Chapter 29 (2)

_Pena_ (Fray Juan de la), Dominican, director of the studies of the college of St. Gregory at Valladolid, and a professor of Salamanca. In 1558 he gave a favourable opinion of the Catechism of Carranza. He was summoned by the inquisitors on the 15th of March, 1559, to qualify twenty propositions of an author whose name they concealed from him; on the 5th of April following, he gave his reply, containing nineteen pages of writing. He declared that the propositions were Catholic; that some of them were ambiguous, which might cause them to be considered as tending to Lutheranism, but that it did not appear that the author had advanced them with any bad intention. The Archbishop Carranza, being thrown into prison on the 22nd of August in the same year, De la Pena became alarmed, and wrote to the Inquisition, saying, that he had been intimate with that prelate, because he believed him to be a good Catholic; that this reason had also prevented him from denouncing a favourable opinion which he had expressed of one Don Carlos de Seso, one of the Lutherans who were tried in this year; that Carranza had not condemned him, because he did not think him an heretic, although he had advanced propositions which were tinctured with Lutheranism. De la Pena added, that, seeing the archbishop arrested, he had confessed this, lest his silence might be construed into a crime. His precaution was unavailing. De la Pena appeared guilty, from the opinion he had given of the Catechism, and two other accusations were brought against him: the first was, that he had said that there was no foundation for denouncing the proposition of Carranza, which states, _that it is not yet decided if faith was lost in committing a mortal sin_; the second, that he had asserted when the archbishop was arrested, _that even if he was an heretic, the holy office ought to overlook it, lest the Lutherans in Holland should acknowledge him as a martyr, which they had already done to several individuals who had been punished_. De la Pena's reply displeased the inquisitors; they sharply reproved him, condemned him to several penances, and commanded him to be more cautious for the future.

_Perez_ (Antonio), secretary of state. See Chapter 35.

_Quiros_ (Don Joseph), priest, advocate to the king's council at Madrid. Being informed of the persecution of Belando by the Inquisition, on account of his _Civil History of Spain_, he drew up a writing, in which he endeavoured to prove that the inquisitors ought to have examined the author before they condemned his work. This liberty cost him dear; although he was seventy years old, and his legs swelled continually, he was sent to the secret prisons, and as if this was not sufficient, he was kept during the months of February and March in a cold, damp chamber, where he was obliged to endure all the rigour of the season, and nearly sunk under it. Philip V. was at last informed of the state to which Quiros was reduced, and he obtained his liberty after forty-four days of suffering, on the condition of never again writing on the affairs of the Inquisition, unless he wished to experience greater severity.

_Ramos del Manzano_ (Don Francis). See following Chapter.

_Regla_ (Fray Juan de). See Chapter 29.

_Ricardos_ (Don Antonio), Count de Trullas in his own right, and of Torrepalma in that of his wife and cousin; captain-general of the royal armies, and commander-in-chief of that of Roussillon against the French republic in the years 1793 and 1794. He was suspected of being an _esprit fort_, or an incredulous philosopher, and the dean of the inquisitors invited him to attend the _auto-da-fe_ of Don Paul de Olavide; they thought that he might consider some of the declarations as relating to himself, though his name was not mentioned, particularly as he had been very intimate with Olavide, and their religious sentiments were very similar on some points. This was the only mortification which the Inquisition could inflict upon Ricardos, as they had not sufficient proof to authorize a prosecution.

_Ripalda_ (Jerome de), Jesuit, born at Teruel in Aragon towards the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth. He was one of the most learned theologians of his order; he professed theology, and wrote two Treatises, one mystic and the other on _Christian Doctrine_, which has been used by the schools for near a century, with the exception of some alterations which have been made in the new editions of his Catechism. Nicholas Antonio says that he died, with the reputation of being a saint, in 1618, aged eighty-four. He had been for some time director to St. Theresa de Jesus. It is possible that the forty-four last years of Ripalda's life may have been exemplary, but the impartiality of an historian compels me to say, that Jerome Ripalda was tried by the Inquisition of Valladolid as an _illuminati_, or _quietist_, and tinctured with the heresy of _Molinos_; that he confessed some of the charges, asked pardon, and implored his judges to be merciful; and that a penance was imposed on him in 1574, as being _suspected de vehementi_. The sincere repentance which he showed induced the inquisitor-general, Quiroga, to shorten the duration of his penance; I must add that the purity of Ripalda's faith and morals after this event were such as to render him worthy of the esteem and respect of mankind.

_Ribera_ (Don Juan de). See Chapter 30.

_Roda_ (Don Manuel de). See following Chapter.

_Rodrigalvarez_ (Don Juan Antonio), priest, canon of St. Isidore at Madrid, afterwards archdeacon of Cuenca, and provisor and vicar-general of that diocese; he wrote several historical works. Rodrigalvarez was implicated in the denunciation of Don Balthazar Calvo, his colleague, who, giving way to personal considerations, and instigated by the ex-jesuits lately arrived from Italy, inflicted such cruel mortifications on Rodrigalvarez and Posada his colleague, that they were obliged to complain to the Prince of Peace, and to implore his assistance. The trial begun by the Inquisition did not furnish sufficient proof of their guilt, and it was not continued. The trials of Don Antonio Posada, and Don Juaquin Ibarra, mentioned in the article _Montijo_, finished in the same manner.

_Roman_ (Fray Jerome), an Augustine, born at Logrono. He was very learned in the oriental languages, and directed his attention towards the study of sacred and profane history. In prosecuting this design, he travelled over a great part of Europe, examining the different archives, and making extracts of all that appeared likely to increase the success of the great works which he had projected. Being appointed historian to his order, he published the history of it from the year 1569; in it he gives an account of the lives of the saints and illustrious men who had belonged to it, with many interesting details. His wish to publish the historical facts which he had collected during his travels, induced him to write a book called the _Republics of the World_; in this work he treats very learnedly of the ancient and modern republics: it was printed at Medina del Campo, in 1575, and again in 1595 at Salamanca. Unfortunately for the author, it contained several truths which displeased some persons powerful enough to injure him; he experienced some persecution, and the Inquisition of Valladolid reprimanded him, and ordered his work to be corrected. He died in 1597, leaving some MSS. which are mentioned by Nicholas Antonio.

_Salazar_ (Fray Ambrose de), Dominican, and professor of theology at Salamanca. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried him in 1559, on two accusations: the first was founded on the declarations of Fray Dominic de Roxas and Fray Louis de la Cruz, during their imprisonment: they imputed to Fray Ambrose some propositions which tended to Lutheranism; the second charge was founded on the favourable opinion which he had given of the Catechism of Carranza. The trial was not continued, on account of the death of Fray Ambrose in 1560, in the thirty-eighth year of his age: it was supposed that fear, and his imprisonment in the holy office, where Carranza was detained, hastened his death. He left, in order to be printed, some _Commentaries on the first part of the Sum of St. Thomas_.

_Salas_ (Don Ramon de), born at Belchite in Aragon, was a professor at Salamanca, and one of its greatest literati: he was prosecuted in 1796 by the Inquisition of Madrid, on suspicion of having adopted the principles of the modern philosophers, Voltaire, Rousseau, and others, whose works he had read. He acknowledged that he was acquainted with their works, but added that he had only read them in order to refute them, which he had done in several public theses, maintained at Salamanca by some of his pupils, under his direction. All these theses were introduced in the trial. He replied in a satisfactory manner to all the allegations, and the qualifiers did not find anything in his writings which deserved theological censure. The judges not only acquitted him, but on being informed that Father Poveda, a Dominican, had intrigued against him, thought that he had a right to a public reparation. On the 22nd of October, in the same year, they sent their sentence and the writings of the trial, together with the considerations and the points of doctrine on which they were founded, to the Supreme Council, at the same time expressing their opinion on the right of Salas to a reparation.

Father Poveda, by his intrigues, caused the trial to be sent back to the inquisitors, with an order to make fresh inquiries, which was done, but the qualifiers and judges persisted in their first sentence. The intrigues again began in the council, which returned the trial to the Inquisition a second time, with an order to make another inquest extraordinary: a third qualification, and a third sentence were the result, confirming the innocence of Salas. This was not what was intended; the accused had a powerful enemy in the council: this was Don Philip Vallejo, archbishop of Santiago, and governor of the Council of Castile; he had been inimical to Salas, from having had certain literary discussions with him at the university of Salamanca, when he was bishop of that see. The trial was suspended, to afford time for the archbishop to procure new denunciations, to add to those he had already obtained. Salas requested that his imprisonment might be ameliorated, and that he might only be confined to the city of Madrid. The council refused this favour; he then demanded permission to apply to the king, but this was also refused. He was at last condemned to abjure _de levi_; received the absolution and censures _ad cautelam_; and was banished from the capital. He retired to Guadalaxara, and there complained to his sovereign of the injustice of the Council of the Inquisition. Charles IV. ordered the writings of the trial to be sent to his minister of justice. Cardinal de Lorenzana, inquisitor-general, endeavoured to prevent it, but his efforts were ineffectual. When the affair was examined by the minister, the intrigue was discovered, and a resolution was formed to expedite a royal ordinance, forbidding the inquisitors to arrest any individual for the future, without first informing the king of their intention. The decree was drawn up by Don Eugene Llaguno, minister of justice, and he presented it to his majesty for signature; the king told him that it must first be shown to the Prince of Peace, as he had taken part in the deliberation, and would see if it was properly drawn up. Unfortunately for mankind, this delay of one day gave Vallejo time to renew his intrigues, so that the Prince of Peace changed his mind, and the royal decree was so different from what was expected, that the affair was ordered to be left in the same state.

_San Ambrosio_ (Fray Ferdinand de), Dominican; he was a learned man, and well skilled in the conduct of affairs. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried him in 1559: he was accused of having taken measures in favour of Carranza; of having profited by his sojourn at Rome in the same year, to prejudice his Holiness against the tribunal, to engage him to cause the trial to be transferred to Rome, and not to allow the archbishop to be arrested. The prosecutions soon ceased, because the accused remained at Rome.

_Saloedo._ See following Chapter.

_Salgado._ _Ibid._

_Samaniego_ (Don Felix-Maria de), lord of the town of Arraya, and an inhabitant of Laguardia in the province of Alava. He composed some fables and lyric poems of great merit, and was one of the greatest Spanish literati, during the reign of Charles IV. The Inquisition of Logrono prosecuted him, on suspicion of having embraced the errors of the modern philosophers, and of having read prohibited books. He was on the point of being arrested, when, discovering it by chance, he immediately set off for Madrid, where Don Eugene Llaguno, the minister of justice, and his friend and countryman, privately arranged his affairs with the inquisitor-general.

_Samaniego_ (Don Philip). See following Chapter.

_Santo Domingo_ (Fray Antonio de), Dominican, rector of the college of St. Gregory at Valladolid, was prosecuted by the Inquisition of that city in 1559 and 1560. The proceeding was founded on several accusations; in 1558, he had approved of some reprehensible propositions in the Catechism of Carranza: he was also accused of having said in 1559, _that the arrest of this prelate was as unjust as that of Jesus Christ_; that the prosecutions of the tribunal were of the same character; that Fray Melchior Cano ought to die first, because he was the most guilty; and that his death would be as agreeable to God as the sacrifice of mass. The accused was imprisoned, and a penance was imposed on him.

_Santa Maria_ (Fray Juan de), barefooted Franciscan, and confessor to the Infanta Maria-Anne of Austria, Empress of Germany, and daughter to Philip IV. In 1616 he published a work called _Christian Republics and Politics_, which he dedicated to Philip III. Having occasion to say in this work that the Pope Zachariah had deposed Childeric, King of France, and crowned Pepin in his place, he added; "_It is from this time that we date the right which the Popes have arrogated to themselves of deposing and establishing kings_." The Inquisition receiving information of it, reprimanded the author, and altered the sentence as follows: "_It is from this time that the Popes have made use of their right of deposing and establishing kings_."

_Sese_ (Don Joseph de). See following Chapter.

_Siguenza_ (Fr. Joseph de), Jeronimite of the Convent of the Escurial; he was born in the town of that name. He was one of the most learned men of the reigns of Philip II., and Philip III., and well versed in history and the oriental languages. In 1595 he published the life of St. Jerome, and in 1600, a history of his order. He experienced much persecution, because he was one of the best preachers of his time, and the most esteemed by the king. The other monks (whose sermons were not so well received) denounced him to the Inquisition of Toledo, as suspected of Lutheranism. He remained in seclusion for nearly a year, in the monastery of _La Sisla_, belonging to his order, and he was obliged to appear before the tribunal whenever he was summoned. He justified himself, was acquitted, and died the superior of the convent of the Escurial.

_Sobanos._ See Chapter 26.

_Solorzano._ See following Chapter.

_Soto_ (Fray Dominic). See Chapter 29.

_Soto_ (Fray Pedro). _Ibid._

_Sotomayor_ (Fray Pedro), Dominican; he was one of those who, in 1558, approved the Catechism of Carranza. The Inquisition of Valladolid tried him in 1559, on the suspicion that he was tinctured with some heretical sentiments attributed to the archbishop; he was confined in the Convent of St. Paul, and afterwards severely reprimanded. He did not suffer any other punishment, because he declared (like all the others), that his confidence in the virtue and great learning of the author of the Catechism had induced him to act without any bad intention.

_Tabira_ (Don Antonio), bishop of Salamanca, knight of the order of St. James, almoner and preacher to the king, and the author of several unpublished works: his great virtue, his literary talent and exquisite judgment, made him the ornament of the church during the reigns of Charles III. and Charles IV. The government consulted him several times on affairs of the greatest importance, and his opinions deserved the approbation of enlightened men: his sermons passed in Spain for the best which the age had produced. In 1809, I published the reply of this prelate to a consultation addressed to him in 1799, concerning the validity of marriages contracted before the civil authority, as in France. The piety and erudition of Tabira are displayed in this writing. It was impossible that the ex-jesuits should not employ the influence of their party to persecute a prelate who gave the preference to a decision given by the church legally assembled in a general council, to a bull expedited by its chief. Calvo, Guerrero, and other _Jesuits of the short robe_, attacked Tabira as a Jansenist; they denounced him to the holy office, but did not succeed in their attempt, since they could not impute to him any fact tending to heresy.

_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 Institutions_ 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 pronounce 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, principally 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 circumstances 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 municipality of Toledo. In 1609 he published at Rome a volume in folio, containing several treatises on jurisprudence; the first is a _Discourse on the principal 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, entitled, _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 passages, 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 circumstances relating to them, assembled 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 assembly. 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 principal 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 circumstance 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 passion, 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 circumstance 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, superstition, 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 nobleman (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 passing 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_.