This act of the viceroy was undoubtedly legal, but the archbishop immediately declared that he had incurred the censures mentioned in the bull called in cœna domini[1] He therefore excommuicated him, ordering his name to be placed in the list of excommunicated persons affixed to the church door.
Gelves now called the oidores and the alcaldes together in order to get their opinion concerning the right of the archbishop to excommunicate him. Their answer was evasive,[2] and he submitted the matter to a second assemblage, composed of ecclesiastics and laymen, who decided that the archbishop was clearly in the wrong.[3] Fortified by this opinion the viceroy now retaliated on his antagonist by a decree condemning him to pay a fine of ten thousand ducados, to confiscation of his temporal property, and to banishment. The marquis finally sent the alguazil mayor, Luis de Tobar Godinez, to execute the decree and compel the archbishop to revoke his sentence. The viceroy had notified the archbishop three several times of his decree, but on none of these occasions had the audiencia taken part in the action as according to law they
- ↑ This celebrated bull is of great antiquity, and received its name from the fact that it was read publicly in the presence of the pope on Maundy-thursday, by a cardinal-deacon, accompanied by several other prelates. It contains a general excommunication of all heretics, and of those guilty of contumacy and disobedience to the holy see. One of its 34 paragraphs provides that laymen who venture to pass judgment on ecclesiastical judges and cite them to appear before their tribunals shall incur the censure specified in the bull. On this paragraph the archbishop probably based his action.
- ↑ Their answer was that they had not studied the point. Cavo, Tres Siglos, i. 270. It indicates what their purpose was. At this time, as at any other previous to the breaking-out of the riot, the audiencia might have calmed the rising storm had its members chosen. Peace-making, however, was far from their intention.
- ↑ In defense of the decision of this assemblage Father Burgnillos, already mentioned, published a memorial, which was printed, addressed to the visitador Carrillo. The memorial is contained in 28 octavo pages of close print, and is a learned production. The Franciscan, citing a host of canonical authorities, denies the authority of any prelate to excommunicate in such a case. Memorial, in Tumultos de Mex., 67-80.
asserts that this man was kept in prison for two days and a night, after which, at midnight, he was hurried away to the fortress, where he still remained (19th February 1624), notwithstanding the fact that meanwhile several vessels had sailed thence for Spain. It is not at all probable that the archbishop would allow the man, about whose arrest he made such trouble, to remain in durance for more than a month after the downfall of the viceroy.
