The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898 — Volume 25 of 55 / 1635-36 / Explorations by Early Navigators, Descriptions of the Islands and Their Peoples, Their History and Records of the Catholic Missions, As Related in Contemporaneous Books and Manuscripts, Showing the Political, Economic, Commercial and Religious Conditions of Those Islands from Their Earliest Relations with European Nations to the Close of the Nineteenth Century

by Unknown

Letter Written by a Citizen of Manila to an Absent Friend

I will try to give your Grace an accurate account of the changes that have occurred this year, and of the anxiety and unrest of this community, so that your Grace may have an adequate conception of the matter, and may judge it on its merits, since you have no reason to distrust him who relates it—a thing which would cast doubt on the relation itself. Such has actually been the case with a relation written by the Order of St. Dominic, which has been sent from this city to that of Zebu and other parts, whose author shows manifest prejudice and but little accuracy in what he relates. Laying aside then, all partiality, and as one who has been a witness of everything, although I had no part in it, I shall relate to your Grace all that has happened.

An artilleryman, named Francisco de Nava, seems to have been maintaining illicit relations with a slave-girl whom he owned, named Maria. That gave rise to troubles, and the artilleryman was placed in the house of brother Guerrero; and finally the slave-girl was taken away from him, and the archbishop, Don Fray Hernando Guerrero, had her sold. The artilleryman was very angry and vexed at that, and his love drew him so powerfully that he said that he wished to marry the slave-girl. She answered that she preferred to be the slave of another than his wife. For that reason, when the slave was very unguardedly following the coach of her mistress on Sunday, August nineteen, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five, that man, with deliberate purpose and overconfident, stealthily approached her in the principal street, near the cemetery of Sant Agustín; and, embracing her from behind, asked her whether she knew him. She answered in the affirmative, and he treacherously stabbed and killed her. He sought refuge in the convent of St. Augustine, where neither the sargento-mayor nor the master-of-camp, who surrounded the convent with soldiers, could find him. At a hazard, they prevented any religious from going out—an abuse contingent on the military, which cannot be checked by a captain-general. Accordingly, the Order of St. Dominic did the governor an injury in their relation, by declaring that he had incurred excommunication on that account, since he had no share in it, but only ordered the soldiers not to allow the treacherous homicide to leave the church. A few days after that, when the matter had cooled down somewhat, an adjutant of the camp, one Don Juan de Frias, because of the reward that was offered, entered the convent at midday, where he found and seized the artilleryman. The cause was referred to the commander of artillery (for the artilleryman was under his command), in order that he might try it in the first instance; and he condemned the artilleryman to death. The latter appealed to his captain-general and the auditor-general of war. The cause was returned, as the appeal was considered out of order, for the captain-general was convinced of the treachery and treason of [the artilleryman]; whereupon the commander of artillery tried to execute the sentence of death.

The archbishop of this church of Manila excommunicated the commander of artillery; and his provisor, one Don Pedro de Monrroy, had two notifications served on the governor, although there was no reason for his so doing. Once the notification was made after ten o’clock at night, when the governor had already retired. Two clerics entered for that purpose through the midst of the body-guard. As the governor was already asleep, and his servants had retired, and the doors of their chambers were locked, they could not serve their notification at all; accordingly, they turned to go. Trying to depart by passing through the body-guard, by the way that they had entered, he who was stationed at the door would not suffer it—in accordance with a general order received many days previously to the effect that, although they should allow entrance into his house at night, they should not allow anyone to leave; as he judged such an order expedient for the proper government of his household. Consequently, the clerics who had entered could not leave; for, when they went back to the governor, they found him shut in his room and asleep, and when they returned to the guardroom, the soldiers were minded to observe their orders without any distinction of persons. Hence the clerics had to stay all night and until dawn on the stairway and in the corridors of the palace. On that account, certain persons also took opportunity to say, and not with any good intention, that the governor had incurred excommunication—although he was so far from that, and this was so accidental a case that it could not have been foreseen in the order that was issued so many days previously. The relation of the fathers of St. Dominic charges that accident to the governor, unjustly and with prejudice.

During the execution of the sentence on the night of Thursday, September six, an interdict was imposed and the cessation of divine services ordered. The sentence was executed, and the artilleryman was hanged on the same spot where he had killed the slave-girl. The provisor was so carried away by passion that he tried to make (and it is even said that he did make) a report that they hanged the culprit in a sacred place—although the street was public, and [the hanging occurred] at the same place where the artilleryman had committed the homicide. Your Grace can see the so great want of logic [in this matter]; for if that were a sacred place, then the crime had been committed in it, and the artilleryman could not avail himself of the church as he was trying to do.

The governor wrote to the archbishop in terms of the greatest courtesy, requesting him to throw open the churches, and not to deprive this community of mass and consolation on a day of so great importance as was the nativity of our Lady, which came on the following Saturday; for, since the execution was already over, there was no remedy for the matter. The archbishop called a meeting of the religious of all the orders, who thought by that means to avenge themselves for the injuries which they imagined that they had received from the governor—those of St. Dominic, because he had divided the Parián treasury; those of St. Francis, because he had regulated the hospital expenses, which they were incurring to the so great detriment of the royal estate; and those of St. Augustine, because he had deprived them of some Sangley shops in Tondo—and for other private feelings of resentment. They carried the torch into that meeting, making the encounter between the governor and the archbishop a political matter; consequently, they expressed the opinion that the censures should not be raised under any circumstances. A religious of St. Dominic said that they ought to last for five hundred years, while another added “even to the end of the world.” Very indecorous was their speech regarding the person of the governor, for they did not stop to consider that he represents the royal person by reason of his office. Only one Franciscan father, named Fray Bartolome Bermudez, and the two of the Society who were present—namely, the reverend fathers Luis de Pedrasa and Father Lorenço Goreto,”[1] master in the morning classes[2]—were of the opinion that the censures should be raised. They even showed clearly that justice had been rightly exercised, since the treacherous murder had been committed so openly. Therefore, and because of other defects in what had been enacted, they proved that the censures did not bind the commander of artillery, or any one else. On this account the other religious gave much [opportunity for] merit to those of the Society, by uttering insulting words against them. From that time, they conceived so great an aversion for the fathers of the Society, that it was the beginning of the disturbances that afterward arose. The governor again requested the archbishop, for the second and third time, to raise the interdict and the cessation of divine service. But the latter was so far from complying, that he refused to answer the papers, and so the matter stood. But afterward, when we least expected it, in order to please the Recollects and allow them to celebrate their festival of St. Nicholas, the archbishop lifted the censures and absolved the commander of artillery, ad cautelam[3]. For the latter did not consider himself as excommunicated, nor even did learned men regard him as such. That was very apparent then, for, when he had appealed to the bishop of Camarines, the sentence was in his favor; and the bishop absolved him from the pecuniary fines which the archbishop had imposed. Thereupon that tempest was laid, the principal cause of which was the provisor, Don Pedro de Monroy; while those who increased its fury were the religious of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and St. Augustine. On that account, in order to prevent similar troubles that might arise in the future, the governor undertook to execute a royal decree, by the terms of which the said provisor had been proclaimed, in the time of Governor Don Alonso Fajardo, as banished from the kingdoms. The temporalities had been taken from him, as is clear from the authentic royal decree which was despatched for that purpose. Your Grace will notice the lack of accuracy in the other relation, since its author declares therein that that royal decree had been repealed, while in truth it was in full vigor and force. That is so true that there is no unprejudiced man in this city who does not know it. This year, as I have heard reported, the original of that decree has been sent to his Majesty. The archbishop held various meetings with the religious, and they agreed to defend the said provisor to the death, as they said, if necessary. The governor, in order to remedy these troubles in so small a community, desisted from his purpose, and tried to conduct the matter along smoother channels. He offered the said provisor the chaplaincy-in-chief and vicariate of the island of Hermosa, in a letter of the following tenor:

“It is necessary for his Majesty’s service that your Grace go to serve in the island of Hermosa as chaplain-in-chief, and vicar of those presidios. [You will receive] three hundred pesos salary per year, the altar fees, and the fees from the confraternity of the soldiers, which has been lately instituted; and, with these and the pay, you will be able to live well. Thus will certain irreparable disadvantages, that might ensue if you do not accept this service for his Majesty, be avoided. And inasmuch as I have received letters from the said island of Hermosa this morning, in which the governor begs me to send him such a person very speedily, your Grace will make the decision to depart, so that this same champan may return to Cagayan, whence it and one other are to take fifty native soldiers, so that the two may go together. May our Lord preserve your Grace, as He is able. The palace; October eight, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five.

Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera”

Although the governor does not state the motive in this letter, his motive was to remove the occasion for disputes; and also because the commandant of the island of Hermosa, Francisco Hernandez, wrote him a letter, part of which is as follows:

“There is a religious in this island called Fray Lucas Garcia,[4] of the Order of Preachers. He is judge-provisor; and I have so many debates with him at present, and he is so crazy to govern, that he is hurling many shafts at me, without heeding that I am serving him to my utmost in everything, and that I am endeavoring to aid him in all that arises. He is much given to suits and questions, even going so far as to prevent the ringing of the animas[5] at night or the singing of the alabado hymn. It may be that in regard to the most holy sacrament and the pure conception of our Lady the Virgin Mary, who was conceived without the taint of original sin, he does not wish that any mention be made of the Virgin, to say that she is immaculate. Lastly, sir, this matter demands a remedy, by the archbishop sending a cura as judge-provisor. That is very necessary, so that we may be able to go on and live as God orders. If this blessed religious be removed from his charge, he will change his habits, and we shall be left in peace and quiet—which, as I see, it would be very difficult to obtain in any other way. Can your Lordship believe that, if he had any reasonable ground [for his conduct], I would not ascertain it, in order to give account of the matter to your Lordship, or that still less would I allow dissensions so vexatious to exist? I am very sorry to inform your Lordship of this, but I cannot do otherwise; for it is not right that this religious should place these forts in the condition in which he left Cagayan. For with authority as judge-provisor, while my predecessor was exercising the duties of this government, he did his utmost to usurp the royal jurisdiction—arresting and punishing soldiers and other persons without asking the royal aid, or fulfilling his obligation and his Majesty’s command. Will your Lordship be pleased to relieve this condition as the occasion demands, by sending a secular cura as judge-provisor with the suitable despatches, so that this blessed religious may not offer him any trouble. The island of Hermosa, October 13, 1635.

Francisco Hernandez”

The provisor, Don Pedro de Monrroy, answered the governor’s letter as follows:

“In response to the honor which your Lordship does me in your letter by ordering me to make a decision, I say, sir, that I have but little health, as can be seen in my face; consequently, I do not dare to embark. Besides I am occupied with the duties of the offices which I am, at my prelate’s behest, exercising at present. If I were quite well, I would ask my prelate for permission to go anywhere in order to give pleasure to your Lordship. May our Lord preserve your life for many years. Manila, October eight, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five. Your Lordship’s chaplain,

Licentiate Don Pedro de Monrroy”

The archbishop raised a great disturbance on account of this, declaring that the governor was a violator of the ecclesiastical immunity. He immediately summoned the two bishops of Zebu and Nueva Segovia (who were here) and the orders and the clerics to a meeting, by a letter of the following tenor.

But, before mentioning the letter, I wish to recount to your Grace certain actions of the governor, which, as the relation of the Dominicans asserts, obliged the archbishop to assemble the bishops and orders, and others; but which (as I suspected) happened after the meeting, so that your Grace may see how they are stirred up, and engaged on the side of evil. The first was, that the governor’s guard detained several priests by force one whole night, without allowing them to leave the palace. It has been seen above already that this happened by accident, and without the governor’s order. 2d, that he gave orders at the [city] gates for the soldiers not to allow any ecclesiastics to leave. The justification for that was, that it was rumored that several ecclesiastics were trying to take flight, and to carry with them a number of soldiers and sailors who were in the pay of his Majesty. That did in fact happen, for two religious, one secular, and more than thirty soldiers and seamen who had just been paid more than three thousand pesos from the royal treasury, deserted. [Third], that he did not allow the religious to enter or leave their convent. It has been already seen above that the occasion for the surrounding of the convent of St. Augustine was in order to prevent the escape of the treacherous fugitive. Consequently, all else that happened was the over-zeal of the soldiers, who take military orders very literally. [Fourth], that he tried to exile the provisor, Don Pedro de Monrroy, by virtue of an old royal decree, the execution of which had been repealed. It is outside of all truth to say that it was repealed; for it is certain and appears that it had full force and vigor, as I have said above. [Fifth], that he was persuaded that no one could excommunicate him but the supreme pontiff. This opinion is not so improbable, as I have heard discussed by men who know more than I. But Burguillos,[6] a learned man of the Order of St. Francis, holds and supports it valiantly; and at the least the governor, by his membership in the habit of Alcantara, enjoys by a bull of Leo X the privileges and immunities of the Cistercian religious;[7] and, by another bull of Alexander III, the privileges of the knights of Santiago, who can be excommunicated only by the supreme pontiff or by his legate a latere.[8] As for saying that the governor can exile from these islands any of his Majesty’s vassals whom he wishes to, I do not know that it is said in so harsh terms. What I do know is that the royal patronage gives him authority, in punishing the seculars and ecclesiastics, to remove them when they undertake to meddle with what does not concern them. [In regard to the charge] that he prevents the soldiers from becoming religious, no such thing enters his mind. His order is that, before the soldiers embrace a religious life, they shall inform him of it, so that their accounts may first be examined, to ascertain whether they owe anything to the king, in order that it may be paid before they become religious[9]—as was ruled by Sixtus V in his bull. Here in Manila there is another thing which further justifies this action of the governor, namely, that many soldiers embrace a religious life with the sole intention of getting rid of their duties as soldiers; and then after a few months as novitiate, many vagabonds go out. In order to avoid that annoyance, it is well to have it appear and to have it noted in their accounts that they became religious, so that, if they leave that life, they may be compelled to serve the king. If this is not so, let the authors of the other relation tell [of any one] who has asked permission to become a religious who, if he is not indebted to the king, has not obtained his desires.

[Resuming my narrative], the formal letter, then, which the archbishop wrote to the father rector of the Society, Luis de Pedrasa, is as follows:

“The governor has today written a letter to the provisor, in which he says that it is fitting for the service of his Majesty for him to go to the island of Hermosa, to serve as chaplain-in-chief and vicar of those presidios—and this without any opportunity being afforded the provisor to ask my consent. It appears to me, Father Rector, that this is a very grave matter; and it seems best to call a council of the bishops and of all the orders, so that, we may decide that two of those at the meeting shall proceed to ascertain the authority possessed by the governor in spiritualibus [i.e., “in spiritual matters”], in order that we may not continue day after day with these letters and these mandates. Since I advise you of the point which is to be discussed in the meeting, I beg your Paternity to do me the favor to be present at it, and to bring with you the father confessor of the governor and two father readers tomorrow morning, Tuesday, at eight o’clock; for thus is it advisable for the service of our Lord and of His church, and that of his Majesty King Don Phelipe. Your Paternities are bound to follow the footsteps of the other and mendicant orders in matters so justifiable and for the common welfare; and I am confident that I shall receive your support. May our Lord preserve your Paternity for many years. From the [archiepiscopal] house, today, Monday, October, 1635.

Fray Hernando, archbishop.”

The bishop of Nueva Segovia, Don Fray Diego Duarte, excused himself by saying that that measure calculated not to quiet but rather to disturb the citizens. The clergy excused themselves—one for illness, another for ill-health, a third because he could not attend, and a fourth because he did not wish to attend; and so no one went. Your Grace should note here the malice of the other relation; for although the bishop of Nueva Segovia and the ecclesiastical cabildo had excused themselves, that relation makes no mention except of the dean—saying that he could not attend, because of sickness—and of the fathers of the Society, in order to stigmatize their motives and to make them more odious. Although it is true that the latter excused themselves, they did so by a courteous letter, which was written for that purpose by their rector; and in order that your Grace may read it, and know exactly its contents, since from it originated the disputes that followed, I place it here.

“Most illustrious Sir:

“It appears that the more the Society endeavors to serve your most illustrious [Lordship], and your provisor, in striving for the peace of the community, and harmony and friendly relations between the ecclesiastical and secular leaders, in the same proportion do some (I know not whether with so good intention)—making, as is said, a poison from the antidote—endeavor to injure that peace. Hence I am unable to see what benefit our attendance can be, or what lack there will be if we fail to offer our opinion; since whatever we say will be received in the manner that the so pious efforts that have been made during these last few days have been received. Therefore, I beg your Excellency, with due humility and respect, to be pleased to excuse us on this occasion, for the love of God our Lord; for other occasions on which we can serve your Excellency will not be wanting. May our Lord preserve and augment your person as we all, your chaplains, and I the least of them, desire.

Luis de Pedraza”

Some at the council read this letter, and the archbishop and religious were very angry at the absence of the members of the Society from the meeting. They paid no attention to the fact that the clergy and the bishop of Nueva Segovia were also absent. They couched their lances against only those of the Society; and the first thing done in the said meeting was to enact an act and resolution so harsh that it seems best not to mention it at all, but to copy it word for word, so that your Grace may judge what may be your pleasure, and whether it was only to express some resentment, as the other relation declares, or to disclose their passion by not telling the hatred that they felt. The act is as follows:

“In the city of Manila, on the ninth of October, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five, his Excellency the archbishop of Manila, and at his summons, the most reverend bishop of Zebu, and the prelates of the orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and St. Augustine, and the Recollect fathers of the last order, and the readers of all of the said orders, having assembled in the archiepiscopal palace, it was resolved that, inasmuch as the fathers of the Society of Jesus had been summoned to the said assembly, this and another time, by his Excellency, in order to communicate matters to them touching the service of God and of His Church, which his Excellency wished to execute with the advice of all for their better result; and since both times when they were summoned they excused themselves and in fact did not attend the said meeting, by which one can see that they separate themselves from the cause of the Church, and that they leave her deserted and abandoned in whatever pertains to them: therefore it was resolved in the said meeting, that from any one who separates from his mother in her greatest trials and necessities, his brothers, the children of the Church, ought to separate themselves—namely, by not attending the functions of common interest that shall be held or celebrated in the convents and church of the Society of Jesus, such as are feasts, contests in debate and other things similar to these; and by not inviting them to those which are celebrated either in the cathedral church and parochial churches of this city, or in any other churches whatsoever, whether subject to his Excellency or to the prelates of the said orders. Also, from this time henceforth, his Excellency deprives them of the sermons [assigned to them] on the list of the said cathedral, and of all other sermons that they have or can have throughout his archbishopric, so that they can preach in none of the churches subject to his Excellency. His Excellency also resolved that no cleric of his archbishopric, of whatever rank or degree he be, either by himself or in the name of the communities which he represents, may or ought to go to the said functions celebrated in the convents or churches of the said Society. His Excellency also deprived them of the title of synodal examiners in all his archbishopric. The said archbishop promised that he would observe all the above until a decision should be made by another assembly of like character with this. And thus his most illustrious Lordship affixed his signature with the rest who attended the meeting,[10] on the said day, month, and year.

Fray Hernando, archbishop.
Fray Pedro, bishop of Santisimo Nombre de Jesus.
Fray Domingo Gonsalez
Fray Geronimo del Spiritu Santo
Fray Juan de Montemayor
Fray Gaspar de Santa Maria[11]
Fray Francisco de Herrera
Fray Alonso de San Joan
Fray Joseph de Santa Maria
Fray Antonio Gonsalez
Fray Vicente Argente
Fray Alonso de Carvajal
Fray Sebastian de Oquendo
Fray Diego de Ochoa
Fray Pedro de Santo Thomas
Fray Miguel de San Juan[12]

By order of his Excellency, the archbishop, my lord,

Bachelor Joan Fulgencio, notary.”

But it is to be noted that although the above act is signed by so many, some of them afterward stated that they had been misled. For the Order of St. Augustine afterward renewed through its definitors its former friendship with the Society, saying that those who had signed had no authority to do so; and the bishop of Zebu, Don Fray Pedro de Arçe, retracted it as a mistake, as your Grace will see by the enclosed document that he drew up.

“In consideration of a council called by Archbishop Don Fray Hernando Guerrero, on the ninth of this month of October—at which I was present, together with certain religious of the orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and the caked and discalced religious of St. Augustine—and of a paper that was drawn up against the Society of Jesus, in which the archbishop deprived them of the sermons [assigned to them] in the lists of the cathedral and of other secular churches subject to the said archbishop, as well as the other things that the said document contains because the fathers of the said Society of Jesus did not attend the said council: I signed the said paper at the meeting, on account of the relation that was made then in the absence of the said fathers of the Society. But afterward, having been informed of the truth, and that the fathers had very just reasons for not attending such meeting, I declare for the discharge of my conscience, that my opinion given then is null and void, and that the action taken in the said document is not just. On the contrary, I think that the said fathers of the Society are worthy of praise and reward for their great devotion, holy doctrine, and excellent method of procedure—of which it is not proper to deprive the faithful, by taking from them the fruit that is received from their sermons and admirable instruction everywhere. In order that this my sentiment and opinion may be apparent for all time, I affixed my name to this present document in Manila, October eighteen, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five.

Fray Pedro, bishop of Santissimo de Jesus.

His most reverend Lordship signed in my presence and I witness thereto, and know him.

Juan Soriano, notary-public.”

Following the decree enacted by the archbishop, another point was discussed in the assembly, which concerned the attempt of the governor to have Don Pedro de Monrroy go to the island of Hermosa as its chaplain. In this regard they resolved to offer effective opposition; and the archbishop, at the advice of the assembly, wrote the following letter to the governor:

“I have read the letter written by your Lordship to my provisor, and his answer, and the resolution of your Lordship to send him to the island of Hermosa. As I desire peace and harmony with your Lordship, I entreat you to receive his excuse, since it, and my need of his person, are well known. Besides this, I ask your Lordship to note that the appointment of a vicar, or the granting of ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction, or the administration of sacraments, is the prerogative of the ecclesiastical prelates, and not of the civil government. Therefore, I request your Lordship to refrain from making similar appointments in this regard. I write all the above to your Lordship by the advice of the bishop of Zibu and of the orders, so that your Lordship may see that I am not moved by passion, but by reason and justice; and that I do not trust to my own opinion, but to that of many. I entreat your Lordship to form another like opinion in making your decisions, and with persons who are free to speak their minds to your Lordship. May our Lord preserve your Lordship and prosper you in His holy service. Today, Tuesday, October nine, six hundred and thirty-five.

Fray Hernando, archbishop.”

The governor answered the above letter of the archbishop as follows:

“I do not think that your Lordship desires peace and harmony as you say, since you order me to receive the excuse of Don Pedro de Monrroy in what I ask from him, which is fitting to the service of his Majesty. I am doing it with all peace, without desiring war, and without seeking war with anyone. Many can supply your Lordship’s need of his person, who are better intentioned and more learned, in accordance with his Majesty’s orders in his royal decree.

On the contrary, your Lordship has rather too much of Don Pedro de Monrroy than too little, for the quiet, harmony, and good government of your church.

I am not ignorant that the approval of ecclesiastical persons is reserved to the prelates in order that they may administer the sacraments; but the appointing of them belongs to the government by virtue of the royal patrimony, just as his Majesty appointed your Lordship bishop and archbishop, and as his Holiness approved and confirmed it. Consequently, I cannot, even though your Lordship orders it, abstain from appointing curas and vicars, choosing from three whom your Lordship ought to nominate, the person whom I shall consider most suitable. In the case of canons and dignidades of this holy church, governors of vacant bishoprics, and chaplains, superior and subordinate, of the soldiers, presidios, and galleons of his Majesty, I need no nomination by your Lordship, although they need your approval. If your Lordship writes me thus ‘at the advice of the bishop of Zebu and of the orders, so that I may see that your Lordship is not moved by passion, but by reason and justice,’ I am moved by passion in ordering that all who came to these islands at the king’s cost or in his galleons, and who are his vassals, whatever be their rank and degree, shall serve him. And when I say that this is fitting for his royal service, only his Majesty can call me to account for it.

I value the advice given me by your Lordship that, when I make decisions, I take counsel with persons who are free to speak their mind to me. When I take counsel for the better service of God and the king, I look for the most learned men of good reputation, and many disinterested persons, so that they may not confuse me with so many different opinions. To them I do not declare my intention or determination, as is the general custom, until all have spoken; and then I conform to the opinion of those which I deem best.

May your Lordship understand this truth, and that I fear God more than the king and his vassals. May His Divine Majesty preserve your Lordship for many happy years. The palace; October nine, six hundred and thirty-five.

Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera”

The archbishop and the orders seeing that the members of the Society were not disturbed (which seems to have been their intention, to judge by the resolution of the assembly), the archbishop sent a notary, a few days afterward, to notify the superiors of the Society of an act, which I shall place here together with the reply of the father rector, Luis de Pedraza.

“We, Don Fray Hernando Guerrero, by the grace of God and the holy apostolic see archbishop of these Philipinas Islands, member of his Majesty’s Council, etc. Inasmuch as we ordered for just reasons that moved us thereto, in harmony with the rules of the holy Council of Trent (in chapter four, De reformatione, session twenty-four), that the religious fathers of the Society of Jesus be notified—the father-provincial, Joan de Bueras, the rector, Luis de Pedraza, and the other superiors of the said order who live in this city—not to preach outside of their convents in any part of all this archbishopric, or in camps, or guardhouses, by any manner of talk or preaching, or in any other manner: that order they shall observe to the letter, under penalty of major excommunication, late sentencie, ipso facto incurenda una protina canonica monitione premisa,[13] and a fine of four thousand Castilian ducados for the Holy Crusade, to which we hold them immediately condemned if they do the contrary. Given in our archiepiscopal palace, in the city of Manila, October twenty-six, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five.

Fray Hernando, archbishop.

By order of his Lordship: Diego Bernal

“At the residence of the Society of Jesus in Manila, on the twenty-ninth day of the month of November [sc., October], one thousand six hundred and thirty-five, I read and announced the act contained in the other part [of this document], exactly as is therein contained, to the father rector, Luis de Pedraza, in the presence of the witness Diego de Rueda, royal clerk, and the fathers Pedro de Prado, procurator-general, and Gregorio Bellin. In their presence, he desired me to give him an attested copy of the act, as a protection of his right, and they were witnesses of the entire proceeding. I attest this.

Juan de la Cueva Moran, notary-public.

“Then immediately the said father Luis de Pedraza required me once, twice, and thrice, to set down the reply which will be declared, notwithstanding that the notification is set down. And, inasmuch as I am constrained by the said requisitions, I give it; and it is of the following tenor:

‘That in all things that were not a violation of their privileges, they were prompt to obey, since they were under that obligation; but if any demand were in violation of those privileges, then they would make use of the means afforded them by the law for their defense and which his Holiness granted them. He affixed his signature, in the presence of the above witnesses.

Luis de Pedraza

Before me.
Joan de la Cueva Moran, notary-public.’”

The fathers of the Society thought that act was a manifest injury to their order and privileges, for three reasons. First, because they were deprived of preaching to all persons, with no exception, without there being other cause therefor than those which your Grace may infer from the document. Second, by commanding them with excommunication and pecuniary fines, a thing which is manifestly a violation of the immunity of the regulars. Third, because they were prohibited from giving instruction in the camps and guardhouses, which is a violation of a Clementina,[14] as I am told, and to which no contrary decision has been rendered by the holy Council of Trent. The fathers of the Society attempted to maintain peace by all possible ways, but they were unsuccessful; and they could find no route to that end. The past governor, Don Juan Cerezo [Salamanca] who was desirous of settling the matter, undertook to secure that end by writing to the archbishop the following letter:

“Our friendship, and the respect with which I always view the affairs of your Lordship, and my obligations, constrain me to represent affectionately to your Lordship, on the present occasion, the great danger that is being incurred in maintaining the provisor in his office, in hatred of him who represents to us the royal person, so that your Lordship may consider in time the scandalous end that is threatened. And although your Lordship will doubtless proceed, I must warn you through my experience of European affairs, heedfully, that the reasons that operate in this small presidio, which is surrounded by barbarians and hostile nations, have no place in populous cities. The governors base their defense on the public peace, in the attainment of which the prelates [should] always aid, without trying to examine the governor’s intention, or throwing obstacles in his path under pretext of ecclesiastical immunity; and although peace is composed of both estates, and it is the business of both to secure and maintain it, its prerogative belongs only to the royal jurisdiction.

“In order to repair these troubles, so that we can hope for great harmony in the future, I consider it as the only remedy, and the one most fitting for the authority of your Lordship, for Don Pedro de Monrroy to display his nobility of character, and resign himself of his own free will to the will of Don Sebastian, thus valuing his favor more than the comforts which he is now enjoying. If he so act, I am sure that it will open a free door for greater promotions [for him], and for the consolation of this community. Your Lordship, as a father, ought to pay attention to this without permitting the matter to be carried to a compulsory settlement, of which I have certain proofs. This opinion seemed good to father Fray Domingo Gonsalez—although, after having conferred with your Lordship, he replied to me that he does not find any secular who can fill the vacancy of the said Don Pedro de Monrroy. But I remember to have seen that your Lordship was inclined to the canon Don Pedro de Quesada. I have here been addressing your Lordship with tenderness and love; and you may believe that any action contrary to this would be held as a great disservice by his Majesty—especially, as it is understood that the points of [ecclesiastical] government are reduced to assemblies of theologians, your Lordship being their counselor. May God our Lord preserve your Lordship. From my residence.

Don Juan Çerezo [de Salamanca]”

Don Juan de Cerezo was not content with this letter, but, being constrained by his excellent desires, wrote another letter of the following tenor:

“As no beginning has been made in procuring the desired peace, I shall charge myself to treat of it, as it concerns so deeply the licentiate, Don Pedro de Monrroy, to whom I remain a true friend; and at the pace at which the matter is being matured it must be that some little devil has been unchained, and that he is defrauding all the gains. But, nevertheless, as all this cause is for the service of our Lord, I am confident that your Lordship and all the orders will favor it. I am awaiting joyful news this afternoon, in order to be able to commence openly to be the mediator of harmony which, it is represented to me, this community will hereafter enjoy. And should that harmony unfortunately be not attained, I rely, in everything, upon this assembly. At least will your Lordship be pleased to give such direction to it, by your great prudence, that these matters may not be further disturbed. May God preserve your Lordship, as He is able, and as I desire. From my residence, October 12, 1635.

Don Juan Çerezo Salamanca”

The dean of this holy church, Don Miguel Garçetas, also did on his part what he could to stay this storm; and he with three other dignidades went about among the four orders, to talk to their superiors in order that they might aid with their advice, so that the affair of Don Pedro de Monrroy might be directed to the satisfaction of the governor, since he had so good an intention; and, at the same time, so that they might annul the resolution taken against the Society in the meeting above mentioned. Each one in private promised mountains of gold. They met with the archbishop; and the bishop of Nueva Segovia and some seculars having attended that meeting, they were not allowed to take part in it, because others thought that they were on the side of the Society, and that they were inclined to support the governor’s decision. In that assembly not only did its members not revoke the resolution, as each one had promised, but they confirmed it and refused to give satisfaction to the governor in regard to Don Pedro de Monrroy.

Immediately the obstinacy and stubbornness of the participants in the meeting was learned; and those who had tried to act as angels of peace felt it keenly, especially Don Juan Cerezo. As he had exerted himself most in striving for peace, his grief at seeing that his good desire had not been obtained was greatest. Therefore he wrote the following letter to the archbishop:

“By your Lordship’s letter I have learned the opinions of the religious who attended the meeting of last night. Of the purpose that animates them and their hearts, may God judge. With this outcome I retire from these matters, and my only desire is that they come out right. I meddled in the affair because I thought it expedient and desirable to procure, by honorable means, the restoration of your Lordship’s liberty of the ordinary jurisdiction. That was injured and enslaved, the moment when it was subject to the hindrance of not being able to alter anything without a fresh intervention of the orders, and of being obliged to temporize with them so much as your Lordship indicates; for the person and dignity of the archbishop of Manila are of great importance, and his feelings of anger should be of less duration, so that he should not be compelled to chide the quarrels of others with his crozier.

“I petition your Lordship to keep this in mind, for I say it through my love as a son of your Lordship, as a corrective for the present and a warning for the future; and the greatest happiness exists when the two heads of the state are in harmony. May God direct it, as He is able, and preserve your Lordship, as I desire. From my residence, October 19, 1635.

Don Juan Çerezo [Salamanca]”

The fathers of the Society, seeing that the peace measures had been useless, and that the doors to any suitable settlement were tightly closed on them on the part of the archbishop and the religious who were their opponents; and that two days afterward they had notified the rector of the Society of the first act, they had notified the minister of Santa Cruz of another (that place being a mission of the Society), in order that he should not instruct certain Indians, a right which the preceding prelate had given to the Society.[15] It was rumored that the archbishop was trying to deprive them of the confessional. Daily new troubles were feared, and the fathers of the Society were compelled to appoint a judge-conservator; and one was in fact appointed on the second of November, 1635. This was Don Fabian de Santillan y Cavilanes, schoolmaster of this holy metropolitan church. He was not serving ad interim, as the other relation declares, but held that office in regular appointment, and had held it for several years. He was the son of a treasurer of the royal exchequer. Alonso Baesa del Rio was assigned as his notary, a notary-public and a man of vast experience and skill in papers. The judge-conservator ordered the archbishop, under penalty of major excommunication and a fine of four thousand ducados for the Holy Crusade, to repeal the acts passed against the Society, as they were manifestly injurious. Before he was notified of this act, the secretary read to him his appointment as judge-conservator made on behalf of the Society. This is apparent by the identical acts, which I have seen. I advise your Grace of this so that you may have accurate information on this point; for it is stated and restated often, in the other relation, that the archbishop was not notified legally before they notified him of the act of the judge-conservator. He was notified, for it is certain that the first document read to him by the secretary was the appointment as judge-conservator, as above stated. Later, the same secretary read to him the bull for judge-conservators, and that of Gregory XIII, in which he concedes authority to the fathers of the Society to preach anywhere. The secretary entering the archbishop’s hall with the documents, the latter asked him what he had, and he answered that they were the bulls. “But why?” added the archbishop; and Fray Antonio Gonsalez, who was in his company, said: “He has been tired, for we have already seen them in the collection of bulls.” If this is so, I am surprised that the hostile relation states that the act of the judge-conservator was null and void, as he did not first exhibit the briefs (of which no notice was taken) to the archbishop. The latter’s procurators also were not bashful, and were so bold as to allege the same in public session of the Audiencia. But they were convinced by the secretary that he read the acts, whereupon an auditor declared: “We must pay heed to this, and not to the new falsehoods that they bring.”

Next day the archbishop presented himself with a plea of fuerza, during prison inspection, before the auditor Don Alvaro de Mesa y Lugo [sic; sc. Zapata?]; and as there was no other auditor, he issued the usual order. On Tuesday, the sixth of the same month, recourse was had to the royal Audiencia, on behalf of both the archbishop and the Society, to examine the records. The royal Audiencia, seeing that the order issued during the prison inspection was not sufficient, but defective, issued another and new one, and nothing further was discussed in that meeting of the Audiencia. Next day, Wednesday, November seven, the records were brought. The archbishop was represented by the father prior of St. Augustine, Fray Juan de Montemayor, and the father reader, Fray Diego de Ochoa, of the same order; the father definitor of the Recollects, Fray Pedro Barreto; the father guardian of St. Francis, Fray Juan de Pina; and Bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera, a secular, and the deacon and servant of the archbishop. The Society was represented by Father Diego de Bobadilla,[16] and Father Lorenco Goreto, masters of theology. The latter, before all else, declared that they had no quarrel with the holy orders, and that in consequence the fathers had nothing to do there. But the others replied that they had been authorized by the archbishop. The royal Audiencia ordered the authorization to be read. It made mention only of the father reader, Fray Diego de Ochoa, father Fray Pedro Barreto, and the bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera. Thereupon, they ordered from the room the father prior of St. Augustine, and the father guardian of St. Francis, who went out somewhat shamefacedly. The secretary read the records, but was interrupted at every step by the reader Fray Diego de Ochoa, which resulted in some animosity. After the reading, the president asked the representatives of the archbishop whether they had anything to state. The bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera took the floor, and said in few words that the judge-conservator was not legitimately appointed, for there were no manifest injuries in the case. Then the president invited the two religious who had remained [to speak]. They said that those of the Society should state their case first, and accordingly the latter were given the floor—Father Diego de Bobadilla first, and then Father Lorenço Goreto. They proved in the judgment of those of us who were present (and it so seemed to me, although not much is obtained from these things) that the acts which I have mentioned are manifest injuries; and that, consequently, the judge-conservator was legally appointed. In order that your Grace may understand more of what was declared, I am sending you a summary of the allegation made by the fathers of the Society, which one of them communicated to me, and I enclose it herewith. Hence I shall not go into greater detail here, by mentioning what I have heard erudite men say in reply to certain arguments by which the other relation tries to prove that the enactments of the judge-conservator were null and void. I shall only say a word, if I remember it, on three or four points which the relation heaps together, but which are of small moment. It declares that the judge exceeded his authority in not giving the archbishop more than one hour’s time-limit in which to read the bulls and to withdraw the act, while in reality twenty-four hours were granted him; and when the secretary, Alonso Baesa del Rio, went to notify the archbishop of the act, to his offer that he could easily obtain more time from the judge, answer was made by Diego Bernal, who was the secretary of the archbishop, that they had time enough, and that no more was necessary, as they had read the bulls often enough. The point was not in this, but in the fact that the judge-conservator could not command the archbishop to withdraw the act that he had made against the Society. By that one may see the calumny in alleging that the time was insufficient to withdraw the act. The relation states that it was a dispute over jurisdiction, and that consequently, according to the ruling of the Council of Trent, judge-arbitrators were to be appointed. That is an error; for there was no contest over jurisdiction, but only that the judge-conservator, as the delegate of the supreme pontiff, ordered the archbishop to withdraw an act manifestly injurious to the Society. The relation declares that the bulls were authorized by the same judge-conservator and his secretary. That is true, but how did that cause any nullification? For the judge did not feign briefs, or say that the one that he presented was the original one, but that it was a faithful copy of the original, which the Society had showed him. Therein he obeyed the behests of the supreme pontiff, in order that such copies might have legality and authority. When the fathers of the Society had finished their statement, the president told the father reader Fray Diego de Ochoa, and the father definitor Fray Pedro Barreto, to make what further statements they had to make. But they, changing color, and being uneasy, answered clearly and frankly that they had nothing more to say, as they had not come prepared for it. I confess to your Grace that we who were present were put to the blush at seeing so shameful a thing; and we asked, since they had not come prepared, why they had come and why they had received the archbishop’s authorization. They requested that audience be granted them the next day, and, although that is contrary to common practice, it was conceded to them, so that they could at no time say that they had not presented their side of the matter, and that they were without defense. That was so clear and manifest a victory for the fathers of the Society, and before the tribunal, the officials, and the great crowd which was present, that I am surprised how those of the other side dared to utter a word. They returned to the conflict on the following Thursday; and other religious besides the two above mentioned and the secular, were summoned. Those who came newly were father Fray Antonio Gonsalez, vicar-provincial of St. Dominic; Fray Diego Collado, of the same order; and father Fray Pedro de Herrera, of St. Augustine: on entering the Audiencia, they presented their authority without being requested to do so—fearing to encounter any such jest as had happened to the others the day previous, for lack of authority. The father reader Fray Diego de Ochoa spoke first in this Audiencia, in a loud voice and with many exclamations, and casting opprobrium on the person of the judge-conservator. Then the father definitor Fray Pedro Barreto spoke. He read a short paper that he had written, saying that he had not been able to commit it to memory. He was followed by father Fray Antonio Gonsalez, who alleged a very trifling defect in the bull. After him Fray Diego Collado spoke. He said that he was the confessor of the president of Castilla when the bishop of Cordoba had a similar suit with the orders in España. Father Fray Pedro de Herrera gave his opinion last. All of them together consumed more than one and one-half hours. The fathers of the Society answered, Father Diego de Bobadilla first, and then Father Lorenso Goreto. Such was their reply that, to all of us who were present, it seemed that they had proved their case, and it is sure that they showed the act to be a manifest injury: first, because they had been ordered not to preach outside of their churches, under pain of excommunication and pecuniary fines; second, because the archbishop, through his anger toward only one of the Society, had forbidden all of them in his archbishopric to preach. The controversy then hinged on [the question] whether the prelate may prohibit some of the Society, for just causes (which he said that he had, but did not express), from preaching in camps and guardhouses. The friars said that he could, and their whole argument consisted of what the Council [of Trent] says, according to what they alleged—making fuerza out of those words, contradicente episcopo [i.e., “the bishop opposing”], and giving as explanation that the prelate may by his own authority oppose and forbid the regulars to preach, even in their own churches. Thence they inferred that the archbishop had not laid on the fathers of the Society all that he could. Those of the Society answered this at length, and showed by several books which they brought to the Audiencia that that phrase contradicente episcopo, ought not to be understood in that manner, but according to a certain Clementina which, if I am not mistaken, is that of De sepulturis, and begins with Dudum. As this was the point of all their controversy, I refer you to the statement that is enclosed herewith. But I am unable to conjecture why the other relation wastes so much paper, and becomes wearisome, by bringing in so many statements to prove that the religious may not preach in the churches of others without the permission of their owners, since the Society never claimed anything else, nor were their statements intended to prove it. And believe me, your Grace, on this second day no less glory fell to the Society than on the first. I have related this point so extensively, as some prejudiced persons have stated that the adherents of the archbishop silenced the fathers of the Society.

The gentlemen of the royal Audiencia remained in the hall, and on voting on the point of fuerza they were divided. Thereupon, his Majesty’s fiscal was appointed, as that pertains to him by law. His vote, it appears, was cast in favor of the fathers of the Society. Consequently, it was declared that the judge-conservator had not used fuerza toward the archbishop, and that he should proceed with his commission. Some persons were not lacking who tried to suspend the proceedings and declare them null and void, because the archbishop’s representatives were not notified that it was because the auditors’ opinions were discordant that his Majesty’s fiscal had been appointed judge. They did not take note that this matter of making notifications and summons is an act of superiority and jurisdiction; and that, as the royal Audiencia does not hold that in ecclesiastical matters, it does not employ such acts, and only declares whether the ecclesiastical judge practices fuerza or no—and this not as judge of the ecclesiastical estate, but as a political governor who desires peace in his country. The other and contradictory relation also tries to prove the proceedings null because, before the royal Audiencia declared that the judge-conservator was not committing fuerza, the procurators of the archbishop drew up a petition which they presented to the president, in which they challenged the auditor Zapata. But he who regards this as nullification, proves that he is but little accustomed to the manner of procedure of the Audiencia; for in the first place the petition was not presented in time, and second, it was not signed by a lawyer—an essential lack, as that is contrary to his Majesty’s orders for what is to be done in such cases of challenging a judge, and especially so superior a judge as an auditor.

As the judge-conservator was declared by the Audiencia to be legal, he proceeded, constraining the archbishop with censures so that he should furnish an official statement of the acts issued against the Society. He did so, sending the original act already mentioned, the original [record of the] meeting that he held with the religious, and the act that was issued ordering the fathers of the Society not to minister to the Indians of Santa Cruz. Within a few days the matter was well on the way to a conclusion and settlement, when it was discovered that the archbishop and some of the said three orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and St. Augustine, had held a meeting, and under color of a protest had issued a defamatory libel, in which they linked the same judge-conservator, the Society of Jesus, the governor, and the royal Audiencia, because these had declared against their will. This document was a matter of common talk and notoriety, not only because it was declared by many of the townspeople, who had heard it from those who had been present at the meeting (and as there were so many of them it could not be kept secret); but also, as soon as it was requested, the archbishop told the father rector, Luis de Pedrasa, that he would not give up such a paper, even if he were deprived of the archbishopric; and father Fray Pedro de Herrera, his procurator, said that they would not give it even if they were hanged. The father provincial of St. Francis asked Adjutant Juan de Vega Mexia, why he demanded such a paper, for it was not well for the Society, or their judge-conservator, or the governor, or the royal Audiencia to see it. This tone increased the reports of the townspeople, and the constant rumor that that protest was a defamatory libel and contained grievous things about many persons. It was authenticated by a royal clerk named Diego de Rueda, who is also a familiar of the Holy Office. The judge-conservator arrested him, and took his confession, in which, although he did not tell openly all that the protest contained, he made known sufficient of it so that one could get light on the matter. The judge-conservator petitioned the governor for the aid of the civil arm, and on Friday, November 16, arrested the clerk by its help. The commissary of the Holy Office, Fray Francisco de Herrera, of the Order of St. Dominic, came out to demand his familiar from the judge-conservator. The judge answered that he had already taken his statement; that, although he had arrested him so that he might declare more, the man was no longer necessary to him; and that it did not concern him, and they should demand the familiar from the governor, who had him. The father commissary answered that the reply of the judge was not satisfactory, and that his familiar should be handed over to him. The judge answered that in writing, as follows:

“In the city of Manila, November twenty-three, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five. Don Fabian de Santillan y Gavilanes, schoolmaster of the holy cathedral church of this said city, apostolic judge-conservator of the Order of the Society of Jesus, etc., declared that [he makes this declaration] inasmuch as the reverend father preacher Fray Francisco de Herrera, of the Order of St. Dominic, commissary of the Holy Inquisition in these islands, sent him an oral message by the accountant, Alonso Baesa del Rio, notary-public and apostolic notary of this tribunal, yesterday, Thursday, between six and seven in the morning, asking to have Diego de Rueda sent to him (as he said that he had arrested him), for a certain declaration that he had need of making before the said father commissary. To that message the said judge-conservator also responded orally, saying that although he had arrested the said Diego de Rueda, because of what pertained to his office as judge-conservator, it was two days since he had finished with him, and that the said Diego de Rueda was no longer held prisoner at his account. Therefore, he should go to Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera, governor and captain-general of these islands, to ask for him. Nevertheless, after his declaration that he was not holding the said Diego de Rueda a prisoner, the said father commissary, by an act that he issued today, ordered the said judge-conservator, under penalties and censures, to deliver the said Diego de Rueda within two hours, and he was notified of it at the hour of nine in the morning. The judge-conservator made the same answer in writing that he had given orally to the said apostolic notary, and more fully (although the said [oral] reply was sufficient). At the hour of ten in the morning he wrote a letter to the said father commissary, sending it by Adjutant Juan de Vega Mexia, in which he offered to the commissary to draw up a document requiring, exhorting, and notifying the said governor and captain-general of these islands that, in what pertained to this court of the said apostolic judge conservator, inasmuch as the latter had no longer anything to do with the said Diego de Rueda, the governor should set him free and send him to the said father commissary. The latter answered in writing through the said adjutant, Juan de Vega Mexia, that the said governor declared that it was not his Lordship, but the said judge-conservator, who had arrested the said Diego de Rueda. And after the said reply, and for greater satisfaction, and so that his obedience, as an obedient son of the Church to the mandates of the Holy Inquisition may be recognized, the judge-conservator thereupon petitions and supplicates—and in a necessary case, requires, exhorts, and charges—Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera, governor and captain-general of these islands, in what pertains to this court of the said apostolic judge-conservator, inasmuch as the latter no longer has anything to do with the said Diego de Rueda, to free that man and send him to the father commissary, as the latter has ordered and commanded the said apostolic judge-conservator, under penalties and censures. Thus did he enact, and affixed his signature. The schoolmaster,

Don Fabian de Santillan Y Gavilanes

By his order:

Alonso Baeza Del Rrio,
notary-public and apostolic notary.”

After receiving this reply, the father commissary left the judge, and requested the governor to give him his familiar. His Lordship answered him that the said familiar had transgressed in the exercise of his office by having authenticated, as a royal notary, a defamatory libel; and that the punishment for that devolved upon the royal jurisdiction, according to the agreement in the new compilation [of laws]. The governor sent Diego de Rueda under arrest to the fort of Cabite, whereupon the father commissary had the governor notified of the following act through a youthful friar called Fray Ignacio Muñoz, and another who accompanied him:

“In the city of Manila, on the twenty-sixth of the month of November, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five, the reverend father Fray Francisco de Herrera, commissary of the Holy Office in these islands, declared that he is at present engaged in a cause pertaining to the tribunal of the Inquisition, in regard to a protest which is reported to be a defamatory libel against the holy Order of the Society of Jesus, and other persons occupying places of dignity. The principal witness in it is Alférez Diego de Rueda; and, for lack of him, the service and execution of the Holy Office in investigating this cause is suspended and prevented. Inasmuch as the pontiff Pius Fifth, and other pontiffs order in very strict terms that the causes of the Inquisition take precedence over all others, and that all causes cease and be superseded until the Holy Office concludes its business: therefore the said commissary ordered (and he did so order) Governor Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera, who says in his letters that he has arrested the said Diego de Rueda for having become an apostolic notary when he was a royal notary, for the purpose of authenticating the protest that is said to be a libel—an offense which by being committed in connection with this cause, belongs by law to the Inquisition, and to no other tribunal, as it is in regard to what is said to be a defamatory libel against the said order and persons; and gives him a time-limit of thirty hours within which to present Diego de Rueda at the Holy Office, under penalty of major excommunication and a fine of five thousand ducados for the expenses of this tribunal. And, under the same penalties, he orders the said governor not to make any further effort to demand or inquire about the said protest, since if it is, as is asserted, a defamatory libel, it belongs to no other judge, but only to the Holy Office; and the governor shall not molest the said prisoner until the Holy Office has entirely concluded its cause. And he thus decreed in this act, which he ordered and signed.

Fray Francisco de Herrera

Before me:

Fray Ignacio Muñoz, notary.”

The friar commenced to read his act, and, at the commencement of the reading, the governor asked the friar to hand it to him. Seeing that this was the beginning of disturbances in the community, he ordered an adjutant to conduct those friars courteously to their convent at the port of Cabite, and charge their superior to retain them there and look after them well; and that they should not disturb the peace of the community for him, nor talk with the freedom and levity that they had displayed to him. The fathers of St. Dominic took occasion from that to utter innumerable evil reports about the governor, so that there was no place where they did not murmur aloud about him. Father Fray Sebastian de Oquendo of the Order of St. Dominic, in especial, went one morning to the auditor-general of war, Manuel Suarez, with a bull which he declared had been promulgated by Pius V; and having read it, he declared that the governor was excommunicated for preventing the exercise of the Inquisition’s authority (although the governor declared that he did not prevent it but that he was maintaining, as he ought, the royal jurisdiction); that he was deposed, that he was not governor, and could not act as such; and that the senior auditor should immediately assume the government, and arrest Don Sebastian and place him in a fort. The auditor-general referred all the above to the governor; and, as a confirmation of this and other rumors that were current through the city, the same fathers of St. Dominic brought a friar from Cabite, named Fray Francisco Pinelo,[17] a man of talent and eloquent in the pulpit, in order that he might preach on the second Sunday of Advent, December 9, 1635. He did in fact preach [on that day], and before beginning his sermon, he said that he had called and invited the people to read a bull that he declared was given by Pius V, and was translated from Latin into Romance, in which his Holiness regards those who prevent the exercise of the Holy Inquisition’s authority as infamous, and incapable of holding offices and dignities, and as ipso facto deposed from them. The said father asserted all the above with such tones and manner, and at such a time, that it was clearly seen that he meant it for the governor; and that he was scoffing at him as an infamous person, and as one deposed from the government of these islands, because he had sent to Cabite the two friars who had been sent to him. He began his sermon after that, and it was throughout a satire on the Society, on the judge-conservator, and on the governor and the royal Audiencia. He said of the fathers of the Society that they were the cats of the Church, and a damnable and corruptible milk, who were trying by their deceits to influence other religious not to go to Japon. He added that such as they were members that had been lopped off from the Church; and that by their shrewdness and political methods they were insinuating themselves into everything. Of the judge-conservator he said that one would believe him a canon of London rather than of the cathedral of Manila; that the Jesuits had made him a pope or popelet, and that through him they had undertaken to give them [i.e., the other orders] pap;[18] that he was a gambler, and that he had lost some thousands of pesos, which I know is not the case. Of the governor, the preacher said that he was a Pilate, and even much worse; since Pilate had refused to intervene in the death of Christ, while the governor was trying to take part in the controversies with the archbishop; he also compared him to Herod. He talked very venomously about an auditor, and, although he did not name him, it was just as if he had done so, for one could plainly infer of whom he was speaking. He characterized him as unjust and vicious, and all without other foundation than his having declared that the judge-conservator was legal, contrary to what the fathers of St. Dominic claimed. The muttering and commotion among the audience were very marked. It is a fact that many of us think that the preacher had no other aim or motive than to disturb and rouse the crowd so that there should be an uprising, as there had been in Nueva España. And as I have already begun this matter of sermons, and so that I may not afterward interrupt the thread of my discourse, I shall say somewhat here to your Grace of the many disorders that have happened in this direction.

On the day of St. Lucy, December 13, in the convent of the Recollects of St. Augustine, father Fray Andres del Spiritu Santo preached. I was present, and his whole sermon was a satire against the judge-conservator, the fathers of the Society, and the governor. He said many evil things of them, all of which I do not remember in detail, except that he said, by mistake, of the fathers of the Society that they were Hippocrates; and then, immediately correcting himself, that they were hypocrites and arrogant fellows, and that it was the Society not of Jesus, but of the devil. He characterized the judge-conservator as a vicious fellow. The same father preached on the afternoon of Palm Sunday, in his convent. He said of the governor that he was not setting for the archbishop, and how he has aided him. He added that the governor did not understand the law of the Christians, as he had said (according to the preacher’s statement) that he could not be excommunicated. That scandalized the hearers, and was the motive for many of the city to declare (as I hear) that these sermons kindled the fire that raged, and were the cause of these revolutions.

On Sunday, the third day of Lent, February 24, 1636, at the publication of the ordinary edict, the whole city gathered in the cathedral, where I was present. The father guardian of St. Francis, Fray Juan de Piña, preached. He mentioned in the pulpit a balance that the accountant Juan Bautista de Zubiaga had brought forward against the fathers of St. Francis (who have had charge of the royal hospitals), of more than thirty thousand pesos. Inasmuch as soldiers without weapons have not been received in the hospital for many years, and a great number of men have died in it, and there is no account of what has been done with those arms, they amount, when appraised at low prices, to over thirty thousand pesos. The preacher declared that he had reason to make a greater charge and declare a larger balance against the king of España. The charge was that Fray Francisco Ximenez conquered Oran; and that one of their friars, named Zumarraga,[19] pacified Nueva España. Thus a great part of his sermon was taken up in indecorously contending and taking issue with the king of España. On the Wednesday following, February 27, the same preacher delivering a sermon in the same cathedral church, returned to the same balance, and treated the said computer of accounts, Juan Bautista de Cubiaga, with great contumely. He called him a Gascon devil, disguised as a Viscayan or Navarrese, who getting a smattering of accounts, gave out that he was an accountant, in order to come to give him a beating. And this he said amid the laughter and commotion of the audience.

On one Friday in Lent, the fifteenth of March, I was present at the convent of St. Augustine; Fray Diego de Ochoa of the same order came out to preach. At the beginning, he read a notice which said that Father Lorenso Goreto would preach on the following Tuesday at the church of the Society of Jesus, on the good thief.[20] He added that that feast of the thief was very suitable for the Society, characterizing its members as thieves. Later in the course of his sermon, he brought in the balance which, as I have told your Grace, the accountant Juan Bautista de Zubiaga presented against the Franciscan fathers concerning the hospitals. He declared it to be an Inquisition case, and that, if that holy tribunal did not take cognizance of it, he himself would seize him. This he said with loud words and a menacing aspect. And, so that your Grace may have a good laugh, I will tell you his argument for saying that it was an Inquisition case—namely, that the pontiff had seen in dreams St. Francis and St. Dominic with their shoulders holding up the church of San Giovanni in Laterano, which was about to fall—a sign that their sons must keep the Church of God upright by means of their glorious labors, as if for that reason no one of the said orders could do anything wrong. Besides the fact that your Grace will see that this vision is not of the Divine attestation—although it pertains to Christian piety to believe it, as so many others—I would never finish if I should try to tell your Grace the disorder that has reigned in the pulpits all this year. I only tell, in general, what occurred this past Lent, and even since Advent. I and many others have gone through curiosity to hear the preachers of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and the Recollects of St. Augustine. Most of the sermons have consisted of satires against the governor, the Audiencia, the judge-conservator, and the fathers of the Society of Jesus; and in utterances so extravagant that they caused a great scandal, and in things ridiculous and unworthy of the pulpit. The latter they made a professor’s chair for the avenging of their passions, instead of one for teaching the doctrine of Christ. Your Grace can see what fruit the audience would get from it.

Returning to our narrative, the fathers of St. Dominic were not content with saying the above-mentioned things in and out of the pulpits, but they incited a petition to the dean of this holy church, Don Miguel Garçetas, who, as the archbishop was excommunicated by the judge-conservator, was exercising the office of provisor and vicar-general in it; they asked him to declare the governor to be excommunicated. For I cannot tell your Grace the fear which seized the religious orders in this matter, that they must place the governor on the excommunicated list; and how many actions that he had committed for which, as they said, he had incurred excommunication—so much so, that in a paper that appeared afterward, there was mention of twenty-five excommunications that he had, in their opinion, incurred; and I do not know whether there are any more in the law. With that petition they presented a paper proving that the governor was excommunicated, and speaking indecorously of him, saying that he was a mean and foolish gentleman. The dean, who is a discreet man and aged, was quite far from assenting to the request made of him, as he saw that they were uneasy and their disturbance was superfluous.

The judge-conservator afflicted the archbishop with new censures and penalties to get him to hand over the protest, but the latter would agree to do so under no considerations. He declared that he had given it some few days before to Fray Diego Collado of the Order of St. Dominic, and that he could not get it back from him. The archbishop did not consider himself as excommunicated, although he had been declared as such. Neither did the religious consider him as such, but persuaded him that he could say mass, and he did so. The religious went in and out of his archiepiscopal palace as before, holding meetings and causing trouble in the community. Therefore, measures were taken to establish some sentinels at the archbishop’s door, so that so many religious might not enter to disturb him; but the fathers of the Society interceded with good results, so that the sentinels should be removed. That was done immediately. The archbishop left his house on the twelfth of November and retired to [the convent of] St. Francis. On the eighteenth, the four provincials of the said four orders went to consult the governor. He told them not to overturn the community as they were doing. All the efforts possible were made and various means were taken to get hold of the protest, since it was fundamental to the conclusion of the peace which was desired. The archbishop wrote the following letter to the governor from the convent of St. Francis:

“Sir:

“Since your Lordship did me the kindness to come to console me and show me favor, I have made the most strenuous efforts in the world to have the protest returned to me; but it is hammering on cold iron. What can I do? For if my intent had been not to show it, I could say that I had torn it up, or could have alleged some other pretext; and I would not have mentioned the person to whom I gave it to keep, as I knew that there was an order to sequestrate his[21] property. Since, sir, it is impossible, and it is not my fault, I do not accept the excuse that your Lordship gives me in your letter, in order to free yourself from showing me favor and undertaking to act, settle this affair as governor and friend. Therefore, I petition your Lordship,[22] as you can do for one who avails himself of your protection; for I desire ever to remain in your Lordship’s favor, and only bound to serve you all the days of my life. May our Lord preserve your Lordship’s life for long years. From this convent of St. Francis, November 24, 1635.

Fray Hernando, archbishop.”

The governor responded as follows to the above letter:

“Most thoroughly do I believe what your Lordship says in your letter in regard to the efforts made to get hold of the protest, and that your Lordship does not have it. But it is an exasperating and serious thing that Father Collado, or whoever else has it, should display this tenacious obstinacy; and that so many efforts, so many mediators, and so much argument are not sufficient to get it. It is certain, sir, that so great obstinacy in a subordinate ought not to be overlooked; for it is hindering good men so that we cannot go farther in this matter, until we have subdued that disobedience, which is unworthy of so religious a person—especially since I have given my word to burn it in the presence of your Lordship, without letting any person see it except Diego de Rueda, so that he may acknowledge before witnesses whether it is the paper which he wrote or authenticated. All these considerations, and many others which occur to me, almost render it impossible for me to serve your Lordship. On the other hand, your Lordship’s present need of my service constrains me more; and as Don Sebastian de Corcuera, I am doing more, I judge, in charging myself with these affairs than I would do in concluding them had I all the authority that your Lordship mentions.

Now, sir, that I may move in the matter with more security, it will be necessary, since there is no other remedy, to compel Diego de Rueda to declare to me, and attest as a notary, the contents of the protest; and in order to cause him to do so, even though he resist, I shall have to make use of the means, however harsh, that I shall find available. May God direct the matter, and may He guide me in all things so that I may be successful in serving your Lordship. Given at the palace, this day, Sunday.

Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera”

In order to bring about that settlement, the governor went, November 20, to see the archbishop, whom he consoled; and he offered to do all in his power in favor of his Lordship. The next day the same governor called a meeting of the gentlemen of the royal Audiencia, his Majesty’s fiscal, and all the learned jurists in Manila. They agreed that this matter could not be settled so long as the protest did not make its appearance. In accordance with that decision, the governor wrote the following letter to the archbishop:

“From the time when I went last evening to pay my respects to your Lordship, I have thought of nothing else excepting how I might manage to serve you. With that purpose, I had the four advocates of the royal Audiencia summoned, and others—ecclesiastics, jurists, and theologians. On meeting them, I set before them my great desire for peace and for the quiet and comfort of your Lordship. I had them read the letters that your Lordship wrote me, the efforts that had been commenced, and the papers given me yesterday by the father readers of St. Augustine. After discussing them, little credit was given to the statement of father Fray Pedro de Herrera and to the mandate of father Fray Antonio Gonsalez; for both of them are accomplices. Moreover, it was not well for them that the people should see them meddling in a matter that is so unrighteous and one so unbecoming to their profession. [I told those who were assembled] that, accordingly, they should protect these papers, so that neither the mandate of father Fray Antonio should bind father Fray Diego Collado or any other of his religious, or the statement of the said father Fray Pedro de Herrera have any effect. For it was considered also that the latter had been issued nine days after the incident [of Rueda’s arrest] had occurred; and more especially was noted the obstinacy of father Fray Diego Collado in refusing to return to your Lordship the paper or protest that had been made. For these reasons all unanimously, without one dissenting voice, were of the opinion that your Lordship should make new and more strenuous efforts to secure and surrender the said protest on account of the difficulties that so evidently result from secreting it. And since, sir, it contains nothing that can tarnish the reputation of the Order of the Society, or that can be of importance to any other, I would judge it impossible that there can be any agreement, or that the cause can be concluded to the pleasure and satisfaction of your Lordship, except by handing over the said paper—with the promise that I hereby give, as a gentleman, that if it be handed over to me, I shall only allow the notary to see the signature, so that he may attest that it is the document that he authenticated; and then immediately, in the presence of him who hands it to me, or in the pretence of your Lordship (for which purpose I shall go to your residence), I shall burn it so that nothing of it can remain. It has also seemed best for me to ask the judge-conservator to grant your Lordship four or six days more than the time-limit that he has assigned; and I shall do that immediately, so that your Lordship may have more time to see that that religious may not ruin the whole affair, and that he may hand over the paper. And in case that he always prove obstinate, I shall immediately refrain from meddling in this matter, either for or against your Lordship. I beg you to pardon me for having made this resolution, in accordance with the opinion of so many erudite and well-intentioned men. And, even had they not given it, I would have made it of my own accord, after hearing what the sargento-mayor has just told me of the religious of St. Dominic, who have broken into the guardhouse at one of the gates of the wall, defying the soldiers stationed there, and forcibly bringing inside Don Pedro Monrroy—contrary to the order that I had given that he was not to be allowed to enter, since he is not provisor, and has nothing to do inside the walls. And if these disorderly acts are committed while I am seeking means and methods of doing your Lordship a service, by which I may aid you in paying the condemnations that have been ordered, I am freed from the obligation of having anything to do with these matters, either pro or con. On the contrary I shall inform the king our sovereign of the efforts made on my part; and all the community will have understood them and will know that your Lordship, taking counsel of the three orders, neither desires nor tries to secure peace. I beg your Lordship’s pardon for speaking so boldly, and rest assured that there is not, nor will there be, more than I have said here. May God preserve your Lordship for happy years. Given at the palace, November 21, 1635.

Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera”

Since the above letter makes mention of the forcing of the guardhouse, I shall narrate to your Grace what occurred. Don Pedro de Monrroy, since he was not provisor, left the city. The governor, fearing that if he returned hither, the matter would be more unsettled than ever, left orders at the city gates that Don Pedro should not be allowed to enter, should he make the attempt. But on November 21—on the same day and at the same hour when the governor was with the archbishop in the convent of St. Francis, trying to settle the matter—the said Don Pedro Monrroy, clad as a Franciscan friar, with another Franciscan friar as companion, attempted to enter by a gate near the convent of St. Dominic, at the time of the Ave Marias. A great number of religious went out of the convent to receive him. The commandant at the gate, one Alférez Don Francisco de Ribera, recognized him; he seized him, and called out to his soldiers to take their arms, and prevent Don Pedro’s entrance. But there were so many friars of St. Dominic, who charged down and defended him by fighting with their fists, that the soldiers could not use their weapons or prevent his entrance. Consequently, forcing the guardhouse, they took him into the city. The governor felt just anger at this. He ordered the commandant and soldiers to be arrested, and he was about to garrote the commandant and punish the soldiers for not having obeyed his order. They exculpated themselves quite sufficiently in the report that they made of having done their utmost, but that the fury of the religious gave them no time to do any more. The governor in great anger wrote to the father vicar-provincial of St. Dominic, Fray Antonio Gonsalez, regarding the matter; and the latter responded very coolly that his religious had not done such a thing, and that he had proof and information to the contrary. The father vicar added that Don Pedro de Monrroy had entered the city in obedience to the summons of the Inquisition. For your Grace must suppose that as the friars saw the matter was ending ill, and as their passion against the fathers of the Society was so great, they endeavored by all means to make it a case of Inquisition against them. Therefore, on November 19, the father commissary sent for a copy of the act of the judge-conservator, in which the latter ordered the archbishop to produce the protest or defamatory libel, under penalty of suspension; that act was affixed to the archbishop’s door, as he was not at home, and as he could not be found to notify him. Father Fray Francisco de Paula[23] acted as notary on this occasion. He ordered a writing-desk to be placed in the street, and, with great pomp and clatter, had the said act removed, and copied it on the writing-desk. Next morning the father commissary sent another friar, named Fray Ignacio Muñoz,[24] to act as notary to summon the judge, Don Fabian de Santillan; he did it in so clamorous a manner, and at such a time, that people thought he was trying to place some stain on the said judge. The latter, in order to purge himself from it, asked the father commissary for an official statement stating that he had not been summoned for any crime, but only to be told that the trial of the said protest did not pertain to him. At nine o’clock in the morning of the twenty-third of the same month of November, two lay brothers of the same Order of St. Dominic, also in the capacity of notaries, went to the judge-conservator, who was at [the convent of] the Society, to notify him that he must surrender Diego de Rueda. And because the doorkeeper of the Society told them to wait a moment, they began to cry aloud and to attest by witnesses that they were being prevented from attending to the affairs of the Inquisition. On the twenty-sixth of the same month, another notification was made to the same judge, asking for Diego de Rueda, and ordering that he be sent to demand the protest. Many other notifications were served on him through the agency of Fray Antonio Espexo[25] of the same order. From this your Grace will observe that they had a different notary for each day; this is a matter on which I may reflect much, and I even imagine that the inquisitors of Mexico would not be pleased with so great a variety of notaries for one commissary—some being lay brothers and others ordained priests, some youths and others of greater age—and usually but little restrained. To show that, I will only tell your Grace of one thing that one of those notaries, Fray Ignaçio de Muñoz, said, when going one day to a garden with another friar of his order, Fray Pedro de Ledo,[26] and with the collegiates of Santo Thomas: “I shall not stop until I see all the Theatins [i.e., Jesuits] put to the knife.” What a fine disposition is that, your Grace, and what a good inclination in a notary of so holy, upright, and dispassionate a tribunal as is that of the holy Inquisition! Finally, the father commissary asked the judge-conservator to surrender to him an information that he had brought against Don Pedro de Monrroy, because he had said that Lutero and Calvino [i.e., Luther and Calvin] and other heretics had not done so much harm to the Church of God as had the fathers of the Society. The judge gave him the original, but kept a copy, which the father commissary also sent to get from him. The judge refused to give it to him, saying that he could not give it up, and that it was necessary to adduce in the cause; and that although it pertained to the father commissary, as far as it was a mischievous statement, yet it pertained to the judge himself, so far as if was an injury against the Society, of whom he was the conservator. The father commissary notified him, besides, that he himself would send to demand the protest or defamatory libel, since, being such, it pertained to the Inquisition to try it. The judge answered him that it did not pertain exclusively to the Inquisition, and that he had begun to try that cause, as it concerned the principal cause. The father commissary served many different notifications on the judge, in which it could be plainly seen that he was trying to embarrass the affair, so that if should not proceed further. Accordingly, the judge notified the commissary, or rather, father Fray Francisco de Herrera, not to lay obstacles in the path of his apostolic jurisdiction, and to cause him no hindrance in it. In order to conclude this part of the matter, I shall cite here the answer given by the judge-conservator to an act by the father commissary; it is as follows:

“I, Don Fabian de Santillan y Gavilanes, schoolmaster of the holy cathedral church of this city, apostolic judge-conservator for the observance and immunity of the privileges, rights, and actions, of the Order of the Society of Jesus, etc., declare that, having examined the reply of the reverend father Fray Francisco de Herrera, commissary of the Holy Office of the Inquisition, given to the act issued by myself on the twenty-eighth of the present month and year, he says therein that he is not trying and never has tried to disturb the peace, or anything that the said judge-conservator could do in its defense; but only to take cognizance of what pertains to the Holy Office of the Inquisition in order to fulfil his obligation (to which pertains all that of which he has been notified), and to obtain the papers regarding the said causes, according to the terms of the briefs of the supreme pontiffs, so that no paper shall remain in possession of any judge, notary, or any other person; and that the said judge-conservator has no brief to oppose to this, nor can he have such. As for the chief order in the said my act, it is not that the said reverend father commissary should not disturb the peace, nor do all that which he may do in defense of it, but that he restrain himself from hindering and disturbing, in any manner, the exercise of my apostolic jurisdiction, which I am actually exercising; and, especially, that he do not ask for papers which do not pertain to him, but to my court and to the cause that I have in hand. Such are the papers that the said reverend father commissary asks from me; for the originals of those which belong to the cause of Don Pedro de Monrroy I have delivered without waiting to have them asked from me, as I have mentioned in the said my act—only because in a certain manner they may belong to the said tribunal of the holy Inquisition. But they belong principally to my court, and to the cause that I have in hand; for the words spoken by the said Don Pedro de Monrroy are especially injurious and insulting to the said Society of Jesus and its religious. It is necessary for this reason that an authenticated copy of the papers which I delivered to the said reverend father commissary remain in the records of this cause, in order that I may not fail in my duty and jurisdiction, and that I may give a good account to his Holiness of the affairs under my charge. As for the assertion that the briefs of the supreme pontiffs order that the said tribunal of the Holy Office shall obtain all the papers (both original and copies) touching the causes that pertain to the Holy Office, and that no paper remain in possession of any judge, notary, or any other person—that is understood, as is apparent from the said briefs, to mean the causes which belong strictly to the said tribunal of the Holy Office, and to no other court. Likewise, those which are asked from me belong—inasmuch as they contain injurious and insulting words against the said Society, whose apostolic judge-conservator I am—peculiarly and chiefly to my court; and if I handed them over I would be greatly delinquent in the obligations of my office, and I would cease to be a judge-conservator of the said Society of Jesus. Neither can I be ordered to refrain from requesting the protest or paper that I am asking from the archbishop of Manila, Don Fray Hernando Guerrero; for it contains affronts and insults uttered recently against the said Society of Jesus, and against my jurisdiction, and the acts that I have pronounced. And supposing that it could also pertain to the said tribunal of the Holy Office to try the defamatory libels against religious persons, it has not hitherto been understood that the exclusive trial of such causes has pertained to it. And since this cause is at least mixtifori;[27] and since I am actually trying this cause as apostolic judge-conservator, and consequently, with exclusive apostolic authority, without anyone having the power to take it from my hands, except his Holiness (whose delegate I am, and to whom only I am immediately subject); and since, for all this [authority], it is unnecessary for me to produce any other brief except the apostolic authority and jurisdiction of judge-conservator which I hold and which I am exercising; and since with less justification can the said reverend father commissary restrain me from asking the said paper or protest from the said archbishop, and make me leave it to the said reverend father commissary—first, because he has a part in this affair, as he was present and signed the first act of the said archbishop against the said Society of Jesus on the ninth of October of this present year, together with certain religious of his order, whose signatures I have in my possession (that act having been the foundation and origin of all the insults received by the said Society of Jesus, and the reason whereby they were incited to appoint me their judge-conservator); and second, because, the said archbishop having made the said protest or defamatory libel, the said reverend father commissary cannot lawfully demand it, for the said archbishop is not his subordinate, while I, forsooth, can ask it as being his legitimate apostolic judge, and moreover I can constrain him with fines and censures against his obstinacy and disobedience to the apostolic mandates; hence the said reverend father commissary’s command that I leave to him the demand for the said protest or defamatory libel, and that I refrain from asking for it, means that I should allow him to exceed the authority of his commission, and that I refrain from fulfilling mine: therefore I order the said reverend father commissary to observe and obey the act of which he was notified yesterday, the twenty-eighth, exactly as is therein contained, without exceeding it in any point, under the penalties and censures therein contained, to which I regard him as immediately liable in their fullest measure if he does the contrary. By this act, I decree and order, and affix my signature. If the said father commissary should not appear so that this notification may be served by the notary who shall make it, the latter shall serve it at the doors of the college of Santo Thomas, where the said father commissary is rector and where he lives; and the notary shall affix a copy of this act to the doors so that he may consider it as completely a damage and injury as if the notification were made and read to him in person. And the notary shall establish this act by an attestation. Given in Manila, November twenty-nine, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five. The schoolmaster,

Don Fabian Santillan y Gavilanes

By his order:

Diego de Aldave, apostolic notary.”

“In the city of Manila, on the twenty-ninth of November, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five, about half-past eleven in the morning, more or less, I, the present notary, read and announced the act on this folio to the reverend father Fray Francisco de Herrera, of the Order of St. Dominic, and commissary of the tribunal of the holy Inquisition of these islands, in his own person, exactly according to its contents. Having heard it, he said that it was impossible to notify him of the said act on the said day, as it was a holy day; and that I should accordingly return on the first workday, when he would answer in due form and at greater length. In accordance with my orders in the said act, I affixed a copy of it, signed by the hand of the said judge, and authenticated by me the present notary, to the gates of the college of Santo Thomas, where the said reverend father commissary lives, in the presence of fathers Fray Sebastian de Oquendo and Fray Andres Gomez de Espexo and other persons. Witnesses present were Juan Ortiz de Sossa, Benito de Cañeda, Francisco Correa, and Juan Garcia de Nava, soldiers of the company of Captain Pedro de la Mata. I attest it.

Diego de Aldave, apostolic notary”

At this juncture all the community was thrown into an uproar by certain religious, who showed the hate that they had toward the Society—to such an extent, that on the day of the Presentation, November 21 (which is the chief day of the holy Misericordia of this city, which the orders always attend), not any of them went except those of the Society. The others refused to meet with them although they had been invited—a matter that scandalized us not a little. As often as possible, the same religious uttered innumerable evil and infamous things against the fathers of the Society, which the latter passed by, silencing their suffering. The orders discussed innumerable innovations, all apparently in order to make confusion. As it pertains to the governor to preserve peace, he one day (namely, November 27) had the superiors of the orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Augustine, and the Recollects, summoned to the royal Audiencia. He summoned also the father commissary of the Holy Office, but he refused to attend, and sent no excuse. The others attended. They were told in the royal Audiencia that they must quiet their friars, so that they might not continue to stir up the community. The governor ordered their superiors to banish from the city those who were ringleaders in this—namely, Fray Francisco de Paula, and Fray Sebastian de Oquenda, of the Order of St. Dominic; and two others of the Order of St. Augustine. The superiors would, however, under no considerations obey. On the contrary, on St. Andrew’s day, the thirtieth of November, while celebrating the feast of the apostle, who is the patron saint of this city, in [the church of] Santa Potenciana, the master Don Juan de Ledo ascended the pulpit to preach. A notice was given to him [to read] which stated that father Fray Francisco de Paula would preach on the following Sunday in his convent of St. Dominic. That was a very ill-considered act, since it was equal to giving the governor and the royal Audiencia a slap in the face, not paying any attention to what they had ordered in his Majesty’s name—all of which the governor prudently overlooked, in order to avoid other annoyances.

At this time the despatch of the galleons which were to take the reënforcements to Maluco was being discussed. The religious enticed a pilot, named Francisco Domingues, who had been honored and favored by the governor by being made captain of infantry, and who had been appointed pilot of the flagship, to flee with some of them by way of Yndia. The governor learned of it, and was obliged to arrest the said pilot, and to order at the city gates that two religious of the Order of St. Dominic, namely, Fray Francisco Pinelo and Fray Diego Collado—who were the ones who had planned that escape—should not be allowed to pass through them. Then that order also began to say that the governor was incurring a thousand excommunications, not stopping to consider that he who has charge of this city and these islands is bound to preserve them and watch over them, and to give the proper military orders that he considers necessary; and that he could not prevent that loss, except by not allowing those religious to leave the walls. By another method, other religious stirred up a goodly number of sailors, and as many soldiers; and they, having already received money for the journey to Maluco in the galleons which were about to sail, fled in a champan by way of Yndia. There was in this affair a cleric named Don Francisco Montero, who had been expelled from the priesthood, and who was a restless man. He carried papers and authority from the archbishop. There was also a French Recollect friar, named Fray Nicolas de Tolentino, who was angered at his order because they did not elect him provincial in accordance with his claims. A friar of St. Dominic went also. It was said that he was going on to España with grievous complaints against the governor, the royal Audiencia, and the fathers of the Society. But much greater can be the complaints of the governor of him because he had committed so unreasonable an act, and one so much to the disservice of his Majesty, in taking away the men who were to aid his royal service in the royal fleet.

The judge-conservator weighed down the archbishop with censures, to make him give up the protest or libel. He had declared him excommunicated and suspended; but the archbishop refused to surrender the protest, while the judge-conservator did not cease to demand it. While matters were in this condition, at the petition of the fathers of the Society the governor took hold of affairs, in order to settle them. He called a council of four lawyers—the best in Manila—among whom was his Majesty’s fiscal. The father provincial and the father rector of the Society were at the meeting, and also the judge-conservator. The lawyers read the opinion which they had studied over for several days; and all agreed that the judge-conservator could remove the suspension that he had imposed on the archbishop, in order to obtain from him the said protest or libel, as they said that the said suspension was comminatory. For the same reason, they declared that the pecuniary fines could be moderated or completely withdrawn. The fathers of the Society, although they were the offended parties, took the part of the archbishop and supported the opinion of the lawyers; they made every effort that the archbishop might come well out of the affair, and they managed so well that I promise your Grace that the settlement of this matter is wholly due to them. The judge-conservator only was somewhat harsh, and would agree to none of all this; for he thought that it could not be done, according to the counsel that he had received from some learned men. But the governor had the prudence and wisdom to smooth over all difficulties, and finally, the archbishop was absolved, January 28, 636, from the censures and penalties. The governor went in person to his house for him and took him in his carriage to the cathedral, giving him the right-hand side, notwithstanding the ruling of the royal decree that orders that he shall not give it. He took him as far as the choir, where, seating the archbishop in his chair, and bending his knee to him, he kissed his hand, which he had already done in the archbishop’s house. The governor paid from his own pocket more than one thousand pesos, in costs and expenses of the suit. Great was the happiness at the conclusion of these suits, and all the orders assembled. Father Juan Antonio Sana, of the Society of Jesus, preached at the feast of the dedication of the church, celebrated that day in the cathedral. The archbishop was full of expressions of thanks for what had been done for him, but that happiness was of little duration. For as the archbishop had at his side and at his ear certain religious who, it is to be believed, did not desire peace, but, on the contrary, did their utmost so that it might not exist between the leaders of the community, and were taking the archbishop as a means to oppose the governor, and, as it were, to avenge themselves on the latter for injuries that they thought that they had received from him; from that so many were the angry feelings that arose, that they led to the last rupture; but, before going on to relate that, I shall relate some matters of less moment that happened.

A few years ago, a surgeon came to this country, named Francisco Garçia, who had been exiled by the viceroy of Nueva España for certain libels and crimes; and he was ordered to come to these islands, to serve at the will of the governor. The latter having need of him to go with the galleons which, I have already said, were to go to Maluco with the reënforcements, he was fitted out for the expedition. But he took refuge in [the convent of] St. Dominic, alleging that he was a familiar of the Holy Office. From that occurrence also arose a thousand lies against the governor, declaring that he tried to take the surgeon from his retreat—as if the church can be of any avail to a soldier, so that he need not go to serve in the post where his captain orders him. And if the fact that he was a familiar of the Holy Office (which was not proved), did not avail him in Mexico, in the opinion of the inquisitors, to exempt him from coming here under condemnation, it is a token that those gentlemen did not wish that plea to be of any use to him in Filipinas so that the sentence should not be executed upon him. However, a few days after he had taken refuge, the said Francisco Garçia came to a better resolution, and, leaving the church, delivered himself to the governor. The latter received him kindly, and told him that he need not go in the said galleons. But a few months after, as the hospital of the port of Cabite had been put in order, so that the soldiers and sailors might have a place of retreat in their illnesses, Francisco Garçia was detailed as the physician of that hospital, with a salary of one peso per day—which was not a bad stipend. But, that he might not obey his orders, the archbishop ordained the said Francisco Garçia on Tuesday, April 20, with the tonsure and with minor orders; and he, garbed in very reverend fashion as a cleric, began to walk through the city in sight of the governor—to whom those orders meant to give a slap in the face, although he passed it by. In truth, sir, I cannot see that they could be of any use, since, for one to enjoy the clerical privilege, it is necessary that one be already ordained when the crime is committed; but without that, then it matters but little whether he is ordained, according to what I have read in some authors. Your Grace will ask, then, why the archbishop ordained him and did not think of that. I answer that even as he ordained him, he ordained a few years ago, a Portuguese physician who was living in this city, who went to the city of Macan, one Licentiate Pereira. I have heard that he was twice married in Portugal, and that one wife was a widow. Such a one as this did the archbishop ordain in Pampanga, extra tempora[28] in the three days of a feast, proceeding from the two degrees that he lacked, namely, those of subdeacon and priest. According to the account that I have heard given by learned men, there were more than twelve irregularities, all of which the archbishop passed by, without its being proved that there should be any dispensation, or without considering that there can be no dispensation here in this case—a matter that was considered by many men, both the learned and the ignorant.

The governor thought that there was a great waste of the royal revenue, which was not carefully spent, in the royal Spanish hospital of this city of Manila, and that the sick were not well cared for. In order to remedy both these evils, the governor conceived the idea of appointing a chaplain in the said hospital, and of ordering the fathers of St. Francis, who had it in charge, to leave it. Although the Franciscans objected, they finally left the hospital; for there was no royal decree ordering that the hospital should be given into the care of those religious—since, although the governor asked for such a decree, it was never shown to him. Many of the religious of the same order, zealous for its welfare, wrote to the governor that it was advisable for their own order that the friars be withdrawn from the hospital. What machinations did they not begin to set in motion because of this deed! What councils did they not hold with the archbishop! What excommunications did they not heap on the governor! The newly-appointed chaplain went to the archbishop to get leave to administer the sacraments in the said hospital, but the archbishop steadily refused to give it; nor without that would he consider examining the chaplain, as the latter wished. The archbishop said that, if there had to be a chaplain, he must be appointed through an open competition—although there is a decree of his Majesty against this, ruling that the choice of chaplains pertains to the governor alone, and that the person chosen shall go afterward to the ordinary, so that the latter may give him a license to administer the sacraments. There was more in this than the key of the most holy sacrament at that hospital. The archbishop interposed, and had the said chaplain ordered, under penalty of major excommunication, not to administer the sacraments or say mass in the said hospital, so that the hospital remained many days without succor. The governor sent his Majesty’s fiscal to bring the archbishop to reason, but he could not do it. And although the royal Audiencia, whither recourse was had on the plea of fuerza, declared that he had committed that offense, not for that would the archbishop soften or change his mind.

At that time a general visitation of the clergy was ordered, and it is wonderful to see along what rough lines the archbishop conducted it, and what harsh methods he took, so that the remedy was worse than the disease; he placed the clerics in irons among the negroes and vile people, and that not for serious causes. That was a thing that tended to produce contempt for the priestly estate; and its effect was that all the clergy, as a body, became thoroughly disgusted, and viewed their prelate and shepherd not as a father, but as a severe judge, who treated them very harshly in his language—behavior which they greatly resented. I will relate to your Grace one instance of this. I attended the cathedral of this city on Holy Thursday, March 20. I saw on the platform (where the oils had been blessed that morning) that the said archbishop was clad in his pontifical robes, and that he had been given the towel for the washing of the feet. The twelve clerics whose feet he was to wash were already barefoot, the gospel had been said, everything was ready, and there were many people before him. It happened that, because some Indian singers and some one of the clergy were absent, the archbishop began to scold, saying that it was a most shameless act for anyone to be absent from the cathedral during that ceremony. Then he began to disrobe himself in great wrath and fury, also removing his pontifical ornaments in his anger, and throwing on one side his miter (which fell to the ground), and his towel to the other side. Thus did he continue to lay aside the rest, and with all haste he went to his own house—leaving the priests barefooted, and without washing their feet; and all those present, thunderstruck and amazed, and even scandalized at the sight of so great fury and wrath in a prelate, and during a ceremony that demanded so great humility.

But to return to our governor; there was no action, however insignificant it may have been, that they did not for it cast calumny on him. The archbishop and religious drew up a paper with twenty-one questions, which the archbishop put to the superiors of the religious, in the form of cases of conscience. The questions were prepared with such skill that, with the reply that would be given to them, they would present weapons against the governor. They proceeded to set down on a paper whatever he did, even in matters of the political government, in order to write to his Majesty. That paper certainly twisted the truth, in many of its statements; and it contained more than sixty or seventy sections. One of the religious who were concerned in it gave it to the governor. Just consider, your Grace, what a tax on his patience this would be, and how it would wound him! Furthermore, the paper ended with twenty-five excommunications which the governor was said to have incurred. Everything was quite ready for the greatest kind of a rupture.

The archbishop went to visit La Hermita, a district where Master Don Andres Arias Xiron was cura. It was well known that the archbishop had a prejudice against him, on account of various matters that had occurred between the two, chiefly because Don Andres was an intimate friend of the judge-conservator, Don Fabian Santillan. His Lordship was very harsh with the affairs of the said Don Andres Xiron; and on Saturday, April 26, after the Ave Marias, he ordered him to be notified of an act by which the archbishop commanded that within fourteen hours he be taken before a fiscal at a village outside Manila, called Calompite. Don Andres tried to answer that act, but they would not allow him to do so; nor would they give him a copy of the act, which he requested. He claimed that the notification was null and void, because it was made at night; but no attention was paid to that. Seeing that the whole affair was being conducted with violence, very early on the morning of Sunday, April 22, he presented a petition, appealing from the said act and claiming the royal aid against fuerza, for which he made representations in the royal Audiencia. The latter declared on the following Monday that the archbishop had employed fuerza against the said Don Andres Xiron; and notified the said archbishop of that declaration. On Tuesday, the twenty-fourth of the same month, at three in the afternoon, the archbishop notified Licentiate Marcos de Zapata y Galves—the only auditor of this royal Audiencia, because of the death of the others—that he should consider himself as publicly excommunicated, because he had meddled in ecclesiastical affairs; and notices to that effect were placed on the churches. Upon receiving that notification of excommunication, the auditor Marcos Zapata de Galves made a spirited reply; he alleged the invalid points in the act (which were many), and finally, for greater advantage, appealed to and threatened the royal aid against fuerza. The master Don Andres Arias Xiron, inasmuch as he had hidden, was not found, in order to be notified of another excommunication; but he was placed on the lists as publicly excommunicated. On the following Wednesday, April 30, the governor, the auditor Marcos Zapata, his Majesty’s fiscal, and three advocates of the royal Audiencia—namely, Doctor Luis Arias de Mora, Licentiate Nicolas Antonio de Omaña, and the auditor Manuel Suarez—met in the royal Audiencia. The auditor Marcos Zapata set forth the manifest violence shown him by the archbishop. The lawyers were sworn so that they might serve as judges, and they so acted. The auditor Marcos Zapata leaving the hall, they judged that fuerza was employed against him. Without doubt it was so, for the auditor Marcos Zapata had not sinned further than in admitting Don Andres Xiron into the royal Audiencia on his appeal from fuerza. If that were a sin, so also was it to admit the said archbishop, when, in his suit with the judge-conservator, he appeared before the royal Audiencia with a plea of fuerza. And if Don Andres Xiron incurred excommunication for having thus presented himself, the archbishop likewise incurred it when he appeared there. But no consideration was given to this, and the point of fuerza is a stale one in España, and consequently it was not discussed. The archbishop was notified of a royal provision issued by Don Phelipe, by which he was ordered to absolve the auditor Marcos Zapata. The archbishop obeyed it, and that afternoon he sent Master Juan Velez to absolve him. That was done ad cautelam; for in truth he did not consider himself as excommunicated, nor did the learned jurists so consider him.

Not only was the master Don Andres Xiron not absolved, but new acts were passed against him and new penalties imposed on him. All this was to prevent his presentation, that the governor had made, for the post of archdeacon of this metropolitan church, because of the resignation of the said post by Don Francisco de Baldes. The archbishop refused to accept the said master Don Andres Xiron, as he asserted that he was his mortal enemy, and for that purpose he threw out all the rest [of the governor’s nominations]. He had the prebendaries of the cathedral notified not to accept Don Andres, under penalty of excommunication, and notified Don Francisco de Baldes to assist in the choir as before, since he was the archdeacon—telling him that his resignation had been invalid, as it had been made through the governor and not through the ordinary, before whom the resignation of any ecclesiastical benefice must be made; but the good man did not heed the archbishop and those who were aiding him. Although it is true, and a matter that has been settled by law, that the resignation from an ecclesiastical benefice in which the incumbent has been canonically installed must be presented only through the ordinary, yet Don Francisco de Baldes did not hold the post of archdeacon in titulum, but only in charge, and until his Majesty should appoint another. Therefore, the resignation from it was governed by the same rule as the resignation from other chaplaincies of the king, who was the one to appoint other incumbents to them. It is not necessary that those who hold these should make their resignation before the ordinary; and this, it seems, is the practice. For the same object of preventing that presentation, the archbishop exiled Don Andres Xiron, and announced that he was excommunicated. But his Majesty likewise orders in a royal decree that, when the governors should present any persons as prebendaries, the archbishops should accept them, unless they had some objection to offer to them; but that if any exception were made, then such were not to be accepted—with the proviso that the exception must be proved, and, if it should not be proved, then they must pay damages to the one presented. Therefore, the archbishop came forward for this purpose, and entered several exceptions before the royal Audiencia against the said master Don Andres Xiron. The latter manfully repelled these accusations, and purged himself from them all; for at the outset, in reply to a formal accusation with evidence that he had caused a miscarriage, some years before, by ordering a pregnant Indian woman to be whipped, the said master Don Andres Xiron came forward with another report made by the same judge, in which the witnesses who had sworn against him retracted their oaths, and declared that they had been induced by others to swear; whereupon the judge declared him free from that calumny. Further, on the part of the archbishop, they accused the master Don Andres Xiron of an act of simony; but he gave the lie to that, as salt dissolves in water, by means of authentic documents and reports. They opposed him with other things of less account, but these were not proved, nor was there any witness of them, nor were the accusations completed; they could, therefore, prove of no harm to him, and he did not have to clear himself. Consequently, the royal Audiencia declared that the archbishop had not proved his exceptions to the master Don Andres Xiron, who must be admitted into the archdeaconate, according to the royal patronage. But the archbishop refused to admit him. Hence the royal Audiencia despatched a royal decree, issued by Don Phelipe, ordering that Don Andres be admitted, under penalty of [losing] the temporalities and of banishment from the kingdoms. The archbishop was tied to what the religious who sided with him incited him to, as will be seen from the following letter which he wrote to the master Don Joan de Toledo, his provisor, who counseled him to obey the royal decree, as that was advisable in order to avoid trouble; and that, if he did not obey, without doubt his exile from the kingdoms would be an assured fact. The letter is as follows:

“All that those gentlemen have enacted is in violation of the royal patronage, and contrary to [the precepts of] God and justice; and, although it comes in the name of the king, I am not under obligations to obey it, since men so governed by passion have made it. It is less harmful that I go into exile, and that I suffer, than that so evil a priest enter the cathedral contrary to the will of his Majesty—who, even for but one of the exceptions that I have made, is unwilling that the canonical institution be given to him. It is a piece of nonsense to assert that the cabildo must take charge of the government, for I am not excommunicated or suspended. Already I have appointed governors for the archbishop, and I pray your Grace not to give me any counsel in such things, for I do not wish it. It will seem an admirable thing, in Roma and in Madrid, that an archbishop should be exiled in behalf of Don Andres Arias Xiron, who is a person of great importance in this community. If I shall go, I shall leave the city, so that they shall come to seek me; and they must not think that I shall do through fear what is wrong. Rather will I die twenty deaths. Such is my resolve, and I shall not change it. Accordingly, your Grace may advise them to prepare immediately a ship in which to embark me. I shall not fail to have persons who will go with me, and God will defend so just a cause and will not permit so great evils and tyrannies, for these acts have no other name. Perhaps God is permitting this in order that some one or some persons may pay for their evil acts—which God allows, but not forever. All the community will judge whether those actions are justified, and they will write to his Majesty; since those actions stand out so clearly. May our Lord preserve your Grace many years. From La Hermita, Friday, May 9, 1636.

Fray Hernando, archbishop.

“In regard to your Grace saying that the king, as sovereign, is able to give the prebends to whom he likes, even to natives, your Grace could not have reflected when you wrote that; since his Majesty, being so Christian and Catholic, is not one to waste the ecclesiastical property, for the purpose of giving it to unworthy men. And you, your Grace, do not you venture to write such words, for they are ill-sounding. I shall not go without forbidding the saying of mass, and without hurling a curse, in the name of God and of the Church, on the circumstances and persons who have caused my exile.”

As the archbishop refused to obey the royal decrees, the royal Audiencia had him notified by an act on the morning of May 9, at nine o’clock, that the temporalities were taken from him, and that he was declared an exile from these kingdoms. Then began the trouble. The archbishop summoned the religious of all the orders, and notified the father rector of the Society to go to a meeting with the rest of the religious. The latter excused himself, for reasons that your Grace will see in the following letter written to the archbishop:

“Most illustrious sir:

“Licentiate Don Bartolome de Cañedo, coming from outside, has just now notified me, at half-past six o’clock, to go to a meeting which your most illustrious Lordship is holding with the religious of our fathers St. Dominic, St. Francis, and St. Nicholas [i.e., the Recollects], who drew up against the Society of Jesus the paper and resolution that your Lordship knows of, and which has not as yet been revoked—as we understand ought to have been done before the matter went so far as closing the doors of the church on us, as happened in Cabite. Consequently, so long as the said paper remains in force and is not revoked, your Lordship can well understand that we are legitimately excused from such meetings, although never from serving your most illustrious Lordship very willingly and lovingly.”

The resolution made in the meeting with the religious was, that under no circumstances would the archbishop obey the royal decrees, besides other disorderly things, which continued to happen, and which I shall relate in their order.

In the afternoon of that same Friday, the archbishop sent the monstrance with the most holy sacrament to the convent of St. Francis, whence it was carried irreverently in his sleeve by a friar, and taken to the house of the archbishop. The latter, at nightfall, sent two clerics who had taken the minor orders, to excommunicate the governor and Auditor Marcos Zapata; the latter, together with his Majesty’s fiscal, were assembled in the tribunal of the royal Audiencia. Seeing things in so great confusion, they ordered the clerical notaries to enter. The latter, upon reaching the tribunal, with wisdom and prudence did not dare to give notice of anything. In order not to lose any time, which was fast fleeting, they went first to the doors of the auditor Marcos Zapata, and commenced to read the excommunication by the light of a torch. But a soldier, who happened to be passing along the street, gave the torch a flick with his hat, and extinguished it. They were unable to proceed with the reading, and accordingly went to give an account of events to the archbishop, who was at home with the most holy sacrament and a great number of religious of all the orders—except those of the Society, who were not summoned and who did not go. The archbishop ordered the said excommunication against the governor and Auditor Marcos Zapata to be read at the door of the master-of-camp, Don Lorenzo Olaso. They were read, and great bills were posted on the church doors, which read as follows:

“Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera, governor and captain-general of these islands, and the senior auditor, Marcos Zapata de Galves, will be considered publicly excommunicated, because they prevent the exercise of ecclesiastical justice and the general visitation that is being made by his Excellency Don Fray Hernando Guerrero, archbishop of these islands. No person shall dare to remove or destroy this paper, under penalty of major excommunication, late sententie, ipso facto incurrendo una protina canónica monitione premissa, and a fine of one thousand Castilian ducados for the Holy Crusade, for those who violate the commands herein contained, which penalties they shall be regarded as having forthwith incurred. Given in Manila, on the ninth day of the month of May, one thousand six hundred and thirty-six.

Fray Hernando, archbishop.

Before me:

Francisco de la Roca, notary.”

I am told that an act was issued by the archbishop for the purpose of announcing to the said master-of-camp that he was not to obey the governor, as the latter was publicly excommunicated. But I have been unable to assure myself of the truth of that statement, and consequently, I do not mention it, except with the doubt that surrounds it. But, if it were a fact, let your Grace consider whether that were an act of mutiny or no.

The governor had sent a company of soldiers under command of an adjutant of the camp, and the chief constable of the Audiencia, Captain Bartolome Tenorio, with orders to execute the royal decrees and to expel the archbishop from these kingdoms. The latter was clad in his surplice, stole, and cope, and was holding the most holy sacrament in his hands. He was surrounded by the said religious and by a number of seculars. The chief constable disliked that execution exceedingly, but he was ordered to carry it out under severe penalties, as it pertained to his duty. But, since the archbishop had the most holy sacrament in his hands, he could not do so; accordingly, the governor ordered it to be done when he should lay the sacrament aside. Three times did he send to order the religious, in his Majesty’s name, to leave that place, and not to cause that disturbance and scandal, but they refused to obey. Hence the soldiers took them away by main force—first requesting them with great courtesy to go away of their own free will; and, if not, to give them leave to obey the orders of their superior officers. But the religious asserted that they would not obey, and that, if they were garroted by the soldiers, they would be martyrs. The said chief constable declared that, if he did not obey his orders, he would lose his head, and several thousand ducados which had been imposed upon him as a penalty. A religious replied to him: “If your Grace should die for this matter, we of all the orders will give you our signed statement that you have died as a martyr.” The father guardian of St. Francis, Fray Juan de Piña, showed himself to be a great prater—now crying out about the most holy sacrament, now threatening the soldiers with the wrath of God, now exhorting the archbishop to stand firm; and it is even asserted that the said father, appearing at the balcony, commenced to call loudly to the inhabitants to come to the aid of their archbishop. That appears probable to me, since a religious of St. Dominic, after the confusion was over, remarked to a resident of Manila, as if chiding him, that the citizens of Manila were worthless, since they had not hastened on that occasion to the aid of their archbishop. The inhabitants answered as follows: “Father, we are faithful vassals to the king, and not traitors.” There was a religious who went to the archbishop and told him to be steadfast, saying that, since the governor was excommunicated, most of the infantry would declare in the archbishop’s favor. While the soldiers were busied in clearing the hall from the religious, it was seen that the whole convent of St. Francis was coming in a close procession with lighted candles in their hands. The soldiers went to meet them, and prevented them from passing farther, but forced them to return to their convent. Thus can your Grace see that all the actions of those fathers at that time were for the purpose of creating confusion and stirring up the people.

The city seeing that the disturbance was increasing, assembled at that time in the cabildo houses, and sent commissaries to consult with the archbishop on the part of the city, and to protest against the disturbances and mischief. The commissaries were the castellan, Don Fernando de Ayala, and General Don Joan Claudio, and I think that there were two others. Bearing before them the maces of the city, they talked with the archbishop, who was clad in his pontifical robes, and held the most holy sacrament in his hands. But they got nothing out of the archbishop; and taking, by way of testimony, the protest that had been made to him, they retired.

Now at that time, namely, at the hour of ten at night, the interdict having been rung at the cathedral, and all the orders, without any exception, having followed it, and ringing the interdict (as they were obliged to do, in order to follow the metropolitan church), the uproar caused the governor some anxiety. He went out with an escort of soldiers, and gave orders that no one be allowed to go to the house of the archbishop, in order that there might be no greater concourse of the people. The soldiers began to remove the religious and seculars who surrounded the archbishop, by violence, for they refused to go willingly. On going to take away a secular who had hold of the lunette of the monstrance, the most holy sacrament fell to the ground, causing a great scandal. The father guardian of St. Francis began to call out, and beat himself and fell to the ground. With that the infantry, scandalized, began to be more gentle. There was one soldier who drew his sword, and turned it on himself, crying: “It is finished.” Although he did not kill himself, he was grievously wounded. Thus wounded, they took him away for treatment, and at the same time arrested him as a rioter. Some praised that soldier’s act, but I think that the devil would have laid hold of him as of Judas, had he died.

That affair had occupied all of Friday until twelve o’clock; and all that time the bells were ringing the interdict, and the city was in a great uproar and confusion, which was caused by the religious. Their purpose seems to have been no other than to arouse the people; and beyond all doubt they would have succeeded in it, had not the fidelity of this city been so great, the infantry so numerous, and the military discipline so strict. Saturday, May 10, was already dawning; and, at one o’clock at night, the archbishop ordered a suspension of divine services, of which all the orders and the other churches were warned. Thereupon the bells stopped ringing, and the inhabitants were allowed to snatch a little sleep. By this time most of the people had been driven from the hall where the archbishop was, some of those who accompanied him leaving him, for he remained steadfast with the most holy sacrament. But now, tired out and overcome, it dropped from his hands; although he again took it whenever he saw any soldier entering; until in the morning, a Franciscan friar came and put about his neck a reliquary with a bead of St. Joanna, as if the most holy sacrament—the lunette of which they fastened with a ribbon to his neck, after removing it from the base of the monstrance—were not more efficacious. But as that could not endure, at last the archbishop grew tired and laid aside the most holy sacrament. They returned it to the convent of St. Francis, whence it had been taken, with the same irreverence. The archbishop divested himself of the stole and cope, whereupon the infantry took him outside the city, and embarked him in a champan which was prepared at a port called St. Dominic. With an escort of an adjutant and twelve soldiers, he was taken to the island of Mariveles, opposite and in sight of this city, so that they might await the order there, and prepare a ship and the necessary supplies to convey him outside these kingdoms.

The ecclesiastical cabildo assumed the powers of the government, and assembled, and authorized the bishop of Camarines, Don Fray Francisco de Zamudio, to act as provisor until the bishop of Zebu, Don Fray Pedro de Arze, should be notified, to whom the government of this archbishopric belongs by a bull of Paul V. However, it was learned that he did not care to come to assume the government because of his ill health and age; in such case, the government would pertain legitimately to the said bishop of Camarines. He absolved the governor and the auditor Zapata from the censures ad cautelam, for there were innumerable invalidities in the censures, as they did not observe the citations and legal terms. He raised the interdict and the suspension of church services; and at twelve o’clock at night, at the end of Saturday and the beginning of the Sunday of the [feast of the] Holy Ghost, the cathedral bells were chimed. All the other bells of the orders followed suit; and in the morning the churches were opened, and the divine offices celebrated. Thus passed the three days of the feast, while Fray Antonio Gonsalez preached in his convent of St. Dominic, uttering a thousand choice things against the governor.

The governor had appointed Fray Francisco de Paula of the Order of St. Dominic, a father of St. Augustine, and a Recollect father as governors of the archbishopric. Father Fray Francisco de Paula, who had been named in the first place, went to the dean, Don Miguel Garsetas, and other prebendaries of the cabildo, with his paper, in order to have them admit him as governor. But they did not do so, and it appears that they were right; for it is a common judgment of theologians and those versed in canonical law that no mendicant religious can be a provisor or governor of a bishopric; and there is an express prohibition in law to the Friars Minor of St. Francis.

After the feast of the Holy Ghost, on the following Wednesday, May 14, it appears that the three orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and the Recollects, determined to observe the interdict and the suspension of divine services. Consequently, they did not open their churches; and, although they opened them later, the altars were draped in mourning, and they did not say mass. On the contrary, they gave out that it was a mortal sin to hear it, for the interdict and the prohibition to say mass could not be raised. These were observed so strictly that the religious did not ring their bells at the Ave Marias or at the Animas, as usual, as if that were a prohibited action. That shows that it was not devotion but fear, as the other Portuguese said.[29] But I ask those fathers, if it could not be removed, why did they ring their bells at midnight on Saturday, and why, during the three days of the feast of the Holy Ghost, the doors of their churches were open while they said mass, and celebrated the other divine offices? For to say that that feast is privileged by law, like Corpus Christi day, was correctly stated when there is only an interdict, but not when there is a suspension of mass—as is the common opinion of the doctors and the general practice. Thus that is demonstrated; besides which, if the cathedral and the other secular churches have lifted the interdict and the suspension of divine services, the religious were obliged to follow the action of the mother-church, according to a Clementina that has been cited to me. Thus the fathers of St. Augustine and those of the Society acted very prudently, in concurring with the cathedral.

The royal Audiencia, seeing the schism, and that some of the orders were observing the interdict and suspension of mass, while others did not observe them, called a meeting, on the afternoon of May 14, of the superiors of the orders. They charged the superiors not to disturb the community, and that all should conform to the mother-church, according to their obligations, in harmony with the said Clementina. But there was nothing that they heeded less than this; and hence proceeded with their interdict and suspension of mass. The most amusing thing was that they did as they pleased, observing it when they chose to, and not observing it when it did not suit them. On the afternoon of the eve of St. Bernardine, the fathers of St. Francis rang their bells; and on the morning of the following day they celebrated solemn mass and had a sermon. A trustworthy person assured me that during that period one of the Dominican fathers went daily to say mass at the house of an influential woman, very devoted to him, one Doña Constanza, or that they admitted her into their church to hear it. But perhaps those fathers had a privilege of observing the interdict and suspension from mass ad libitum, and toward what persons they pleased; for at that same time, they condemned to sin and cast into hell the other fathers who said mass. But that your Grace may not be surprised that that difference should exist between distinct orders, you must know that there was a difference of opinion among those of the same Order of St. Dominic. For father Fray Diego Collado, superior and vicar-general of the new congregation of San Pablo—who by the aid of the secular arm had already taken possession of the convents assigned him by his general, namely, those of the Parián, Binondoc, the hospital, and Cabite—drew up for his general a document which proved that the orders ought to conform to the mother-church and raise the interdict and the suspension from mass, as the mother-church had raised them. He sent that paper to the fathers of his order at Manila, telling them that, so that they should not imagine that he was trying to oppose and contradict them in everything, he was conforming with them for two or three days, and was keeping the interdict and suspension from mass; but that now he was thinking of doing so no longer, but of conforming with the cathedral. Hence from that moment he ordered the bells to be chimed in all his convents, and the divine offices celebrated. However, finally, at noon of Tuesday, May 20, the three orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and the Recollects rang their bells most joyously; for until then they had observed the interdict and suspension from mass. Some of them being asked why they rang their bells, replied that the archbishop sent them permission from the island of Maribeles, where he was detained, to raise the interdict and the suspension from mass. Surely, sir, I do not understand this, nor do I understand those fathers, nor do I know what they are desiring and attempting in affairs of this sort.

The archbishop remained in the said island of Maribeles with the adjutant and soldiers above mentioned, awaiting his despatch. Three prebendaries of the cathedral—namely, the precentor, Don Gregorio Ruiz Descalona, the canon, Don Juan de Ledo, and the canon, Don Pedro de Quesada—asked permission of the governor to take him some refreshment, and to go to visit him in his trouble. The permission that they asked was given them, and they went. While they were there, the prior of the Indian village of Maribeles, a Recollect friar, arrived. With him occurred the quarrel that your Grace will gather from the following letter written from the island of Maribeles to the governor by the adjutant, Don Diego de Herrera.

“Sir:

“The prior of Maribeles made great efforts to come to this island to see the archbishop; but I did not allow him to come until your Lordship sent the order by the prebendaries. Notwithstanding the order sent by your Lordship, had I known the intent of that religious, I would not have allowed him to come. He came here at eight o’clock on Tuesday evening. The first thing that he did was to ask the infantry why they subjected themselves to the mandates of a man, and did not obey the mandates of God. I was angered, and told him not to talk like that, and that the members of his order are commanded, under penalty of obedience, to perform certain duties; and that we in our turn are like religious, and are under penalty of our life and of [being denounced as] traitors. The prior said that, if the religious were garroted, his Holiness would publish them as martyrs. Then he began to cry out to the archbishop not to subject himself to anyone, for if he submitted now, he would be ordered on the following day to put his head in the stocks. Then the precentor and the others took part in the discussion, and began to treat him as he deserved. They summoned me to tell the archbishop not to be guided by what that father told him, and that I might cause his Lordship to see how ill he was advised, and that submission was not damaging to his Lordship (for the decree was issued in the name of the king, our sovereign), and the troubles that he could cause. Your Lordship will not care to know more, than that the prebendaries brought a letter from a religious of St. Dominic for the archbishop. It said that he should refrain from executing the [governor’s] mandate, and that all would follow him, even should not a single order be left in that city. The precentor opened it, and on seeing its contents tore it to pieces. He will relate everything to your Lordship. The reason that these gentlemen have not gone to that city is that, in the first order given me by your Lordship, I am ordered not to allow the archbishop to write to the government; and in this letter that these gentlemen brought me, your Lordship does not order me to allow him to write, but that I allow them to talk and communicate to him as much as they wish. Consequently, I have done that. The archbishop gave two powers of attorney begging that the execution of the royal decrees that have been issued against him be suspended in the royal Audiencia, saying that he is ready to obey and observe them. These were given to the precentor, to Don Pedro de Quesada, to father Fray Francisco de Paula, and to the Recollect definitor, as your Lordship will see when they are presented. There is nothing else to write your Lordship, except that may God preserve your Lordship long years in more important stations. From this island, today, Wednesday, May 14, 1636. Your Lordship’s most humble servant,

Don Diego de Herrera”

The said prebendaries consoled the archbishop, whom they found repentant over his disobedience of the royal decrees. Accordingly, he granted them authority to present themselves in the royal Audiencia, to make in his name declaration to the effect that he would obey the royal decrees, and to ask that they should not proceed farther in exiling him from these kingdoms. The prebendaries came to Manila, and petitioned in the royal Audiencia in the said archbishop’s name, he offering to obey the royal decrees. A copy of the petition was given to his Majesty’s fiscal, and his answer was that the archbishop could be brought back to the kingdoms by the one who had exiled him from them.

Wednesday, May 21, the governor called a meeting of lawyers; and, according to what I have been told, most of them delivered as their opinion that the archbishop, although exiled, could still remain governor of the archbishopric, but no mendicant religious could act thus, as they were prohibited by law. And since there was no one left but religious, it was as if he had not left them; and the cabildo and the bishop of Camarines, to whom the cabildo gave their votes, were governing legally. Other matters were discussed in that meeting, of which I shall take no notice.

Monday, the twenty-fifth of the same month of May, the archbishop’s agents brought forward another petition, urging his restoration more forcibly, and offering to obey the royal decrees—especially by admitting Don Andres Arias Xiron to the arch deaconship and to the chaplaincy of the royal hospital for its administration, which had been the cause of the suits and quarrels. The royal Audiencia received his promise, and ordered him to return to his archbishopric. Then the royal Audiencia having reported to the governor, who was in Cabite, the governor replied, congratulating them on their decision. Accordingly, he signed, very willingly and gladly, the decree which the Audiencia had despatched for that restoration. The decree was sent to the island of Maribeles, where the archbishop was; and at the same time an order was given to the adjutant and soldiers to bring the archbishop back to Manila. They did so, and he entered his archiepiscopal house on the morning of Friday, June 6. There he was visited by all the orders, and many other people, and great happiness reigned at seeing the end of those suits. May God grant that the peace last. May He preserve your Grace, as this your true friend and servant[30] desires. Manila, June 15, 1636.

---

[1] Lorenzo Goreto was born at Ferrara, November 1, 1592, and entered his novitiate at Rome, December 8, 1608. He went to the Philippines (1622), and labored in the Visayan missions, where he died June 17, 1638. Murillo Velarde says that he was master of theology in Manila, and that he was a very learned man. See his Hist. Philipinas, fol. 102 verso-103; and Sommervogel’s Bibliothèque.

Luis de Pedraza was a native of Baeza, Spain, and entered the Jesuit order in the province of Andalusia. He was a prominent laborer in the Visayan missions, and held important posts in the college of Manila. Later, he went to Mindanao, and died at Zamboanga, October 22, 1639. (Murillo Velarde, Hist. Philipinas, fol. 107.)

[2] Maestro de prima: prima was the name applied to the first three hours of the day, the term being extended to universities and studies, indicating the lessons that came during that period, or the professor who gave his lectures during that period.

[3] i.e., “as a precautionary measure.”

[4] Lucas García, who belonged to the mission of 1615, performed missionary duties in Cagayan, and was also vicar of Fotol, of Maquilá, and jointly rector of Santo Tomas, and procurator-general. He was later vicar of Gattoron, of Fotol, of Tocolana, and of Lallo-c, and also served in the province of Cagayan for a number of years. He was also definitor several times, and vicar-provincial in Cagayan. In 1633 and 1635 he was vicar-provincial in Formosa, being also vicar of Nuestra Señora del Rosario, at Tanchui. After thirty-six years’ labor in the Indias, he died at Lallo-c about 1651. See Reseña biográfica, i, p. 349.

[5] The ringing of bells at a certain hour (usually sunset), which admonishes the faithful to pray for the souls in purgatory. The alabado meant a hymn sung in praise of the sacrament when it was placed within the tabernacle.

[6] The only Burguillos mentioned by Huerta is Pedro, a lay brother connected with the Japanese missions, who died at Manila in 1615—apparently therefore, not the one mentioned in our text.

[7] The Cistercian Order was founded by St. Robert, the son of a gentleman of Champagne, who had taken the Benedictine habit, at Cistercium (the modern Citeaux) in 1098, and professed the rule of St. Benedict. The rule was very austere, but despite various reforms, it gradually became relaxed and approached the observance of other orders. The Trappists are an offshoot of this order. See Addis and Arnold’s Catholic Dictionary, pp. 186–188.

[8] An ambassador (generally a cardinal or bishop) sent by the pope to a foreign prince, with full powers.

[9] The following royal decree on this subject was issued in 1637: “Inasmuch as I have been informed that many soldiers and sailors who are in my service in the Filipinas Islands are becoming, and have become, religious, while indebted in large sums of maravedis to my royal treasury for pay which has been advanced to them; and that, after having been for some years in the orders, they leave them and wander about as vagabonds with the utmost freedom, and refuse to reënter my service: desiring to apply a corrective to such delinquencies, and the matter having been conferred over in my royal Council of the Yndias, I have considered it fitting to issue the present. By it I request my very reverend archbishop in Christ, the father of the metropolitan church of the city of Manila, and charge the venerable and devout fathers-provincial and other superiors of all the orders in the territory of his archbishopric, to note that they are to inform my governor of the said islands whenever such cases shall occur to the prejudice of my treasury, and that the culprits be punished as is fitting. No one may take the vows of religion without first satisfying the amount that he shall thus owe. In order that the contents of this my decree may be well known to all, I order my governor and captain-general of the said Filipinas Islands to publish it in all the necessary places, and to send a copy of it to the provincials of the orders throughout the said islands, in order that they may give to its fulfilment the earnest attention to which they are obliged; for such is my will. Madrid, December 23, 1637.”

The copy of this decree existing in the Archivo general de Indias at Sevilla—with pressmark, “Audiencia de Filipinas; registros de oficio; reales ordenes dirigidas á las autoridades del distrito de dicha Audiencia; años 1635 á 1672; est. 105, caj. 2, leg. 2, lib. 4”—bears the following endorsement in the margin: “In order that no soldier or sailor in the Filipinas Islands who may be indebted to the royal treasury may take the vows of religion without first satisfying the amount of his debt.”

[10] Dominicans.—Domingo Gonzalez came to the islands in 1602; for several years he was an instructor in theology in the cathedral of Manila, and afterward spent five years as a missionary in Cagayan. Returning then to Manila, he was rector of the college of Santo Tomás, provincial of his order (chosen in 1633, and again in 1644), and commissary-general of the Inquisition for sixteen years. He died November 5, 1647, at Manila, at the age of seventy-three.

Francisco de Herrera came with the mission of 1598. He filled numerous important offices in the order—among them, those of provincial (1629–33), rector of Santo Tomás, and commissary-general of the Inquisition. He died at Manila, August 9, 1644.

Antonio Gonzalez accompanied the mission of 1632, and at first was an instructor in Santo Tomás; but early in 1636 he went to Japan, where he suffered martyrdom, September 24, 1637.

Sebastian Oquendo also began his labors in the Philippines as instructor at the college in Manila; he afterward held various offices in the convent there, but died at Méjico in 1651. (All these notices are obtained from Reseña biográfica, vol. i.)

Augustinians.—Juan de Montemayor came to Manila in 1613. He held important posts in the order, and was minister in several Indian villages; and died at Manila in 1638.

Alonso Carbajal arrived at the islands in 1618. Among the posts of honor which he held was that of provincial (1644), and more than once he declined a bishopric offered to him. He also spent several years in missionary labors, among the Pampangans and Visayans, and died therein (1654).

Diego de Ochoa had just come (1635) to the Filipinas mission; he ministered in several villages in Luzón, and died in 1648. (These notices are obtained from Pérez’s Catálogo.)

Franciscans.—Gerónimo del Espiritu Santo came to Manila in 1633, and in the following year became vicar-provincial. He accompanied the sisters of St. Clare to Macao (1634), who founded there a convent of their order. From January, 1635, to June, 1637, Fray Gerónimo was minister-provincial; he then retired to Sampaloc, and in 1638 departed for Mexico. The ship was wrecked on the Marianas, and this priest, refusing to save his life while he could console the dying, perished with the rest, September 21, 1638.

Jose de Santa Maria began his labors in the Philippines as early as 1621, and seems to have been a missionary among the Indians from 1626 to 1637. He was minister provincial during the first half of 1638; and died at Manila in 1645.

Vicente Argent arrived at Manila in 1630. In alternating periods of his life he was a missionary among the Indians, and an official of his order at Manila; from January, 1643, to January, 1646, he was minister provincial. In 1656 he sailed for Mexico, but died at sea, before reaching Acapulco. (These notices are obtained from Huerta’s Estado.)

[11] Another copy of this episcopal decree (found in one of Corcuera’s letters dated June 30, 1636) gives the name as here, but adds, “(I mean Santa Monica)”—an error of Corcuera’s transcriber.

[12] These last two names, with Fray Gaspar de Santa Maria and Fray Alonso de San Joan above, are apparently those of Recollect priests; but there is no available information regarding them.

[13] i.e., “by the very act, immediately incurring canonical censure, already imposed.”

[14] A reference to the canons of Clement V, which are contained in the collection called Clementinas, published by John XXII.

[15] Reference is here made to a long and vexatious controversy over the spiritual jurisdiction of Santa Cruz and Quiapo, between the Jesuits and the diocesan authorities; it was settled in favor of the Society, but not until 1678. See Murillo Velarde’s account of this dispute, in his Historia, fol. 89 verso-91. Cf. Colin’s Labor evangélica (ed. 1663), p. 813; and La Concepción’s Hist. Philipinas, pp. 281, 286. Santa Cruz is on the shore of the Pasig River opposite Manila; above it lies Quiapo, and below it Binondo (an island formed by two bayous from the Pasig). As previous documents have often mentioned, Binondo was inhabited chiefly by the Chinese, as also was Santa Cruz.

[16] Diego de Bobadilla was born at Madrid, September 19, 1590; and at the age of sixteen entered the Jesuit order. He came to the Philippines in 1615, and spent fifteen years as an instructor in the Jesuit college at Manila, and five years as its rector. In 1637 he went to Rome as procurator for his order, and returned in 1643 with a band of forty-two missionaries. Again he became rector of the college, and in 1646 was elected provincial. While making an official visitation of the Mindanao missions, he died at Carigara, February 26, 1648. See Murillo Velarde’s sketch of his life, Hist. Philipinas, fol. 159, 160.

[17] Francisco Pinelo, who had been prior of the Dominican convent at Tabora, Portugal, came to the Philippines in 1632, where for some time he was vicar of San Telmo at Cavite. Afterward he went to Europe on business of the order—part of which was to secure the dissolution of the Congregation of St. Paul, formed by Fray Diego Collado, in 1636, with the Dominicans who came then with Corcuera (who were called Barbones; see Diaz’s account ante, p. 161). Pinelo remained in Spain, dying in the convent at Segovia, January 23, 1643. See Reseña biográfica, i, pp. 391, 420.

[18] There is an evident play on words in this passage. The original reads: “Que le auian hecho papa ó papilla y que con el les auian querido dar papillas.” “Papilla” is the diminutive of “papa”—meaning “pope,” or “pap”; and the phrase dar papilla is used to mean “deceiving by insidious caresses.”

[19] Referring to Juan de Zumárraga, guardian of the Franciscan convent at Abrojo, Mexico; who was appointed (December 12, 1527) the first bishop of the new diocese of Mexico, and protector of the Indians. He filled these offices ably, although his energy and zeal made him numerous enemies. He was made archbishop when the diocese of Mexico was raised to an archdiocese (by papal bull of July 8, 1547); but on account of his great age he declined the honor, and died (June 3, 1548) a few days after those documents arrived, being eighty years old. A cloud upon his memory is the ruthless and vandalic destruction, under his direction, of the Aztec images, manuscripts, and other records, both public and private, for which his agents made close search, not only in the City of Mexico but in all the larger cities and towns—a cruel and irreparable loss to scholars and historians. See Bancroft’s History of Mexico, ii, pp. 297–300, 556–559.

[20] Apparently alluding to the penitent thief who was crucified with Christ.

[21] Secuestrarle, in MS.; but compare the same letter in Diaz’s narration, ante, where the word is secuestrarme (“sequester my” property).

[22] A line is omitted here by transcriber; see Diaz’s copy, as above.

[23] Francisco de Paula, a native of Segovia, arrived at Manila in 1618, where he ministered to the Chinese, and afterward gave instruction in the college of Santo Tomás for sixteen years. He filled numerous important posts—among them that of provincial (twice), and commissary-general of the Inquisition; and not long before his death he had been appointed bishop of Nueva Cáçeres. He died at Manila, April 5, 1664, at the age of sixty-seven.

[24] The only friar of this name who is mentioned in Reseña biográfica came to the islands with the mission of 1635; “he returned at once to España, summoned by his Majesty to take charge of the chair of mathematics at the court, with a stipend of one thousand ducados a year.”

[25] Antonio Gomez de Espejo was born in Manila, in 1604; and made his profession in the Dominican order, at the age of twenty-one. He ministered in various Indian villages in Luzón; and in 1678 died, at Lallo-c.

[26] Pedro Fernandez de Ledo, a native of Mexico, made his profession as a Dominican friar in 1625, at the age of seventeen. He was one of the faculty at Santo Tomás until 1651, when he was chosen prior, and afterward provincial. Ledo died at Manila, October 15, 1662; soon afterward, his appointment to a bishopric was received there.

[27] Applied to a crime that may be tried either in ecclesiastical or secular courts.

[28] Dispensation for receiving orders outside the time specified by the church.

[29] Perhaps some allusion to a well-known proverb or saying.

[30] There is no direct clue to the authorship of this document; but it was evidently written by a lawyer, and one who sided with the Jesuits and the governor. It is possible that this was Fabian de Santillan, appointed by that order as judge-conservator; it would be very natural for him, from prudential motives, to mention himself in the third person in the letter, knowing that it would almost certainly be read by others than his correspondent.