FATHER LEGASPI'S SERMON.

123

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. 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.20 The bishop

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.

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," 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 commanding 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.23 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

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.

TUMULT IN PUEBLA.

125

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 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. 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

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, Obras, xi. 68-71, xii. 204-18.

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.

PARTIAL RECONCILIATION.

127

Mexico, Captain Diego Oregon 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, and the Jesuits again placed in possession of their former functions, the farce of an examination of their licenses having previously taken place. 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 remov

83

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.