relating to the Jesuits on the 16th of April, 1767, and of another concerning the affairs of the Duke of Parma, on the 30th of January, 1768, these ministers thus express themselves: "The council is not ignorant of the intrigues employed by the nuncios with the Inquisition, to gain their ends by clandestine means. During the first fifteen centuries there were no tribunals of the Inquisition in Spain. The bishops alone were acquainted with points of doctrine, and heretics and blasphemers were punished by civil law. The abuse of the prohibitions of books commanded by the Inquisition, is one cause of the ignorance which prevails over the greatest part of this nation.... According to the bulls which created the holy office, the bishops are joint judges with the inquisitors, and sometimes the princ.i.p.al judges in the affairs which depend on the tribunal. This power of the bishops was acquired by their rank and their respectable office of pastors. Why then have these natural judges of all discussions which may arise on matters of faith and the morals of the faithful, no part or influence in the prohibitions of books, and the choice of qualifiers? It is from this circ.u.mstance that the subject has been treated with a negligence which excites and perpetuates the complaints of learned men.... Supposing that the regulations of Benedict XIV. were not sufficiently clear, the same cannot be said of the brief of Innocent VIII., which commands the Inquisition to follow the rules of justice in their proceedings: Can there be anything more just, than that the parties should be heard? Is it not contrary to the public interest, that books which might be useful in instructing subjects should be prohibited, from pa.s.sion, or to gain some particular end? The fiscal would say too much if he dwelt upon this subject, to prove how much the tribunal has always abused its authority, in commanding the prohibition of doctrines which even Rome has not dared to condemn, such as the four propositions of the clergy of France, in supporting the indirect power of the Court of Rome against that of kings; and lastly, in sanctioning opinions equally reprehensible. It might be proved that the tribunal has constantly favoured and encouraged the wickedness committed by certain ecclesiastics who remain unmolested, contrary to the respect due to the king and his magistrates. _The regular priests of the Society of Jesus_ have had the greatest influence in the holy office, since the minority of Charles II., when the Jesuit Juan Everard Nitardo, confessor to the queen-mother, was inquisitor-general.... The last general expurgatory index, published in 1747, is still remembered. _Casani_ and _Carrasco_ (both Jesuits) so falsified and confused it, that it was a disgrace to the tribunal: the fact is so well known, and had such important consequences, that that circ.u.mstance alone furnished sufficient motives to suppress the Inquisition entirely, or at least to reform it, since it only uses its authority to injure the state, and the purity of morals and the Christian religion.... It may be said that the expurgatory index drawn up in Spain is more injurious to the rights of the sovereign and the instruction of his subjects, than that of Rome. In that court the qualifiers are well chosen, the prohibitions moderate, and the interests of individuals are never considered.... We cannot forbear to mention the memoir presented by Monsignor Bossuet to Louis XIV., against the inquisitor-general Rocaberti, on the subject of a decree of the Inquisition of Toledo, in which the doctrine, refusing to the Pope the direct, or indirect power of depriving sovereigns of their kingdoms, is declared to be erroneous and schismatic.... The procurators cannot conceal from themselves that the tribunals of the Inquisition compose the most fanatical body in the state, and the most attached to the Jesuits, who have been banished from the kingdom; that the inquisitors profess the same doctrines and the same maxims; lastly, that it is necessary to accomplish a reform in the Inquisition."
In their conclusion, the procurators proposed, that in consideration of the edict of 1762, and to ensure its execution, the holy office should be compelled to hear the defence of the authors of the works before they are prohibited, according to the provision of the bull _Sollicita et Provida_, of Benedict XIV.; that the tribunal should only condemn those books which contain errors in doctrine, superst.i.tion, or relaxed moral opinions; that it should particularly avoid prohibiting works written in the defence of the prerogatives of the crown; that it should not be allowed to seize or retain any unprohibited book, on pretence of correcting or qualifying it, but should leave it to the proprietor; that it should be obliged to present to the king the minutes of the decrees of prohibition before publication, and to the Council of Castile all the briefs sent to it, in order that they may be submitted to his majesty for his approbation.
The Council of Castile, with the extraordinary Council of Archbishops and Bishops, approved of the opinion of the king"s procurators. They presented it to Charles III., who wished to know the opinion of Don Manuel de Roda, Marquis de Roda, minister of justice. This n.o.bleman (one of the most distinguished scholars in Spain, during the last century) remitted his opinion to his majesty on the 16th of March in the same year: it entirely accorded with those of the fiscals; he added, "on the 5th of September, 1761, the King of Naples, being informed of what was pa.s.sing at Rome concerning the condemnation of Mazengui"s work, commanded that the Inquisition of Sicily and the ecclesiastical superiors throughout his states should not print or publish, in any way whatever, any kind of proclamation without permission from his majesty.... I was then at Rome, and I demanded in your majesty"s name some reparation from his Holiness, for the offence committed by his nuncio at Madrid, in inducing the inquisitor-general to publish the brief, for the prohibition of Mazengui"s work, without his knowledge....
His Holiness approved of the nuncio"s proceedings; but was convinced of the justice of our complaint, when I supported it by facts and arguments. The Pope, however, did not dare to express his opinion openly, as he was entirely governed by Cardinal Torregiani, who had managed all the intrigues under the influence of the Jesuits....
Torregiani knew that the brief would not be received in any court either in Italy, France, or even at Venice. The Pope wrote to that Republic to prevent the work from being reprinted; but it was, nevertheless, published not only then against the Pope"s command, but afterwards with a dedicatory epistle to his Holiness.... I have seen, in the library of the Vatican, a printed proclamation of the Inquisition of Spain in 1693: this tribunal condemns two authors, called the _Barclayos_, because their books contained two propositions which the Romans consider heretical: one was, that "_the Pope has no authority over the temporalities of kings, and can neither depose them, nor release their subjects from their oath of fidelity_; the other, that _the authority of the general council is greater than that of the Pope_."
The same minister, in 1776, wrote a letter from Aranjuez to Don Philip Bertran, inquisitor-general. Speaking with approbation of his intention to correct the Spanish expurgatory index, he says, "A thousand absurdities were committed in the last expurgatory (confided in 1747 by the Bishop of Teruel to two Jesuits), and it is necessary to correct them; the fact is proved by the denunciations and printed notes of Fray Martin Llobet. But the appendix, or catalogue of authors called _Jansenists_, is the most intolerable; the names are all taken from the _Bibliotheque Janseniste_ of Father Colonia, a Jesuit, which was condemned by a brief of Benedict XIV. Instead of placing this work in the Index, as it ought to have been, the names are copied from it. You know the brief addressed by that Pope to the Bishop of Teruel, on the 31st of July, 1748, and in which he disapproves of the insertion of the works of Cardinal Noris in the Index. His Holiness also addressed five letters to Ferdinand VI. on the same subject, but neither the Popes nor the king could get the name of _Noris_ erased from the Index for ten years: at that time the Bishop of Teruel (who had at last consented) died, and, the king dismissed his confessor, the Jesuit Rabago, who had been the most averse to the measure. I took the necessary steps, and the king"s order was sent to Monsignor Quintano, inquisitor-general, and his majesty"s confessor, with whom I had a long conference on this subject: I at last obtained a decree, declaring _that the works of Noris had neither been condemned, censured, nor denounced to the holy office_.
CHAPTER XXVI.
OFFENCES COMMITTED BY THE INQUISITORS AGAINST THE ROYAL AUTHORITY AND MAGISTRATES.
In addition to the prevention of the progress of literature, the Inquisition was so much dreaded by the magistrates, that criminals were frequently left unpunished. Ferdinand and his successors had granted privileges to this tribunal, which the encroachments of the inquisitors soon rendered insupportable. They even endeavoured to humiliate three sovereigns: Clement VIII.; the Prince of Bearn, King of Navarre; and the Grand Master of the order of St. John of Jerusalem, at Malta. They also attacked and qualified, as suspected of heresy, the whole Council of Castile; excited seditions in several cities by their arbitrary measures; and persecuted several members of their own _Supreme_ Council.
This system of domination has never been repressed either by the general laws of Spain and America, the particular resolutions taken in each of the kingdoms of the crown of Aragon, the king"s ordinations, or the circular letters of the Council of the Inquisition. The inquisitors have been punished (though rarely) by being deprived of their offices; this, however, had no effect. Lastly, the general conventions have not been less impotent in restraining the ambition which led them to endeavour to establish their dominion throughout the world by fear.
The Inquisition presents to our view a tribunal, whose judges have neither obeyed the laws of the kingdom in which it was established, the bulls of the Popes, the first const.i.tutions of the tribunal, or the particular orders of its chiefs; which has even dared to resist the power of the Pope, in whose name it acts, and has disowned the king"s authority eleven different times; which has suffered books to circulate, favouring regicides and the authority of the Popes to dethrone kings, and at the same time condemned and prohibited works containing a contrary doctrine, and defending the rights of the sovereign; which acted in this manner in circ.u.mstances entirely foreign to the crime of heresy, which was the only one they were competent to judge. Some examples will be given of the contests for jurisdiction which have so much injured Spain.
In 1553, the inquisitors of Calahorra excommunicated and arrested the licentiate Izquierdo, _alcalde-major_ of Arnedo, for having attempted to prosecute Juan Escudero, a familiar of the holy office, who had a.s.sa.s.sinated a soldier. They also ordered divine service to cease at Arnedo. The Chancery of Valladolid demanded the writings of the trial, but the inquisitors eluded two of their ordinances. In the mean time the culprit was left at liberty in the town of Calahorra, and afterwards made his escape, so that the crime remained unpunished.
In 1567, the inquisitors of Murcia excommunicated the Chapter of the Cathedral, and the munic.i.p.ality of that city; their competence was contested, and the Supreme Council decided that some members of the chapter and munic.i.p.ality should make public reparation in the capital of the kingdom, and receive absolution; they received it in public, and in the character of penitents, before the altar.
In 1568, a royal ordinance prescribed the execution of the Convention, known as that of _Cardinal Espinoza_. It was issued, on the inquisitors of Valencia claiming the right of judging in affairs concerning the police of the city and many others, such as contributions, smuggling, trade, _&c._ They a.s.serted that this right belonged to them, particularly if one of the individuals concerned in the affair was in the service of the Inquisition. They would not allow any criminal to be arrested in the houses of the inquisitors either in the town or country, while even the churches were no longer a refuge for those they pursued.
In 1569, the tribunal of Barcelona excommunicated and imprisoned the military deputy and the civil vice-governor of the city, and several of their people. Their crime was, having exacted from an usher of the Inquisition a certain privilege called _la Merchandise_. The Royal Council of Aragon contested the competence of the Council of the Inquisition; but Philip II. put an end to the dispute, by liberating the prisoners: the inquisitors were not punished for disobeying the law, which forbids them to excommunicate a magistrate.
In 1574 the Inquisition of Saragossa excommunicated the members of the deputation which represented the kingdom of Aragon during the interval of the a.s.sembly of the Cortes. The deputies complained to Pius V., who paid no attention to them: after his death they applied to his successor, Gregory XIII. The Pope commissioned the inquisitor-general to arrange the affair; but, being influenced by the Supreme Council, he rejected the papal commission, and a.s.serted that the cognizance of the complaint belonged to him by right. Philip II., that fanatical protector of the holy office, commanded his amba.s.sador at Rome to defend the Inquisition to the Pope; and he obtained what he required, while the deputies were still suffering under the excommunication, which lasted nearly two years. It must be remarked, that this deputation was composed of eight persons: two of them were ecclesiastics, generally bishops; two for the highest order of n.o.bility, who were counts or grandees of Spain; two gentlemen of ill.u.s.trious birth to represent the second cla.s.s of n.o.bility; and two for the third cla.s.s, selected from the most distinguished citizens.
In 1588, the inquisitors of Toledo excommunicated the licentiate Gudiel, alcalde of the king"s house, and judge of the royal court of justice at Madrid: this magistrate had prosecuted Inigo Ordonez, secretary of the holy office, for having wounded Juan de Berrgos, who died in consequence, and for having wilfully fired a pistol at the Canon Don Francis Monsalve. The Council of the Inquisition pleaded the cause of the culprit before the king, and excused the use of censures, alleging that _such was the usual proceeding of the holy office_.
In 1591, violent contests took place between the Inquisition of Saragossa and the chief justice of Aragon. Two seditions were the result, and several grandees of Spain, many gentlemen, and a still greater number of private individuals, were condemned to death. An account of the intrigues of the inquisitors in this affair will be given in the trial of Antonio Perez.
In 1598, the Inquisitors of Seville went to the metropolitan church, with the president and members of the royal court of justice, to attend the funeral of Philip II.; they pretended that they ought to precede the judges, who resisted, and the inquisitors excommunicated them in the church. The king"s attorney protested against this act, and the scandalous scene which ensued may be easily conceived. The judges repairing to the place where they held their sessions, declared that the inquisitors had used violence in proceeding against the law, and pa.s.sed a decree commanding the inquisitors to take off the excommunication. The inquisitors did not obey the order, and the judges repeated it, with the threat of depriving them of all civil rights, and condemning them to banishment and confiscation. Philip III. disapproved of the conduct of the inquisitors, commanded them to take off the excommunication and repair to Madrid, where they were confined to the city. In the December following, the king issued a decree, importing that the inquisitors should only take precedence in the ceremony of the _auto-da-fe_. The inquisitor-general Portocarrero was deprived of his office, and banished to his bishopric of Cuenca.
In 1622 the town of Lorca, which was within the jurisdiction of the Inquisition of Murcia, appointed a familiar of the holy office to be the collector of a tax upon the sale of goods called _Alcabala_. The man refused the employment, but his representations were not admitted, upon which the inquisitors excommunicated the judge of Lorca, and required the a.s.sistance of Don Pedro Porres, the corregidor of Murcia, to take him to their prisons. On his refusal, they excommunicated him also, and decreed that divine service should cease in all the churches of Murcia.
This measure threw the inhabitants into the greatest consternation, and they entreated their bishop, Don Antonio Trejo, to interpose his authority. This prelate remonstrated with the inquisitors; but not succeeding, in order to tranquillize the people, he published a mandate, announcing that he was not obliged to submit to the interdict, or to the order for the _cessation of divine service_. Don Andres Pacheco, the inquisitor-general, condemned the mandate, and ordered this measure to be proclaimed in all the churches of Murcia. At the same time he imposed a penalty of eight thousand ducats on the bishop, and cited him to appear within twenty days at Madrid, to answer the complaint preferred against him, by the fiscal of the Supreme Council, on pain of another penalty of four thousand ducats. The bishop and the chapter of his cathedral sent the dean and a canon to Madrid as his deputies. The inquisitor-general excommunicated them, without hearing their defence, and threw them into separate prisons, and at the same time caused this excommunication to be announced in all the pulpits of Madrid. The inquisitors also excommunicated the Cure of St. Catherine, who refused to submit to this interdict without an order from his bishop. The king and the Pope were at last obliged to interfere, they re-established the bishop in his rights; but this act of justice did not destroy the cause of the evil which was complained of.
In the same year, the Inquisitors of Toledo excommunicated the sub-prefect of that city, who had seized and sentenced a butcher as a thief, and convicted him of having sold bad meat with false weights: the inquisitors pretended that the culprit came under their jurisdiction, because he furnished the holy office with meat, and they accordingly required that the prisoners and the writings of the trial should be given up to them. Their demand was refused, because the offence was committed in the exercise of a public profession. The inquisitors then published the excommunication in all the churches of Toledo; they imprisoned the usher and the porter of the sub-prefect for having obeyed their master, and they remained in prison several days; they were then subject to the punishment of having their beards and hair shaven, which was at that time considered infamous, and to appear in the chamber of audience without their shoes and girdles; they were examined on their genealogy, to discover if they were descended from the Moors or Jews; they were made to repeat the catechism as if they were heretics, and were then condemned to perpetual banishment; the inquisitors even refused to give them a certificate, to show that they had not been condemned for heresy. The compa.s.sion excited by the fate of these unfortunate men was so general, that the people rose against the Inquisition; but some persons of high rank, and who were devoted to the public good, succeeded in appeasing the tumult. The king being informed of what had pa.s.sed by the Council of Castile, appointed an extraordinary commission of eleven members selected from his councils; they pa.s.sed several resolutions against the inquisitors, which had only the effect of correcting the present disorder, without entirely destroying the evil.
In the following year, the Inquisitors of Grenada excommunicated Don Louis Gudiel de Peralta, and Don Mathias Gonzalez; the first a member of the royal civil court, and the other the king"s procurator in the same court. They condemned as heretical two works of these excellent jurisconsults, in which they defended the rights of the royal jurisdiction in all cases of _competence_. The Council of Castile respectfully remonstrated with the king, and showed that the inquisitors acted in opposition to _Instructions to the holy office of 1485_, which directed them to consult the king in affairs of this nature. In order to remedy this abuse, a committee was appointed in 1625, to decide upon all difficulties which might arise on this subject. This committee did not exist long, but it was re-established in 1657.
In 1530, the Inquisitors of Valladolid behaved with still greater insolence. The bishop of that city (who was at the same time president of the royal chancery) was to officiate pontifically in a solemn ma.s.s.
The inquisitors chose that day to publish the edict of _denunciations_; and a.s.serting that their power as inquisitors was superior to that of the bishop, they attempted to take away the canopy which was raised when the prelate officiated. The canons resisted, and the inquisitors sent some of their officers to the church, who arrested Don Alonso Nino the chanter, and Don Francis Milan a canon; they carried them away in their canonical robes, and deposited them in that dress in the prisons of the holy office. The Council of Castile made a representation to the king on this event, which was the origin of the convention of the following year, known as that of _Cardinal Zapata_. Several resolutions were pa.s.sed, and it was decided that censures should only be employed in cases of emergency; but this had little effect on the inquisitors. Much more would have been done, if the king had taken the advice of the Council of Castile, which (after giving an account of evils arising from the system of the inquisitors) recommended, that he should allow the other tribunals to proceed against them for abuse of power. This advice was addressed to the king by his councils, in the consultations of the year 1634, 1669, 1682, 1696, 1761, and in several others, when the Inquisition of Spain prohibited works in which the privileges of the crown were defended, particularly that of Don Joseph de Mur, president of the royal court at Majorca. It was printed in that island in 1615, and called, _Allegations in favour of the King, on the Conflicts for Jurisdiction which have arisen between the Royal Court of Justice and the Tribunal of the Inquisition of Majorca_.
In 1634, another contest took place on the subject of competency, concerning certain taxes which had been received from an inhabitant of Vicalboro, near Madrid. The inquisitors of Toledo excommunicated a judge of the royal court, and of the king"s court, and committed the greatest excesses against the authority of the Council of Castile, which, impressed with a sense of its dignity, as the Supreme Senate of the nation, commanded the Dean-inquisitor of Toledo to repair to Madrid, to answer in person the charges brought against him, and threatened, in case he refused, to deprive him of his property and temporal rights. It also condemned a priest, the secretary of the holy office, to banishment and confiscation, and ordered the Inquisitor of Madrid to give up the prisoners and the writings of the trial to the chamber of judges of the court. The council made an address to the king, requesting him to forbid the inquisitors the use of censures, and to deliver his people from the oppression under which they suffered. The king merely renewed the prohibition of employing excommunication without an absolute necessity, and decreed that it should never be employed against judges without a particular permission. This ordinance shows the neglect or contempt into which the Convention of Cardinal Zapata had fallen, only three years after it had been established.
In 1640 the Inquisitors of Valladolid had another contest with the bishop, who complained to the king, representing that the permission granted by royal council to print or publish, without suppressing what those authors who depend on the Inquisition write on the privileges of that tribunal, would have the most fatal consequences. This a.s.sertion was proved in 1641. Some disputes arose on the subject of competency, between the Inquisition and the Chancery of Valladolid; the Council of Castile was obliged to consult the king several times during the course of the affair, and in one of its memorials stated, _that the jurisdiction which the inquisitors exercise in the name of the king is temporal, secular, and precarious, and cannot be defended by the use of censures_. The members of the Council of the Inquisition in which Don Antonio de Sotomayor the inquisitor-general presided, carried their presumption so far as to convoke an a.s.sembly of ignorant scholastic theologians, all chosen from the monks, to _qualify_ the proposition advanced by the Council of Castile. These qualifiers, eager to display their penetration, divided it into three parts.
"_First part._ The jurisdiction which the inquisitors exercise in the name of the king is temporal and secular.--QUALIFICATION. _This proposition is probable, if considered on the fairest side._"
"_Second part._ The said jurisdiction is precarious.--QUALIFICATION.
_This proposition is false, improbable, and contrary to the welfare of his majesty._"
"_Third part._ Ecclesiastical censures cannot be employed to defend the said jurisdiction.--QUALIFICATION. _This proposition is audacious, and approaching to heresy._"
After this measure, the fiscal of the Council of the Inquisition accused the Council of Castile; he demanded that the tribunal should procure the copies and the minutes of the consultation addressed to the king; that the condemnation of it should be published, and the authors should be proceeded against. The council of the holy office, intending to act according to circ.u.mstances, represented all that had pa.s.sed to the king, referring to the judgment of the theologians. The king, with the carelessness which was natural to him, merely told the inquisitor-general that he had failed in his duty, in approving a proceeding so contrary to the honour and dignity of the senate of the nation. The effects of the obstinacy and violence of the inquisitors was felt for some time after. In 1643, the king obliged Don Antonio de Sotomayor to give in his resignation.