¹ Fuente, Vicente de la, Historia eclesiástica de España (6 vols.; Madrid, 1873–1874), V, 69–72 Google Scholar, passim; Prescott, William H., History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic (revised ed.; 3 vols.; Philadelphia, 1881), I, 314–318, 350 Google Scholar.

² See the bull Inter Caetera in Roberto Levillier, Organización de la iglesia y ordenes religiosos en el virreinato del Perú en el siglo XVI (2 vols.; Madrid, 1919), II, 7–8.

³ Eximiae devotionis, Nov. 16, 1501, Levillier, II, 35.

⁴ Dated June 28, 1508, ibid., pp. 38–40. Following this concession, three bishoprics were erected on Española. In 1511 they were abolished in favor of two new erections on Española and one on Puerto Rico. All were suffragan to the Archiepiscopal See of Seville. The decretals of erection may be seen in Francisco Javier Hernáez, Colección de bulas, breves, y otros documentos relativos a la iglesia de América y Filipinas (2 vols.; Brussels, 1879), I, 24–26. Because of the distances involved and the need for ready replacements in vacant benefices, an adjustment to the means of appointment was made between the crown and the prelates of the Antilles in 1512. In accordance with this agreement, known as the Concordat of Burgos, the bishops were allowed to make inferior appointments without the interference of civil officials. The appointee was merely obliged to present the crown’s approbation of his appointment to the viceroy or governor within a year and a half. This came to be a custom whereby prelates made canonical institution in the name of the king without his knowledge and approval. Ibid., pp. 21–24.

⁵ Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia, XIX (July, 1891), 183.

⁶ Juan de Solórzano y Pereira, Política indiana (Madrid, 1647), lib. iv, cap. xi.

⁷ Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias (4 vols.; Madrid, 1791), lib. I, tít. 9, ley 2.

⁸ King to Mossén Gerónimo de-Vich, July 26, 1513, Lesmes Frías “El Patriarcado de las Indias occidentales,” Estudios Eclesiásticos, II, No. 5 (1922), 25–26.

⁹ Issued by Pope Adrian VI, May 10, 1522. This wide jurisdiction was given in order to facilitate evangelization. The dieta, or one day’s journey by land, was set at seven leagues by Roman law. Spanish usage set the distance at ten leagues, or about thirty miles. Hernáez, I, 379, 387.

¹⁰ Ernesto Schafer, El consejo real y supremo de las Indias (2 vols.; Seville, 1935–1947), II, 203–204.

¹¹ The following missives are illustrative of opposing viewpoints: Archbishop Alonso de Montúfar to the Council of the Indies, May 15, 1556, Epistolario de Nueva España, 1505–1818 (16 vols.; Mexico, 1939–1942), VIII, 72–78 (hereafter cited as Epistolario); “Respuesta que los religiosos de las tres Ordenes de la Nueva España dieron en el año de 1557,” Joaquín García Icazbalceta, Nueva colección de documentos para la historia de México (5 vols.; Mexico, 1886–1892), IV, 1–18; also see Robert Ricard, La conquista espiritual de México, trans. Angel María Garibay (Mexico, 1947), pp. 442–444. The question of whether or not the Indians should be included in the general tithe was of wide interest. Laymen frequently became embroiled in the argument, adding their opinions to those of the seculars and religious. In 1562 the cabildo of Mexico City besought the crown for a final ruling which would end the interminable conflict and confusion. Actas de cabildo del ayuntamiento de México (77 vols.; Mexico, 1884–1905), 1562, p. 11.

¹² Ricard, pp. 440–441. A temperate analysis of the evils afflicting the Church is found in the report of Dr. Luís de Anguís, provisor of the archdiocese of Mexico. Mariano Cuevas, Documentos inéditos del siglo XVI para la historia de México (Mexico, 1914), pp. 250–276. For partisan attitudes see the following: Archbishop of Mexico and Bishops of Michoacán and Oaxaca to the King, April 30, 1562, Epistolario, IX, 171; Gerónimo de Mendieta to the King, Oct. 8, 1565, Icazbalceta, Nueva Colección, I, 38–40.

¹³ There was much crossing of factional lines. The infinite number of shifting animosities, splits among and between the Orders, differences among seculars, and hundreds of differing opinions make generalizations imperative if the story is to be told. Regulars and seculars are used generically for purposes of discussion, and are not intended to convey the impression of homogeneous action or opinion. The conflict, in an abstract sense, was inexorable and absolute. In a concrete sense it was modified by circumstance.

¹⁴ Example is provided in the correspondence of Gerónimo de Mendieta, Icazbalceta, Nueva Colección, I, 38–40, 1–34, 108–112, passim. Also see Provincials of the three Orders of the King, Feb. 25, 1561, Cartas de Indias (4 vols.; Madrid, 1877), I, 147–150, and Fray Juan de San Román to Juan de Ovando, Mar. 16, 1571, Icazbalceta, Nueva Colección, I, 97–98. The friars habitually charged the seculars with incompetence, ignorance of native languages, and ecclesiastical immorality. The venerable Mendieta, in a moment of hyperbole, ventured the opinion that the Indians would be extirpated before they could become Christians if the regulars should withdraw from Mexico (Mendieta to Juan de Ovando, 1571, Icazbalceta, Nueva colección, I, 108–113). Contrary to these charges and assertions, by 1565 there were vast numbers of secular clergymen engaged in effective rural evangelization. They used all the native dialects and appear to have been satisfied with small remuneration for their services. See Luís García Pimentel, Descripción del arzobispado de México hecha en 1570 y otros documentos (Mexico, 1879) and Relación de los obispados de Tlascala, Michoacán, Oaxaca, y otros lugares en el siglo XVI (Mexico, 1904), also “Relación del distrito y pueblos del obispado de Tlaxcala,” Epistolario, XIV, 70–101. It must of course be remembered that interested parties to the conflict usually wrote polemically, consequently the truth does not always appear at the surface.

¹⁵ Peña, Luís Alfaro y, Relación de las iglesias y conventos de México (Mexico, 1863), p. 47 Google Scholar; Torquemada, Juan de, Monarquía indiana (3 vols.; Mexico, 1945), III, 424–425, 35–39 Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Torquemada, III, 4–5.

¹⁷ This paragraph represents impressions founded on the reading of countless letters and chronicles. Individual citations in addition to those already given would, I think, serve only the cause of pedantry.

¹⁸ Pope Leo X issued a bull in 1519 which established a principle of communication of privileges between Mendicants. Hernáez, I, 375–376.

¹⁹ This fundamental distinction between mercenaries and apostles was made before the Franciscans formally set foot on Mexican soil. Torquemada, III, 14. Although with distaste, the seculars admitted their mercenary status. Archbishop Alonso de Montúfar to the Council of the Indies, May 15, 1556, Epistolario, VIII, 77.

²⁰ Lorenzana, Francisco Antonio, Concilios provinciales (Mexico, 1769)Google Scholar, caps. 8, 9, 35, 90.

²¹ Torquemada, III, 264–266; Puga, Vasco de, Cedulario (2 vols.; Mexico, 1878), II, 294–296 Google Scholar.

²² Recopilación, lib. 1, tít. 15, ley 29; lib. 1, tít. 2, ley 20.

²³ El sacrosanto y ecuménico Concilio de Trento, Ayala, Ignacio López de, trans. (Paris, 1857), pp. 367–370, 378–379 Google Scholar.

²⁴ Ayarragaray, Lucas, La iglesia en América y la dominación española (Buenos Aires, 1935), pp. 54–55 Google Scholar; Hernáez, I, 399; Recopilación, lib. 1, tit. 14, leyes 47,67. Fernando de Armas Medina, Christianización del Perú (1532–1600) (Seville, 1953), p. 493, believes that this suspension was also enacted in Peru. He is contradicted by Solórzano (lib. iv, cap. xvi) who emphatically stated the opposite. In my opinion it is extremely doubtful that conditions existed in Peru which necessitated such a measure. Although Mendicants antedated seculars in Peru, they never succeeded in massing the organizational strength that they did in Mexico. Conflict between Mendicants and episcopal forces was universal in the Indies, but only in Mexico did it acquire so exaggerated a spirit of anarchy. By 1565 the secular Church in Peru was at least as powerful as either the civil administration or the combined Orders. Indeed, one of Viceroy Francisco de Toledo’s most imperative tasks was to effect reduction of the overweening authority of the secular Church.

²⁵ Since there are no known sources which in themselves explain Philip’s motives in formulating ecclesiastical policies for the colonial Church, it is necessary to infer them from the evidence which is at hand. In relating what is often disparate evidence, I offer what is in essence a hypothetical explanation, both of Philip’s policies and their consequences. The tentative nature of such an explanation is apparent. If it will serve to stimulate differing opinion and further research the object of its inception will have been fulfilled.

²⁶ Very little is known about the personal life of Ovando and his relationship with the crown. Even after he assumed direction of the Council, documentary evidence remains rare, so that in his official capacity he is often shrouded in mystery. For authoritative information concerning Ovando see José de la Peña Cámara, “Nuevos datos sobre la visita del licenciado Juan de Ovando al Consejo de Indias, 1567–68,” Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español, XII (1935), 425–438; “La copulata de leyes de Indias y las ordenanzas ovandinas,” Revista de Indias, II, No. 6 (1941), 121–146; “Las redacciones del libro de la gobernación espiritual,” ibid., II, No. 5 (1941), 93–115.

²⁷ “Relación del estado en que tiene el licenciado Ovando la visita del Consejo de Indias,” Antecedentes de la recopilación de Indias: Documentos sobre la visita del Consejo de Indias por el licenciado Juan de Ovando, ed. Victor Manuel Maurtúa (Madrid, 1906), p. 4 (hereafter cited as “Relación”).

²⁸ These titles are reproduced in Peña’s “Las redacciones del libro de la gobernación espiritual,” pp. 111–115.

²⁹ The second text is found in Maurtúa’s work, Antecedentes de la recopilación de Indias. Unfortunately, the author reproduced it without criticism or annotation. Since I have been unable to compare the texts myself, I am dependent upon the judgment of Mr. Peña as to the primacy of the first text and the authorship of Ovando, neither of which seems to be open to doubt. Because Mr. Peña views the two texts in a context different from mine, we disagree in assigning significance to the differences between them.

³⁰ Ovando, “Relación,” p. 4.

³¹ “La consulta de la visita del Consejo de Indias con su Magestad,” Maurtúa, pp. 9–11.

³² Ibid., p. 17.

³³ Peña, “Las redacciones del libro de la gobernación espiritual,” p. 93. The Council’s copy was simply a restatement of the laws under which conflict in Mexico was taking place. Since the crown hoped to provide an organic solution to its problems, perpetuance of the old laws at this time would have been inconsistent with its aims.

³⁴ Lesmes Frías, “El Patriarcado de las Indias occidentales,” p. 33.

³⁵ Philip II to Don Juan de Zúñiga, Sept. 9, 1572, Ayarragaray, p. 105. Restoration of the Patriarchate was also discussed by a special junta convened in 1568 by Philip to discuss the ecclesiastical problems of Peru and to draw up instructions for the new viceroyelect, Francisco de Toledo. The actas of this junta have never been found, hence, it is difficult to say with certainty what relationship, if any, existed between the junta and Ovando’s formulation of policies. Although Ovando does not appear to have been a member of the junta, he was undoubtedly aware of its deliberations. It is my guess that he utilized ideas from many sources in formulating royal policy, the ultimate nature of which was dictated by the crown.

³⁶ 1566–1572.

³⁷ Serrano, Luciano, Correspondencia diplomática entre España y la Santa Sede (4 vols.; Madrid, 1914), III, xliv Google Scholar.

³⁸ Ibid., pp. xli-xlv.

³⁹ Altamira, Rafael, Historia de España (4 vols.; Barcelona, 1906), III, 406 Google Scholar; Serrano, III, xlviii-lv.

⁴⁰ Serrano, II, 390; also see Pedro de Leturia, “Felipe II y el pontificado en un momento culminante de la historia hispanoamericana,” Estudios Eclesiásticos, VIII, No. 7 (1928), 61–63.

⁴¹ Serrano, II, 472, n. 1.

⁴² King to Francisco de Toledo, Dec, 1568, Frías, “El Patriarcado de las Indias occidentales,” p. 36.

⁴³ Quoted in Leturia, “Felipe II y el pontificado,” p. 66.

⁴⁴ Philip II to Don Juan de Zúñiga, Sept. 9, 1572, Ayarragaray, pp. 108–109.

⁴⁵ Ibid., pp. 112–113.

⁴⁶ Ibid.; see pp. 104–113 for details of these and lesser proposals.

⁴⁷ Quoted in Leturia, “Felipe II y el pontificado,” p. 67.

⁴⁸ Philip II to Capitefontium, Feb. 19, 1572, Levillier, I, 74–75.

⁴⁹ Philip II to Capitefontium, June 11, 1572, ibid., p. 76. Perhaps by coincidence, a pay warrant was ordered by the king for 300 ducats in favor of Capitefontium for “cosas de nuestro servicio y bien.” At the date of issue, Sept. 3, 1572, the General appears to have been in France (ibid., p. 77).

⁵⁰ See Philip’s complaint in Ayarragaray, pp. 67–68.

⁵¹ King to Zúñiga, Frías, “El Patriarcado y las Indias occidentales,” pp. 39–40.

⁵² Ordenanza del Patronazgo, Encinas, Diego de, Cedulario indiano (4 vols.; Madrid, 1945–1946)Google Scholar, I, 83–86.

⁵³ “Respuesta que los padres … de la Provincia del Santo Evangelio dieron al señor visorrey Don Martín Enríquez sobre los articulos enviados del Consejo de España en que pretendían obligar los religiosos a ser curas,” Dec. 12, 1574, Icazbalceta, Nueva colección, IV, 198–202.

⁵⁴ “Memorial de inconvenientes,” 1574, ibid., pp. 205–212.

⁵⁵ Archbishop Pedro Moya de Contreras, writing to Ovando in 1574, fervently praised the work of the Jesuits, describing them as the chief means whereby the secular Church would gain hegemony over the Mendicants (Epistolario, XI, 207–208). Also see Schäfer, El consejo real y supremo de las Indias, II, 242. The Jesuits served a similar function in Peru, although under different circumstances (Armas Medina, Christianiza-ción del Perú, pp. 43–46).