The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898, Volume 42, 1670-1700 / 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

The Camacho Ecclesiastical Controversy, 1697–1700

News from Filipinas since July, 1697

With the arrival of his illustrious Lordship the archbishop, Doctor Don Diego Camacho y Avila,[1] were renewed the former claims for the subjection of the regulars to the visitation. He commenced at Tondo and Binondo, mission villages of the fathers of St. Dominic and St. Augustine, in which places he caused edicts to be read, and appointed secular priests as curas. They broke open the doors of the said two churches with axes; and on seeing this the provincials, all agreeing, presented their renunciation [of those mission fields], and ordered all their subordinates to withdraw from the doctrinas of these districts, Tagalos, Pampanga, Laguna, and Balayan. When it was so quickly seen that they were coming into retirement at Manila, [the ecclesiastical authorities] were obliged to desist from their purpose, after [having caused the religious] many annoyances.

Claim was made to the [right of] visitation of the hospitals of San Gabriel and San Lazaro, and the royal hospital. The Franciscans and the Dominicans concealed the keys, and the bishop had to desist, as greatly vexed as before. Auditor Don Juan de Sierra, in virtue of his commission for the adjustment of lands royal and unassigned,[2] cited the regulars to appear before him. He insisted on legal proceedings; but they, fortifying themselves with the censures of the bull De la Cena,[3] decrees 15 and 17, declined his jurisdiction. The judge proceeded to seize the possessions of the regulars; and they had recourse to the bishop, in order that he should declare that the auditor had incurred censure—asking him to defend the immunity of the said property of the regulars. His illustrious Lordship replied that first the regulars must submit to his visitation; they would not do this, and therefore, when they repeated their request, his illustrious Lordship declared that the secular judge was not committing fuerza.

In virtue of the decree of Gregory XIII, [issued] at the instance of Felipe II, relative to appeals from the Indians,[4] the regulars appealed to the delegate of Camarines, who sent letters to the archbishop requiring the latter to send him the documents [in the case], with [threats of] censures, and of deprivation ab ingresu eclesiæ [i.e., “of entrance into the church”]. Seeing that these orders were not obeyed, the regulars again appealed to the delegate, Don Fray Andres Gonzalez, who came in person. He demanded aid from the governor, and, meeting delays, proceeded to make the necessary notifications; then, not being able to obtain from the archbishop the acts from which appeal had been taken, the delegate posted him as having incurred excommunication, and added the threat that he would impose an interdict.

At the same time, the archbishop officiated publicly, and published the delegate as excommunicate. But, seeing that various scandals ensued, and that contests, not only with their hands but with stones and weapons, occurred between some clerics and regulars—some attempting to protect, and others to tear down, the writings and censures posted on the [church] doors by the delegate—the governor and other persons finally interposed, and an agreement was reached by the parties. The two prelates absolved each other ad invicem [i.e., in turn], in the presence of the governor; and, as Auditor Sierra desisted from his proceedings, the two prelates and the regulars continued to maintain harmony among themselves. In this condition, therefore, affairs remained; and, without proceeding to new acts or investigations, each party sent to España an account of what had been thus far done, in order to await the decision and sentence from the other side [of the world]. This was the attitude of the delegate and the superiors of the regulars; the archbishop, nevertheless, continued to bring suits against some regulars, whom he censured as agitators. Investigations in these cases were made, penalties of censure being imposed on the witnesses to secure their secrecy. The fact of this proceeding was, however, guessed; and the regulars, aided by the delegate, brought forward counter-information of their innocence. But as the case was not one for appeal, and did not belong to the delegate, it did not admit any recourse to him; so the delegate only caused his notary to give an official statement of this [attempt at] recourse, in order that the regulars might repair with it to España and Roma, and the generals of their orders, to relate these occurrences and the innocence of the religious—and, not least, to complain of the opposition and hindrances which had been employed here by the tribunals, both ecclesiastical and secular, against his use and exercise of the power delegated to him.

Even before the arrival of the said delegate, various other investigations had been secretly made in the archiepiscopal court—not only against the regulars at large (de vita et moribus [i.e., “in regard to their lives and morals”], and as to their trading and trafficking, etc.), but against certain individual religious. In these cases, the provincials had, according to their rights, demanded from the archbishop that he refrain from further proceedings and surrender to them the documents therein, since the said provincials were the legitimate superiors and judges of those religious; but this received scant attention. It had also previously occurred that the father minister of the hospital of San Gabriel (who is a Dominican) refused to allow the episcopal visitation, and the [arch]bishop had declared him incontinent, and posted him as excommunicate, without paying any attention to the appeal which that father immediately made. The said father minister amended his conduct, in time; but his name was left on the list of excommunicates until, upon the arrival of the delegate, the matter was settled and the censure laid on him was raised.

Upon the origin of so many storms in so short a space as eight months there was much gossip, with a variety [of opinions]. Some attributed the trouble to the influence of the bishop of La Puebla,[5] in whose palace the archbishop was a guest for several months; others to the promise that the latter had given, on leaving Nueva España, to various personages with whom he was intimate in La Puebla and Mexico, that he was coming to reduce the regulars of these islands to submission or else destroy them. Others blamed the bishop of La Puebla; for he had warned the archbishop, in order to render him firm, of the disparity of what had been accomplished there by Don Juan de Palafox—who met less resistance there because most of the regulars in Nueva España were natives of that country, while in Filipinas nearly all of them were born in other countries. Others (and these were the majority) blamed the senior auditor, Don Geronimo Barredo, because with little gratitude for the many thousands [of pesos obtained from the orders] as loans and gifts (although he had been so greatly benefited thereby), he had repaid the regulars by abandoning [them] to the two recently-arrived auditors, Don Francisco Guerruela and Don José Pabon. On the one hand, the Audiencia being inclined to the opposing side, the regulars were deprived of the recourse which they, as vassals, ought to have in the royal tribunal; and on the other, it was reported that the said senior auditor made exceedingly frequent visits, at unseasonable hours, to the archbishop’s palace, which were returned by that prelate at the auditor’s house. As the gossip ran, the auditor directed all the acts and proceedings of the archbishop’s court.

Still others, reflecting upon the governor and the limits of his term of office, regarded him as timorous, considering that, since the [commission to take the governor’s] residencia[6] had come to the said senior auditor in the year 97, the fear of the governor was occasioned by the apprehension that the auditor might do him some harm in his residencia. Some others (but only a few) attributed these many disturbances to the cousin of his illustrious Lordship, named Don Juan Camacho, for the sake of his own advantage; and on this account, knowing his disposition, people said that Master-of-camp Don Francisco Guerrero de Ardila had made strenuous efforts, and had even offered to his illustrious Lordship in Mexico considerable sums of money, to procure that, by sending this cousin[7] to Badajoz, his Lordship should not come to these islands with a companion who could not render his government peaceable.

Nor must I pass over in silence the fact that on the sixteenth day of May the royal Audiencia cited to appear in its hall all the five provincials, to whom—without the courteous observances and respectful address which his Majesty himself observes in his decrees—the Audiencia gave a severe reprimand, throwing on them the blame for the late disturbances, and treating them as violators of the peace. The most remarkable thing about this censure was, that it proceeded from the lips of that very senior auditor who, in especial, was regarded as the entire source of the disturbances; and, without permitting the provincials to speak, they were, with the same lack of respect, dismissed by this same official—who some day will have to give an account, before the tribunal of truth, of all these unjust acts.

By the end of the said month, under the compulsion of the threat made against the provincials, by the first, second, and third royal decrees, of banishment and [privation of their] secular incomes, the old-time writ of execution regarding the tithes was enforced, and the religious were obliged to obey. No hearing was given to their repeated protests, or the petitions interposed for the royal Council; nor to their allegations of their rights of prescription in these islands, of their apostolic privileges, of the fact that nearly all who minister here are regulars, and that they have come to these islands not at his Majesty’s expense only, but with the greater part of those expenses paid by the religious themselves.

The regulars petitioned for, and took measures to push, a demand upon the royal treasury for more than 300,000 pesos, the amount spent by the religious since the conquest; and another, for another 300,000, the amount which was due to them on account of stipends as religious teachers, which the government had failed to allow them for a period of more than a century—declaring that if these accounts were paid, they would pay the tithes which were claimed from them; but no hearing was given them. In hatred to the regulars, the tenants on their estates were compelled to pay tithes, the amount of these being deducted from the value of the rent-money.

---

Letter from Andres Gonzalez to the Pope

Most Holy Father:

After kissing with due submission the feet of your Holiness (whom may God preserve, for the prosperous government of His Church), in fulfilment of the obligations of my office as pastor I set forth to your Holiness a very serious controversy in regard to jurisdiction, which at this time has arisen between me and the very reverend archbishop of this city of Manila in these Filipinas Islands, Doctor Don Diego Camacho y Avila. I do so in order that your Holiness, as the person who is most interested in the peace and tranquillity of this church, may apply suitable remedy, and fix an end and limit to this controversy—the origin and course of which I will relate as briefly as possible, in all matters referring to the authentic copy of the acts which I send you with this.

To Licentiate Don Juan de Sierra Osorio, former auditor of this royal Audiencia, and at present judge of criminal cases in the Audiencia of Mejico, was subdelegated the cognizance and settlement of [questions relating to] the lands and possessions which, by sale or gift, have been alienated from the royal patrimony and dominion of our Catholic king and sovereign. In a proclamation which he issued he cited and summoned, with the rest of the holders of the said lands and possessions, the holy religious orders of these islands, ordering them to present, within the limit of one year, the titles, documents, and credentials which they hold for these lands—with the warning that if these papers were not presented by the end of that period the lands would be reunited to the crown. The superiors of the said religious orders, mindful of the immunity and exemption of their persons and worldly possessions, did not present their documents at the said time; therefore the said auditor actually proceeded to appropriate the said property. The said superiors had recourse to the said very reverend archbishop, asking him to forbid to the said auditor the cognizance of the said cause, and to protect the said property as being ecclesiastical. The said very reverend archbishop took up the matter, and, having drawn up acts, by his definitive sentence (which is found in the said authentic copy) refused ecclesiastical immunity to the said property. The said superiors appealed twice from the said sentence to me, as being the delegate of your Holiness in cases of appeal from this archbishopric, in virtue of a brief by his Holiness Gregory XIII—issued at the instance of our Catholic king Felipe II (whom may God keep). He denied them both these appeals; and, in order to place some limit to these proceedings, they presented themselves before me, with only the authentic official statement of this denial of the said appeals, in course of appeal from that sentence. Having admitted this appeal, in order to proceed to the trial of it I addressed to the said very reverend archbishop, from my episcopal see and city of Nueva Caceres, a compulsatory act in which, as the delegate of your Holiness with apostolic authority, I commanded him to order his secretary (before whom the said cause took place) within twenty-four hours to send me his original acts, or else to begin the copying of them and send it to me when completed. Considering the great distance which lies between this city of Nueva Caceres and that of Manila, the danger and expense of the journeys, the delay of the suit, and the injury to the party therein, I laid these commands on the said very reverend archbishop under the penalty of suspension from the priestly office, latæ sententiæ, and warned him of heavier and still heavier censures and penalties in case of his opposition and contumacy. He was notified of this act on the twentieth day of last March, by a religious of the Society of Jesus, to whom I gave commission for this office; for I had learned that no secular priest would dare to make this notification. The said very reverend archbishop, having heard the [reading of the] act, replied that the said father could not perform judicial acts in his archdiocese without presenting a warrant from his notary; and, even supposing that the father could thus act, he appealed from the said command—for which he implored the royal aid against fuerza, and demanded that an official statement be given him, and that meanwhile no detriment be caused him. When the statement was refused to him he again appealed, and threatened [to procure] royal aid against this fuerza; and this alone he gave as his reply, before the said notary—without giving any reason for his appeal, or reducing it to writing, or arguing it in the superior court[8] in legal form, or asking for apostolic letters, up to the present time. Nevertheless, he then had, and for twenty-three days had kept, the acts in his archives, as appears from a sworn statement by Lerma, the secretary of the royal Audiencia, which is sent with the documents. On that same day (March 20) and the following, he caused to be published and posted on the doors of the churches in this city two edicts against my authority as delegate—in which, with penalty of major excommunication, latæ sententiæ, he commanded (in the first edict) that no one, whether secular or regular, in his churches should permit the reading, publication, or posting of any edicts, or of any other kind of letters or bills whatsoever, except those of his provisor, or of the tribunals of the Holy Inquisition and the Crusade—as if my tribunal, jurisdiction, and authority, which is that of the supreme head of the Church, and resides in me, were inferior to those of the said provisor and the said tribunals. In the second edict, increasing the penalty of major excommunication with the reservation to himself [of absolution], he commanded that no one in his archiepiscopal territory should exercise any jurisdiction—whether ordinary, delegate, or subdelegate—even if it were from your Holiness, unless the originals of the bulls or despatches that he carried be first presented to his Lordship, in order that he might give them the license and fulfilment which by right they should have. But he does not consider that my bull and brief is, and has been for more than 140[9] years since the foundation of the bishoprics of these islands, current and put into practice in them, as also has been its free and independent exercise in this archiepiscopal territory. And I have exercised this freedom, on the only two occasions which have been presented to me—the first time, while the very reverend archbishop Don Fray Felipe Pardo was alive, and the second in the year 91—with the knowledge and approbation of the cabildo close by, sede vacante, both which are proved by authentic documents. These I do not send at this time, as they are in my archives in the city of Nueva Caceres, which is distant from this city of Manila sixty leguas; but I promise to send them at the first opportunity, which will be next year. Notwithstanding all this, the said very reverend archbishop published the said two edicts, endeavoring to impede and embarrass, by all possible measures, means, and ways, the said my jurisdiction as delegate, and to subordinate it to his own, in order that I should not exercise or avail myself of it, either in person or through intermediate persons. On account of this, the superiors of the said religious orders found themselves obliged to resort again to me; and they entreated me to come in person to this city of Manila, to defend my jurisdiction, and with it the ecclesiastical immunity of their property. I did so, notwithstanding my advanced age[10] and the painful infirmities that I suffer, since both these causes are so important a part of my responsibility and obligation. I came to this city on the twelfth day of the past month, May, and with my secretary went to a house on the river where the said very reverend archbishop was residing. After a short conversation, I begged him to be pleased to listen peaceably to an act of which I had come, as delegate of his Holiness, to notify him. I told him that this business should not be conducted more castrorum [i.e., in hostile manner], but that we should listen to each other, and each should state his rights. He agreed to this, and my secretary read the said act, which contains three points. In the first, I declared the said very reverend archbishop to be disobedient, rebellious, and contumacious, considering that he had not obeyed as he should the said my compulsory act, sent to him from the city of Nueva Caceres; likewise, I declared that he had incurred the penalty of suspension from the priestly office latæ sententiæ, under which I had commanded him to order his secretary within twenty-four hours to surrender the acts for which I had asked, or to make an authentic copy of them. And because he had exercised the said priestly office on Holy Thursday, consecrating the sacred oils; and on Holy Saturday, in conferring the higher orders of the ministry;[11] and likewise on other days, in saying mass while he was under suspension: I declared that he was under censure as irregular. In the second part of the said act, I again commanded him, under penalty of major excommunication, latæ sententiæ, and of a fine of two thousand pesos to be applied according to law, to order his secretary within six days to deliver up the papers as aforesaid, or make an authentic copy of them. And in the third part, under penalty of being considered rebellious and contumacious, in order to place him under greater obligation, I prohibited to him in the interim the cognizance of this cause and legal proceeding therein. After the said very reverend archbishop had heard the act, he appealed from it, in writing, and on the following day brought this appeal into court. I did not on this account defer the declaration of the said censures, since the appeal was frivolous and useless; and I yielded in the matter of the copy of the documents only for the reason that he alleged, that the originals of these were in the Audiencia. After he had interposed the said appeal, he immediately ordered his secretary to notify me of an act by himself, in which he commanded me, under penalty of major excommunication, latæ sententiæ, and a fine of 4,000 pesos, to depart instantly and without delay from this archdiocese, to go to reside in my own bishopric, and not to meddle with his jurisdiction. To this I replied that I had received this notification, and asked him to give me a copy of the said document, solely for the purpose of showing in what consisted his illegal and unwarranted act; and I took leave of him and returned to my house. On the following day, the thirteenth of the said month of May, the said very reverend archbishop sent his secretary to notify me of another act, in which also he again commanded me, under penalty of major excommunication, latæ sententiæ, and of another 4,000 pesos, to depart within two days from the archdiocese. To this I replied that I had come [to Manila] on account of the appeal [made to me]; that I was a delegate of your Holiness, and moreover superior to the said very reverend archbishop, and as such I did not listen to his acts or censures. On the next day, the fourteenth of the said month of May, he sent to me notification of another act; and as I refused to listen to it, for the same reason as before, about two o’clock in the afternoon he posted on the doors of the churches, and in other public places, notices in which he declared me, to the great scandal of all this community, to be publicly excommunicated.

On the said thirteenth day of May, in the morning, immediately after I had been notified of the second act of the said very reverend archbishop, I sent my secretary to his house on the river to notify him of another act of mine, in which I commanded him, under penalty of major excommunication and another 2,000 pesos, to withdraw within twenty-four hours the said edicts which on the twentieth and twenty-first days of March he had ordered posted and published against my apostolic authority as delegate; and, besides, to withdraw the two acts in which, with the said penalties of major excommunication and 8,000 pesos, he had commanded me to depart from the archdiocese. The said my secretary was told by the servants that he was not at home; and I, as this seemed to me only an excuse, and not the truth, went in person to the said house. They told me that he had, that very morning, gone back to Manila. I came to the city after him, and remained at his house, waiting for him, until twelve o’clock; and seeing that he had not come by that time (although he came in afterward), I went away, leaving a message for him, that he might expect me in the afternoon. I returned a little before sunset, but did not find him at home this time. My secretary began to read the said act in the main room of the archbishop’s house; but such disorderly yelling and clamorous talk was raised by his servants that my secretary could not make himself heard. I therefore determined to wait for him, and finally he came—making loud complaints that I was injuring the respect and observance due to his house, person, and dignity. I replied that his illustrious Lordship had showed greater incivilities to me; and that he could and ought to do [what I had done], if I had gone about all day, avoiding him [huyendo el cuerpo]. In conclusion, we agreed that my secretary should go again, alone, to notify him of the act; but, when he went to the house, his illustrious Lordship refused to give him entrance. As I was now weary of so much artfulness and craft, unworthy of such a station and dignity, I put aside this act, and despatched another of like tenor. In this, I summoned him, from that hour, under penalty of major excommunication, latæ sententiæ, and its publication, to withdraw within half an hour the said two acts and two edicts. Notification of this act was made by a Dominican religious, my notary, in the archbishop’s hall, in the presence of many persons, because the said very reverend archbishop had refused to listen to it. When the said half-hour had expired, a little while after this was told to me I declared and posted him also as publicly excommunicated. On the fifteenth of the said month of May, I ordered that he be notified, and he was notified in his archiepiscopal hall, of another act, in which I repeated the command contained in the preceding one—and, still more, that he should take down the notices posted against me, under penalty of a general interdict throughout his archiepiscopal diocese, latæ sententiæ, giving him a limit of twenty-four hours’ time; and, in case of his opposition and contumacy, I would proceed to the cessation of all divine worship. But, as I reflected that it was very near the feast of Corpus Christi, and that all the religious orders of this city and a great number of secular priests, who were on my side, would not take part in the said festival and in the procession, in order not to have communication in sacris with the said very reverend archbishop; and on account of the commiseration which I felt for this commonwealth; and finally, because the governor and captain-general of these islands, and some of the auditors of this royal Audiencia interfered in the matter, with the stipulations which I will send with the acts: I absolved the said very reverend archbishop from the excommunication and suspension which he had incurred; and he did the same, without my consent, absolving me from his excommunication. I dispensed him from the censure that he had incurred as irregular, and, finally, I suspended the declaration of the interdict. The whole matter was then left as it was, for the time being, until information of all could be given to your Holiness, in order that you may take suitable measures in this case. These are as follows: That the archbishop (or the cabildo, sede vacante) who at the time shall officiate and rule in this archbishopric of Manila shall not hinder, restrain, or limit the delegate of your Holiness; that, likewise, he who shall be at the time delegate shall, in cases of appeal to be taken from the said archbishopric, have the free use and exercise of his apostolic authority as delegate in this archiepiscopal territory; and that he shall not need, in order to enter the said territory or to perform judicial acts in it, whether in person or through intermediate persons appointed by him, any license, consent, or approbation from the said archbishop or from the cabildo, sede vacante. [These things should be done] in order that thus the like controversies may be avoided in the future. And I entreat your Holiness to be pleased and to deign to command that consideration be given to a legal opinion by the reverend father master Fray Juan de Paz, of the Order of Preachers, which I send with this; for it may be of service for the point at issue, and for your rights. I also inform your Holiness that from the day when the said very reverend archbishop set foot in these islands—that is, from last September to the present time—this entire commonwealth has been a perplexing labyrinth of contentions and acts of violence which he has performed against the holy religious orders of these islands. For his disposition and nature is very hasty, quarrelsome, and bold; and he is, finally, a man who does not care for or defend the ecclesiastical immunity—as appears from the authentic copy of the acts which I send. May God our Lord grant him better judgment; and may He guard and prosper your Holiness, as I entreat in my sacrifices and prayers, and as the universal Church has need. Manila, June 2 of the year 1698.

[Andres Gonzalez, of the Order of Preachers].

---

[This letter is followed by the following memoranda, apparently notes by Ventura del Arco of other letters found in the Jesuit papers in the Academia Real de la Historia:]

On the fourth day of June in the same year of 1698 the bishop of Nueva Caceres, Don Fray Andres Gonzalez, addressed to the king an explanation similar to the preceding one which is addressed to his Holiness. On the eleventh of June in the same year, he sent to his Holiness another account, in the same form; and on the twenty-first of June of the same year he wrote another to his Holiness, and another to the king.

The provincials of St. Dominic and St. Augustine, and those of the Jesuits and Recollects in Manila drew up [to send] to his Majesty the king a statement, dated June 25, 1698, complaining of the defenseless condition in which they found themselves against the proceedings of the archbishop, who neither heeded nor allowed their appeal; and they requested that the Council examine the documents which they sent for that purpose, relating to various suits against their religious orders—which continued or were renewed, in spite of the agreement made with the delegate of his Holiness, the bishop of Camarines. For this purpose they sent a copy of the documents.

[On pp. 207, 208 of the same volume is the following abstract:] In a letter dated June 9, 1700 the Jesuit Luis de Morales wrote from Manla to Father Antonio Jaramillo, procurator-general at Madrid, that in the year 1698 the bishop of Troya and Auditor Don Juan de Sierra died, on the voyage from Manila to Acapulco. The governor not only showed little favor to the missions in the Marianas Islands, but in the year 98 he did not send a patache there with succor; in 99 he sent the vessel late, and it was driven by storms first to China and then to Manila, with damage to its cargo; and he had ordered that the ship from Acapulco should not touch at those islands. The governor had claimed that the conciliar seminary[12] should be placed next to the college of San Jose, to which the superior of the Society had answered that there was no room for it. All the provincials [of the religious orders] had been commanded to present to the archbishop all their bulls and privileges for granting dispensation in case of impediments to marriage, for the purpose of ascertaining whether these were perpetual or temporary; they presented the documents extra-judicially. It seems that the viceroy of Mexico, Conde Montezuma,[13] had undertaken that the regulars who were going to Filipinas should first take an oath of obedience to the bishops, [when the said regulars should act as curas] in the Indian villages; in which case, he [i.e., Morales] said, it was preferable to abandon the missions. The bishop of Cebu, Don Fray Miguel Bayot,[14] had commanded that no layman should possess a slave girl eleven years old or upward; and that if such slave were not liberated he declared her free—in regard to which some persons had complained [to the] alcalde.

---

Preamble of the decree[15] which it has been commanded to place in the books of San Pedro Tunasan.

In the village of San Juan de Calamba in the province of Bay, on the sixteenth day of the month of November in the year one thousand six hundred and ninety-eight: I, Licentiate Don Francisco Sanctos de Oliveros, secretary in matters [secretario del Govierno y gracia] of this archbishopric, and a racionero of the holy metropolitan church of Manila, in obedience to the decree of his most illustrious Lordship below mentioned, do certify and attest that his most illustrious Lordship, having come to make the visitation of this district of Tabuco, issued the decree of the following tenor:

Decree: In the village of Calambo in the province of Bay, on the sixteenth day of the month of November in the year one thousand six hundred and ninety-eight, the most illustrious lord Doctor Don Diego Camacho y Avila, archbishop of Manila and metropolitan of these Philippinas Islands, and ruler of the suffragan bishopric of Nueva Segovia, now vacant, and member of the Council of his royal Majesty and my master, having come here in conformity to the regulations of the holy [Church] councils (and especially of the holy general Council of Trent), and for the enforcement thereof, to visit this district of Tabuco and the places connected with it (which are the two villages of San Pedro Tunasan), and its churches, ministers, and parishioners, has observed in them a great deal of ignorance of the Christian doctrine, even of the doctrines most essential for salvation—through the agency of Licentiate Don Juan Melendez, a priest whom his most illustrious Lordship the archbishop, my master, has brought with him as his assistant for the sole purpose of giving examinations and instruction in the Tagálog language (in which the said licentiate is very expert) to the Indians of both sexes, to the old people as well as to the children, of the villages and districts through which his most illustrious Lordship will be passing. This duty he has performed and fulfilled in the presence of a great many people, assembled in the above-mentioned churches of San Pedro Tunasan and Biñan. After the questions which he has asked regarding the principal mysteries of the faith, and the explanation which he has made of each separately—some in the morning, and some in the afternoon, according to the opportunity afforded him by the time—he has preached to them, and continues to preach, exhorting them to the love of the virtues and to horror for sins. He also gives to all individual instruction, and an accurate knowledge of the mysteries of the holy sacrifice of mass, and of the virtues and graces which it communicates, as also of those which are required in order to resist the temptations of the devil; and how to secure, with great ease and confidence, the divine aid, by fulfilling and observing the precepts of the Decalogue, and the ordinances of our holy Mother Church in the holy sacrament of confirmation, which his most illustrious Lordship has solemnly conferred and is conferring. Therefore he said that he must command, and he did command, the master Licentiate Don Manuel de Leon, cura in his own right of the village of Tabuco; and his coadjutor Bachelor Nicolas Godiño, who administers the holy sacraments in the village of Biñan; and Father Miguel de Salas, a religious of the Society of Jesus, who likewise administers the holy sacraments in the village and estate of San Pedro Tunasan, which is part of the territory and a visita of the cura of the said village of Tabuco; and the curas and ministers who shall hereafter officiate in the said villages, and in that of Sancto Thomas (which is being administered ad interim by the said master Licentiate Don Manuel de Leon): that on all the prescribed feast-days—especially on Sundays, on which all the parishioners assemble in their churches to hear the holy sacrifice of mass—they shall question the people, and explain to them the Christian doctrine, conformably and pursuant to the Tagálog catechism which is accepted and approved in this archbishopric; and that in no form or manner, and for no cause or pretext, shall they omit this on any of the above-mentioned days, especially Sundays. They shall make the explanations of the Christian doctrine to their parishioners before saying mass (which all must hear)—not employing the fiscal or any other person for the performance of this duty, but doing it themselves—explaining certain mysteries of the faith on some Sundays, and others at other times; in everything accommodating their speech to the limited capacity of their parishioners, in order that these may be more readily instructed, and sooner become capable of receiving all the mysteries of our holy faith.

Moreover, considering the great abuses which his most illustrious Lordship has known from actual observation, and of which he has been informed with all certitude and proof, and the still worse losses, both temporal and spiritual, which have resulted to the persons of the unhappy Indians, with very great injury to their consciences and almost certain peril to the salvation of their souls, his most illustrious Lordship must command, and he did command, that the above-mentioned persons who are now the curas and ministers of the said villages, and those who shall officiate in them hereafter, shall not oblige their parishioners, for any cause or pretext, either personally or by any agent, to offer them anything for the administration of the holy sacrament of penance, especially throughout the season of Lent, in which the Indians ordinarily make their confessions in order to comply with the precept of the Church. And the said persons who now are, or shall hereafter be, curas of the said districts shall observe and fulfil all the above commands, under penalty of major excommunication, latæ sententiæ, ipso facto incurrenda, and of legal proceedings against their persons and goods with the fullest rigor of justice, in future visitations.

And his most illustrious Lordship, employing his pastoral kindness and clemency, and desiring to secure the salvation of his flock and the service of God our Lord, and the greater honor and glory of His Divine Majesty, granted and did grant forty days of indulgence to all the parishioners of the said villages; who, with devotion and desire to profit thereby, attend the explanation of the Christian doctrine in their parish churches. And in order that this may be made known to all the people, his most illustrious Lordship commanded and did command that the above persons who now are, and those who hereafter shall be, curas of the said districts shall make publication of the grant of the said forty days of indulgence, on every Sunday of the month, before or after the explanation of the Christian doctrine, always making known to their parishioners the great riches and strength contained therein, so that they may obtain and enjoy the indulgence with profitable results—in regard to which his most illustrious Lordship lays strict charge upon their consciences.

And considering that the visitas of the villages of San Pedro Tunasan and Biñan pertain to the cura of the said village of Tabuco, his most illustrious Lordship commanded and did command that the master Licentiate Don Manuel de Leon, proprietary cura of that village, cause this decree to be observed by his coadjutor, Bachelor Nicolas Godiño, in the said church and village of Biñan; and by Father Miguel de Salas, the present minister of the village of San Pedro Tunasan—sending each a copy, signed with his name, of this decree by his illustrious Lordship, which will be left, certified and authorized, in the book of burials, baptisms, and marriages of the said village of Tabuco. This being done, the said ministers, Bachelor Nicolas Godiño and Father Miguel de Salas, will also make in the books in their charge a certified copy of the decree—which is to be sent immediately, with autograph signature copied at the foot of the letter—so that it may be made known to all persons who hereafter shall be ministers and curas of the said districts, San Pedro Tunasan, Biñan, and Sancto Thomas. And by this decree, accordingly, the above is ordained and commanded, and it is signed by his most illustrious Lordship the archbishop, my master, as I attest.

Diego, archbishop of Manila.

Before me:
Francisco Sanctos de Oliveros, secretary.

The above, a copy from the original decree issued by his most illustrious Lordship the archbishop, my master, which is one of the acts of the visitation of the village of Tabuco—which are in my charge, and to which I refer—is a faithful, accurate, and truthful copy, corrected and compared. The witnesses to the copying, correction, and comparison were Licentiate Don Diego Martin de la Sierra and Bachelor Ignacio Gregorio Manasay, a cleric in minor orders; and this document is signed in this village of Calamba, on the said day and month and year. In attestation of its correctness, I sign it:

Francisco Sanctos de Oliveros, secretary.
Licentiate Don Manuel de Leon

[Another decree, dated December 7, 1698, concerns the curacy of Balayan, with its visitas the village of Nazugbu and the ranch of Lian; the curate there was Bachelor Don Juan de Llamas, with proprietary appointment. After a preamble like that of the former decree, this one continues thus, relative to the registers of the parish:]

He declared that he must command, and he did command, that the practice be continued, as hitherto, of the separation and division [of the records] in three different books: one for recording the baptisms and confirmations only, another for the marriages and nuptial benedictions,[16] and a third for the deaths; and that in no case should these be recorded in one book only; and that in the book of baptisms the names of the parents and the sponsors of the person baptized must always be set down, and whether he were a legitimate child; and note must be made of a child of unknown parents, or of the Church.[17] At the same time, they must never fail to set down in the margin the names of those who are baptized, and of the villages to which they belong, so that it may be easier to search for and find them. In no case shall men be allowed to stand as sponsors [saquen de pila] for women, or women for men, on account of the grave difficulties which have been experienced from this cause, especially among Indians. Moreover, in the records of weddings and burials must be set down the fees of the minister, so that in future visits it may be easy to compute the eighths[18] which belong to the churches, in consideration of having a new tariff to which their fees must conform. With this, in the said records must be noted in the margin the names of both deceased and married persons; and in every instance it must be explained whether the deceased person received the sacraments at the hour of death, and, if he did not receive them, the reasons therefor. Likewise, in the records of marriages not only must the names of the contracting parties be set down, and those of their parents, and those of their former consorts, if the parties are widowed; but also those of the witnesses who made affidavits in the investigations which always ought to precede a marriage—whether these be verbal, in the case of ordinary Indians; or in writing, when practice [in that art] enables this to be done. Thus, if at any time [19] preceded, which the law ordains.

Moreover, in the ministries of this province of Balayan his most illustrious Lordship has found another abuse introduced therein, that the curas and ministers of the Indian villages are accustomed to keep, for baptisms and burials, two crosses assigned for this use—one of wood, and the other of silver. The wooden one they take out for common baptisms and burials, and those of poor persons; and that of silver for the baptisms and burials of the rich—as if both crosses ought not to have the same value, veneration, and efficacy for the object to which they are directed; or as if the silver cross, on account of being of richer material, ought to be esteemed more highly than that of wood, on which died Christ our Redeemer (a thing which is disgraceful to be said or thought among Christians). Therefore his most illustrious Lordship, mindful of uprooting thoroughly this almost superstitious abuse, commanded and did command the persons who now are, or who shall hereafter be, curas in all the districts of this archbishopric that in no case and on no pretext shall they practice such a distinction; nor are they allowed to require or ask any fee on account of carrying the silver cross, whether at baptisms or burials: under penalty of major excommunication, latæ sententiæ, ipso facto incurrenda; and at any time when information is lodged of violation of this decree, proceedings will be instituted against the disobedient person with the fullest rigor of justice, without any excuse being allowed to shield him.

[Here follow the same commands and penalties as in the preceding decree, relative to the proper instruction of the people in Christian doctrine, and the prohibition of fees to the cura for the administration of the sacrament of penance. The decree continues:] Moreover, inasmuch as it is commanded, by a general decree of visitation, now obeyed and practiced by all the secular curas of this archbishopric, in fulfilment of a royal decree by his Majesty (whom may God keep), that the viaticum shall be carried to sick Indians in their own houses, and that they shall on no account be carried from their houses to the churches to receive it: therefore his most illustrious Lordship commanded and did command that the said decree shall be observed, fulfilled, and executed in this curacy of Balayan, and in its visita of Nazugbu and Lian. And, for its proper fulfilment, it is commanded that a reliquary be made of silver or gold, in order that when on any occasion there shall not be mode or form of the customary external pomp, the viaticum may be carried therein, as is commanded, to the sick; and warning is given that, on receiving notice of any violation of this decree, proceedings will be instituted against the disobedient person against whom there shall be legal cause.

All the above, contained and expressed in the present decree, his most illustrious Lordship commanded, and did command, must be observed, fulfilled, and executed by Bachelor Don Juan de Llamas, proprietary cura of this district of Balayan, and he must cause it to be observed, fulfilled, and executed by him who shall in the said cura’s place administer the holy sacraments in the villages of Nazugbu and Lian; and of his punctual obedience the said curate shall notify his most illustrious Lordship, at the first opportunity that shall occur, so that, in case what is here commanded shall not be duly and effectually carried out, his most illustrious Lordship may decide and ordain what may be expedient.

Moreover, notwithstanding his most illustrious Lordship has been informed of the exterior adornment of the church of the said villages of Nazugbu and Lian, yet, inasmuch as the books of receipts and expenses of the said church have not been shown, and are not clear, his most illustrious Lordship therefore commanded and did command that in that church shall be kept a book, in the first half of which shall be set down the following, beginning at the first page, with all the items clear, separate, and distinct, and with mention of the day, month, and year: the eighths of the fees for marriages and burials which shall be received from this time forward; and the legacies, and donations for pious works, which are made to the said church. Then, beginning at the middle of the book, must be set down in the second half of it, with the same details, the expenditures which shall be made for the church, in order that thus no confusion may arise, and that the accounts may be promptly settled in the future visit. By this act, therefore, his most illustrious Lordship decreed and commanded the above, and signed this paper, which I certify.

Diego, archbishop of Manila.

Before me:

Francisco Sanctos de Oliveros, secretary.

[Here follow certificates, written in the registers of burials and marriages respectively, that they have been duly inspected, and referring to the decree itself, which is written in the register of baptisms.]

Tariff

We, Doctor Don Diego Camacho y Avila, by the grace of God and of the holy Apostolic See, metropolitan archbishop of these Philippinas Islands, and ruler of the suffragan bishopric of Nueva Segovia, now vacant, and member of the Council of his royal Majesty. Desiring to fulfil the obligations of our ministry and pastoral office, and that by the government which is in our charge, especially in the administration of the holy sacraments, God our Lord may be followed and the faithful edified; and that every one of our curas and ministers who instruct the natives—not only in this city, but those of the other parishes outside its walls—and their sacristans, shall observe the integrity which is fitting in demanding the fees which shall belong to them on account of the functions of their ministries and offices, relieving their consciences as we do ours; and having examined the tariffs which our predecessors have fixed, and seeing the condition of these islands, we have decided to issue anew our mandate regarding the said statutes and tariffs; and we ordain that from this time forth, in demanding the said fees, the following order shall be observed:

Baptisms: For the baptisms the cura shall demand the candle or candles which those who can give them may furnish, not obliging them to pay a fee [capillo], or to give an offering of money or other things; but, if they voluntarily give any free offering,[20] the cura is authorized to take it.

Marriages: For publishing the banns, the fiscal shall ask for each one real, and he may not demand anything because the parties do not rise to their feet at the time when the banns are published. As for the natives and Morenos[21] who marry without receiving the nuptial benedictions, and shall come to the church or to the cura’s house, he shall not ask anything from them; but if the cura shall go, or send, or give permission for the marriage to be solemnized at their own homes, or in some other place, he shall ask three tostones for the effort and time spent in going to marry them in a place to which he is not obliged to go. If the cura shall go to their house, or to some other place where he is not under obligation to go, in order to marry any Japanese or Sangley, he shall ask two pesos, and, if it shall be outside of the parish, he shall ask three pesos.

Nuptial benedictions: He [i.e., the cura] shall ask thirteen reals from the dowry;[22] but if the parties are poor, they may commute this for four reals—and [the same] if the woman is a widow and has no dowry, provided she received the nuptial benedictions from the Church in the first marriage; but if she did not [thus] receive them, and have a dowry [she shall pay thirteen]. If several persons receive the benedictions at one mass, the cura shall ask from those who are blessed a peso from every one of them; and he shall be under obligation to say as many masses as there were persons blessed, during the following days, for their intention, because this [obligation to say mass] for two, or three, or more married pairs who receive the benedictions cannot be fulfilled by one mass.

Burials: For burials of children, with prayers read, when the cura goes to the house for this purpose he shall ask one peso and four tomins; but if the corpse is carried to the door of the church he shall ask only one peso. For every burial of children with prayers chanted, when the cura goes to the house for this purpose he shall ask only three pesos; and if the corpse be received with prayers chanted at the door of the church[23]—whether it be an Indian chief, a timagua, a Sangley, a Japanese, or a free negro, whom his friends desire to be interred with pomp and escort—and the cura shall go for the corpse to the house, he shall ask ten pesos; but if he shall receive it at the door of the church, and prayers be chanted, he shall ask two pesos. For every burial accompanied with prayers, of an Indian chief, a timagua, a Sangley, a Japanese, or a free negro, if the cura goes for it to the house he shall ask one peso and four tomins; and if he receives it at the door of the church he shall ask one peso. If the deceased were a slave to Spaniards, the cura shall ask one peso for his fee, and exactly six reals as a voluntary offering [limosna] for a mass; but if he were a slave to an Indian, the cura shall ask six reals as a fee, and four reals for the said offering. We charge it upon the consciences of the curas to say these masses for the slaves, and thus acquit our own conscience. For the cope which the cura may wear at burials he may receive one peso as an offering; but he shall not wear the cope when the parties do not ask for it. And for the halts[24] the cura, if he shall have chanted the prayers, shall ask a toston for each one, if the relatives of the deceased ask for them; but in no other way shall he obtain these fees. Item, for the mass sung on the day of the funeral, or funeral honors with responses, the cura may ask two and one-half pesos; and for chanting the office for the dead, two pesos and two reals. And for the novenary masses[25] which are said, with a response in each one, on account of the burial of the deceased, the cura may receive for each one a peso as offering; and the wax candles which remain at the end of the novenary for the burial belong to the cura. For masses provided for by will [missas de testamento], the cura may receive six reals each, and for those which are ordered to be said outside of the testamentary provision four reals each, as offerings. The curas must not consent to accept the candles that are carried by the persons who accompany the funeral, unless these persons leave the candles of their own accord, and present them as an offering; and if they do not thus give them up, the curas shall not ask anything from them. To each one of those who may assist the cura at any burial shall be given, if he is in holy orders, six reals and a candle; if he is not yet ordained, four reals and a candle. For any peal of the bells [repique] at the burials of children, or the tolling of the passing bell [doble], the cura shall ask four reals for the eighths [de octava], for the sacristy or the church.

Fees of the sacristans: For aiding at nuptial masses and the benediction,[26] the sacristan shall ask for each two reals. The sacristan may ask for carrying the processional cross with its veil,[27] for any burial, ten reals; and if afterward solemn mass be sung, he shall ask eighteen reals for the burial, and a peso for assisting at the mass; and if the cross be placed on the grave on the day of the funeral, he shall ask a peso. For the small cross carried, without its casing, and made of silver, he shall ask six reals; and for the ordinary cross of wood he shall ask two; and, if the deceased were the slave of an Indian, he shall ask one real. For burning incense at the funerals, when the parties ask for it, the sacristan shall ask two reals; and at the solemn masses he shall ask another two reals. For assisting at each anniversary mass founded in this church, which the cura says, the sacristan shall ask one peso. The sacristan is under obligation to assist the cura in the administration of the holy sacraments, and in the other matters pertaining to the ministry, as being his assistant; and if he fail in rendering such aid he shall ask only the half [of the usual fees], and the other half the cura shall divide between the person who shall assist in the sacristan’s place and the church fund for its sacristy. Either the sacristan or in his place some person not yet ordained, is under obligation to carry the cross at burials.

Singers: When the entire choir shall be summoned to any burial, they shall ask ten pesos for attending it; and if all the said choir assist at mass and the office for the dead [vigilia], they shall ask another ten pesos. When the [individual] singers shall go on call to any funeral, no more of them shall go than those who are asked for by the parties; and each singer shall ask one real. This is understood when they go not as a full choir, but in a group of three; and they shall not oblige the parties to give them candles, but may take these when the parties choose to give them. If only three singers assist at mass and the office for the dead, they shall ask three pesos for the mass, but not for the office.

We command that all these tariffs and statutes shall be observed and fulfilled to the letter by the said our curas for natives, in this city and in the rest of the parishes that are outside its walls, and by their sacristans, without transgressing them in any way—under penalty of four times the amount involved, incurred for every infraction, and of being punished in accordance with the law. And no other person, whatever his rank may be, shall dare to transgress these our mandates, under penalty of legal proceedings against him, under the penalties due to those who are disobedient. We command that the curas shall keep these said tariffs displayed and posted in some public place, where they can be read and understood by all persons. And that this may be evident for all time, we command to be issued and we do issue the present, signed with our name, and countersigned by our secretary, as undersigned. In our archiepiscopal palace at Manila, on the fifth day of the month of November in the year one thousand, six hundred and ninety-eight.

Diego, archbishop of Manila.

By command of his most illustrious Lordship the archbishop, my master:

Francisco Sanctos de Oliveros, secretary.

[Here follow several notarial attestations.]

Memorial by the religious orders

The lecturer Fray Jaime Mimbela, of the Order of Preachers, and definitor-general of the province of Santo Rosario; Fray Juan Antonio de San Agustin, an Augustinian Recollect; and Antonio Xaramillo, of the Society of Jesus—procurators-general of their provinces of Filipinas and holding powers of attorney for the holy orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, St. Augustine, the Society of Jesus, and the Recollect Augustinians who live in the said islands for the conversion of the infidels and the maintenance [in the faith] of those who are already converted therein—conforming to the new orders from their provincials which they have received (dated February 13 of the past year 1699), in regard to what has thus far been alleged and represented, make the following declaration:

[Sire:]

The reverend archbishop, Doctor Don Diego Camacho y Avila, having arrived at Manila in the month of September in the past year of 97, undertook, in officio officiando [i.e., “in fulfilling the functions of his office”], to visit the regulars who exercise the duties of parish priests, desiring that they do so by title of law,[28] subject to his jurisdiction. The said holy religious orders, having declined, on repeated occasions, to take upon themselves such a burden, making this known to the said reverend archbishop with all submission, were resolved to abandon all the Indian villages and districts [assigned to them], rather than to administer them in that manner. [They asked him], in order to preserve the tranquillity which had existed in those islands, that at least he would desist from his intention until the pope and your Majesty, being informed of the matter, should decide it: and represented to him that, taking everything into account, irreparable losses of souls would ensue from his persevering in his undertaking if the religious orders, in consequence of his violent acts, should retire [from the curacies]—since there were not secular priests to take the place of the religious in preaching and the administration of the sacraments, but it was not possible for the said reverend archbishop to yield to [even] these so serious representations, nor was he willing to wait for the decisions of [even] those so preëminent; on the contrary, he actually began the visitation. When the religious answered that now they were not parish priests, since they had resigned the Indian villages into the hands of their provincials, who had notified your vice-patron of it, the reverend archbishop took away two churches from the orders of St. Dominic and St. Augustine; and soon the commonwealth found itself in a storm, with confusion and affliction such as had never before been experienced in those islands. For within a week fifty religious who had acted as curas had retired to Manila, and orders had been given for the retirement of the others—which they would actually have done, if the courage of the reverend archbishop himself had not been taught by this experience, so costly and unnecessary, the truth of what had been often before represented to him, with so much humility and entreaty, by the religious.

From that time, troubles continued to crowd together until in all those islands the Catholic faith, as concerns God, and the vassalage of the Indians to your Majesty, were at the point of destruction; for in that country all the villages are inhabited by Indians alone, nor is there in them any Spaniard except the religious who is their minister—except here and there a village where resides some secular priest and the alcaldes-mayor of the provinces. Thus, the villages without the religious minister remain as dead, for divine worship and for vassalage, as the body without a soul is dead for vital functions.

This truth being so well known—as also is this other, that in the religious provinces of those islands there have been and are now many religious of distinguished virtues and learning, and very zealous for the salvation of souls—affairs have arrived at such a state, as is known by the said letters of February, 699, that the regulars refuse not only to be ordinaries [parrocos de justicia] and subject to the jurisdiction of the reverend archbishop, but also to act in that capacity in the manner which has been hitherto in vogue. They ask your Majesty, with the utmost possible reverence, to be pleased to regard them as exonerated from the responsibility which they hitherto have held of ministering as parish priests to the Indians, and to take measures that other persons may look after the Indians in the manner which the reverend archbishop desires; and that the religious for whom there is no room in the few convents and colleges which the religious orders possess in those islands may return to their own provinces—in accordance with what your Majesty commands, in one of his laws, for the consolation of the distressed religious in those kingdoms.

And since actions so grave in themselves and in their consequences as are these—the refusal of the regulars to be parish priests subject to the jurisdiction of the reverend archbishop, and their renunciation before your Majesty of the assignment of the territories allotted to them for ministrations—appear not to have originated only from disinclination, but to have sprung from [their claim to] liberty alone, their representatives set forth to your Majesty in this document the reasons and very weighty arguments by which they are constrained to act in both those proceedings. They also offer to present another, more copious, in which will be related in sequence and order all the occurrences and the exceedingly grievous injuries which the religious orders have suffered and still sustain, occasioned by the visitation of the curas. [It will also recount] the lands that they possess; the tithes[29] that the reverend archbishop has established; the testimonies and appeals that he has denied; the arrests that he has attempted; the banishments that he has urged [upon the Audiencia]; the very sharp reprimand that on account of him was given by your Audiencia to all the provincials together, with other religious of high standing, without permitting them to open their lips—and all with a method of procedure so unlike that which the pope, your Majesty, and your supreme Council employ on occasions like these, even in cases when there is certainty of guilt; and finally, the investigations which he makes to obtain information against them which he can use to carry out his purposes, and disturb them at Madrid and Roma, in this imposing [threats of] excommunication on the witnesses in order that everything may remain a secret, and the reputation of the religious orders be left more exposed to attack.

The reasons, then, which influence the religious not to be parish priests by title in Filipinas, subject to the jurisdiction of the reverend archbishop, are the following: First, because it is unquestionable, and cannot be in any way denied, that the office of parish priest, even with such exemption from [the jurisdiction of] the ordinary, is entirely accessory, and, besides, a heavy additional burden, to the religious estate—not only to that of monks, but even to that of the mendicant regulars; for, in order that they may minister in the said office, it has been necessary to obtain a pontifical dispensation or arrangement, which is founded on important reasons. And this [is a fact], if we consider only what the religious state demands of its followers, as is made plain by the general exemption and the teaching of holy men. If this mode of administering [the curacies] be changed, and the regular who is a parish priest must remain, in what concerns that office, under the jurisdiction of the ordinary, subject to his correction and visitation, and in the other matters subject to the superior of his religious order, it would be a change and condition of affairs so remarkable that, in regard to his estate and his profession of life, the religious would change his nature—for he would be like one cleft in twain, if subject in some cases to one superior and in others to another, the two of differing ecclesiastical rank; and the consequences would be perilous, as will be considered later. In view, then, of a change which would so seriously affect their estate, all the regulars of Filipinas declare that, just as one’s state of life is chosen so as to lead to salvation only when it is chosen through the influence and vocation of God, who calls and inclines one to it, and that one’s choice goes astray when it is made through other motives, so, when after choice has been made of the state and profession of life some other circumstance arises which not only oppresses that state, but changes its very nature—with new responsibilities, new obligations, new superiors, and new modes of government full of dangers and difficulties—and, above all, the rule which he professes, no one can safely add to his mode of life a condition so unusual, if God do not incline and call him to it. The religious of Filipinas declare that they have no such vocation or inclination for being parish priests by title, subject to the ordinary; and that without it they cannot expose themselves to so many dangers, with evident risk of being ruined thereby. They say that neither when they entered the religious life nor when they made their confession did they read among the obligations to which they submitted that of being parish priests, and much less that of being such by title, and subject to the ordinaries; on the other hand, they understood that the Apostolic See had exempted them from it. They assert also that on going from Europa to the Filipinas they knew that the regulars never had ministered to the Indians, nor were they then doing so, as being dependent upon the ordinaries, but with pontifical jurisdiction, remaining in all matters subject to the visitation and correction of their provincials; therefore they must necessarily censure and refuse now this new administration and attempted subjection, which they did not profess and to which God did not call them.

Nor do the precedents [brought forward] from America militate against this argument when it is said that there is but one and the same rule, and one and the same form of government, in essentials, for the religious order or orders whose sons find themselves in America and in Filipinas; for those who are in those islands say, with all esteem and reverence, that there are some things more suitable to be admired than imitated, and that, while they admire the courage [of those in America], they confess that they do not possess courage to imitate them in this matter. They add that, if in America and Filipinas a religious order is one and the same, likewise throughout the world the faith and the church of Jesus Christ is one and the same; and nevertheless, if a Catholic, simply because he had chosen an estate of life, should exhort all others to embrace the same, it would not be judicious counsel, or in conformity to the spirit of God; for that Spirit inspires, influences, and calls whomsoever He will, choosing some for an occupation, and dissuading others from that same employ. And thus it is evident, likewise, that in the one religious order some have a vocation for going from Europa to the Indias, and others have not. Then why cannot the same occur in regard to being or not being parish priests subject to the ordinary?

The reverend archbishop of Manila himself has given and still gives to the religious orders of Filipinas a very striking and conclusive example in this regard: for before he left España he knew very well in what way the regulars acted as curas in those islands, but he neither renounced the archbishopric in España, nor gave up going to the islands. He knew also that the being united as a spouse to the church of Manila is not an accessory matter, but is wholly essential to the state of being its archbishop; and that other prelates have gone thither without attempting what he claims. Nevertheless, he has asked in the royal Audiencia permission to return to España; and now he writes resigning the archbishopric, and asking that he may be allowed to come here to live and die in retreat in a cell. If it is because the religious who are parish priests are not subject to his jurisdiction that he offers this resignation—by which he abandons all that belongs to his position, and the state of life that he chose—how much greater reason the religious will have to imitate him, since even when they give up the curacies they remain wholly in the estate of religious which they professed. If he makes this renunciation in order to avoid controversies, and aspires to live and die in a cell, much more natural is this desire of the religious to live and die peacefully therein, without obliging themselves to endure those controversies; for they do not accept under compulsion a new estate to which God does not call them. Likewise, [they decline] if, in order to adopt such a model of life, their rule must be the pleasure of the archbishop, and not the inspiration of God.

As little is this first argument overcome by [the assertion] that the civil law provides that the regular who is a parish priest is immediately subject, in what pertains to that office, to the visitation and correction of the ordinary. For, laying aside the fact that such a law can be abrogated by the supreme pontiff—as actually was done by Pius V after the holy Council of Trent, and afterward confirmed by Urban VIII; and this very procedure is supported by various declarations of the most eminent cardinals—when there is a lack of secular priests (as is the case in Filipinas, where for eight hundred parishes, the approximate number of those in existence, there are hardly sixty seculars in number, and still fewer who have abilities for giving instruction and learning languages): laying all this aside, the religious assert that the civil law which commands such subjection must be understood in the case that the religious who are administering curacies, without being subordinate to the ordinary, desire to continue thus, being parish priests; but it does not order that they be compelled by violence and force to enter that relation. And if a secular cleric, to whom with canonical and rigorous institution is given a perpetual curacy, can, notwithstanding this, renounce such curacy, nor on that account be disqualified by the law as long as he lives in immediate subjection to one superior only, who is his bishop: how or for what reason can the reverend archbishop of Manila claim that the religious cannot peaceably make the same renunciation, in order to avoid the risk of having so many superiors? As the religious hold the Indian villages not as proprietaries, but removable ad nutum, other persons could, for no better reason than their own wishes, deprive the religious of those ministries, even though the latter live therein with the sanctity of their holy founders; and is it possible that, when only the will of another person is sufficient to prevent them from being curas, the divine inspiration and their own self-reproach will not be sufficient for them?

The second reason that the religious in Filipinas have for refusing to be parish priests by title, subject to the ordinary, is that no exact idea of this virtue of justice has been formed in considering the method in which efforts have been made to constrain the religious by it. For either they are or they are not capable of being really parish priests, like the secular clerics. If they are, they do not accept the parish under any obligation of justice; and even when this is conferred on them with canonical institution, they nevertheless do not remain ordinaries, as are the secular clerics; for in the latter, in order to secure a proprietary benefice, the only points considered are the ability to serve as cura, the obligation of law [justicia] to which they submit, and the canonical collation with which they are inducted into the parish. Including all this in the said supposition, the religious cannot well understand why, after all that, they do not remain proprietary parish priests. As little do they understand how the said ability, obligation of law, and canonical institution can make a secular priest a perpetual cura—so that if his conduct does not render him unworthy the curacy cannot be taken from him, either by ordinary or vice-patron alone, or by both together; while a religious who enters the curacy with the same formalities is not competent for the same perpetuity, but only for such tenure, even in his own territory, that even if he conduct himself as a saint the ordinary and vice-patron can, if agreed, deprive him of his benefice and give it to another; that is, even after that obligation and solemnity he is a parish priest removable ad nutum.

The religious also consider that although the virtue of justice is one for all, and alike for all, and the efficacy of canonical institution is also one for persons who are qualified for the same office, to the secular cleric with the onerous duty of parish priest is given all that can favor him; but to the religious, while the entire burden is laid upon him, all his energy is checked on account of not giving him all which can relieve that burden. This is all placed upon the religious, for his responsibility for the feeding of his sheep confines him to a district in such a way that his own provincial cannot, by his own agency alone, change his district without first resorting to the ordinary and the vice-patron, to secure their consent. In this way there is a notable decrease of obedience, and the regular observance of the rule which he professed is greatly disturbed; and many, continual, and insupportable annoyances are heaped upon the provincials. The religious loses in great part the privilege of his exemption; he remains subject, in so far as he is a cura, to investigations, complaints, visitations, and penalties from the ordinary; and with all these burdens he has not the comfort of being secure in his parish, even if his conduct do not render him unworthy of it, because he does not hold it in perpetuity, as the secular does. He is not master of the emoluments which the curacy yields, nor are they in justice due to him as to the secular, unless he pretends that he is dispensed from the essential vow of poverty. Then, if the religious is capable of being a parish priest, and that by title of law, as is the secular, who has given to justice and to canonical collation such efficacy as with them to furnish to the secular what is honorable[30] and favorable, yet has so divided it as to impart to the regular what is detestable, while yet denying him what may console him?

[Even] if it be granted that the regular is not competent, on account of his estate, for being a proprietary parish priest, why is it so strictly required of him to enter the curacy with the same formalities and ceremony as those with which the clerics enter? Such incompetency will be the best justification for the repugnance which the religious feel for being curas in the manner which the archbishop insists on.

The third reason is, that if the convents and colleges which the religious maintain in Manila be broken up, it can be said with truth that there are no other houses of religious community [in the colony]; for although there are seven other houses besides—in Cavite, Cebu, Oton, and Yloilo—divided among the religious orders of St. Dominic, St. Augustine, the Society of Jesus, and the Recollects, yet these convents and colleges are so small that in each of them there are only two or three residents. All the rest of the said provinces is composed of Indian villages, [each] served by one minister only; and these are such as can be gathered from their respective bishoprics, the cathedrals of which neither have nor are capable of having dignities, canonries, and other prebends. This being admitted, if the ministers in Indian villages remain subject to the ordinary, as the provinces are composed almost wholly of such ministers alone, and for their removal would then be necessary the agreement of the ordinary and the vice-patron, some provinces would come to be dependent, in the name of religious government and in the exercise of secular government, on the wills of those two persons, to whom the religious did not in their profession promise obedience or subjection.

Then if either of the two, whether the bishop or the governor, were displeased with any religious order, or with any minister—and especially if it were the governor, whose power in those islands cannot be explained, except by their remoteness—in such case they could on very specious pretexts either maintain or remove the minister against the will of his provincial; and even they could, if necessary, threaten the latter with either censures or banishment, to make that religious order conform to their authority. How fruitful a source this may be of perdition and total ruin for the religious orders, all can recognize; but only those who have had experience in those islands can fully comprehend it.

The fourth reason: for we have already taken for granted their subjection and canonical institution. If a religious who is a minister commit a transgression, and his offense apparently belongs on the one side to morals and life, and on the other to the office of cura, the poor minister remains in the condition of those goods which we call mostrencos, on account of their belonging to the first person who takes possession of them—and even in a much worse condition, on account of the controversies which must naturally ensue. For if the provincial begins legal proceedings in the matter, and afterward information of it is given to the reverend archbishop, the latter issues a decree—and, if it be necessary, a censure—commanding the said provincial to revoke all of his proceedings, surrender the case to him, and abandon it; that is to say, the right of judicature belongs to him alone. The provincial appeals to the judge-delegate of his Holiness, who, in order to obtain full information about the case, commands the reverend archbishop, with the threat of censure, to desist from the cause, and surrender the documents. If the latter do not obey, the affair may reach the point where two ecclesiastical prelates mutually excommunicate each other, and [the colony] is menaced with an interdict and the cessation of divine worship. This is not discussing an imaginary thing, but is relating that which has just occurred in Manila in a like case—where, in order to prevent the regulars from withdrawing from their curacies, [the archbishop] imposed on the provincials the penalties of excommunication and a fine of 2,000 pesos; and conversely, the reverend archbishop and the delegate of his Holiness likewise excommunicated each other. The commonwealth was disquieted by these occurrences, not knowing where these things would end if the interdict which the delegate threatened were carried out, since he was followed by the religious orders; for nearly all the laymen lean on the orders—making their confessions to the religious, receiving instruction from their teaching and example, and with their counsels calming the scruples of their consciences. In consequence, it would necessarily follow that in case of an interdict and cessation of divine services the entire archdiocese would be left in most lamentable condition; and without doubt this would have occurred, if it had not been for the kindly nature of the delegate and the urgent importunities to desist from this purpose that were addressed to him by the religious. For, since at the cost of innumerable martyrdoms and other hardships they had established the faith in those islands, they sought to avert the danger that it would be impaired, even though this should be at the cost of contempt for themselves.

It must be added to all the above that if these contentions and troubles which are suffered in those islands could be promptly ended without going outside of them, toleration in enduring them would be less difficult. But this is not so; but these troubles leave behind them their consequences, and chains that are very long and heavy, which are only fit to drag along those who choose to become slaves to the curacies in Filipinas. For in such cases letters are written by the governor, the archbishop, the Audiencia, and the religious orders to Madrid, and by some of these to Roma also; and terrible controversies take shape, with public scandal in both courts. The parties are in every way exhausted, and the judges are harassed until the [royal] decree in the case is provided: first, because such decree is provided for regions so remote, and after it is issued arrives there [so late], that those evils are throwing out many roots, and these produce anew other discords and evils worse than the first. And since it is a fact that, although according to the divine oracles, it is not fitting either for the bishop to be contentious, or for the minister of souls to preach the gospel in any other way than that of peace, the religious orders, in place of experiencing in Filipinas, as it were, peace with the fruit of tranquillity, do not find this at the present time; but they are burning in a glowing forge, which only throws out sparks of discord and dissension. The religious orders, Sire, had already made peace among themselves, and are at this day maintaining and always will maintain it; for they trust in God that it will be so, and the bitter experience of past years has pointed this out as a great blessing. Thus, when the reverend archbishop arrived here all was quiet and peaceful, but within little more than two months after his arrival there was nothing but unrest and disorder—and this because the religious had told him, with all courtesy and humility, that they would sooner give up the ministries of instruction than hold them in the manner that he desired. Herein, which side proceeded most comformably to reason? the religious who peaceably leave the curacies, in order to avoid disputes; or the reverend archbishop who causes these contentions, and who sends to Madrid and Roma in order to obtain that the regulars shall be by force and violence parish priests subject to his own jurisdiction? In view, then, of disadvantages so serious, what religious is there, devoted to his profession, who will consent to be a parish priest in Filipinas? Who will leave his province in Europa, the retirement and peace of his community, to go, with the perils of two ocean voyages, in search of controversies so wearisome and noisy over a calling which he did not profess? Herein the religious of Filipinas admit that they have taken warning by what has occurred in America, that they ought to learn a lesson from it and be cautious about having another head.

The fifth reason: If a regular who is a parish priest transgresses, and on account of secret faults becomes unworthy of continuing in his ministry, yet if he remains in it his salvation may incur a very special peril. The provincial has secret knowledge of the case. Here justice demands two things: one, the punishment of the fault; the other, that the delinquent shall not be rendered infamous. Charity, (and even justice itself) demands also that the provincial shall, because of his office, remove his subordinate from that risk. If this regular who acts as parish priest were administering his functions without canonical institution or subjection to the ordinary, as is done in the Filipinas Islands, the provincial could with the greatest ease settle the whole matter, and justice and charity be satisfied, without disgrace to the delinquent and without a stigma on the religious order. But when the regular who is a parish priest is subject to the ordinary, the provincial cannot remove him by his own authority alone; and it is necessary for him to resort to that very ordinary and to the vice-patron, and that the two agree on the removal of the offender. And, in such case, what has the provincial to say to them? If it be answered that by keeping the case entirely secret the provincial becomes a sharer in the guilt of his subordinate, he and the superiors of the religious orders declare, with all submission and humility, that they refuse to put in practice such a form of theology. Can the ordinary acting alone, can the governor, the father, and the master, each alone, punish and correct the fault—of a priest, of a citizen or a soldier, of children, of servants—without the least injury to the culprit’s honor; and a provincial, who can in innumerable ways do the same with any subordinate of his, be obliged to leave the offender in disgrace with the heads of the community, ecclesiastical and secular? The religious orders would sooner remove [from the islands], to transplant themselves to Europa, than submit to so heavy a burden.

If it be said that the provincial need not state the offense, but in general terms assert only that he has cause for removing the cura, even that would not avoid the difficulty: First, because the authorities may think that the provincial says so, in order to carry a point for a custom of long standing. Second, even though the cause for removing him is not a fault, it will be readily said [that it was one]; and if the person himself does not make further explanation, in such case the result will be that the fault will be made public by his silence. And finally, one’s honor is a very delicate thing, and is usually much injured by rumors and suspicions alone. And since God renders the religious exempt from the secular judges, and the Apostolic See from the ordinaries, the regulars represent that, as they have not professed to be curas, they do not feel courage to fill that office with so many risks and burdens.

The sixth reason: The object for which the religious are in the curacies is the salvation of souls; and there is no room for doubt that for such a purpose the religious will be all the more fit and competent an instrument the more he shall unite with the office of cura the regular observance. This greater union, it is certain, lies in the method of being curas which has hitherto prevailed, and not in that which the archbishop is attempting; for with subjection to him the cura does not depend so much on the regular superior, nor can the latter freely command him as before, and thus the obedience [of the religious] is greatly diminished and injured, without which no one deserves the name of religious. [Also the observance of] poverty is at great risk; for since the cura ministers through the obligation of justice and canonical institution, and this is not given to him by the religious order but by the ordinary, some of the curas might argue that since the order permits this to them, it also permits them to be masters, in whole or in part, of all the emoluments; and that with entire freedom, without subjection to or permission from their superiors, they can spend or dispose of these revenues as they please. This is a danger which is most prolific of innumerable others, and in all lines. Their chastity also is much less secure, because it is attacked by solitude, by the license which this occasions, by the natural compliance of the Indians, and by that almost perpetual tenure which in many ministries in America is experienced through the obligation of justice and canonical institution under which they are administered; and on account of the difficulty which thus arises in securing removals, sensuality does not find that remedy of flight which St. Paul lays down so prompt and easy as it would be if the parish priest depended only on his provincial.

And, finally, the religious do not, by assuming the habit as such, strip themselves of the passions of men. There might be one or more for whom the subjection and mode of life in a religious community becomes wearisome; and such men, knowing that a cura cannot be removed from the mission parish without the agreement of the ordinary and the vice-patron, undertake to gain the good-will of those authorities by letters and other means, and for the same object to win the friendship of officials and dependents, so that these may exert influence in order to preserve them in the curacies. And thus gradually they become rooted in their liking for a life that is solitary and independent, and will reach a state in which they give up the mission parish with grief, because they hold it through love for the conveniences of life, and more as very secular men of the world than as religious or as ministers to souls. In that case the religious orders could say that they had lost fervent sons, and the ordinaries that they had not made zealous curates.

All this is avoided when the regulars serve as parish priests in the same manner as they do now in the Filipinas; for they are wholly dependent on their superiors, and cannot dispose of anything without their permission. If it be expedient for them to go to some other place, there is no difficulty in changing their residence; and as they have not that security of perpetual tenure, their only care is for their ministries, the door being closed to unworthy measures and claims. Hence it follows that this mode of holding curacies is more in accordance with the three vows and the other statutes that aim at the perfection that is proper for the regulars, and consequently at the salvation of the souls[31] for whom they care.

The seventh and last reason—omitting others, either because they are included in those already mentioned, or because they may readily be deduced from those—is supported by authority. Let the histories of the Indias be read, and the laymen and ecclesiastics who have written about them; all agree in raising very serious doubts whether the regulars should be parish priests or not, and much more whether they should be so with title. [These writers] noted many decisions, in which entire provinces—composed of religious who were influential, experienced, learned, and zealous—resolved in their chapter-meetings that the mission curacies should be given up; many [opinions by] generals of those same orders, who approved that proceeding; and others, by various distinguished men, who expostulated against the acceptance of such an encumbrance by their religious order. [They have also noted] faults which they contemplated with tears—interminable discords, which banished all tranquillity and peace; and innumerable other damages, which, even the secular writers on the Indias admit, have made the regulars tremble.

If he who sees from

With these reasons, three arguments of which the reverend archbishop entertains a high opinion lose their force. One is, to argue [thus] in this dilemma: Either the regulars who are parish priests conduct themselves well and fulfil their obligations as such, or they do not. If this last, it is not right that it be permitted, nor that there be any failure to reform with the visitation which he is trying to enforce. If in all respects they fulfil their obligations, what matters it if he visits them, approves their proceedings, and praises them in his report to the king? And with this mode of argument he casts suspicion on the regulars, as if they had faults or failings as parish priests to conceal.

Answer is made, first: that the religious who are curas conduct themselves well in their ministries, and strive so far as their powers extend, for the salvation of their parishioners; and that what holds them back from being parish priests subject to the reverend archbishop is not the fear caused by [the question of] behavior, but dread of the inconveniences and dangers above recounted, which it is not easy to explain.

Answer is made, second: that in Manila and Cavite—which is distant two leguas from this city, and where only the secular priests are curas—the reverend archbishop has precedents very effectual for ascertaining the consequences of the way in which the religious behave in their curacies. For in those two places, where they have no obligations as curas, they are the ones who carry the burden of the day and of the summer’s heat; they alone (or almost alone) are the ones who administer throughout the year the sacraments of penance and communion—to Spaniards, Indians (Tagálogs, Pampangos, and Visayans), mestizos, Cafres, and other peoples who resort thither; they alone keep laborers set aside for this task; they alone preach frequently. It is they who carry on missions; they who dispense the divine word and explain the Christian doctrine in the guard-rooms of the soldiers and [among those stationed] at the gates of the city; they to whom the slaves from the foundry resort; [they who minister to] the prisoners in the jail, and the poor in the hospitals, and the seminaries of La Misericordia and Sancta Potenciana. It is they who in their churches have separate sermons for the Spaniards, for negroes, and for Indians; it is they who are almost continually going forth, by day and by night, to the sick and the dying, whatever the weather may be. Then who can imagine that where the religious, without being curas, have the inclination and zeal to aid the secular curas and the reverend archbishop themselves, relieving so greatly the burden of their obligations, they will neglect their duties in the villages, where the souls have been entrusted to their care alone?

Answer is made, third: that just as the reverend archbishop by his arguments strives at Madrid and Roma to subject the regulars to his visitation in what concerns them as parish priests, he may also plan to subject them in all that concerns morals and life. “For if they behave ill, it is not right to permit such conduct; and if their conduct is exemplary, what matter is it if he visits them, and approves them, in order to report on them with praises?” The reply which the reverend archbishop will make to this argument can with more reason be applied as the reply and solution to his own. The religious orders add that, even though the praises of the reverend archbishop are and always will be worthy of the utmost appreciation, yet they set a much greater value on following the counsel of the apostle about each man abiding in his own calling[32]—which was not to be curas—than to be curas and obtain those praises with the risk of the troubles that have been considered.

Nor is it right, by the same mode of argument as that of the reverend archbishop, that the religious orders should not further make evident the importance of their justice and of their labors. This prelate greatly resented that the reverend bishop, the delegate and judge of his Holiness for cases of appeals, should go to Manila and exercise his functions, issuing various acts; and the said reverend archbishop also took steps to have the delegate depart immediately from his archbishopric, and said (and wrote to Europa) that the religious orders were trying to keep the delegate there as their judge-conservator. It is here where his own argument presses: either the procedure of the reverend archbishop was just, or it was not. If it were just, what did it matter that he had before him a judge with authority from the pope, and must deliver to this judge the documents which he demanded, so that as a judge so superior he might confirm them, and make a report on them with commendations? If the archbishop’s conduct were not just, as little just was it that he should go beyond his obligation, in order to obstruct rightful jurisdiction.

The reverend archbishop also refused to the religious orders all the copies of documents and the attested statements which they asked from him in regard to the visitation which he planned and began, but from which he desisted. If what the reverend archbishop did and decreed was just, what mattered it that he should command the said copies and statements to be given to parties so eminent and worthy of respect as were five religious provinces? If it were not just, why were these decrees made and executed?

Another argument of which the reverend archbishop avails himself is, to say that if the regulars who are parish priests do not submit to his visitation and jurisdiction, he will finally be a [mere] bishop de anillo.[33] Answer is made, first, that even if this were the case (which, however, it is not), the reverend archbishop would not have any reason to complain in this particular, as, according to the law, no wrong is done to him who, before entering on any negotiation, acquaints himself with it and determines it beforehand.[34] For while he was yet in España he knew that the regulars in Filipinas were not parish priests by title, nor subject as such to the ordinary; and if with this knowledge he decided to go to Manila in order to be its metropolitan archbishop he ought to take for granted what has been proved by experience, and not wonder that the regulars, convinced by so effective arguments, are, constrained by these, giving up the native curacies, in order not to be ministers of instruction at so much risk. Nor will any one grant that reason countenances the reverend archbishop more in trying to secure the extension of his authority than it does the religious in maintaining themselves as much as possible in what they had professed.

Answer is made, second: that, not by commission but by his own proper jurisdiction, the reverend archbishop can administer confirmations throughout his archbishopric; act as judge of all matrimonial cases among the Indians, and those affecting the rest of his flock, in the same manner and the same cases as he could if secular priests were the curas over them; and ordain priests and consecrate oils—with many other things. The exemption of the regulars does not hinder these, nor can a bishop who is only titular exercise these functions merely through his own choice; and thus the reverend archbishop does not come to be such a prelate.

And, finally, according to Christian maxims the religious ought to measure the choice of a new form of life, not by the question whether the reverend archbishop has or has not more or less under his jurisdiction, but by other and loftier principles, which concern salvation and the means [to attain it], which they have already chosen, by rule and vows, in order to attain with these that final end. And the religious of Filipinas declare that if his Reverence the archbishop refuses to live [in those islands] and be their prelate, because he has not all the authority that he desires, they refuse the said form of [serving as] parish priests, in order to avoid the controversies and perils here stated, so as to live in the quiet of their profession and by means of it to secure more peaceably their eternal salvation.

If the reverend archbishop shall urge the precedents of some religious orders in America in regard to the said matter, the religious orders of Filipinas state further, besides what is said above, that those who gave up the mission villages in America furnish a more effective example than do those who remained in those posts subject to the ordinary. They also add that for this case more to the purpose are the precedents of all the reverend archbishops and bishops of Filipinas—of no one of whom it is known, it should be said, that he was an archbishop or bishop de anillo. Many of them were entirely satisfied at seeing the good work that was wrought in their flocks by the religious orders, and thanked them and greatly honored them; and even though some few of them desired what the present reverend archbishop is attempting to secure, yet on hearing the arguments of the regulars the prelates contented themselves with informing the Council—without that body changing the former mode, or the prelates breaking forth in violence as has been seen in this present time. Then, even if the reverend archbishop is somewhat influenced by precedents of certain religious orders in America, it seems as if he ought to be convinced by those of his predecessors and the others who were suffragan bishops in those islands.

The third argument is, that as the regulars who are parish priests are not under his jurisdiction, he cannot feed his sheep as it behooves him to do, or give account of them to God, with due certainty; accordingly he claims that the regulars of Filipinas should be compelled not to leave their flocks, and should be forced under his jurisdiction. Answer is made, first, that the reverend archbishop can, whenever it shall please him, apply himself to an inspection of the Indian villages, even those that are furthest from Manila, and view the aspect of his flock—who will be greatly edified to see that an archbishop undergoes the inconveniences of small boats, and traverses dangerous tracts of sea and land, for their spiritual good, as the provincials do. Then if he will have taken the trouble to learn some languages, as the religious have done, in order to dispense to them the divine word, to hear their confessions, give them communion, and the sacrament of confirmation, and the rest that they require: then he can obtain information about the religious and the spiritual state of the villages, give such commands to the Indians as he shall please, and confer with the ministers on all that concerns the salvation of souls; and not only can he, but he has the right to do so. It cannot be doubted that this would be a rich nourishment [to his flock], and that these actions of an archbishop are compatible with his not having jurisdiction over the regulars; and it would be a great pity if all this, which is so proper for a prelate, should fail simply because the regular in his curacy remains with the exemption which the Apostolic See has granted to him.

In view of these actions which he can perform, the reverend archbishop will attach less importance to his not visiting judicially the regular who is a parish priest because the latter remains outside of his jurisdiction; but it may well be believed that the regular keeps the sacrament, the holy oils, and the baptismal font in decent condition; that there are registers of baptisms, burials, and marriages; that the Christian doctrine is explained to all the people together, and to the children separately, as also to the larger boys and girls, and all at different times; that not only in times of sickness and of danger of death, but in health and safety, the sacraments are administered to those who ask for them; and that other things are done which are proper for the ministers who are curas. These functions, as they have a public interest in themselves for the whole village, are known throughout it; and even if any detail should be neglected, the reverend archbishop may well believe that neither the provincial nor the other responsible officials of the provinces who are designated to watch, make decisions, punish, or reward, for the general good, will wish to be censured for it.

The reverend archbishop does not doubt that in the church of God the holy religious orders form a very numerous assembly, and that their sons, every one, are the sheep of the supreme shepherd, the pope, who has exempted them from the [jurisdiction of the] ordinaries, unburdening his own conscience, and trusting to the vigilance of the generals, and other superiors—to whom, as to the guardians of souls, he has handed over those of the individuals [who form] the rest [of the order]. It has not occurred to any one that on account of this exemption the popes cannot feed the universal flock, or appear with safety before the tribunal of God; and experience has shown the extraordinary benefits which have resulted from it to the church and to the religious orders themselves. Why, then, where the vicars of Christ are secure, will not an archbishop be so too?

On account of merely the expectation of a great harvest in the Indias many popes conferred on the regulars the authority to be parish priests, with complete independence from the ordinaries, rendering null and void whatever the latter might do in opposition to this privilege. No one has said that by this the supreme pontiffs placed the ordinaries in danger of rendering their accounts to God unsatisfactorily, or hindered them from feeding and edifying their flocks; and the result itself has given testimony, with the great success of the propagation of the gospel, how successful has been that method of having the regulars as curas, seeing that the hope of a harvest has now grown to be its actual possession, and realms so extensive have been conquered. And therefore the reverend archbishop of Manila might have had confidence in commands so sovereign—especially in that of Pius V, whose brief is now in full force in Filipinas, as on the first day when it was issued; and even the motive therefor, since there is so great a deficiency of secular priests that, if the regulars should be lacking, the faith would perish in islands so widespread, and the people would be as much heathens and idolaters as before.

Answer is made, second: that the generals, the provincials, and the main body of the provinces say the same in regard to the religious who have professed their rule, that the latter are sheep also of the flocks that God has placed in their charge, so long as the government remains in their hands; and whatever care and attention the reverend archbishop of Manila may give to his sheep the Indians, the regular prelates will give to their subordinates in regard to the same account which they will have to render for these to God.

But with a very important difference: for the Indians who are not converted are under the most serious obligations to join the assembly of those who are already converted, and for this object can be forced to hear the divine word; and those who have heard and believed it [can be obliged] not to forsake what they believed, or depart from the bosom of the Church, for it is not possible to be saved in any other manner. And when for the attainment of two objects so great as these there are no secular priests, and there are only religious, who have attained those ends and are still doing so while they are exempt curas, it would seem to be also the greatest obligation of the ordinary to reconcile himself with such curas, in order not to deprive the Church or defraud the blood of Christ of so much fruit.

The religious cannot be forced in the manner which has been stated to be curas subject to the ordinary, for besides the estate of the Christian they have already professed that of the religious order; and therein, without this force and violence, it is quite compatible that the religious should be thoroughly subject and obedient to their orders, and under their visitation and correction, and at the same time as parish priests through charity only, as temporary curas [interinos], and as assistants and coadjutors of the ordinaries, may render them great service, minister to the Indians, attract others who are infidels who thus may receive ministrations, and approve themselves to all—just as if they were parish priests by title, without the risks and difficulties that have been considered.

For the reverend archbishop, then, to ask now—when without any force all this great and well-known benefit to the church in Filipinas may be restored—that the religious be threatened and compelled not to leave those islands, and accept in them another and new calling, so full of peril, and that other religious shall go thither from Europa to the same life—and all in order that he may have greater authority—this is a great deal to ask, and is not at all in his favor before the tribunal of God. Who shall give account to His Divine Majesty of the spiritual detriment that must ensue to fifty parishes, abandoned for [even] a week—without mass, without instruction, and without sacraments for little ones and adults, for the sick and the dying? Over and over, before the affair reached this point, the religious set forth all these injurious effects, and protested against them to the reverend archbishop; and that they were not under obligation [to do this], to the peril and [even] ruin of their own souls, and that of their profession, [which was] to attend to the souls of others. Nevertheless, the reverend archbishop pursued his undertaking, and the religious retired [from their curacies]; the former was done merely to have [his own] will, the latter through necessity based on all that has been stated. Whose part, then, will it be to render account of such a result, and to fear to do so? It is certain that, according to the apostle, power and jurisdiction is not for destruction but for edification.

The reverend archbishop is not ignorant of the necessity for baptism; nevertheless, no adult can be forced to receive it. The profession of a religious is null, if any notable force intervened to bring it about; and marriage is of no validity if a person wholly free were in like manner compelled to marry. For these estates demand liberty, and, no less, inspiration from God; and there is nothing of this where there is only force and violence, for then the estate which was to be a means for salvation is converted by such compulsion into a snare and destruction. For one who is not a parish priest by title to become one is a change of no less importance than for a bachelor to marry, or a layman to become a religious; and for the reverend archbishop to claim that, where others are free, the religious should be forced into a mode of life full of risk, and for an object which can be secured without that compulsion, is to extend his claims further than perhaps he is aware, and to accumulate more material for the account that he so greatly fears. For one thing, [his idea] that, even supposing that the regulars are willing to be curas, they can be forced into subjection, and this would be more tolerable; and, for another, that if they do not choose, for all the reasons here stated, to be curas, ecclesiastical and secular authorities may use violence to make them enter the office of curas by title—and this is very far from what Holy Writ, the general councils, and the holy fathers teach, upon which there is ample material for volumes.

The religious orders are greatly surprised that the reverend archbishop, occupied with zealous cares for feeding his sheep, and by holy fear regarding his account to God, should break out with acts of violence against the religious only—and not do so in order that secular priests should go from Europa or from Nueva España to be parish priests in Filipinas; and that his Majesty may give to the said seculars, for their travels and voyages, the aid that he grants for the same purpose to the religious. If they should constrain the reverend archbishop to state why he does not ask or seek this for the seculars, the world would know what the religious orders have accomplished and merited in the Filipinas, and what they are still doing; and it would also know that, although in the words of Christ the laborer is worthy of wages and recompense, in place of any new remuneration to the said religious orders the reverend archbishop is attempting by his claims to introduce them into a labyrinth of entanglements, discords, and dissensions.

Granted, now, the fundamental reasons why the regulars have refused to be parish priests subject to the ordinary, and [preferred] to leave the mission villages rather than serve them in such a manner, the greatest affliction of the religious orders in Filipinas goes further. Their provincials, in the last conference which they held (as they notify us by letters of February in the past year of 699), resolved that these petitioners should, as their attorneys and in the names of them all, offer before your Council of the Indias an absolute renunciation of the allotment of all the territories which your Majesty gave to them in order that they might, with pontifical jurisdiction, serve therein as parish priests.

The religious are influenced to this action, first: because, even though your Majesty command that no change be made in this regard in the Filipinas, the religious orders do not now entertain a substantial hope that entire obedience would be rendered to this law for peace, without which it is intolerable to remain in those islands. The reason for this fear and lack of confidence is, that this very thing was commanded by your Majesty in a decree issued at Madrid, on November 27, 1687 (which is in the [book of] ordinances, at folios 8 and 9), and the reverend archbishop did the opposite of what was ordained therein, in the sight of your governor and Audiencia. If such was the heed and observance given to a decree for making no change, even when the reverend archbishop was not at variance with the religious orders, what can they expect when he is now so exasperated against them?

This argument gains more force when attention is paid to the immense distance [from España] of those islands, where this is a current saying, or almost a proverb, among those who are in power, “Let them write to Madrid and Roma whatever fairy-tale they please at the time; no one will be disturbed by it while the letters are on the way, or while the decision is being made and until the ordinances arrive.” And therefore it results that although the reverend archbishop arrived at Manila in the year 97, it is now the year 700 when the clamors and disturbances which with his arrival were experienced [in the islands] find an echo in your Council of the Indias—troubles which still are endured, because it is necessary to wait a considerable time for the arrival at the islands themselves of your royal provisions. And when the decree already mentioned of the year 87, and another previous one of the same tenor by the queen-mother our sovereign (who is now with God), were not obeyed, there is little or no ground for the religious to hope that other decrees of that sort will be obeyed. In both cases, the mission curacies were resigned, and in this last one much more has been suffered; and as it is not well that these occurrences and disputes be repeated, and as it is intolerable to live in controversies for the sake of curacies, to any one who is not wedded to them, the religious orders intend, by the said resignation, to make an end, once for all, of all this contention.

The second reason: In Filipinas today the religious orders see themselves dragged along and reduced to a most abject condition, in which their ministers can, according to the divine oracles and the teaching of holy men, gain little esteem or fruit while they exercise these under so much reproach. If the edict of visitation which the reverend archbishop commanded to be posted in the village of Tondo (a mission village which is in charge of the Order of St. Augustine) be read, among innumerable other questions will be found these: “Whether the minister in charge goes without the ecclesiastical garb, or without suitable clothing? Whether he goes without cutting his beard? Whether by day or by night he carries weapons, or is indecently clothed?”

If attention is given to the manner in which the archbishop took away the two mission villages of Tondo and Binondo [from the orders], it was done by forcibly breaking open the doors of those two churches, and surrounding them with soldiers and secular officials, who carried with them fetters, as if they went to arrest criminals or highwaymen. Similarly, on account of a fit of anger which he felt because two of these petitioners had embarked to come to seek redress from the Council, the reverend archbishop demanded and obtained a vessel, in which both ecclesiastical and secular officials set out to arrest the said religious. But as they could not reach the religious, as the ship had gained so much headway, the archbishop summoned the Portuguese captain of another ship, and commanded him, under penalty of major excommunication and a pecuniary fine, to secure the arrest of the said two religious at Batavia; and told him that if it should be necessary, he must demand aid from the governor there, who is a Dutch heretic—although afterward, it is said, the archbishop advised him not to do so.

Consider the manner in which the religious had to apply to his tribunal; in no case would he accept a document save through the hand of the ecclesiastical procurator of his secular court. On one occasion he allowed so short a time-limit that the holy religious orders were forced to go between twelve and one o’clock at night, knocking at the doors of several procurators, because one had excused himself on account of the stormy weather—and all this when there was no need of or risk in delay; and the reverend archbishop thus gave ground for even the laymen to say that he was abusing his authority in order to annoy the religious. And it is no wonder that laymen say this when the reverend archbishop himself writes (as it were, praising himself) that the regulars are almost exhausted and beside themselves at seeing how in so short a time he has, if not conquered them all, at least broken their courage to a great extent. But the religious orders desire for this prelate in the remembrance of posterity more praiseworthy sayings than this one which calls them exhausted by such means.

The reverend archbishop also writes to individuals who can have no voice in these matters, either of justice or government, in such manner that the religious find themselves compared to soldiers on horseback, and characterized as disobedient to both pontifical and royal laws; and of so bad lives and morals that, he says, if he had to make informatory reports regarding them there would not be enough paper in all China. If he writes thus to Europa, how will he talk there [in the islands] with his servants, intimate friends, and acquaintances?

Notice should be taken of the reprimand which through the influence of the reverend archbishop was given to the religious orders by your royal court of Manila, composed of four officials who are young men; it is perhaps the most angry and contemptuous which has been offered to religious in a Catholic tribunal. In regard to the decrees which were issued regarding this particular, by the bishop the delegate of his Holiness, it appears that by a royal decree the five provincials, the rectors of the colleges of Santo Tomas and San Jose, and two other religious, all grave persons, were summoned; and, having made them enter the hall, where your ministers were seated on their platforms, Licentiate Don Geronimo Barredo began to speak, as being the senior auditor; he talked to them, using vos, and impersonal terms that were very rude, although the royal sovereignty of your Majesty deigns to honor the provincials with the title of “very devout and venerable fathers.” He called them disturbers of the peace—as it were, the causes and authors of the disquieted condition of the commonwealth; he blamed them for aiding the reverend bishop the delegate of his Holiness, and for some of their subordinates performing the service of notaries to him. He threatened them, saying that even though they were exempt, yet your ministers could, with the administrative power which they hold from your Majesty, banish the religious from the islands. When he had ended his censure, he said, “Get out!” [Despejad]. The provincial of St. Augustine, with all courtesy and submission, asked from his Highness permission to say a word, but the said Don Geronimo Barredo refused it, repeating the words, “Get out!” Again the provincial urged, with all humility, that they hear him; and the reply of that same auditor was to ring his little bell, saying in a loud voice, “Get out! Get out!” Accordingly they made the religious go away, full of embarrassment, and without any further consolation than that of patience.

Such, Sire, was the civility with which that royal court treated all that assembly of religious, among them superiors so eminent, ignominy being offered to them where they should have encountered the honor which your Majesty, by a special law for the Indias, charges upon your officials and presidents, in order that the religious may thereby be encouraged to labor for the propagation of the faith. In order to stir up the community, a royal Audiencia takes action in appeals in obvious cases of which the Church, by law, disposes. To furnish notaries to a delegate of the pope (which was the same as to furnish them to the supreme pontiff) in those islands—when, as the secular priests were intimidated by the public decrees of the reverend archbishop, there was not one who would aid the delegate—this was an unseemly act of the religious orders, and cause why Catholic officials should reprimand them! And, finally, the hearing which justice does not deny to the worst criminals, was entirely barred to five holy religious orders, the anger of striplings foaming over on those so venerable gray hairs.

Your governor knew very well the unsuitableness of this action, and, either not liking the matter, or pretending to be ignorant of it, he was not present at that session; and with this sort of connivance the reverend archbishop succeeded with his designs, and the Audiencia with theirs, the religious orders paying for it all. Then if all that is mentioned in this second reason ends in the depreciation and public ridicule of the religious orders, left defenseless and wounded by the heads of the commonwealth, what idea will be formed of them by the Indians, mestizos, mulattoes, Cafres, and even those Spaniards who have little sense? Such people mould their opinion not by what they reason out, but by what they see; and when their eyes record so much contempt for the ministers of religion, the consequence is a low estimate of their teaching. On this account the religious offer their resignation of the mission villages, so that they may with better results care for others.

The third reason: Although the immunity of their property which the religious possess is a sacred thing, the reverend archbishop regards it in such a light, on account of their not having been subjected to his visitation, that they dread in the future greater losses and difficulties. The regulars had applied to the said reverend archbishop to forbid Licentiate Don Juan de Sierra, your auditor, from having judicial cognizance in regard to the lands of the religious orders, and from molesting them about this matter so much as he was doing—without any necessity, as he was merely a lay judge. That prelate issued a first and a second inhibitory letter, and, as the said Don Juan did not conform to them, the regulars again applied to the reverend archbishop to defend them. The latter had already explained his intentions with the religious orders, in order that the religious who were parish priests might allow themselves to be visited; and therefore he stated that, before his issuing the third command regarding their application, the religious orders must first answer whether or not they would submit to the said visitation. They replied, in the most peaceable manner, sometimes verbally, sometimes in writing, that they were resolved to give up the mission curacies rather than serve them in that manner; and they actually offered their resignations of those offices.

So much did the reverend archbishop resent this that the lands belonging to the religious orders, which thus far were privileged, on account of being ecclesiastical property, thereafter were not exempt. Those which on account of their immunity had deserved two inhibitory letters now deserved a decree revoking the said letters, the property remaining lay and profane, and subject to the secular jurisdiction. The religious were in the said decree canonized as rebels, contumacious, disobedient to the Church and to the reverend archbishop, and unworthy of his clemency. In this declaration the reverend archbishop excepted the lands of the nuns of Santa Clara, and those of the colleges of Santo Tomas and San Jose—the former, because they belonged to a convent of the utmost poverty; and the latter on account of the benefit to the public which their teaching caused.

From this it may be inferred, Sire, that the immunity and exemption of property which the religious possess must be, in the apprehension of the reverend archbishop, a quality removable ad nutum of his will and pleasure, but not permanent, [as it should be] according to the direction of the Apostolic See. It will follow that while this question is pending whether or not the religious will be parish priests by title, some of those very holdings possess sufficient spirituality of character for [the issue of] two inhibitory letters to the secular judge; and that when the religious refuse this mode of life that spiritual character becomes, by a sudden metamorphosis, profane secularity. It will follow that the crime of rebellion, disobedience to the Church, and ill-desert of kindness is incurred by the religious orders for not assuming a state and profession of life to which God does not call them, simply because the reverend archbishop desires that it be chosen. It will follow that to renounce the curacies is not to recognize the jurisdiction of the reverend archbishop, and accordingly this is not to recognize that of the pope or the authority of your Majesty, since he offers to resign his archbishopric. It will follow that, although your Majesty had made the assignment of the territories which with pontifical jurisdiction the religious administer and have thus far administered, for them to offer before your vice-patron their resignation of the said curacies—solely for the purpose that he who there represents your royal person may be acquainted with the fact of their renunciation of the said assignment—is, in the thought of the reverend archbishop, to grant spiritual jurisdiction to the secular governor, and consequently for the said religious to become heretics in many and important points.

And since the lands of the nuns of Santa Clara retain their immunity and are ranked as spiritual goods, on account of the extreme poverty of those servants of God, does the reverend archbishop regard that only as a physical lack of riches on their part, and no more? or as evangelical poverty which springs from the vow, institute, and profession of the life which they have chosen for Christ, and which the Apostolic See has approved? If the former, the religious frankly state that it is very alien to the ecclesiastical rules, by which the exemption and immunity ought to be measured. Otherwise, innumerable poor people, of those who are commonly called beggars[35] through the streets, would secure, on account of being equally destitute of goods with the said nuns of Santa Clara, or perhaps even more so, ecclesiastical exemption from secular judges for their furniture and petty possessions. If the reverend archbishop answers, “the second,” the religious also say, with entire confidence: “What authority is that of this prelate, that he should decide in an official utterance that there is evangelical poverty in the convent of Santa Clara, and not in the other mendicant religious orders? and that the lands of the said convent of Santa Clara enjoy exemption on account of their evangelical poverty and religious institute, while it may not be enjoyed for the same reason by the lands of the other religious orders, which are so distinguished, and are approved by the Church?”

Lastly, it follows that the instruction in grammar, philosophy, and theology in the colleges of Santo Tomas and San Jose renders their lands spiritual property, and exempts them from the secular judge. Yet the preaching of the word of God, the instruction in Christian doctrine, the administration of the sacraments of penance and communion, the consolation [of the faithful] with the mass, the visiting of the sick and dying, the ministrations in jails and hospitals, in order that no one may die without the sacraments: these and other spiritual works, which the holy religious orders of the city of Manila habitually perform with all classes of people, are not sufficient [in the archbishop’s opinion] to exempt their lands from being profane.

If then, Sire, the reverend archbishop has thus conducted himself, in matters so delicate and of the highest importance, simply because the regulars excused themselves from being parish priests subject to his visitation, what may not be feared hereafter? What privileges, exemptions, or decrees will be sufficient, so that he may not explain them as he pleases, and continually open new doors to dissensions? If with such ease he pronounces sentence on the regulars as rebellious, contumacious, and disobedient to the Church, what difficulty will he find in treating them as such—sometimes alone, and sometimes resorting to the royal court for the sake of more forcible demonstrations of his displeasure?

The fourth reason: Your Majesty, in dealing with the religious in your laws of the Indias, has two especial statutes which not only show your desire for peace and your Catholic piety, but most strictly command that efforts be made to secure union and concord among the religious orders, on account of the many and admirable results which ensue therefrom. This union and concord had been established by all the religious orders of Filipinas, and its fruits applauded, long before the reverend archbishop arrived in Manila; and by it those islands were made a paradise for what pertains to the religious orders. The reverend archbishop was the only one who was not pleased with this concord; and therefore he characterizes it in his letters as a conventicle,[36] and of evil tendency and inconsiderate.[37] He not only resented it, but displayed and made known his resentment; he tried to disparage it, through a third person; he had the idea, and repeated it many times, that there was a league against himself; and it is for this reason that he secretly obtained information against it, imposing the penalty of excommunication on the witnesses to maintain secrecy. So far can go the desire of commanding and judging the religious, and grief at not accomplishing it.

In so lamentable a condition [are affairs there], when the religious desire not only to see themselves free from the charge of the mission villages, but, if it be possible, away from those islands, and far from a prelate who feels so annoyed at the union and brotherhood of the religious orders—a union dictated by the natural light of reason, prescribed in their general chapters, inculcated by the generals of the orders as being their supreme heads, ordained by your Majesty, suggested by the vicars of Christ, promulgated in the sacred writings, and bequeathed as in His last will by Christ himself to His disciples; and they without it would not have reaped a harvest in the world, nor would He have retained them as His missionaries. The religious admit that the great horror of this prelate at their concord and union gives them much cause for serious reflection; and that when this concord is so persecuted on account of the mission curacies, there is no safer way to maintain it than to separate themselves from those curacies.

The fifth and last reason: By letters of February in the year 699 it is learned that the reverend archbishop has been sending information not only against the said concord [of the orders], but against even the reverend bishop, the delegate of his Holiness—and all with [the threat of] excommunication in order to maintain secrecy. If a bishop and delegate of the pope is not secure, how will a religious who is a parish priest be so? It seems as if the reverend archbishop now falls back from lands to persons, regarding those holdings as property merely profane, and the religious as persons without any privilege. At the outset he claimed that the regulars, as parish priests, must be subject to his investigations and visitation; and now, extending his claims further, he invents against them, as religious, a new visitation, made up from secret inquiries by dint of censures. How is it possible now not only to have but even to imagine peace in the Filipinas? If the religious orders do not defend themselves, he endangers their reputation in the places where he will send the said information—and all the more if those reports go forth authorized by the secretary and notary who attest the official documents of the archbishop; for the notary, according to popular report, is a relative of his, or passes as such; and the secretary is his cousin-german. And it appears from the acts (on folio 3) that the notary-public, Master Joaquin Ramirez, testified that on November 27 of 697 he had given a paper with a letter from the archbishop to Fray Jose del Rosario, provincial of the Augustinian Recollects—not casually, but delivered into the said provincial’s own hands—when the fact is, that this provincial had died four years before, as is well-known in Manila, and as is evident from the registers of deaths in that province, and will also be here. Such were his impetuosity and his mode of procedure, without instructing the notary, or the latter knowing, of whom he was talking, and confounding times and persons, and the living with the dead. And if by such testimonies a man is introduced in the documents as alive, when in reality he was dead, what wonder will it be if, for the greater disparagement of the regulars, the virtues are introduced as dead among them which are alive in them?

But if the religious, invaded in so many ways, look after their defense, how will they be to blame in this? And if, in order to defend themselves, they so dispose matters that they can have recourse and appeal to the delegate, and if the latter ordain something and the reverend archbishop will not conform to it, and on both sides censures are launched forth—as occurred in the case of the lands—who will have been the mover of all this [trouble]? For the religious to abandon their reputation wholly is not safe; to defend themselves there occasions inconvenience; to let the matter take its course, notwithstanding this behavior of the reverend archbishop, is an intolerable yoke; and for the regulars to be curas subject to him all that is here alleged will not permit. These are the afflictions that are now being suffered in Filipinas. The religious there are summoned to be mocked; those here, aware of what is going on, are reluctant [to take their places]. And since the whole matter takes its rise from the curacies and mission villages, and the foregoing decrees are rendered null, and our expectations from others in the future are dashed: for these reasons and the others here adduced, and insisting upon the said order from the provincials to renounce the mission curacies, the petitioners, prostrate at the royal feet of your Majesty, ask in the name of the said five provinces that you will be pleased to consider them as free and exonerated from the charge which hitherto they have held in serving as parish priests the mission villages that they hold in Filipinas; and for this purpose they renounce absolutely the allotment of territories which your Majesty had committed to them, in order that others may from this time forth administer them, with secure peace and stable tranquillity, which they expect from your Majesty’s magnificence.[38]

Royal decree, May 20, 1700

The King. To my reverend father in Christ, Doctor Don Diego Camacho y Avila, archbishop of the metropolitan church of Manila in the Filipinas Islands, and member of my Council: In letters of January 19 and February 20, 1698, you report your arrival in those islands, and what you are doing to quell the hatred and enmities which exist among your subjects, reclaiming them to a new life by the measures which you are applying, and obtaining the peace and tranquillity which you were desiring. You also wrote that you had undertaken to continue work on the church building there, and had gone to visit the secular clergy, in which you had met no hindrance; and that in endeavoring to make the visitations in the mission churches served by regulars—according to the regulations of the Council of Trent, the apostolic letters, and the royal decrees—you were influencing the religious by gentle methods to accept such visitation, for this purpose drawing up a manifesto, but that these methods were not sufficient to induce them to do so voluntarily. For this reason, in fulfilment of the obligations of your office you had published an edict for carrying out this visitation, and had actually gone to put it into execution in the mission stations of regulars at Tondo, Binondoc, Santa Cruz, Dilao, and Parián, since you were denied diocesan jurisdiction over the ministers who serve in these places—while at the same time, in those of Tondo and Binondoc (which are served by religious of St. Dominic and St. Augustine) those ministers were abandoning their churches, consuming[39] the holy sacrament, and carrying away with them the holy oils and ornaments. Consequently you found it necessary to place secular priests ad interim in those villages, from which it resulted that the religious orders went to offer their renunciation of those missions before my governor, without going to you; and in this condition of affairs it seemed best to the Audiencia to furnish aid so that the religious orders should not abandon these missions, and that their renunciation of them should not be accepted. But this was not sufficient to prevent the religious from withdrawing from those missions, for which reason you found yourself compelled to retire to your own church, and to desist from these visitations, removing the temporary ministers whom you had appointed, and lifting the censures and penalties which you had imposed, without prejudice to your dignity and jurisdiction. And finally you recount the very harmful results which must follow from the form and method of administration which prevails in these mission stations, and the illegal acts which are committed by the ministers in charge of them, of which you send a summary, stating how impossible you find it to remedy this condition of affairs, on account of the reasons which you point out, and asking that the necessary measures be taken, and that you be assured of it, so that you can visit as you should that archbishopric, in fulfilment of your ministry as its pastor. This matter has been considered in my Council of the Indias, with the attested copies sent by you of the documents therein, with the representations made in your name and in those of the religious orders who reside in those islands and hold mission posts there. Having fully informed myself on both sides, and given the subject special consideration, I have resolved to approve, and herewith do approve, all that you have accomplished in this affair, and especially your course in having ceased from further action therein until you could report it to me and await the measures which may be applied to the difficulty, assuring you of my full gratitude for your very judicious proceedings and the good management which you have showed in the conduct of this important affair. Your procedure with the superiors of the religious orders is very suitable to your prudence, and quite in accordance with the opinion that I have of your zeal and great discretion; and the special service which you have rendered to me is strongly commended to my remembrance, that I may bear it in mind and favor and honor you on all occasions that shall arise. And in view of the grave considerations that are involved in this matter, and of your request that the regulations and provisions of the sacred canons, councils, and apostolic constitutions, and the laws of the Indias be put into execution, in order that the diocesans may, as you say, visit the regulars who hold office as curas, in matters which pertain to the care of souls, I am undertaking with all the attention of my Catholic and pious zeal to furnish the remedies that are most suitable and effectual for this object, and for preventing any disturbances which may arise in the future, leaving settled and established the right of prescription, both canonical and legal. And as concerns what is contained in the summary which you have drawn up of the illegal acts of the religious who serve the missions, except in the question of visitation you shall always have authority to receive information, and to demand from the superiors of the orders that they reform and correct the religious. And if when they are admonished the first and the second time they do not thus act, I command that you carry out the said reform with your jurisdiction as ordinary. For the better success of this, I decree, by despatches sent this day to the president and auditors of my royal Audiencia there, that they assist you with their aid on all occasions when you shall demand it and shall need it. Of this you are [herewith] notified, and you shall inform me of your action in this matter, and of any further occurrences. At Aranjuez, May 20 in the year 1700.

I the King

By command of the king our sovereign:

Don Manuel de Àperregui

[Six rubrics are added at the foot of this document, which appear to be those of the members of the Council.]

---

[1] At the end of this document appear the following memoranda relative to the archbishop’s voyage to the islands: “Archbishop Camacho embarked at Acapulco for Manila on March 30, 1697. The lading of the ship was made in great haste, because there was in Acapulco a fearful pestilence. Several died from this pest on the ship, within a few days—among whom were the fiscal of his Majesty, and a Jesuit and a Dominican. On the 19th of July they encountered a terrible storm, from which they escaped only through the intercession of St. Francisco Javier, a Jesuit, casting into the water an order of the saint in which he promised that they should have no [cause for] fear. On July 24, at three o’clock in the afternoon, they anchored in the port of Palapag, where they suffered from a baguio. On the eighth day of September, the archbishop made his public entry into Manila.”

[2] Spanish, realengos; “applied to the villages which are not held by seigniors or by the religious orders, and to lands belonging to the state” (Barcia).

Auditor Sierra held a commission from the court for legalizing the ownership of lands in Filipinas; and in the fulfilment of this charge he demanded from the friars the documents which justified their right to the magnificent estates of which they called themselves the owners.” (Montero y Vidal, Hist. de Filipinas, p. 385.)

[3] This bull was a papal sentence of excommunication formerly published against heretics every Holy (or Maundy) Thursday; for ages it was publicly read on that day, otherwise known as the feria quinta in Cœna Domini; hence its common title, as given in the text. The latest form which this bull assumed was given to it by Urban VIII in 1627; it is entitled, Pastoralis Romani pontificis vigilantia, and is divided into twenty sections or decrees. Of these, no. 15 censures such as usurp jurisdiction; it was, then, issued in the interests of liberty in court trials. No. 17 censures those who usurp church revenues, incomes, and the like; and it thus upheld the rights of ownership. This bull is no longer used; its periodical publication was discontinued after 1773, and it was suppressed by Pius IX (October 12, 1869), in force of his constitution, Apostolicæ Sedis, issued on that date.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[4] The decree here mentioned is dated May 15, 1572, and begins, Exposcit debitum pastoralis officii. In it provision is made for “appeals from the West Indias, and the islands of the Ocean Sea, subject to the king of Spain.” It orders that appeals be carried, first, from the bishop to the metropolitan; second, from the metropolitan to the next neighboring ordinary—that thus justice might be secured without delay or so heavy expense. Philip II had petitioned to this effect, that cases might be decided by two courts, and no appeal be admitted therefrom; hence the bull of Gregory to the king.

In this case, the appeal was from the metropolitan to the bishop of Camarines—who probably had been commissioned by the pope to act as delegate from an early period in his episcopal career, since he himself mentions (post) his having acted in that capacity in the time of Archbishop Pardo. In case of the nearest see being vacant, the official who acted as its head would be delegate for the time being, i.e. would be a vice-ordinary. Also, as those islands were too remote for sending thither delegates from Europe, except in extraordinary cases, the metropolitan of Manila might send a delegate to Camarines. The authority possessed by the delegate in appeal cases (as results from the bull of Gregory) would be definitive and final; he might overrule and even supersede the metropolitan, as being the judge in final appeal.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[5] Probably Manuel Fernandez de Santa Cruz, as he was bishop of Puebla in 1696 (Bancroft’s Mexico, iii, p. 256).

[6] Cruzat y Gongora’s term of office was lengthened by the failure of his successor to go to the islands. This was Domingo Zabalburu de Echevarri, who was appointed September 18, 1694, but did not reach Manila until 1701.

[7] Spanish, sobrino, which may be applied not only to a brother’s or sister’s child, but to that of a cousin-german.

[8] Spanish, ni mejorarla [apelacion]; a legal phrase, meaning “to support the appeal before the superior court, after having appealed before it, by setting forth the injury that is experienced from any act issued by the lower court” (Barcia).

[9] So in Ventura del Arco’s transcription; but it would seem to be an error for 120—perhaps a copyist’s conjecture of an illegible character—since it apparently refers to Gregory XIII’s decree of 1572 (ante, p. 27).

[10] He was almost seventy years old, according to Concepción (Hist. de Philipinas, viii, p. 229).

[11] In the Latin Church the ecclesiastical orders are those of bishops, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, and ostiarii, or doorkeepers. Many theologians reckon the number at seven, regarding the episcopate as merely the extension of the priesthood (Addis and Arnold, p. 621).

[12] Spanish, seminario conciliar; “the house assigned for the education of the young men who devote themselves to the ecclesiastical career” (Barcia).

[13] José Sarmiento Valladares, Conde de Montezuma, was the successor, in the viceroyalty of Nueva España, of Gaspar de la Cerda, Conde de Galve (whose term of office was November 20, 1688 to May, 1696). Valladares obtained his title by his marriage with Gerónima María, a lineal descendant of the Mexican emperor, and third countess of Montezuma. He took possession of the office on December 18, 1696, and held it until November 4, 1701. He was an able and efficient governor, and did much to repress crime, improve social conditions, aid the Indians in times of distress, and render the City of Mexico more strongly fortified. (Bancroft, Mexico, iii, pp. 222, 259, 264, 265.)

[14] Miguel Bayót was a discalced Franciscan, an Aragonese, who came to the Philippines in 1669; he was employed in ministries to the Indians, and was long at the head of the hospice of the order in Mexico City. In 1695 he was appointed bishop of Cebú, when he was 52 years old, being then in Mexico, and took possession of his office in September, 1696; he died there on August 28, 1700. When he died, only the sum of five reals was found in his possession. (San Antonio, Chronicas, i, p. 212.)

[15] The first page of this MS. is occupied by official attestations showing that on January 22, 1699, officially certified copies of these decrees by the archbishop were demanded by Antonio de Borja, procurator-general of the Jesuit province, from one of the alcaldes of Manila, Antonio Basarte, who ordered these copies to be made.

[16] Spanish, casamientos y velaciones; the former the general term for marriages, the latter also used thus, but referring especially to the nuptial mass or nuptial benedictions (which, however, were and are given only at mass). The parties might be married outside of mass—as if it were a private marriage, or if they were too poor to pay for the mass—and then did not receive the benedictions. But if at mass, they were velados—a term recalling an ancient ceremony when both parties were veiled at the marriage; i.e., the priest threw a veil over their heads. Thus Moroni in his Diccionario, who also states that “this custom is still in vogue in some places” (in his own day, about thirty years ago). La velacion was another term for the marriage ceremony at mass, and was part of the ceremony. Every woman (of good standing) is entitled to church marriage—with nuptial mass and benediction—but once only: this may be on the occasion of a second or third marriage, provided the former marriages were outside of mass; but if the first marriage were with the nuptial mass, she is barred from enjoying this privilege at subsequent marriages. These are the casamientos; the nuptial mass, or marriage accompanied by it, the velacion.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[17] Hijo de la Iglesia; a term applied to a foundling or abandoned infant; cf., the Italian appellation, “a child of the Madonna.”

[18] Spanish, octavas. None of the standard dictionaries give a meaning to cover this use of octavas. Dominguez’s Diccionario (Supplement) states that the word is a term in Roman law, designating an ancient form of tribute consisting of one part in eight. Probably it was carried over into ecclesiastical law, and here means that the cura was expected to pay one-eighth of his fees into the church fund.

[19] Spanish, canonicas monitoriales. In law books, banns (in Latin) are styled proclamationes monitoriæ.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[20] Spanish, limosna. The fees (derechos) of the cura were determined, fixed sums, as in the tariff lists, nor could he change them. The limosna—a free offering, and wholly optional with the parties for whom he officiated—was over and above the tariff charge. The cura could do with this offering what he wished—if he chose, spending it in alms; but it was given to him personally, and was for his own use. Cf. the gratificación voluntaria in the following list of fees to be paid the parish priest in Cuba, taken from the Manual de la Isla de Cuba, by José Garcia y Arboleya (2nd ed., Havana, 1859), pp. 316, 317:

For baptism: a voluntary offering[gratificación voluntaria], the minimum ofwhich is 6 reals for the cura and 2 for the acolyte		$ 1.
For burial:	of free adult	7.50
	of free child	6.50
	of slave adult	5.50
	of slave child	5.
For prayers—responso with cope, sacristan, and processional cross[cruz alta], at the house of the deceased		7.
For prayers, with cope, at the burial		4.
For office (of three lections)		5.
For mass chanted (body present)		6.
For each halt [posa]		12.50
For processional cross at the grave(without cross, .50)		2.
For each censer		.50
For each attendant in surplice		1.
For remaining till end [of interment]		1.50
For four [church] bells [tolled]		2.
For three [church] bells [tolled]		1.50
For two [church] bells [tolled]		1.
For low mass [without chant]		1.
For a fiesta [feast-daycelebration] with vespers and mass chanted		12.
For a fiesta with procession		14.
For votive mass chanted		6.50
For marriage		7.25
For cura at the house [of theparties]		4.
For foreigners		25. to 30.
For record of baptism		1.

—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[21] The term Morenos, as has appeared from former documents, was applied generally to persons of swarthy complexion—mulattoes, some negroes, and Malabar natives, indiscriminately.

[22] Spanish, arraz (arras); a very old term, of Hebrew origin; hence the Latin law term of arrha, i.e., anticipated payment of part. Arras also means “thirteen pieces of money given to the bride by the bridegroom;” this or similar dowry was required by a very old and very rigorous law.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

Barcia gives arras the general meaning of “that which is given as a pledge or token of any agreement. It was extended also to the marriage contract. Also, the thirteen pieces of money which in weddings serve for the formality of that function, passing from the hands of the bridegroom to those of the bride. In law, the amount which the man promises to the woman on account of his marriage to her; it cannot exceed, according to law, the tenth part of his possessions.” He defines arrha (French, arrhes) as “a pledge or token given to secure and confirm a contract.”

[23] The context would seem to require here the amount of the fee for burial of a child; this has apparently been omitted in the MS. by a clerical error. The general appearance of the MS., and various memoranda on the back, suggest the probability that this was one of the copies furnished to the Jesuit Borja.

[24] Spanish, possas. At funerals, prayers were read at different points on the way to the cemetery; for instance, at the church door, midway on the route, and at the cemetery gate—if not oftener. Of course the procession halted while prayers were being read or chanted; so for each halt (posa) a fee was due.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[25] Spanish, missas de nouenario; the novenary is a nine days’ condolence for the deceased. The same term is also applied to a nine days’ devotion offered to some saint.

[26] Spanish, el velo; literally, the “veil,” or the “veiling;” evidently referring to the old-time usage of placing a veil over the married pair (see note 16, ante), as a part of the ceremonies at the nuptial mass. I am told by one of our fathers here at Villanova, who lived in Spain years ago, that at marriages in that country the bride wears the usual wedding-veil, and continues to wear it in public for one week after the marriage; it is white, sometimes plain, sometimes adorned with ribbons or flowers of various colors.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[27] Spanish, cruz alta con su manga. The processional cross was carried on a staff, as used in the United States in processions; at funerals the crucifix was covered with black, this funeral trapping (manga) covering or veiling the cross as a sign of grief. Sometimes the sacristan bore only a small cross, without staff; this depended wholly on his fee. In all Catholic churches in the United States, we use the crucifixes covered in Holy Week; but we do not veil crosses at funerals.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[28] Spanish, por titulo de justicia. Parroco de justicia, so frequently used in this document, is the Spanish rendering of the technical Latin phrase, parochus de jure—words which show that the cura had a right to his office, had been instituted according to the canons, and was canonically and legally in office. It is practically the same as the English phrase “by right and title.” Other equivalents are: “by title of law,” “by right,” and “ordinary.” The parish priest, whether secular or regular, was an official of the Church.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[29] See account of the allotment of diocesan titles in VOL. I, p. 244, note 188. Baluffi, there cited, adds: “Relative to the two ninths that were given to the king, the first bishop of Mechoacan [in Mexico], Mons. Vasco de Quiroga, when organizing his cathedral [clergy] in 1554, speaking of the two shares of the tithes that were given to the king, remarked that they were thus awarded to his most serene Majesty in token of his lordship (superioritalis) and right of patronage.”

[30] In text, oneroso, but evidently a transcriber’s error for onrroso.

[31] In the text, projimos, “neighbors”—in allusion to the Scriptural injunction, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” a duty strictly inculcated in the training of candidates for ordination, especially in the Jesuit order.

[32] Alluding to Paul’s precept in I Corinthians, vii, v. 20.

[33] That is, a non-resident or merely titular prelate; see VOL. XVIII, p. 339, note 101.

[34] The whole sentence, divested of technicalities, simply means that one must “look before he leaps;” or that, when one has his eyes open, he is supposed to have used them; or that the bishop, should he be merely titular, would have no one to blame but himself, and should be the last to complain.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[35] Spanish, pordioseros; that is, those who ask alms “for God’s sake.”

[36] Spanish, conciliabulo; like English “conventicle,” used to designate an unauthorized or illegal assembly.

[37] Spanish, mal sonante y temeraria—literally, “of evil sound and reckless.” This is part of a legal phrase, taken from Latin forms used by the Roman courts when characterizing books, teachings, statements, etc., of unorthodox or schismatic bearing.—Rev. T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.

[38] This memorial seems to have been written by the Dominican Fray Raimundo Berart (see Reseña biográfica, ii, p. 203); and it was printed by Fray Mimbela.

[39] Spanish, consumiendo; “the reception or eating by the priest of the body and blood of Christ, in the elements of bread and wine” (Dominguez).