37

36

ing him from his office as visitador general; but after some difficulties, originated by the Jesuits, he was again recognized as prelate of his diocese.3 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, 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

86 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 occurred 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 cooperator. 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.

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. 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

41

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, Ilist. Comp. Jesus, ii. 335-8, and relate chiefly to supposed calumnies and petty vexations 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 Palafor, Obras, xii. 463-4; Satisjacion al Memorial, 30–1. Hist. MEX., VOL. III. 9

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; 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." On the advantage thus obtained all their subsequent opposition was founded, for they had always sufficient friends,

45

43 They could not preach or confess in their own churches without notify ing the bishop, or in any other without his consent; and were forbidden to appoint jueces conservadores, or to excommunicate the bishop or his vicargeneral. 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.

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.

FURTHER CONTROVERSY.

131

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" 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 Alba de Alispe ordered the restoration of the prebendaries to their former offices.43 In Rome the investigation of the dispute was continued till late in 1652, and resulted in the ratification of the former

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 Satisfacion 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.

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

of

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 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," he gained the love and esteem of his flock, and universal grief was expressed when his decease occurred on the 1st of October,

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 VII. 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.

31 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 hal to borrow the amount necessary to pay the bulls for the bishopric of Osma. Palafox, Obras, xiii. 140-7.