History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 3/Chapter 6

by Hubert Howe Bancroft

 

CHAPTER VI.

JESUIT LABORS AND STRIFES.

1600-1700.

The Field of Jesuit Labors — The First Disputes with the Church of Puebla — Attitude of Palafox — Relations between the Bishop and the Jesuits — Open Hostility — Appointment of Judges — Palafox Sentenced — He Retaliates — His Flight from Puebla — The Victorious Society — The Bishop Returns — General Reprimands from Spain — The Jesuits Defeated in Rome — Revival and Conclusion of the Quarrel — Life of Palafox in Spain — His Death — Disputes with the Society about Tithes — The Jesuits at the Close of the Century.

During the rule of Viceroy Salvatierra there occurred a bitter dispute between the regular and secular clergy, and one which though carried on only in Mexico and Puebla agitated almost all New Spain, absorbed the attention of the governments at Mexico and Madrid, and became a frequent subject for discussion and consultation to the holy see itself On one side was the able, energetic, and strong-minded bishop of Puebla, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, temporary viceroy, archbishop elect of Mexico, and visitador general of New Spain. His adversaries were the Jesuits, who were not second to him in ability, whose ranks were thoroughly organized, who had the command of wealth wherewith to secure friends, and whose influence over the people was fully equal to that of the prelate. The early labors of Palafox have already been related; and in order that the means at the disposal of his antagonists may be better understood, I shall give a brief sketch of the field worked by the Jesuits since the beginning of the seventeenth century.

The operations of the society extended not only to the capital and its neighborhood, but to northern regions. They partly held possession of Durango, Sonora, and Sinaloa, and from those points extended their missions into the unknown territory of California. Occasionally efforts were made in some districts by other orders, and by the secular clergy, to deprive them of their predominating influence; but by ably conducted intrigues, or even open resistance against episcopal orders which they regarded as encroaching upon their privileges, they contrived to maintain their claims. With equal success they always regained the ground temporarily lost by revolts of the natives, and at the close of the seventeenth century were steadily extending their dominion toward the north.^[1]

At the same time, while their efforts were chiefly in that direction, they lost no opportunity to establish houses and colleges in other provinces, well aware that if the education of the young could be brought under their control their influence would be greatly extended. Thus arose their establishment at Zacatecas, and later the one at Guadalajara,^[2] both of which became among the most prominent in the country. In the adjoining province of San Luis Potosi, there had been but two fathers during the early part of the century; nevertheless their work was so successful that in 1623 a college was founded,^[3] and notwithstanding some temporary opposition it prospered. A marked triumph was moreover secured by the order in Guanajuato, when the city, in 1616, chose San Ignacio de Loyola as its patron saint. At about the same time preliminary steps were taken for the establishment of a college in Querétaro, but it was not founded till some years later.^[4]

On a more extensive scale were the Jesuit labors in Michoacan. In their colleges at Patzcuaro and Valladolid new converts were educated and made familiar with the native tongues of that region. Thus practically all the religious work of the bishopric was in the hands of the society. This success was due as well to their zeal as to the veneration in which some of the fathers were held, among them Francisco Ramirez and Juan Ferro.^[5]

While thus the society was gaining ground in the central and northern regions, it was less successful in the south-east. In Oajaca the missions of the Jesuits were in a poor condition,^[6] and in Yucatan where a college had been founded under the most promising auspices,^[7] they could never attain the same influence as elsewhere.

This failure, however, was more than compensated for in Mexico and its neighborhood, where their establishments were more flourishing than ever before; and costly structures, the number of which was constantly increasing, gave evidence of their wide-spread influence. In 1603 was consecrated the church of the Colegio Máximo in Mexico,^[8] at that time not surpassed in magnificence by any church edifice in New Spain. The highest dignitaries often officiated there; among others Archbishop García Guerra, who held services during lent of 1608, the bishops of Oajaca and Michoacan acting as his assistants. The crown also favored the society at this time. Since 1582 the college of San Pedro y San Pablo, established originally by the first provincial, had suffered many vicissitudes, and when abandoned by the Jesuits in consequence of the pretentious behavior of its patrons, fell into decay. By a cédula of May 29, 1612, the management was again placed in the hands of the order, and the Jesuits took formal possession in January 1618, after which it was incorporated with the college of San Ildefonso, although under the royal patronage.^[9].

Another establishment of similar character and under the same name was founded some years later in Puebla, when Ildefonso de la Mota, bishop of that see, transferred to the society a church and several houses for the foundation of a college,^[10] with chairs for theology and philosophy. Viceroy Cerralvo later endowed it with the privilege of bestowing university degrees.^[11]

Since 1618 the Jesuits had also been presented with the curacy of Tepotzotlan, where they had a house for novices, and labored gratuitously as the natives could not maintain a regular parish priest.^[12] Occasionally disputes arose, apparently originated by claims for greater independence from episcopal jurisdiction; but favorable reports of the ruling viceroys caused the society to remain in undisturbed possession for many years.

Stimulated by the success of their labors, as well among Spaniards as natives, the Jesuits continued to amass wealth, though under the guise of poverty; and well aware of the sympathy bestowed on them by rich and poor, they were not afraid of adversaries. This appeared when, in 1639, troubles began between the Jesuits and the chapter of the cathedral of Puebla about a donation made to the society by the prebendary, Hernando de la Serna.^[13] The dispute arose concerning a farm valued at sixty thousand pesos, and intended for the establishment of a Jesuit college at Vera Cruz. Notwithstanding an order of the ecclesiastical cabildo, forbidding Serna to make the conveyance, except to a party subject to the payment of tithes, the transfer was made to the society. The vicar-general of the diocese in consequence attached the remainder of Serna's property,^[14] to guarantee the payment of the tithes, and demanded that the donation be annulled under threat of severe ecclesiastical censure. Serna protested against the legality of such proceeding and of course received support from the Jesuits, who also disputed the authority of the vicar general.^[15]

Such was the state of affairs when Palafox arrived in New Spain. As he had always been a friend of the society, and had given repeated proofs of such friendship, an immediate and favorable decision was expected. At first his rule was promising for the Jesuits; the embargo on the prebendary's property and income was modified so as to comprise only the amount of the tithes involved, and a free disposal allowed of the remainder. The bishop refused a more pronounced use of his authority, convinced that the request of the cabildo was founded on justice. He therefore advised the Jesuits either quietly to await the result of the law-suit then pending concerning the property, or to compromise, recommending the latter course.^[16] But this counsel was not accepted. To compromise now, would seem to render their pretensions unfounded. Applications were once more made to the bishop, usually couched in respectful phrase, but occasionally imperative in tone. No favorable answer was received, and thus gradually a colder feeling was created between the prelate and the society.

Thus matters continued till 1643, when a council of the Jesuit order,^[17] where Andres Perez de Bibas and Juan de Sangüesa were elected as proctors, prompted the bishop to issue a document in defense of his church. This was despatched to Spain by the same fleet in which the proctors took their departure. The emissaries of the society obtained nothing in Spain, and, when this became known in Mexico, the provincial, Francisco Calderon, published a pamphlet against the bishop's policy. Palafox had meanwhile been exposed to many annoyances on the part of his former friends. Sermons were preached against him by the Jesuit priests, especially by Father Juan de San Miguel. During his illness in the beginning of 1647, when a great festivity was held in one of their churches, he was treated with open discourtesy, and much ill-feeling was manifested when the society lost another law-suit about an inheritance,^[18] as they supposed through the bishop's influence. All this contributed to bring about a rupture, which was to be felt throughout New Spain.^[19]

Palafox retaliated, prohibiting Father Juan de San Miguel from preaching, and complaining to the general of the order. The main issue was taken, however, on ash-Wednesday, the 6th of March, 1647, when his provisor and vicar-general, Juan de Merlo, suspended the licenses of the Jesuit fathers to preach and to confess, until recognized and ratified by the bishop. A term of twenty-four hours was granted to obtain the confirmation. The members of the order were no less provoked than surprised at this edict, and regarded it as an inroad on their privileges. True they had not the exequatur of the India Council,^[20] but they were, or at least thought themselves, protected by their office from the wrath of the prelate, who, moreover, as visitador and viceroy had rendered them all possible assistance. The pending dispute about the payment of tithes became now a secondary matter; the great question was whether they should comply with the edict of the vicar-general. Two priests were sent to the bishop to inform him of the society's exemption from procuring or exhibiting licenses and privileges; but this measure made no impression on Palafox, who as a former member of the India Council, and one well acquainted with the entire system of colonial legislation, enjoined the Jesuits either to prove their rights by presentation of the alleged documents, or obtain the necessary licenses after previous examination as to their ability.^[21] Having thus failed, they strove to gain time, claiming that they were subject to the provincial in Mexico, to whom, they said, the affair had been submitted. A request to obtain in the interim permission to preach and to confess was denied. Notwithstanding a reiterated injunction, however, on the 8th of March Father Luis Legaspi delivered a sermon, which had been announced for several days. The bishop, now thoroughly roused, ordered a decree to be published, imposing the greater excommunication and ecclesiastical censures on the Jesuits, who were described as transgressors of the tridentine council. At the same time the inhabitants were warned against attending their sacrilegious ministrations.^[22]

The Jesuits obeyed the episcopal orders, and during the remainder of lent neither confessed nor preached; but meanwhile they made active preparations in Mexico, to vindicate their cause. At a meeting convoked for that purpose by the provincial, Pedro de Velasco, the appointment of jueces conservadores^[23] was resolved upon. The difficulty in finding persons willing to accept such an office, which necessarily would arouse the wrath of the visitador and bishop, was solved by the eagerness of the Dominicans, who somewhat recklessly offered their services.^[24] Two prominent members of their order, Juan de Paredes and Agustin Godines, were elected;^[25] a memorial in defense of such policy was published, and, if we may credit the Jesuit chroniclers, was received with general approbation by the most influential religious orders.^[26] The bishop protested through his attorneys, the fiscal Pedro Melian and the maestre de campo Antonio de Vergara y Urrutia, but was overruled by the viceroy Salvatierra, who, advised by his asesor, excluded the audiencia from jurisdiction in the matter,^[27] and declared the appointment to be valid. The archbishop of Mexico, Mañosca, having given a similar decision, the Jesuit provincial boldly demanded the nullification of the bishop's decree, and that the fathers at Puebla be restored to their former ministries.

This request was but too easily granted by the judges, who on April 2, 1647, pronounced a decision jommanding the bishop to revoke within six days the penalties imposed, grant provisional absolution to the persons concerned, reinstall the fathers in the offices of which they had been deprived, and revoke whatever had been printed during the controversy. The bishop and his vicar-general were to become liable to the greater excommunication and to heavy fines in case of non-compliance, and to more severe penalties, as general interdict, for continued disobedience.^[28] Through the influence of the comisario general of the Franciscans, Palafox obtained a temporary delay from the viceroy, but Jesuit intrigues were brought to bear on the latter and his asesor, and the order remained in force.

About the same time a libel was published, defending the policy of the society. The state of affairs now became exciting. The bishop and his provisor excommunicated several teachers in the Jesuit college. In return the judges imposed upon them the same penalty for their disobedience. The inhabitants of Puebla were in a serious dilemma, as on the one hand they were unwilling to forsake their beloved bishop, while on the other they saw arrayed against him not only the Jesuits, whom they equally esteemed, but also the viceroy, the archbishop, and the religious orders. Each party forbade, under severe penalties, that the decrees of the other should be read or published. An essential matter had, however, not yet been disposed of—the notification of the sentence to the bishop and his vicar-general. The curate of the church of Mexico, Cristóbal Gutierrez de Medina, together with Miguel Ibarra, being commissioned to proceed to Puebla, for this purpose repaired to the Augustinian convent and there published the verdict. Simultaneously by order of the inquisition several persons were arrested and sent to Mexico with a view to maintain peace.

Aware of his great influence among the people, Palafox now proceeded to extreme measures. A tribune draped in black was erected in the cathedral; the bells were tolled during a whole night; and the next morning, accompanied by the greater part of the chapter, the bishop pronounced, according to the solemn ritual of the church, an anathema against the judges, the proctor, and several of the teachers of the society. At the same time Palafox himself delivered a stirring discourse on the lamentable fate of the excommunicated. The excitement became intense; and had it not been for some of the more prudent, who kept watch, the Jesuit colleges would have been burned that night by fanatics assembled in the streets of Puebla.

In order to secure the approval of the pope, on the 25th of May, 1647, Palafox wrote a long report to Innocent X., in which he complains bitterly of his offended dignity, and tells his sufferings of late sustained at the hands of the Jesuits, who not only strove to make themselves masters of the entire wealth of New Spain, but to undermine the authority of the church. He also defends his own policy and requests that effectual measures be taken to solve existing difficulties.^[29]

As soon as the tumult in Puebla became known in Mexico it was resolved that the judges themselves should proceed thither. The bishop remonstrated, hinting at serious disturbances which might arise, and showed a desire for a reconcilation; whereupon a lengthy correspondence ensued, the fiscal. Viceroy Salvatierra, and the municipal authorities of Puebla opening negotiations with the prelate for a settlement of the dispute.^[30] The preliminaries were arranged; a meeting was convoked by the viceroy for the 15th of June, and all were hopeful that at length matters would be adjusted,when an untoward incident occurred. The bishop suddenly disappeared from Puebla, and none knew of his whereabouts. Whatever may have been the reason which prompted his flight, distrust in the sincerity of the proposed reconciliation seems to have been the principal motive.^[31] It was afterward known that he had retired to Tepeaca, nine leagues distant, leaving the affairs of the church in charge of Alonso de Salazar Varaona, Nicolás Gomez, and Juan de Merlo, and advising them not to yield to the pretensions of the Jesuits and their allies.^[32]

The rule of the bishop's delegates was very brief. As soon as the flight of Palafox became known in Mexico, Captain Diego Obregon was despatched to Puebla to maintain order, accompanied by the jueces conservadores, and soon after the Jesuit provincial, Pedro de Velasco, arrived. They were received with ringing of bells and demonstrations of joy on the part of the people, who were somewhat disgusted with the conduct of Palafox. The Jesuits had now the victory, and knew how to use it. Only two of the appointed provisors were there, and it was not very difficult to oblige them to resign, and to appease the faint protests of the other members of the chapter.^[33]

The see of Puebla was declared vacant and its control assumed by the cabildo, the members of which submitted, or at least a majority of them, to the judges. The decrees of excommunication published by the bishop were removed,^[34] and the Jesuits again placed in possession of their former functions, the farce of an examination of their licenses having previously taken place.^[35] All the former prohibitions and excommunications pronounced by Palafox were revoked and the inhabitants of Puebla admonished to visit the churches of the Jesuits. Having thus complied with their mission and, as they regarded it, restored peace in the turbulent diocese, the judges returned to Mexico.

Soon after these incidents news arrived that Salvatierra had been promoted to the viceroyalty of Peru and would be succeeded in New Spain by the bishop of Yucatan, Márcos de Torres y Rueda. Supposing that the new viceroy would favor his cause, Palafox left his place of retirement, and in November 1647 returned to Puebla, where he found a cédula removing him from his office as visitador general;^[36] but after some difficulties, originated by the Jesuits, he was again recognized as prelate of his diocese.^[37] His first measure was to renew his protests against the proceedings of the judges and to request of the viceroy a reconciliation, or at least a temporary revocation of the censures and edicts, leaving the decision of the entire matter to the India Council. The proposal was accepted and peace seemed to be restored, the more so, when at Christmas the Jesuits paid the bishop the customary visit of respect, "humbly to kiss that hand of which the Lord had chosen to make use to deal them such afflicting, sensible blows." The color of affairs, however, was changed, when in May 1648 bishop Torres y Rueda took possession of the government, and cédulas were received which the bishop interpreted as favorable to his cause. Already, before his flight from Puebla, he had sent messengers to Rome and Madrid, there to plead in his behalf, and a subsequent letter, written during his retirement,^[38] again urged the king for redress. In reply there arrived letters from the court dated January 25, 1648, reprimanding the viceroy,^[39] the audiencia, and the archbishop for lack of neutrality, and the Dominicans for promoting scandal instead of suppressing it; the judges were suspended; the provincial of the Jesuits was reproved for having gone too far; and orders were given to transfer all documents bearing on the subject to the council of the Indies for final decision.^[40] Palafox did not escape censure, and was enjoined to pursue a more conciliatory policy; but the reproof was unheeded by the bishop, who displayed anything but a forgiving spirit, especially in the prosecutions instituted against those prebendaries of his church who had been rather eager to recognize the jueces conservadores and declare his see vacant. His vicar-general, Juan de Merlo, conducted the trial and sentenced the accused to removal from office and heavy fines. They, however, escaped the execution of the sentence by taking refuge in the Jesuit college of Mexico, where, although excommunicated, they said mass and otherwise officiated as priests, appealing to the audiencia and later to the archbishop.

Under the new viceroy there was a decided tendency to side with the bishop; and availing himself of this circumstance he instituted proceedings against the alcalde mayor of Puebla, who during the disturbance had sequestrated his property. He also connived at petty annoyances of the Jesuits, who in September 1648 presented several complaints to the bishop-governor.^[41] Fortune again seemed to favor them, for at this juncture a royal cédula arrived, directing Palafox to return immediately to Spain, the order being made more stringent by an autograph postscript of the king.^[42] Great but short-lived were the rejoicings of the order at the supposed downfall of the bishop, for they were soon to hear of the decision given against them by Pope Innocent X. A brief of the 14th of May 1648 contains the resolutions adopted by a congregation of cardinals and prelates, to whom the investigation of the complaints made by Palafox had been transferred by the holy see. The society was placed under the jurisdiction of the bishop in all the disputed points, although at the same time lenient measures were recommended to Palafox;^[43] general absolution was granted him; and all rights and privileges conflicting with this decision declared null and void.

With proud satisfaction the prelate sent a copy of the brief to the Jesuit fathers of the colleges at Puebla, and however great their reluctance might be, they could not openly disregard the pontifical orders. After deliberating about the matter, they expressed their willingness to obey, and on October 23d exhibited their licenses, which were not only ratified by Palafox but supplemented with new ones, A short time afterward an episcopal decree revoked all the previous censures and restrictions. While the Jesuits submitted they protested, however, against the pope's brief in so far as it had arrived without the exequatur of the India Council, and so well they knew how to avail themselves of their influence that although this necessary requisite was later formally issued, years elapsed before it could be ordered by the audiencia that the papal brief should take effect.^[44] On the advantage thus obtained all their subsequent opposition was founded,^[45] for they had always sufficient friends, both at Madrid and in Mexico, to procure a delay. Their efforts to secure in Mexico the coöperation of other religious orders, to support their continuous petitions, were only successful to a limited degree. The provincial of the order of Mercy, who had consented to sign them, was strongly rebuked by the vicar-general in Spain, and forbidden again to accede to similar requests.^[46]

Meanwhile there had been a bitter controversy between the bishop and the Jesuit provincial, Andrés de Rada, about the formal execution of the papal brief, and this was terminated only by the departure of Palafox for Spain^[47] in May 1649. After that event the dispute which for ten years had excited general interest both in Spain and the Indies approached its end; for although it was continued by the vicar-general, Juan de Merlo, whom Palafox had left in charge of his diocese, it never again assumed such serious proportions as before. The trial of the prebendaries was continued, and the demands for the execution of the papal brief were repeated, but the matter dragged along without decisive result till 1650, when Viceroy Alva de Liste ordered the restoration of the prebendaries to their former offices.^[48] In Rome the investigation of the dispute was continued till late in 1652, and resulted in the ratification of the former decision given in 1648. On the 27th of May 1653 a new brief was issued by Innocent confirming the preceding one, and enjoining perpetual silence upon both parties. A royal cédula of June 30, 1653, ordered an exequatur to be issued by the council of the Indies. A semi-official letter of Cardinal Spada to Palafox, dated December 17, 1652, while gently rebuking the prelate, acknowledges him to be in the right on the whole question; but the Jesuits would not accept their defeat, and made extracts from the briefs and cédulas apparently terminating the matter in their favor, though the final triumph of the bishop is beyond question.^[49]

On his arrival in Spain Palafox had yet to realize the implacable character of his enemies. Having reached his native country after a tiresome voyage of nine months, he expected in vain the honors which had been promised him. The king had intended to promote him to the see of Cuenca, one of the most important in Spain, but was dissuaded, owing to the intrigues of the prime minister, prompted by the Jesuits.^[50] Years elapsed, and it was not until 1653 that the bishopric of Osma, one of the least in importance, was offered him. He took possession the following year and labored with his usual zeal. Though his straitened means were a great drawback to the later years of his ministry,^[51] he gained the love and esteem of his flock, and universal grief was expressed when his decease occurred on the 1st of October, 1659.^[52] His funeral took place with the ceremonies becoming his rank; the corpse was buried in the principal chapel, and an elaborate tombstone with a eulogy of his character placed over his grave. Thus ended in an insignificant town of Spain the career of a man who had been vested with the highest civil and ecclesiastical powers ever conferred by the sovereign on any of his vassals in the New World. After his death miracles were attributed to him, and these, in addition to his eminent virtues, were made the grounds of a request for his canonization. The demand was supported by testimony from Spain and the Indies, and favored by the king, the viceroy, and the ecclesiastical dignitaries. A congregation of cardinals having in 1691 discussed the matter and examined his writings^[53] reported favorably, and the prescribed proceedings were instituted. Intrigues in Rome and Madrid by the Jesuits and the descendants of the duke of Escalona frustrated, however, all efforts made at this period and at a later date.^[54] The question of tithes, which had occasioned the unseemly dispute between the church dignitaries of Puebla and the society of Jesus, had been a source of contention for years before. As early as 1624 complaints were filed in the India Council against the different orders, demanding the payment of tithes from all the produce of plantations and increase of stock. The claim was made by the royal fiscal and supported by the secular church, based on the obligation of the crown to provide, if necessary, the means for the performance of divine service. On the other hand the religious orders pleaded their statutes and fueros, the validity of which was disputed on the ground of the cession of the tithes to the crown.^[55] The first judgment was given in 1655 in favor of the fiscal; both parties appealed, the fiscal demanding that the tithes he collected at an earlier date than the one provided in the judgment, and the orders, among whom the Jesuits were most conspicuous, clamoring for a transfer of the law-suit to the holy see.

On the 16th of June 1657 the judgment was ratified by a new decision, ordering their payment after that date to the king or the secular church. All the orders submitted, except the Jesuits, who presented protests to the sovereign, but without avail. On November 4, 1658, and December 31, 1662, orders were transmitted that the judgment take effect, and the archbishop and cathedral chapters invested with the requisite authority. Nevertheless execution was delayed for years, owing to the difficulties which arose as to the valuation of property, and several times new orders, reaffirming previous cédulas, were issued in Spain. In Puebla the Jesuits contrived to delay payment till 1673, when after fruitless appeals to the audiencia, and after being placed under excommunication, they finally submitted. After that no other difficulties arose till 1732, when investigation showed that frauds had been committed by the society in their statements of the revenue derived from their property.^[56]

Notwithstanding the many disputes in which the society had become involved, the ranks of their partisans continually increased, and new establishments gave evidence of the sympathy which the order enjoyed. Licenses having been obtained in Spain for the founding of a novitiate at Mexico in support of that of Tepotzotlan, donations of money were made for this purpose in 1626, and in 1642 it was completed and dedicated to Santa Ana. Subsequent discussions with one of the founders caused its abandonment, till 1672,^[57] when Andrés de Tapia y Carbajal, a very wealthy man and one friendly to the order, endowed the establishment with sufficient means for the maintenance of twenty novices and the necessary fathers and lay-brothers. On the 19th of November the society took possession of it, changing the name to that of San Andrés.

Several brotherhoods were also founded by the order, that of the Immaculate Conception being the most prominent, and including ecclesiastics, laymen, and students of the higher grades. Recognized by the general in Rome in 1651, the number of its members increased rapidly, and a few years later persons of the highest rank, including a viceroy of New Spain, were eager to be admitted.^[58]

Before the close of the seventeenth century the society had still further spread its influence by holding missions throughout the provinces. Their attempts were successful, and nowhere more so than in Mexico, through which territory fathers Perez and Zappa passed from town to town, and made numberless converts, miracles being wrought, as the chroniclers report, to attest the-saintly character of the Jesuits.^[59]

 

 

1. For a detailed account of the Jesuit labors in the unknown region, I refer the reader to Hist. North Mex. States, i., passim, this series.
2. Both were erected with money mainly derived from donations; that of Zacatecas was begun in 1616; the other of Guadalajara was commenced in 1659, but the foundation did not take place till about 40 years later. Alegre., Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 81-2, 416; iii. 64-9, 91-2; Jalisco, Notas, 16-17, 171.
3. Sinaloa, Mem. Hist., MS., 98.3-91. Voluntary gifts of considerable amount were at first offered; later the inhabitants made a donation of a hermitage which had been founded under the name of Santa Veracruz, or San Sebastian. Alegre, ii. 141-2, 152-3.
4. Pedro de Egurrola is mentioned as the first rector. Alegre, Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 205. The same author gives many, though uninteresting, details connected with the foundation.
5. The former labored for 60 years among the Tarascos, and at the colleges of Pátzcuaro and Valladolid. Ferro was famous as an excellent linguist, having confessed persons in five or six difierent languages.
6. The Dominicans, who predominated in this province, though otherwise stanch friends of the Jesuits, labored energetically to maintain their own superiority.
7. On May 19, 1618. Later the privileges of a university were also granted. Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., 215-16, 449.
8. 'El mas suntuoso que habia entónces en Mexico.' Alegre, Hist. Comp. Jesus, i. 408.
9. Florencia, Hist. Prov. Jesus, 174-80; Recop. Ind., i. 212. At the same time the statutes for its government were issued. Alegre, ii. 96-103
10. For some unknown reason the bishop abandoned his original project to establish a hospital for natives. Alegre, Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 155-7.
11. The bishop died before the chairs were established; and then the church of Puebla claimed that the donation was null on the ground that it had been made by the deceased after receiving the last sacraments, and therefore unlawfully, a statement which is refuted by Alegre. Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 155-8, 193-4. Later a compromise settled the dispute.
12. Ribas, Hist. Triumphos, 731-2, says it was the only curacy that the society held.
13. Bustamante, in Cavo, Tres Siglos, ii. 20, followed by Rivera, Gobernantes, i. 144, calls him Hermenegildo de la Serna. Alegre says Fernando and Hernando; Palafox, in his different works, gives Hernando.
14. As an additional reason it was said that two sisters of the donor owned a certain part of the farm, and being nuns of the convent de la Concepcion, under the jurisdiction of the see of Puebla, their shares could not be alienated without episcopal consent. Palafox, Carta del Ven., 119-21. Alegre, Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 223-4, asserts that the donation was made by Serna and his mother, and the deed signed Feb. 22, 1639.
15. Alegre, 226, carefully avoids mentioning why the cathedral demanded the revocation of the gift.
16. 'Que era mejor componer este pleito. . .y con soltar los diez, lograban los padres los ciento.' Palafox, Carta del Ven., 120. The want of the royal license for the projected foundation was another reason why Palafox refused to decide against the cathedral.
17. The usual time was November, but in order that proctors might be sent to Spain it was convoked in February.
18. They attempted to appropriate one half of a legacy of 50,000 pesos, the administration of which had been intrusted to the society as executors of the will. Palafox, Carta del Ven., 123.
19. Temporarily a reconciliation had been efiected through the intercession of the Jesuit visitador Juan de Bueras, but after his death the bishop was again persecuted. In Carta del Ven., 138-41, Palafox makes the hardly credible assertions that toward the end of 1646 the Jesuits attempted to obtain from the viceroy his banishment from New Spain, and, failing in that, even suggested murder!
20. Such is the assertion of Palafox, which finds a tacit confirmation in the reticence of Alegre about so necessary a formality.
21. The bishop was doubtless right, but it seems as if the laws on the subject had not been rigidly enforced of late. Palafox, Obras, xii. 17, 56, maintains that in three years only one Jesuit priest had applied for a license.
22. An order that the decree be fixed on the church doors was not carried out, perhaps from fear of scandal, the people being already wildly agitated, Alegre, ii. 283; but printed copies were distributed all over the country. The full text of the decree is given in Palafox, Obras, xii. 20-47.
23. This name was given to judges appointed to defend the rights and privileges of a convent, church, or religious corporation against any violent acts from without.
24. 'Desde luego ofrecian hasta los cálices de su iglesia. . .para el socorro y gastos de la defensa.' Alegre, ii. 286.
25. Bribed by a gift of 4,000 pesos, says Palafox.
26. So says Alegre, followed by a number of writers; he also gives extracts of the testimony obtained in favor of his society. Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 289-91. Guijo, however, a contemporary and probably more impartial author, says that opinions were divided as to whether the appointment was a prudent step. Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex., 1st ser., i. 11.
27. On the ground that the oidores were subject to the bishop as visitador. This was true, but the law provided for such cases, and the viceroy could never concentrate in his own person the entire jurisdiction. Salvatierra was in fact reprimanded by the king for his illegal conduct.
28. Guijo adds that the bishop's property at Puebla was sequestered by the alcalde mayor, Agustin de Valdés, and that he was suspended as visitador. The text of the sentence is given in Alegre, Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 293-7, and in Palafox, Obras, xii. 113-16.
29. The full text of the report is given in Palafox, Carta, 1-38, and Id., Obras, xi. 27-60.
30. In the beginning of May, the fiscal of the inquisition had presented a petition to the archbishop for that purpose, but was discourteously received and ordered from his presence when he repeated his request. Guijo, Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex., 1st ser. i. 12-13.
31. Guijo asserts that the partial administration of justice, and the want of a competent tribunal in New Spain to which to appeal, induced the bishop to flee. In a letter to the pope of Jan. 8, 1649, he says that his flight was caused by menaces to imprison, exile, and even to kill him, and that he also wished to evade the bloodshed which otherwise had become inevitable, as his friends at Puebla would have made armed resistance. This assertion, as well as a similar one in the report to the king, is certainly exaggerated. Palafox, Ohras, xi. 68-71, xii. 204-18.
32. The formal appointments were made in a letter from Tepeaca, and confirmed together with instructions by several others from the same place, written during his residence there. Palafox, Obras, xii. 218-22; Satisfacion al Memorial, 55-6.
33. Alegre attempts to prove that no forcible means were used to that effect. Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 312.
34. The dean of the cathedral, Juan de Vega, removed with his own hand from the church doors the censures issued by Palafox, which he himself had approved. Vega and another prebendary had been most diligent in declaring the see as vacant, owing to a bribe received from the Jesuits, as was proved in later years. Guijo, Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex., 1st ser. i. 91.
35. An edict of the chapter dated July 19th declared the bulls and privileges of the society to be sufficient to prove their rights and that they were in accordance with the instructions of the tridentine council. Alegre, ii. 311-17.
36. Pedro de Galvez, alcalde of Granada, was appointed to finish the visita. He arrived in 1650, and having concluded his mission, returned to Spain in the beginning of 1654. Guijo, Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex., 1st ser. i. 107-276, passim.
37. He found on this occasion the support of the viceroy, who apparently desired a reconciliation. Rivera, Gobernantes, i. 149, says erroneously that this occurred in the beginning of August, 1647.
38. Dated September 12, 1647, from Chiapa, near Tepeaca, and containing a narrative of all the events that had occuired since March of that year. Referring to the numerous copies of documents and libels, issued by both parties, the bishop defends his conduct and divides the blame and responsibility between the Jesuits, as instigators, and the viceroy as coöperator. Protesting his conciliatory disposition, he requests the king to adopt measures powerful enough to avoid in future similar excesses, especially those committed by the representative of the crown. Palafox, Obras, xii. 176-285.
39. Rivera, Gobernantes, i. 150, makes the strange assertion that Salvatierra was removed to the viceroyalty of Peru in consequence of his interference.
40. The text of several of the cédulas is given in Ordenes de la Coróna, MS., i. 7, ii. 200; Palafox, Obras, xii. 286-8; Alegre, Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. .331-.3; Satisfacion al Memorial 38-9, 49; see also Guijo, Diario, 6, 16. In 1654 the appointment of jueces conservadores against bishops and archbishops was strictly forbidden. Montemayor, Svmarios, 39.
41. The grounds of complaint are minutely given in Alegre, Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 335-8, and relate chiefly to supposed calumnies and petty vexatious to which they claim to have been exposed.
42. The order is given in brief and peremptory terms, but faintly covered by the polite phrases interwoven with the text, and these are more than neutralized by the addition in the king's own handwriting. Still the biographer of Palafox extols the latter as a rare and noteworthy mark of esteem. The full text is given in Palafox, Obras, xii. 463-4; Satisfacion al Memorial, 30-1.
43. They could not preach or confess in their own churches without notifying the bishop, or in any other without his consent; and were forbidden to appoint jueces conservadores, or to excommunicate the bishop or his vicar general. For full text of the brief, see Palafox, Obras, xii. 289-308. Alegre asserts that this decision was obtained because the messenger of Palafox appeared in Rome unexpectedly, and the proctors of the society, almost ignorant of the whole affair, had no documents to prepare a comprehensive defense. Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 340-1. The same author in Id., 342-9, explains several of the decisions with the sophistry characteristic of his order.
44. The execution of the papal brief had been ordered by royal cédulas of Dec. 12, 1648, and March 18, 1651. Palafox, Obras, xii. 318-19.
45. Difficulties created by the bishop about licenses for younger Jesuit fathers, and the peremptory demand for the execution of the papal brief, were the main reasons which revived the dispute.
46. The friendship formerly existing between the Jesuits and the Dominicans also ceased. Juan Paredes, one of the judges, was by the general of his order deprived of all his titles and honors, removed from his position as provincial, and subjected to other penalties. The other judge, Godines, died suddenly at Vera Cruz some time before.
47. The letters are dated April 7 and 14, 1648, and May 4, 1649. All of them reveal the great animosity between the bishop and the society, and though full of pious phrases, are highly acrimonious. They are given in Papeles de Jesuitas, MS., no. 1, 1-17; Palafox, Obras, xii. 387-418; Id., Cartas, 10-64. The latter collection contains also letters of the bishop to high church dignitaries in Spain, and memorials bearing on financial frauds attributed to the society; together with the Satifacion al Memorial and other letters of Palafox it was for a number of years forbidden by the inquisition and placed on the expurgatory index. I have consulted several of these works and obtained much valuable information therefrom.
48. One of them, Montesinos, had died in the mean time; but the dean, Vega, was reinstated, an event which was solemnly celebrated by the Jesuits, though ostensibly the festivities were in honor of the viceroy's recent arrival. Guijo, Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex., 1st ser., i. 89-90, 124-5.
49. The literal text of the last mentioned documents, together with comments on their judicial value, is given in Palafox, Obras, xii. 481-563. The interpretation given by the Jesuits was printed at Rome in 1653 under the title Fin de la Causa Angelopolitana, but placed on the expurgatory index of 1664 by Pope Alexander Vll. for having been artfully included in the Bulario Romano of 1655.
50. The Jesuits and the friends of the former viceroy Escalona were doubtless the chief instigators, and exerted all their influence to humiliate him if possible. Rivera, Gobernantes, i. 194, surmises that the duke of Alburquerque, in 1653 viceroy of Mexico, also intrigued against Palafox, but there was no reason for him to do so.
51. The income of the bishopric was small, and Palafox had returned from New Spain burdened with a debt of 140,000 pesos. He was so poor that he had to borrow the amount necessary to pay the bulls for the bishopric of Osma. Palajox, Obras, xiii. 140-7.
52. The news reached Mexico in May of the following year, but apparently created no impression. Guijo, Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex., série i., i. 442.
53. Palafox was a prolific and able author, his first literary attempts having been made in 1618. His writings are not only on spiritual, but on historical, judicial, and other subjects, the greater part being written in New Spain. The most important are the Vida Interior, Varon de Desseos, Estatvtos . . . de la . . . Vniversidad de Mexico, and the different memorials bearing on his dispute with the Jesuits, and his letters to Pope Innocent X. Some of his works have been lost; the first general edition, comprising nearly all that had been written by him, and including the manuscripts which he had left to the barefooted Carmelites, was published between 1659 and 1671 in eight tomes, to which another was added, containing his biography by Antonio Gonzalez Rosende. Another edition was issued in 1762, by order and under the supervision of the Carmelite friars of Madrid, consisting of 13 volumes in 15 tomes in folio. Besides these editions there have appeared, before and after that time, several publications of single works, chiefly in Spanish, but also in other languages.
54. In 1726 and 1767 Ribera, Gobernantes, i. 151-2, says the beatification was pronounced on August 16, 1767; but he has evidently misinterpreted Lorenzana, in Concilios Prov., 1555-65. See also Papeles de Jesuitas, MS., no. 8, 8-25, 30. The fact that in the second half of the eighteenth century proceedings for the beatification of Palafox were continued, explains the partiality manifested by nearly all his biographers and by the leading chroniclers; they were either friends or foes, and therefore overrated his virtues or exaggerated his defects. The most unbiassed but unfortunately rather fragmentary account is certainly that given by the contemporary Guijo in his Diario, in Doc. Hist. Mex., 1st ser., i. 6 et seq. The information furnished by him, together with that contained in the memorials and letters of Palafox, and counterbalanced by the prejudiced statements of Alegre, gives doubtless the best means to arrive at an impartial conclusion. Still the latter authority, in his Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 274-356, passim, has almost been implicitly followed by Bustamante, in Cavo, Tres Siglos, ii. 20-33, Ribera, Gobernantes, i. 144—51, and Sosa, Episcop. Mex., 83-90. Lorenzana, in Concilios Prov., 1555-65, 219, 251-69, as is natural, defends the policy of his predecessor, of whom he makes a glowing panegyric. So does Touron, a Dominican friar, in his Hist. Gen. Amérique, vii. 316-86, viii. 1-100, passim. Vetancurt and Gonzalez Dávila, who lived at the time of the dispute, pass it by in silence, but otherwise praise the saintly character of the bishop. Zamacois, in Hist. Méj., v. 336-47, 349-50, is unusually reticent in assigning the causes which led to the dispute, and also abrupt in speaking of its conclusion.
55. Pope Alexander VI. by a bull of Nov. 16, 1501, made a donation of all the tithes to the crown of Spain, in remuneration for the expenses connected with the conquest of the American colonies. Diezmos de Ind., no. 4, 5-6. A royal cédula of June 12, 1625, ordered that all bulls issued by the holy see to evade the payment of tithes, and sent to New Spain without the king's permission, be collected and forwarded to the India Council. Montemayor, Svmarios, 49.
56. Details on this subject are contained in a number of memorials and pamphlets, forming a collection under the title Diezmos de Indias. Some of the documents are of Jesuit origin; others have been written by the secular church and their partisans. Those numbered from one to five have been consulted in this chapter; the rest bear exclusively on later disputes.
57. Lazcano, Vida del P. Oviedo, 56-7, says it was in 1676.
58. Minute records as to its organization and progress are given in Alegre, Hist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 259-62; Morfi, Col. Doc., MS., app., i. 47.
59. Lengthy descriptions of these revivals are given in Perez and Zappa, Rel., 61-79.