INSTRUCTIONS TO THE SECULAR CLERGY
1. Retirement and abstraction [from the world]; the priests shall not enter any house except to administer the sacraments, or to perform some function proper to one who has the care of souls.
2. They shall explain the Christian doctrine and the gospel, using at least half of the time for this holy exercise in the Castilian language.
3. They shall visit, both afternoon and morning the schools for boys, which our curas shall be under obligation to promote in their villages with every endeavor; and, if it be possible, the schools for girls.
4. [They shall pay] all respect and courtesy to the governors of their villages and the officials of justice, not allowing the latter to remove their caps when in the presence of the priests, and much less to serve them at the table—warning them that they must not leave their wands or insignia of justice on the stairs or in any other place, but always and everywhere carry these with them.
5. They shall not meddle with elections; and the affection and reverence of the people will be won if they attend solely to the welfare of souls and give personal advice.
6. They shall promote peace among their parishioners by all means; and shall exhort them to shun idleness and cultivate their lands.
7. They shall strive to banish the sport of cock-fighting, not sparing any effort for this, and the same with drunkenness.
8. They shall not allow the dalagas [i.e., young girls] or any woman to clean the church; the sacristans must perform this duty.
9. Any cura who shall not attend to the adornment and cleanliness of his church will be punished with the utmost severity.
10. No woman shall enter the clergyman’s house.
11. The priests shall spend the day in prayer and study, after having celebrated mass and divine service.
12. The conferences on moral subjects and on the church rubrics[1] shall be inviolably observed.
13. They shall conform, without any exception, to the tariff in the exaction of parochial fees; but if the parishioner shall be poor, the cura shall not for that reason neglect the administration of the sacraments, the burial ceremonies, etc.
14. They shall proceed to remove the abuses in [furnishing] cross and candlesticks of wood for the poor man, and of silver for him who pays the fees.
15. They shall immediately propose, in a kind and gentle manner, the [formation of] settlements [for their people], and shall expatiate to their parishioners on the advantages which will result to them from living in a settled community and village.
16. Games of cards are prohibited to our curas, even among themselves.
17. They shall be careful to reside in their respective villages; and they shall leave these only for conferences or for hearing one another’s confessions, when they have [in charge] no sick person in danger; but under no pretext shall they pass the night outside their own parishes.
18. On all occasions they shall wear their long robes.
19. Each priest shall forthwith prepare a book, in which these our decrees shall be written—as well as those which we shall again issue in person, or which our provisor and vicar-general shall enact; or measures which shall be taken by our vicar forane,[2] as the one who keeps all things in his view.
20. Even within the house they shall go dressed and shod through the day; and any one who shall descend to saying mass in a tipsy condition [con la turca], or shall take his seat in the confessional without collar and cassock, shall undergo severe penalties.
21. In every respect they shall render obedience to our vicar forane.
22. Finally, mindful of the duties of their ministry, and of the very exact account which God will demand from them for the souls of every one of their parishioners, they shall instruct their people, by deed and by word, until the true idea of Christian life is formed in them—stimulating in them love and obedience to our Catholic monarch, who has conferred upon them so great benefits and loves them with a father’s tenderness, and to the venerable ministers who govern them in the name of God and of so great a king. At the archiepiscopal palace in Manila, on the twenty-fifth of October in the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy-one.[3]
[1] These conferences of the clergy originally were held monthly, for consultation on difficult cases of conscience and the like, the investigation of crimes, etc.; they lasted from the ninth to the thirteenth century. They were revived by St. Charles Borromeo, but on a more modern plan, for the discussion of questions in morals, ritual, etc., with the object of providing that the clergy should have the knowledge necessary for their duties. These conferences prevailed in the Catholic countries until the end of the eighteenth century, when they fell into disuse; but they have been once more revived in many countries, and are regularly held in all the dioceses of England. The rubrics are directions to be followed in mass and other sacred rites. (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary.) [↑]
[2] Vicar forane: “either a dignitary or, at least, if possible, a parish priest, who is appointed by the bishop to exercise a limited jurisdiction in a particular town or district of his diocese; an appeal lies from his decision to the bishop, who can also remove him at pleasure.” (Addis and Arnold, p. 841.) [↑]
[3] These instructions come at the end of a pastoral letter, headed thus: “We, Don Basilio Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina, by the grace of God and of the holy Apostolic See metropolitan archbishop of these Filipinas Islands; councilor and preacher to his Majesty; and deputy vicar-general of the royal forces by land and sea in these Eastern regions, etc.” (They are obtained from Ferrando’s Hist. PP. dominicos, v, pp. 59–60.) [↑]
THE EXPULSION OF THE JESUITS,
1768–1769
[This subject is one of profound and far-reaching significance in history, especially that of Europe; but the exigencies of our limited space forbid us to do more than suggest some of the more important aspects of this matter, and to furnish references to historical works in which it is treated at length. Our chief attention is necessarily given to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Philippines, which will concern us mainly with the facts of the case; and for this we must have recourse largely to Montero y Vidal’s account of it as given in his Historia de Filipinas, ii, chapters v–vii. (Ferrando says nothing about the banishment of the Jesuits, save in a few incidental allusions which we have cited in previous notes.) To this relation we add a few contemporaneous documents, and other matter from various historical writers, presenting as far as available actual facts, and the views of both sides, impartially.]
The expulsion from the Spanish dominions
“The controversy between the Catholic nations and the court of Rome in regard to the limits of the right of jurisdiction of the State and of the spiritual authority of the Church goes back to an early date. The clergy, who in the Middle Ages possessed both moral and intellectual supremacy, held España in perpetual tutelage; and so greatly abused their power that the journals of the early Cortes record numerous petitions, constantly set aside, now in regard to ecclesiastical amortization, now about the creation of the religious orders; exemptions and privileges for the clergy, multiplication of benefices, and concessions to foreigners; excessive imposts claimed in Roma for favors and dispensations; and innumerable abuses introduced in the discipline of the Spanish church. Until the clamor of battle ceased and the national unity was realized, the sovereigns did not preoccupy themselves with recovering the prerogatives of the royal power, and the Catholic monarchs [i.e., Fernando and Isabel] were the first who undertook to maintain with care the so-called regalías[1] [i.e., prerogatives] of the crown.” [From that time many controversies arose between the courts of Madrid and Rome, and even their diplomatic intercourse ceased entirely at times. A concordat was formed in 1737,] “which, instead of settling the pending disputes, deferred them until January 11, 1753, at which time the royal right of patronage was decided in favor of the kings of España; and questions referring to pensions and other claims of the Roman curia were settled by the conveyance of 23,066,660 reals, which the Marqués de la Ensenada delivered in Roma before the concordat was signed. Carlos III, who as king of the two Sicilies had had a similar controversy with the court of Roma, and had in 1741 secured the solemnization of a concordat, found the principal disputes terminated in España; but he could not prevent time and circumstances from originating others, which were settled in due time.” [With this controversy between Church and State, the Jesuits were necessarily as well as of choice involved. “During two centuries, and under different aspects, two diverse principles came into open opposition: the principle of authority, essential in the Catholic Church, which was the banner of the Society of Jesus; and the principle of rebellion against the past, proclaimed by Protestantism, converted afterward into the encyclopedistic philosophy, and still later taking the form of a social, religious, and political disintegration. To the propaganda of false ideas which was causing so much corruption among the youth, the Society of Jesus opposed solid and Christian education, the defense of its doctrine, and the preaching and example of its members.” Carlos III had come from Italy with a dislike to the Jesuits, and with various opinions which were more radical than those then current in España; and the influence of French philosophy and political thought in that country (see note 4, ante, pp. 25–27) enabled him to secure advisers who were willing to second his ideas—although at first he made the mistake of appointing too many foreigners in his cabinet. The king and his ministers formed plans of reform for the country which have made Danvila call him “the first revolutionary monarch of España.” It became evident that these plans could not be made effectual unless the influence of the Jesuits against them could be neutralized. That order had been expelled from Portugal and all her dominions, by decree of January 12, 1759; and it was suppressed in France by Louis XV in November, 1764. Permission to settle in Spain and Naples was denied to the French exiles by Carlos III. In March, 1766, a popular uprising took place in Madrid, directed against one of Carlos III’s ministers (Leopold de Gregorio, Marqués de Squilace, a Sicilian by birth) who, besides the prejudice against him as a foreigner, had made himself unpopular by certain sumptuary regulations; it resulted in his banishment from Spain. Soon afterward, the king found it necessary to make changes in his ministry. The presidency of the Council of Castilla was conferred upon Pedro Pablo Abarca de Bolea, Conde de Aranda, an Aragonese noble; and five new places therein were created, making twelve in all. All these councilors were Spaniards, and five of them were archbishops and bishops.[2] “After the Madrid riot, everywhere resounded complaints against the court and its nobles, the priests and the friars, and especially against the Jesuits,” the last-named being accused by many of having incited the riot. “The appointment of Aranda was praised, as taking from an ecclesiastic the custody of the royal prerogatives.” The disturbance quieted, the royal Council took measures to ascertain, through a secret investigation, the causes of this uprising; and their conclusion is thus stated in a letter sent by order of the king to the government of Naples, June 23, 1767:] “The result of all [the evidence] was, that the Jesuits were either the principal or the only inciters [of the riot]; they stirred up the flames on every side, roused aversion in the minds of all classes of people, and detached them from their affection and subordination to the government. The Jesuits printed and scattered about papers and writings that were seditious, and opposed to the royal authority and to the sovereignty and its legitimate rights; they preached against Portugal and France in their sermons to the public, and in the parlors of the nunneries, insinuating themselves to confess and direct the nuns without authority and against the wills of the superiors of the convents; even in the cloisters of the religious women, the Jesuits instilled, by their lectures and conversations, pernicious ideas and unworthy suspicions against the religious belief of the king and his ministers; and both before and after the tumult they threatened calamities and tragedies. They complained of all the decrees that were issued, on account of the [government] offices and dignities not devolving on their partisans and the followers of their school; they murmured against all the measures of the government, because they had no part in these, as being opposed to their ideas and their advantage. Their perverse [ideas of] moral practice in España and the Indias, the laxity of their morals, their sordid commerce, their intrigues, their cunning schemes, and, finally, everything that has been written or published by those whom the Society fancies to be its rivals and enemies: all these have been verified, and found convincing, with facts and instances of the present time (and which cannot be denied), without the necessity of resorting to the many and enormous excesses of former times or of foreign countries.[3] Their hatred to the house of Bourbon, and their aversion to the ‘family compact,’[4] their partiality to the English, and their desire that the latter should subdue France; the greater satisfaction and confidence which they feel toward Protestant princes, preferring these to the Catholics; and other designs of theirs that are abominable, and contrary to the spirit of religion, of honor, and of humanity: these have been proved to us by many and irrefutable means, which their own acts and writings have furnished to us. Time and paper would fail me if I tried to specify to your Excellency the facts and proofs of the many charges which have accumulated against them.” [Finally—as a result partly of this investigation, and partly of the growing alarm and distrust felt against the Jesuits, especially as they were securing new privileges from the Holy See—Carlos III issued decrees dated at El Pardo, February 27, 1767, for the banishment of the Jesuits from Spain and the Indias. “The instructions for the measures to be taken by the persons commissioned to carry out the banishment of the Jesuits in España and the Indias, and to take possession of their goods and estates;[5] the information as to their colleges, residences, and missions in the Western Indias, the Filipinas islands, and the kingdoms of the Indias; and the circular letter of Conde de Aranda to the viceroys and governors of the Indias providing for what they might decide for themselves, without asking any questions: this bears the date of March 1.” On March 12 this decision was known in Rome; and four days later despatches from Aranda gave fuller details, and included a copy of a royal decree which charged him to “display to the other religious orders the confidence, satisfaction, and esteem which they merited for their fidelity and doctrine, their observance of the monastic life, their exemplary service of the Church, their creditable instruction, and their withdrawal from the affairs of government as being alien to and remote from the ascetic and monastic life.” On March 20, Aranda determined to appoint April 3 as the date on which this expulsion of the Jesuits should go into effect; and on the thirty-first Carlos III wrote a letter to Pope Clement XIII, stating that he found it necessary to expel the Jesuits from his dominions, and would send them to the States of the Church, to be under the direction of his Holiness as the father of the faithful. The Spanish ambassador at Rome, to whom this letter was sent for delivery to the pope, was also notified that all the expelled Jesuits would be pensioned, as long as they remained outside of the Spanish territories, at the following rate: to the ordained priests, 100 pesos annually; to the laymen, 90 pesos; and to all, a half-year’s salary in advance.[6] The pope was overcome with grief at this news, and in reply (April 16) remonstrated with the king against this measure, protesting that the Jesuit order was innocent of disloyal or evil acts, and urging the king to suspend the execution of the decrees against them. This of course had no effect, and the pope refused to receive the banished Jesuits into his territory, hoping thus to compel Carlos to take other steps; but the latter sent the exiles to Corsica instead. On January 23, 1776, Pius VI directed the nuncios in the Catholic countries to enforce the law of silence in regard to the extinction of the Jesuit order—a measure especially directed against the publication of libels and satires, which at that time abounded in the larger cities, and were often indecent and infamous. In that year, also, harmony was restored between the Holy See and the Catholic powers.]
[The above general account of the causes leading to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the Spanish domains is obtained from various places in the account furnished by Danvila y Collado in his Reinado de Carlos III, t. ii, iii, to which the reader is referred as being probably the most full, accurate, and scholarly account now available of this important historical episode. He uses a great variety of material, obtained largely from the original documents in the Spanish archives, which he cites directly (and often in full), with careful references to his sources; and, although his sympathies are with the Jesuit order, which he thinks was unjustly maligned, he is evidently too thorough a scholar to suppress or distort the facts in the case. The following outline of his work in regard to this subject will give the reader an idea of his thoroughness therein, and of the places where one may find special information on various aspects of the subject. Tomo ii: Chapter v, “Controversies with Roma,” relates those which occurred under Carlos III over the royal prerogatives, the measures for canonizing the venerable Palafox,[7] ecclesiastical amortization, the banishment of the inquisitor-general by the king, the expulsion of the Jesuits, and other burning questions of that time. Chapter vi treats, with much fulness of detail, of the Madrid uprising of 1766, with its causes and effects. Chapters vii-ix form a history of the Jesuit order from its first establishment to 1766. Tomo iii: Chapter i, “Causes of the expulsion;” chapter ii, “The Execution of the expulsion;” chapter iii, “The monitory decree of Parma,” a brief issued by Clement XIII on January 30, 1768, which attempted to assert the temporal power of the pope;[8] chapter iv, “Origin of the extinction of the Society of Jesus,” showing how the plan for this measure was initiated by France, and how the other powers rapidly fell into line for her support; chapter v, “The election of Clement XIV,” relating the important part played therein by the question of suppressing the Jesuit order, and the political scheming by the various powers interested; chapters vi-viii, “Extinction of the Society of Jesus;” chapter ix, “Consequences of the extinction;” chapter x, “Rehabilitation of the Society of Jesus,” which ends with the brief of Leo XIII (July 13, 1886) abrogating that by which Clement XIV put an end (July 21, 1773) to the Jesuit order.]
[In the appendix to tomo iii are various important documents, presented in full, as follows: Official report to Carlos III of the proceedings on April 30, 1767, of the Council committee [Consejo extraordinario] which advised the expulsion of the Jesuits, in regard to the pope’s remonstrance against that measure. Another letter of remonstrance from the pope, May 6, 1767; and the king’s brief and resolute reply thereto, June 2 of same year. Letter written (June 23) by one of the Spanish ministers, Manuel de Roda, stating “the reasons which his Majesty has had for decreeing the expulsion.” Another report of the Council committee, dated November 30, 1767, long and interesting, on the proposal made to Spain by Portugal for concerted action by the powers to secure the extinction of the Society. A report from the full session of the Council, dated March 21, 1767, recommending the extinction of the order; the signatures include those of the archbishops and bishops.[9] “Brief statement of the infractions of law committed by the Jesuits, which was sent to Roma for delivery to the pope;”[10] it was drawn up, in 1769, by José Moñino, Conde de Floridablanca, another of the Spanish ministers.]
[In Crétineau-Joly’s Histoire de la Compagnie de Jésus, volume v is devoted to the expulsion of the Jesuits successively from Portugal, France, Spain, and other countries, and the results of that measure. In regard to Spain, see pp. 236–254. We present here the leading points of interest therein. According to Crétineau-Joly, Carlos III was “a prince who was religious and able, upright and enlightened, but impetuous and obstinate; he had most of the qualities which promote the welfare of peoples. His character entirely accorded with that of his subjects; like them, he pushed to the utmost degree family spirit and the honor of his name. At Naples, as well as at Madrid, Carlos III always showed himself devoted to the Society of Jesus.” In the uprising at Madrid in March, 1766, the popular irritation made the situation exceedingly dangerous, “when the Jesuits, all-powerful over the minds of the people, flung themselves into the mêlée and succeeded in appeasing the tumult. The people of Madrid gave way to the entreaties and threats of the fathers; but, in dispersing they undertook to show their affection for the latter; and from all sides the cry of ‘Long live the Jesuits!’ resounded in the pacified city. Carlos III, humiliated at having taken flight [to Aranjuez], and perhaps still more humiliated at owing the tranquillity of his capital to some priests, returned to the city. He was received with joy; but he had around him men who, affiliated with Choiseul and the party of [French] philosophy, felt it necessary to mingle poison with the facts. The Marquis de Squillaci was replaced in the ministry by the Count d’Aranda, and, after a long time, the Spanish diplomat made common cause with the Encyclopedists.” “The Duke of Alva, a former minister of Fernando VI, shared his ideas, and became the apostle of innovations, and the exciter of hatred against the Jesuits.[11] Portugal and France had just expelled them; Alva and Aranda dared not remain behind. The pretext of the revolt at Madrid for the cloaks and broad hats[12] had produced the effect which was to be expected; it inspired the king with suspicions of the Jesuits. The prince could not explain to himself the fact that there, where the majesty of the sovereign had been defied, the moral authority of the Jesuits had so easily overcome the popular fury. The people had massacred his Walloon guards, and accepted the intervention of the fathers of the [Jesuit] Institute. This mystery, to which the contact of the disciples of St. Ignatius with all classes of people so easily supplied the key, was exaggerated and distorted for the ear of Carlos III. The king was favorable to the Society of Jesus, but [his ministers] succeeded in rendering him indifferent to it; then one day, a net woven long before wrapped the Society in its meshes.” “Those who favor the destruction of the Order of Jesus, and the partisans of that same order, while they agree entirely as to the result, differ essentially in regard to the causes. The former claim that the ‘hat insurrection’ opened the king’s eyes, and made him suspect that this society of priests aspired to dethrone their protector, or at least to make themselves masters of the Spanish colonies. The others affirm that Aranda was only the stone-setter [metteur en œuvre] of a plot organized in Paris. This plot, they say, had for its foundation the pride of a son who was unwilling to have to blush for his mother.”[13] Several Protestant writers are cited to show that the king’s decision to expel the Jesuits was caused mainly by his resentment at the Madrid uprising (which he was made to believe was incited by the Jesuits), and at the statements made in a pretended letter by Ricci, the Jesuit general—a letter which the French minister, Duke de Choiseul, was accused of fabricating—to the effect “that he had succeeded in collecting documents which proved incontestably that Carlos III was the child of adultery; this absurd invention made such an impression upon the king that he allowed the order for the expulsion of the Jesuits to be wrested from him.” “This fact is confirmed by other contemporaneous testimony, and by the documents of the Society of Jesus.” “The order is not touched anywhere [in the proceedings of the Council]; the discipline or the morals of the Jesuits are never incriminated.” “The suppositions which cause the decision of the Council extraordinary are not proved; they are not even expressed.” “All that the government of Fernando VII afterward admitted was, that ‘the Society of Jesus was expelled forever, in virtue of a measure wrested by most crafty and unrighteous underhand dealings from his magnanimous and pious grandfather Carlos III.’ ” “The pragmatic sanction is as reserved as the sentence of the Council extraordinary; it throws no light on the nature of the crimes imputed to the Jesuits.” “The mandate of the king was pitiless; the authorities, both military and civil, conformed with it, without understanding it. There were at that time unspeakable sufferings, bitter regrets, and cruel outrages to humanity. It was directed against six thousand Jesuits scattered in Spain and the New World; they were carried away by force, insulted, confined, and crowded on the decks of vessels. They were devoted to apostasy or to misery; they were surprised in their houses, despoiled of their property, their books, and their correspondence; they were torn from their colleges or their missions. Young or old, well or sick, all were obliged to submit to an ostracism of which no one had the secret. They departed for an unknown exile; under threats and insults, not one let a complaint escape him. In their most private papers there was never found a line which could make them suspected of any plot.”]
The expulsion from Filipinas
[An account of this is presented by Montero y Vidal in his Hist. de Filipinas, tomo ii; he relates the causes of this measure, and the execution of it in España and the colonies in general (pp. 141–179), and the expulsion from Filipinas (pp. 181–228), which latter account is here given:]
The Conde de Aranda, who was especially entrusted by Carlos III with all that related to the banishment of the Jesuits and the seizure of their property, addressed to the governor-general of Filipinas the following letter, dated March 1, 1767:
“Inside the annexed letter from Señor Marqués de Grimaldi, secretary of the affairs of state, you will receive another from the king our sovereign, in which his Majesty deigns to confer authority on me for the purpose of which this despatch treats—which, in short, is the banishment of the order of the Society of Jesus from all the royal dominions, in the manner and form provided in the royal decree, of which I enclose a printed copy. The very fact of the special honor which the king confers on you of puño, “fist”] will convince you of the importance of the matter and of secrecy, and of the king’s resolute determination for the most punctual fulfilment [of the decree].
“As for its execution, you will be guided by the instructions framed for España and by the additional ones that apply to the Indias, availing yourself of both, to the end of selecting from each that which is best adapted to your purpose. As I have taken into consideration the distance of those countries from this one, and the difference in their mode of government, I have decided to entrust to you all discretionary power [necessary] to change or add details of circumstance, so that the [desired] result may be attained with that completeness which so important a matter requires. I think that your clear-sightedness and prudence will peaceably bring about obedience to the royal decision—without, however, neglecting guards and the use of moderate force, in order not to risk the failure of the enterprise; but in any event if, contrary to what is usual, you should encounter resistance from the religious concerned in this, or find among their adherents any inclination or resolution to oppose you, you will employ the authority and force of military power, as you would in case of rebellion.
“It will be important that in the villages where there is a college or house of the Society measures be taken (as soon as the royal decree has been made known to them) to inform the other religious orders and the secular clergy of those places that the decree of his Majesty is limited to the Jesuit religious; for it is very proper that all the other ecclesiastics, both seculars and regulars, contribute with their persuasions, so that the people generally shall reverence the decrees of his Majesty, since they must be considered as always based on important and just grounds. The king our sovereign has the greatest confidence in your fidelity and ability, and consequently I have the same. I only desire, therefore, your complete fulfilment [of this commission], and that you write to me in order to keep me informed of the results, without making any inquiries on doubtful points; for if these should arise you must decide them for yourself, being governed by the sense and idea which the royal decree and instructions themselves, as a whole, produce. May God preserve you many years. Madrid, March 1, 1767.”
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the “Additional instructions regarding the banishment of the Jesuits from the dominions of his Majesty, for what belongs to the Indias and the Filipinas Islands,” to which the preceding document refers, say: “(1) In order that the viceroys, presidents, and governors of my domains in the Indias and the Filipinas Islands may know that they have, in virtue of the royal decision, for this purpose, the same powers that reside in me, I entrust to them those which are mentioned in the instructions for España, so that they may issue the orders designating the depositaries [for papers, goods, etc., belonging to the persons expelled], and the ports [of departure for them], and promptly make ready the necessary vessels for the transportation of the Jesuits to Europa and the port of Santa María, where they will be received and equipped for their destination. (2) As the authority of those officials will be ample, they will remain responsible for the execution of the decree—for which they may select a suitable time, and will fix the day on which it may be carried out in all parts of their territory, issuing the proper orders with the utmost promptness, in order that no information may reach any of the [Jesuit] colleges of what is being done at others in this regard.”
Map of Guam, one of the Marianas Islands, in Concepción’s Historia general (Sampaloc, 1788–1792)
[From copy in Library of Harvard University]
The preceding documents were accompanied by a list of the colleges, houses, and residences of the Jesuits, certainly not a very accurate one. The colleges, residences, and curacies which at that time they possessed in Filipinas were as follows: In Manila (jurisdiction)—the colleges of San Ignacio and San José, and that of San Ildefonso at Santa Cruz; also the following curacies. In the province of Tondo (Manila), which includes the present district of Morong—San Miguel, San Pedro Macati (college and novitiate), Cainta, Taytay, Antipolo, Bosoboso, San Mateo, and Mariquina. In the province of Cavite—Cavite (where they had a college), Cavite Viejo, Silan, Indan, Maragondon, Naic. In the corregidor’s district of Mindoro—Boac, Santa Cruz de Napó, Marinduque Island, Gapan. In the province of Cebú—Cebú, with a college, and the curacies of Mandaue and Liloan. In Bohol—Inabangan and Talibón (where was situated the residence of Bohol), with the villages and ministries of Loboc; Baclayon, Dauis, Malabohoc, Tagbilaran, Santísima Trinidad, and (on the coast farthest from Luzón) the curacy of Hagna. In the island of Negros—Ilog, Cabancalan (with the mission of Buyonan, Himamaylan, Cavayan and the mission of Sipalay). In the province of Otón (Iloilo)—Iloilo (with a college), Molo, Arévalo. In the island of Sámar—Catbalogan, Paranas, Humavas, Calviga, Boac, Bangajon, Tinagog, Calvayog; in the island of Capul, the ministry of Abac. In the province of Ibabao, or coast of Sámar farthest from Luzón—Palápag, Lavan, Catubig, Catarman, Bobón, Sulat, Túbig and Borongan. On the southern coast of the same island—Guiguan, Balanguigan, Basey and Lalaviton. In the island of Leyte—Carigara, Barugo, Jaro, Alangalang and Leyte. On the farther coast of the same island—the residence of Ilongos, and the ministries of Palompón, Poro, Ogmug, Baybay, Maasin, Sogor, Liloan, Cavalian and Hinondayan. In the northern part of the same island—the residence of Banigo, Palo, Tanavan, Dulac and Abuyog, and (in the interior) Dagami and Burabuen. In the island of Mindanao—the presidio of Zamboanga, with a college and ministry; Bagonbayan, Dumalon, Siocon, Catabangan, Caldera, Polombato and Siraguay. In the northern part of the same island—Dapitan, Iligan, Lavayan, Langaran, Lubungan, Disacan; Talingan, and various visitas and missions along the same coasts and the bay of Pangue. In the Marianas islands—Agaña, with a college and Indian seminary; Agat, Merizo, Pago, Guajan, Yuarajan, Umata, Rota and Saipan.
The first communication addressed to Raón by Conde de Aranda in reference to the manner of effecting the expulsion of the Jesuits was sent to him through the viceroy of Méjico, in order that the latter might despatch the letter from Acapulco. Lest this should go astray or be delayed, a second copy was sent to him by way of Cádiz and the French ships of their Company of the Eastern Indias, its bearer being an official appointed for this purpose, under the pretext that he was going there to discipline the troops. In this latter communication (on the same date of March 1), Conde de Aranda added these words to Raón: “I think that when this reaches you the very reverend archbishop will have already arrived in Manila, as he sailed from Cádiz a month ago in a Swedish ship. If that is the case, your Lordship can inform him confidentially of this despatch; and you can count on his illustrious Lordship in whatever your Lordship may deem necessary, in his opinion or his aid. For his Majesty esteems him, and I know him intimately; and I am certain that he will coöperate with whatever measures may conduce to the success of this enterprise, and to the greater service of the king.” In another and third despatch was repeated what had been previously explained to Raón, informing him that the bearer of the second despatch was his Majesty’s courier Pedro Santillac—who was to embark in Holanda, in order to go to Batavia, and thence to Manila, chartering a vessel, if there was none available, for this object.
Raón, who was an extraordinarily avaricious and venal man,[14] and not conscientious in the performance of his duties, saw in this matter a business out of which he could obtain profit; and he utilized it for his own advantage, revealing to the Jesuits, for a large sum of money, the secret of their expulsion. Thanks to this perfidy, they were able to place in safety a large part of their wealth, at least what they possessed in gold and silver, and in valuables that were easy to hide; and they caused the disappearance of documents and papers which compromised them, or, if these were seized, would be proof of their plans and pernicious intrigues in certain matters. Notwithstanding this despicable proceeding, Raón sent the following answer to the letter of Carlos III:
“Sire: As soon as I read, pressed to my lips, and placed on my head the respected royal letter of your Majesty giving orders relative to the expulsion of the Jesuits who were settled in all these domains of your Majesty, and the seizure of their goods, I employed the means that occurred to my loyalty and zeal for the accomplishment and fulfilment of this important business. In consequence, there are sailing as passengers on the ship named “San Carlos Borromeo” sixty-four individuals, including the principal Jesuits of this mainland [of Luzón] and the island of Marinduque; and for the removal of a like number of missionaries from the Bisayas Islands four vessels are employed. Meantime I have the aid of the other holy religious orders in occupying temporarily the ministries there—as I fully informed your Majesty in greater detail through Conde de Aranda. May our Lord preserve the royal Catholic person of your Majesty, as these remote regions need. Manila, July 23, 1768. Sire, [I kiss] your Majesty’s royal feet.
The faithlessness of Raón, information of which reached the court, caused his successor, Don Simón de Anda, to receive orders to commence legal proceedings against Raón, for the purpose of proving this grave offense and punishing it severely. That upright and severely just magistrate did so; and nothing will aid more the exact understanding of one of the most far-reaching events in the history of Filipinas than to insert here, complete, the summary drawn up by Anda of the above-mentioned lawsuit, since in it are shown in great detail the particulars of what was done in these islands in the expulsion of the Jesuits. Here is the exact copy of this important document:
[Space will not permit us to present this summary in full, but we make an outline of it sufficient to preserve all the facts of main importance; it may be found at pp. 187–216 of Montero y Vidal’s account. Charges were brought against Raón and three others; these were Francisco Henriquez de Villacorta and Domingo Blas de Basaraz, members of the Audiencia, and Juan Antonio Cosio, the governor’s secretary. Raón was proved guilty on the charge of having given information to the Jesuits of the measures to be taken against them, on the next day (May 18) after receiving the royal commands; “and immediately they began, and continued without ceasing, the concealment of their wealth and the burning of papers. Circumstantial evidence shows that it was Raón who told them, and various persons declared that this ‘was worth to him many pesos.’ ” He made an outward show of obeying the decree, by sending (at 10 a. m.) troops to surround and guard the Jesuit college; and also his secretary, to tell the fathers that the soldiers had gone there for purposes which would afterward be explained to them by Auditor Galvan. The latter, however, he kept busy otherwise, until the twenty-first. On May 18 he sent Galvan to the Jesuit college of San Ildefonso, outside the walls, to carry out the decree, and Raón waited until he finished these duties before he sent Galvan to the main colleges within the city; this gave the Jesuits from three to five days to hide their treasures and burn their papers,[15] in which they occupied themselves both day and night. Raón failed to require the superiors of the colleges to call in their absent priests, and to remove the Jesuits, as soon as they were notified of the decree, from their colleges to some other place of detention till they could be sent from the city. They also possessed eleven farms and ranches; Raón is charged with having left the Jesuits in these undisturbed, for several months or even more than a year, without any check on their doings, or inventory of the property, which they stated as they chose; and even that he sent cavalry to these farms, to be at the orders of the fathers there. In the provinces outside of Manila, Raón neglected to carry out his instructions for the expulsion; and in consequence “there was not a college or a town in which the Jesuits did not have notice beforehand of their expulsion.” Accordingly, they also concealed their wealth and burned their papers, and they even found their way into their colleges at Manila; and Raón so neglected his duties that it was four months after the royal decree was published at Manila before the first orders for the expulsion from Visayas were sent thither.[16] In order to shield himself, he had his secretary Cosio draw up a false statement, duly attested, that the governor had duly executed the royal commands regarding the Jesuits, in accordance with his instructions; and this was sent to Aranda, with a letter in which he threw the blame upon Galvan for any defects which might be found in the conduct of the expulsion. Other secondary charges were brought against Raón: he had allowed the Jesuits to prepare their outfits for their voyage as they chose, and for this to leave the college in which they were detained, and to have intercourse with various people, all this contrary to his instructions; he had displayed negligence, lack of system, and extravagance in the shipment and supplies of food for the exiles; he neglected to look after the interests of the obras pías which the Jesuits had administered, thus causing serious damages to those foundations. He did not make provision, for two years after the expulsion, for the administration of the temporalities occupied by the Jesuits; thus the collection of debts due to them was “absolutely neglected, until measures for this were taken by the present government; so were the estates, houses, obras pías, and moneys at interest, and left without any person to call to account the individuals who were managing them; and from this ensued the arrears and losses that may be inferred.” Raón was also charged with having conspired with Cosio, Basaraz, and Villacorta to persecute and harass Galvan, Viana, and Santa Justa—from which persecution Galvan suffered so much that, worn out and depressed by it, he finally died; but they, not content with that, tried to defame his reputation. In most of these charges, Raón tried to make excuses for his conduct, or to throw the blame on Galvan or Villacorta; but Anda declares that they were all partly or wholly proved, and that Raón neglected everything in his official position “which did not involve the handling of ‘Mexican grease [vnto mexicano],’ ” that is, of bribes. His secretary Cosio was naturally included in all the charges made against Raón (in some of which he was declared more to blame than his master); but he is especially denounced for having drawn up and attested the false declaration that Raón had obeyed his instructions and performed his duty faithfully in the expulsion of the Jesuits, and as having done more than any one else to cause the death of Galvan; Anda concludes by saying, “he is more subtle and malevolent than can be expressed.”[17] Villacorta was charged with having been more intimate with the expelled Jesuits than was becoming in an auditor; with having censured the archbishop for his insistence on episcopal visitation of the regulars; with having conspired against Galvan and the others; and with perjury. It was also proved that he had lived in open immorality, having two illegitimate daughters; that he engaged in trade, with dummy partners [testas de Ferro]; that he had, contrary to his obligation of secrecy, informed the friars of the government’s decision in regard to the diocesan visitation of their curas, before it could be carried out, and had complained of the archbishop to the king. The charges against Basaraz were similar to those against Raón, in regard to the expulsion of the Jesuits and the conspiracy against Galvan, and are not repeated in detail, especially as he had died before the conclusion of the legal process against him. He was also an intimate friend of the Jesuits, being a “third brother” of theirs, that is, affiliated to them through a third or lay order, like those of other regular corporations; he prevented the execution of some measures against them, and allowed them to take whatever they desired from their archives which had been seized; he was in constant and secret communication with the expelled priests, and spent money for them as they directed him; he allowed them to carry money and papers on board the ship; he spoke disparagingly of the king and his ministers, and their proceedings against the Jesuits; he falsified records, and compelled the notaries to make false entries; and, besides all these, he was drunken, licentious, and extravagant. Raón and Basaraz died soon after the beginning of proceedings against them; “and Villacorta did not raise his head after he saw the charges, and that all of them were documentary; and finally he also showed the bad taste to go to accompany the others, at the very time when he finished making his defense;” accordingly, Cosio was the only one left to send to Spain. Anda recounts the aid and kindness which he showed to all the accused, allowing them abundance of money, attendance, and liberty, and sending Basaraz to a hospital, and afterward to one of the best houses in the city, for the sake of his health; Cosio is the only one who experienced any severity, being sent to Fort Santiago. Nevertheless, Anda expects that many will try to make trouble for him, by misrepresenting or calumniating him, and accusing him of having caused those deaths by undue severity; he desires, however, that “those malicious acts be not attributed to him which, as he has known, have been represented at the court by the friars, and the prisoners, and especially the blessed [bendito, ironically] Father Serena.” Another auditor, Juan Antonio de Uruñuela, was also accused of voting at Raón’s dictation, and being concerned in the conspiracy against Galvan; he also brought to the islands 3,000 pesos, which he placed in charge of the friars, who included it and other property of his with their own money, as all being “for their missions in China,” so that he might not have to pay duties on it. Cosio and Raón’s friends attempted to show that the archbishop had warned the Jesuits of their expulsion; but Raón’s own testimony had disproved that accusation. Anda was unable to conclude the proceedings against the accused, for when he reached Manila he found that the Audiencia contained only Villacorta, Basaraz, and Uruñuela; “and although two auditors came in company with him, Don Francisco Ignacio Gonzalez Maldonado and Don Juan Francisco Anda (his own nephew), the former gave indications of perversity in the residencia of Villacorta, which he conducted, and it was necessary to reserve the second to succeed Basaraz in the post of commissioner of the Jesuit properties—for the governor knew, extra-judicially, that Uruñuela and Maldonado would decline to accept it, and, in order to avoid a dispute, he would not propose it to them.” Anda mentions various ways in which the relatives of the accused had endeavored to hinder the legal proceedings, means which they afterward used too successfully at court to involve him in trouble with the home government, although he had faithfully followed the instructions given him by that very government to bring the guilty parties to justice.]
In execution of the orders of the court, the properties which the Jesuits possessed in the islands were confiscated, their administrations being afterward entrusted to a special commission appointed by the governor-general. In order to give some idea of the amount of the said property, we will insert here a curious document written by a person of undeniable veracity, not at all unfriendly to the Jesuits, who on account of the offices which he held in Manila had at his disposal the respective expedientes [of the above suit]; he writes thus:
“The possessions of the Jesuits in Filipinas.—I have personally examined the voluminous expedientes drawn up for their expulsion from these islands; I have gone through the itemized inventories of all the colleges, houses, residences, and ministries; I have examined the appraisement, leases, and sale of the estates, buildings, cattle, furniture, and valuables, besides
| [Effects] | Pesos |
| In ready money, interest that was collected, and obras pías | 463,882 |
| Produce from the sale of various estates and houses | 721,553 |
| Idem, from furniture and chattels sold in the various colleges, residences, and ministries | 128,735 |
| A printing-office, adjudged to the [archiepiscopal] seminary, and valued at | 4,035 |
| A drug-store, turned over to the royal hospital, and valued at | 2,660 |
| All these amount to the sum of | 1,320,865 |
“But it should be kept in mind that the articles of merchandise, provisions, furniture, and other articles amounted to a large sum which were placed in the royal storehouses without appraisal or valuation, as appears from their respective appraisements.[18] Also in Marianas there was adjudged to the royal treasury a drug-store and the estate of Tachona, eleven leguas in circumference, with cattle, house, and outbuildings; and the college of San Juan de Letrán, with all that pertained to it, was handed over to the Recollect fathers with the same informality. The same thing occurred with two ranches which the college of Cebú possessed in the island of Bojol, and two others belonging to the college of Iloilo. Then the estate of Zamboanga alone, on which there were 2,139 head of cattle, horses, etc., and which also was applied to the treasury without appraisal, yielded in nine [sic] years from August, 1768 (when the government took possession of it) to 1779 the amount of 17,561 pesos, from which the value of the estate may be calculated. The royal college of nobles of San José, with its building and everything pertaining to it—including the three estates of Tunasan, Liang, and Calatagan—was given up without appraisal to the new rector who was appointed, Don Ignacio de Salamanca, a magistral canon; it was only known that the said estates, after deducting all the expenses of administration, repairs, etc., yielded a net profit of 27,336 pesos, in the first eight years. Not only was handed over to the new curas all that belonged to divine worship in the various ministries which the Society had in its charge, and in the archbishopric alone were the cathedral and twenty-two poor churches enriched with the ornaments and sacred utensils which came from the great college of San Ignacio[19] and other houses; but a great quantity of valuables, jewels,[20] etc. were sent to España which had no immediate connection with the holy sacrifice, and which, according to the instructions sent around by his Majesty, were placed in the second class—as candelabras, frontals [for the altars], lamps, etc., of gold and silver, which were used on solemn occasions for greater magnificence—also of those articles which were classified as profane. Finally, we must consider the enormous deterioration [of the valuables placed] in the royal storehouses, and the infinitely greater amount lost by selling the goods at forced sale, in many different and remote places, and when there was a scarcity of buyers. Considering all this, I think that I can affirm that the product of the secular properties that were seized from the Society of Jesus reached the amount of 2,000,000 pesos. How much this immense capital has produced to the royal treasury it is not possible to ascertain. I will say, however, that the 252,442 pesos alone to which the capital of the obras pías amounted at the time of the expulsion increased in December, 1796, to the sum of 513,168 pesos—that is to say, they increased in eighteen years by 260,726 pesos, or more than half of that capital; and, in this century, from 1820 to 1837 this fund yielded an increase of 420,849 pesos. It is important to note that as soon as the Jesuit estates were seized his Majesty reduced those foundations from 45 to 26, abolishing the rest, and leaving a capital of [only] 151,626 pesos; it is this which has furnished so wonderful results.”…
It is fully understood that the Jesuits of Filipinas felt profound grief at having to abandon a country in which they had gathered so rich a harvest, considering their excessive regard for worldly possessions—as is affirmed by the venerable Palafox, the bishops whose opinions we have cited, and Pope Clement XIV, who suppressed the Society, and all persons who have been occupied with this special idiosyncrasy of the Jesuits.
The incidents connected with the expulsion of the Jesuits from Filipinas were among the most productive of scandal which, in matters of that sort, the history of that country records. At that time the Jesuits enjoyed so great a predominance, and realized such enormous gains throughout the archipelago (with their well-equipped industrial enterprises, their lucrative trade, and the produce of their vast estates), and they kept the [Spanish] natives of the country so thoroughly exploited and so subjected to their domineering influence—cajoling the vanity of some with the hypocritical deference with which the fathers treated them, and favoring the notions of independence in others, giving them to understand that they [the Jesuits] were not Spaniards, but citizens of the world (which is the aspect under which they make themselves more congenial to the islanders than the friars do, for the latter never fail to make it known that they are Spaniards)—that their wrath was unutterable when the decree for their expulsion from the islands was made known to them. They attempted to evade the royal mandate, and to disparage and criticise the monarch’s authority and his acts, unloosing against these the passions of their fanatical partisans; and with their infamous conduct they presented a most melancholy spectacle, in which the royal authority was questioned, religion made light of, and vices and faults which it would have been expedient for them to keep secret were displayed to the public.
In 1769 there came to Manila on the frigate “Venus” various printed books which sharply attacked the Jesuits, and censured their conduct and teachings, while they extolled the expulsion decreed against that order by Carlos III. These books began to circulate, and pass from hand to hand, to the great satisfaction of the Jesuits’ enemies and the furious anger of their partisans; and a magistrate [i.e., Basaraz] who was a friend to the Jesuits proceeded, without authorization, charge, or commission from any one, to seize and prohibit the said books, and arrested the person who was distributing them. [The archbishop then wrote, besides the edict which follows this résumé, an indignant letter to Raón, both of which are cited at some length by our writer.] The fury of the Jesuits’ partisans against the archbishop was extraordinary; and they disseminated reports that he was a heretic, and that his edict ought to be suppressed, with a thousand other insults against his person and dignity. A friar theologian wrote a confidential letter in defense of the Jesuits, and contradicting the [aforesaid] printed books; the Jesuits had a multitude of copies of this letter circulated. The archbishop immediately printed a long answer (or refutation) to the said letter, and likewise circulated it in profusion through the country. [The next feature of this controversy was the circulation of a voluminous MS. document, defending the theologian’s letter and the teachings of the Jesuits.[21]
Decree by the archbishop of Manila
✝
We, Don Basilio Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina, by the grace of God and of the holy Apostolic See archbishop of Manila and metropolitan of these Philipinas Islands; councilor and preacher to his Majesty, and apostolic subdelegate; deputy vicar-general for the royal forces on sea and land in this archdiocese and its suffragan dioceses for his Eminence the lord Cardinal de la Cerda y San Carlos, the patriarch of the Indias; chief almoner of the king our sovereign; chief chaplain and vicar-general of the said royal forces in all his domains and lordships; etc.:
To all the persons of both sexes who exist and dwell in our archbishopric, of whatever state, rank, and condition you may be, greeting in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true salvation.[22] We cannot deny the great pleasure and satisfaction with which our heart is filled at beholding, in our own experience, the loyalty, obedience, and fidelity with which our beloved subjects, in proof of their most profound and humble vassalage to the royal person of our august sovereign and lord, Don Carlos III (whom may God preserve), have accepted the most just decisions of his Majesty in regard to the expulsion of the regulars of the association named the Society of Jesus from all his dominions of España, the Americas, the Philipinas Islands, and others adjacent. And this first royal decree having been followed, among others, by that one in which his Majesty, as a prince who professes the soundest doctrine with the purest religion, issues effectual orders that in all his kingdoms may be suppressed that most pernicious and consequently abominable doctrine which the said regulars taught even from the beginning of that order—in regard to which we were thoroughly instructed years ago, and now, in order to secure the general conviction of this truth, there has just been published by order of his Majesty a pastoral by our brother dignitary his most illustrious Lordship the present archbishop of Burgos—we have learned that by the coming of the ships from Europa directly to these islands there have been made public in this city various printed documents[23] relative to the pernicious maxims and teachings of the aforesaid regulars. These documents, according to the uniform answers of persons who have come in the said ships, are publicly distributed in Madrid and other cities of our España; and we have even noticed in the Mercuries of public news which have reached our hands (and the said Mercuries are not printed without previous notice to and permission from the court) the aforesaid documents conspicuously announced. We know that in this city they have produced in the minds of many persons who have read them the same good effect as there in España—that is, to confirm them more and more in that just judgment which they have formed of the uprightness, and of the justness of the reasons, which could induce our Catholic sovereign to decide upon the expulsion of the aforesaid regulars. And we have been informed that the circulation of those documents has ceased[24]—(we know not why, and only know that such is the fact), without the intervention of the public, superior, and legitimate authority—a singular thing, which of itself is sufficient to occasion a most pernicious result, that those who have read them will doubt the truth of what is said therein, at the same time depriving those who have not read them of the important information which they furnish in regard to the lax and mischievous nature of the moral maxims which are encountered at every turn in the books written by the said regulars; and in some of the said documents these statements are mentioned, the works where they are found being cited, and their original authors. [Moreover], we, as our beloved people have seen, have not lost (in fulfilment of our official pastoral letter) any opportunity since our safe arrival in these islands—both in private conversations and in sermons, and even in public theses—to inveigh against laxity in matters of morality; and, since our obligation is so pressing, not only to teach good and sound doctrine, in order that it may be embraced, but also to point out emphatically what is pernicious and evil, in order that men may flee from it as from poisoned food, which slays the soul. The aforesaid documents have greatly aided us in this, forasmuch as they open the eyes of their readers, in order that they may learn the source from which have issued the wrong and dangerous doctrines which have occasioned so many injuries and losses to the holy Church—which, as opposed to the spirit of the Church, have always aroused against them the antagonism of the supreme head who rules it, of the holy fathers, and of all the true teachers of the gospel religion which our heavenly Master, Jesus Christ, imparted to us. Accordingly, in view of all this, we would be guilty of a very culpable omission if we should keep silence, in neglect of so excellent reasons, and should not explain our opinion to our beloved people on this occasion when the aforesaid documents have ceased to be current—from which it may result that many of our beloved subjects continue in their former false ideas and dangerous prepossessions, for lack of means so opportune for leading them out of these. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons (and after having examined the said printed documents), and to dissipate whatever uncertainties upon this point may have arisen in some minds, we have resolved to declare, as using our episcopal authority for the edification of souls, and by the present we do declare, that our subjects are authorized to read the aforesaid printed documents with security of conscience, and without prejudice to sound doctrine, in which assertion we have in mind the pious objects above stated. Indeed, far from being opposed thereto, it is very expedient to read them, in order to disabuse the mind of many prejudicial errors by which the conscience is endangered, and to arrive at a knowledge of the holy truth, to which end the matters which are treated in these books evidently conduce. For there is no reason to doubt, with appearance of prudence, that everything which is contained in them it strictly true, when it immediately occurs to everyone that, in giving this assurance, the men agree in all parts of the Catholic world who are most worthy of confidence on account of their piety, high standing, and wisdom—and among these are many Spaniards who are distinguished in both worlds for their virtue, and in both are no less noted for their learning. In the number of these are also found the supreme pontiffs, innumerable bishops and clergymen, an endless number of religious in other orders, and the universities; and even various individuals of high character, and who are prominent in the Society, have with one voice been calling, at all times, for the reparation of the spiritual decline which has, by dint of force and through sheer obstinacy, been introduced in the Church universal by those who are now expelled. [This they have done] by their arbitrary opinions, destructive to the gospel of Jesus Christ, for they were the first to carry these into practice; and through a practice so detestable they have given amply sufficient reasons to the Christian princes who with their kingdoms form the greater part of the Roman Catholic Church—and, above all, to her eldest son, our most pious, ever august, and Catholic monarch Don Carlos III (whom may God preserve)—for banishing them forever from all their vast domains. And as this is an indubitable fact, and notorious to all the world, such likewise are the arguments set forth [in the aforesaid documents]; and any person who for lack of profound study and of discernment between sound and wrong doctrines, or for want of opportunity, or through undue affection for those expelled persons, has been either unable or unwilling to observe seriously their iniquitous proceedings—whether as perpetually displaying, under the pretext of obedience, their reluctance to obey and submit to the sovereign decrees of the vicar of Christ; or persecuting everywhere the bishops; or making war on the other venerable and most holy religious orders; or poisoning good morals and even the faith itself, especially in the missions of China and Malabar (having been also the cause of the ruin of the Japan mission, notwithstanding the zeal of the missionaries of other orders and of the noble martyrs of the seraphic order,[25] whose memory will endure in the Church): or intriguing against the governments and the lives of princes; and attempting to turn, this way and that, the entire world at their pleasure—he who, we again say, in ignorance of all that has occurred in this matter, may remain in doubt as to the reasons which have, by divine ordering, caused the downfall of these regulars, is under obligation of conscience to lay aside this doubt, and to admit that such causes were urgent in order that so many Christian and Catholic princes should unite in the same and so momentous a judgment. For, their hearts being in the hand of God (as the Scriptures expressly declare to us), they have herein assured the success of the measures that they take, and uprightness and justice in their proceedings—and much more in things of greater importance; for as vicars of God, each one in his own domain, they issue commands, impose laws, and govern in pursuance of justice, with special assistance from God himself. And therefore it would be impiety, and a sort of blasphemy, to try to excuse and justify those who have been expelled; since this would be the same as wounding in the most conspicuous point of their honor the sovereignty of the kings, and especially of the [preëminently] Catholic among them all, who is our king—for whose defense every vassal ought to stand ready to lose his life; how much more so, to sacrifice personal desires and affections, or to keep silence and read in order that he may be undeceived from error and instructed in the truth of things, or not to utter insults regarding the Head [of the Church] in order to defend some members whose corruption had increased to such an extent that it was necessary to sever them entirely in order to save the body.
This and no other is the sound doctrine which upon this point we desire our beloved faithful to bear well in mind; and in order that it may come to the knowledge of all, and that no one can allege ignorance at any time, we command that the present edict be published in the customary churches, and posted in public places, where it can be read by all. Given in our archiepiscopal palace at Manila, signed by us, stamped with the seal of our coat-of-arms, and countersigned by our undersigned secretary; on the first day of November in the year one thousand, seven hundred and sixty-nine.
Basilio, archbishop of Manila.
By command of his illustrious Lordship the archbishop of Manila, my master:
Father Don Ildephonso Garcia, secretary.
[1] “All the disputes between España and Roma regarding the nature, extent, and limits of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions—commonly known by the name of the regalias of the crown—are reflected in the continual conflicts with the nuncio, the inquisitor, and the confessor; and from them arose the pase regio and the disamortization [of corporation lands], in order to make themselves manifest in the expediente for the beatification of the venerable Palafox, and to endeavor to find a definitive solution in the expulsion of the Jesuits. Carlos I and Felipe II of Castilla alike considered themselves set apart by God to defend eternally the true faith, with the mission of guarding and protecting the Church; and, like the ancient Roman emperors, in temporal affairs they acknowledged no superiority or limitations on the earth. The king was regarded as a living law, a permanent tribunal, the supreme master and legitimate lord of all his vassals; in one word, the crown was looked upon as the defender of the Church. The conflict of the Middle Ages ended, España aspired to a double social ideal, unity of power and religious unity; and this thought produced concentration, and the desire to separate what was spiritual and concerned with dogma from what was temporal and belonging to the government of peoples. Two distinct ideas strove together in the field of doctrine; one, supported by the submissions in former days of the Eastern Empire, claimed to subject temporal monarchs to the supreme political direction of the head of the Catholic Church; and the other, derived from primitive traditions, claimed that the Catholic sovereigns ought to exercise, equally with the pontiffs, the external government of the Church, as its natural protectors. A persistent and obstinate strife arose between the two ideas, and after several centuries the controversy was settled, by limiting the rights of the Holy See to that which concerned dogmas and the spiritual power, and leaving to the royal authority all that referred to discipline and the exercise of government, in whatever relates to the security of the State and the welfare of the people. It is this which with some unfitness has been called regalías; and at bottom it has been nothing more than the recovery of the proper character of the civil power, and the demarcation of the attributes of the power of the Church and the State. This demarcation, the strife over which lasted for entire centuries, was recognized in España by the concordat of 1753, in which is declared the right of [ecclesiastical] patronage of the kings of España; and to it the exequatur, disamortization, and the reform of both the regular and secular clergy, served them as a complement.” (Danvila, Reinado de Carlos III, ii, pp. 270, 271.)
The pase regio (Latin, exequatur) above mentioned refers to the prerogative assumed by the Spanish kings of the right to “pass” or confirm papal edicts or briefs, or those issued by other foreign ecclesiastics, or by the superiors of religious orders, before these could be valid in the Spanish dominions; several instances of this have already been mentioned in documents of this series. “Disamortization” (a word which, as the standard English lexicons contain no single word which expresses exactly the idea conveyed in the Spanish desamortización, we are obliged to coin for this purpose, simply transferring it, in English form, from the Spanish) means the act of setting free any lands which had been conveyed, in mortmain, to the corporations (mainly religious), that is, enabling other persons to acquire such lands. The exequatur is called by Danvila (ii, p. 281) “the most transcendent of the regalías of the crown.” [↑]
[2] It may be noted that all these high ecclesiastics signed the reports of the Council justifying the expulsion of the Jesuits, and that the archbishop of Manila (Santa Justa) is cited in various documents as having counseled the king to banish that order from his dominions. [↑]
[3] “It is known that the Society of Jesus was, more than a religious association, in reality a great mercantile company, from a very short time after its institution until its extinction by Clement XIV. Its vast commercial transactions in Europe, America, and Oceania furnished to it immense wealth; and, infatuated with their power and the dominion which they exercised over the minds of their ardent followers; having gained possession as they had done of the confessional and directing the consciences of kings and magnates; and strengthened by the affection (which they exploited with great ability) of women—upon whom they always have exercised, as they still do, a magnetic influence—the Jesuits considered themselves absolute masters of the world; and they devoted themselves to intervention in political affairs, managing with cautious skill political dealings in almost all countries, according to the degree in which these concerned their particular purposes. Their insolent and illegal acts, their despotism, their ambition, the iron yoke with which they oppressed both kings and peoples; their disputes with the other religious associations, who could not look with pleasure on the predominance and wealth of the new society which so audaciously gathered in the harvest from the fertile vineyard of the Lord; their dangerous maxims in regard to regicide, their demoralizing system of doctrine, their satanic pride and insatiable greed, their hypocrisy and corruption: all these raised against them a unanimous protest. Mistrust of them awoke in kings and peoples; men of sincere purpose and true Christian morals were alarmed; and on every side arose enemies of their order, and irrefutable proofs of their abominable aberrations were brought forward.” (Montero y Vidal, Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142–146.) [↑]
[4] See detailed account of the so-called “family compact” and the secret agreement which accompanied it, in Danvila, op. cit., ii, pp. 101–167. At the end he says: “The celebrated ‘family compact’ was never an affaire de cœur, but an alliance offensive and defensive in order to check the progress of the British arms in Europa and America, and to dispute with England the maritime supremacy of which she had possessed herself …. The ‘family compact,’ and the secret agreement which completed it, were from the beginning an alliance offensive and defensive of España and France against Great Britain.” [↑]
[5] Montero y Vidal makes numerous citations (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142, 143, 147–159) from letters written to Pope Innocent X in 1647 and 1649 by the noted bishop of La Puebla, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, showing how great wealth and power the Jesuits had attained in Nueva España, their hatred toward him and their conspiracies and even open attacks against him for doing his official duty, and their lawless, scandalous, immoral, and irreligious acts, as he has seen them. [↑]
[6] In November, 1779, letters were received by the Spanish government from their ambassador at Rome, asking that, in view of the poverty and suffering endured by the ex-Jesuits there, their pensions might be increased. Inquiries were made as to their numbers, with the following results; “On April 1, 1767, there existed in España 1,660 priests, 102 scholastics, and 965 coadjutors, making a total of 2,727. From the seven provinces of the Indias there arrived at the port of Santa María 1,396 priests, 327 scholastics, and 544 coadjutors, making a total of 2,267. The pensions of both classes amounted to 7,264,650 reals. On April 1, 1779, there existed in Italia 1,274 priests and scholastics, and 664 coadjutors belonging to the four provinces of España [i.e., those of the Jesuit order in that country, being designated as Toledo, Castilla, Andalucía, and Aragón], and, confined in them, sixteen priests and five coadjutors, the life-pensions of all these amounting to 2,852,600 reals; and from the seven provinces of Indias there were 1,197 priests and 279 coadjutors, the yearly sum of whose pensions was 2,255,750 reals, including those assigned to the Jesuits confined in España. Thus the difference between 1767 and 1779 was that of 2,151,300 reals, on account of the flight to foreign lands or the [ecclesiastical] suspension of 242 priests, 4 scholastics, and 145 coadjutors, and the death of 1,038 priests and 516 coadjutors. The twelve colleges and the procuradoría of the provinces of Méjico and of Filipinas, and of the college of Navarra, yielded 3,665,133 reals, 15 maravedís, leaving a surplus of 1,111,408 reals. The expenses for pensions, maintenance in España, clothing, and others which had arisen with the ex-Jesuits from the Indias, up to the end of June, 1779, reached the sum of 45,321,439 reals, 20 maravedís; and adding to this 3,086,767 reals, 14 maravedís, the value of a certain contribution given by order of his Majesty to the royal hospital of this court, and the payment of debts contracted by some colleges in the Indias, the total is 48,408,207 reals. The temporalities of the Indias were therefore indebted to those of España in 7,077,836 reals, 16 2–3 maravedís.” In view of these statistics, the Council did not feel able to increase the amount of the pensions, but agreed to send to the Spanish ambassador at Rome the sum of 1,500,000 reals, to be distributed among the ex-Jesuits in such manner as would best relieve their poverty. (Danvila, op. cit., iii, pp. 614, 615.)
(The above passage is carefully copied from Danvila, but there are some discrepancies in the figures given; these cannot be verified, of course, without reference to the original document in the Simancas archives cited by the author. These discrepancies are in all probability due to careless proof-reading, some instances of which we have seen in Danvila’s admirable work.)
“Some of the expelled [Jesuits] did not content themselves with removing [from Corsica] to the States of the Church and the Italian cities, but ventured to make their appearance in Barcelona and Gerona; and when the Council committee had notice of this fact they assembled, and decided that the observance of the pragmatic sanction [for the expulsion] ought to be decreed, imposing the penalty of death on the secular lay-brothers, and perpetual confinement on those ordained in sacris.” (Danvila, op. cit., iii, pp. 114, 115, 117.) The “suspension” referred to above evidently applies to certain persons who returned to secular life and occupations, some coadjutors even marrying wives. [↑]
[7] It has been seen (note 135, ante) that the Jesuits were bitter enemies of the visitor Palafox; and the proposal to canonize him, which was made by Carlos III to the pope in 1760, aroused the strong opposition of that order. His letters to the pope in 1647 and 1649 had led to papal decrees enforcing the episcopal authority against the encroachments of the Jesuits, which, after attempting to oppose them, the latter were finally compelled to obey. It was not until 1694 that the ecclesiastical authorities began to examine the writings of Palafox; and it appears that his letter of 1649 was prohibited in the Index expurgatorius in 1707 and 1747, and that by an edict of the Inquisition of May 13, 1759 certain letters attributed to him were seized and publicly burned by the hangman—not because there was in them anything deserving theological censure, but on merely technical charges of having been published without the necessary “red tape” prescribed in such cases, and “in order to renew controversies already finished, with the sole object of calumniating and discrediting among the faithful the order of the Society of Jesus, against the intention and good fame of that prelate to whom they were attributed.” The Spanish rulers Felipe V and Fernando VI, and later Carlos III, had all at various times made efforts to have Palafox’s writings examined by the Roman Congregation of Rites; for they regarded him as one of the defenders of the royal right of patronage in America. This was finally accomplished, the Congregation declaring unanimously that they found therein nothing contrary to the faith or to good morals, or to sound doctrine; and that the process for his beatification might now be undertaken. The Pope approved this finding, on December 9, 1760, and on February 5 following the supreme Inquisition of Spain published a decree annulling the above-mentioned prohibitions of his writings. It was thereupon made known to the Spanish ministers that in the Council of the Indias no document remained which favored the cause of Palafox; the records had been cut out and carried away. This mutilation was ascribed to the Jesuits. The beatification of Palafox was approved by the Congregation of Rites, and the pope confirmed this on September 6, 1766; but its execution forthwith encountered delays, showing that his enemies in Rome were the same whom he had pointed out in his letter of 1649. (Danvila, op. cit., ii, pp. 255–270.) [↑]
[8] This decree, “if we view the occasion of its publication, and the terms in which it is expressed, accepted in the name of the court of Roma the war to which all the Catholic nations were provoking it; and accepted that war without sufficient power to defend itself. The attitude of France, España, Portugal, Naples, and Parma, and later of Vienna, was the result of a new policy which strove to limit the power of the pontificate and to take away its temporal power; and the latter ought not to have begun hostilities without weighing well the consequences, and, above all, without estimating the forces on which it might depend for the combat. The monitory decree of Parma, as the brief of January 30 is called, in which his Holiness protested against all the measures which the Catholic courts were putting into execution, was the origin and cause of the expulsion of the Jesuits by the duchies of Parma and Plasencia; of the prohibition of the circulation in the Catholic states of the bull In cœna Domini and of obedience to it; of the reëstablishment in those states of the pase regio, which had been suspended in España since 1763; of barring from circulation the monitory decree, because it was considered hostile to the regalías of the crown and to the rights of the sovereigns; of the publication by order of the Council, and at the cost of the Spanish government, of the ‘Imperial judgment,’ in which the rights of the Holy See were limited exclusively to the faith, to matters of dogma, and to purely spiritual matters; of the reprisals with which the pope was threatened if he did not revoke the monitory decree; of the occupation of Benevento and Pontecorbo (which was an actual outbreak of hostilities), and the attempt to do the same with Castro and Ronciglione; of a mutual understanding between all the courts hostile to the Holy See; and of the establishment of a general agreement that the extinction of the Society of Jesus would be an indispensable condition for the continuance of correspondence with the court of Roma. The monitory decree of January 30 will signify, in the view of history, the termination of the secular dispute which Roma kept up during two centuries; the triumph of a new policy; and the menace against the temporal power of the popes, which constituted the essential part of the controversy. With the monitory decree, Roma was conquered, and the revolution made rapid advance.” (Danvila, op. cit., iii, pp. 228–230.) [↑]
[9] Danvila’s researches in the archives of Simancas brought to light the opinions of the Spanish prelates on the expulsion of the Jesuits from that country; out of sixty, forty-six approved the suppression of the Jesuit order, eight were opposed to it, and six excused themselves from expressing their opinions. (Danvila, op. cit., iii, pp. 428, 429.) [↑]
[10] Among the charges made in this paper is the following: “From Filipinas comes evidence of not only their predictions against the government, but the illicit communication of their provincial with the English commander during the occupation of Manila.” [↑]
[11] A note by Crétineau-Joly (p. 237) declares that Alva, when on his death-bed, confessed to Felipe Bertram, bishop of Salamanca, the general of the Inquisition, that he “was one of the authors of the uprising of 1766, having incited it in hatred to the Jesuits, and in order to cause it to be imputed to them. He also avowed that he had composed a great part of the supposed letter by the general of the Jesuits against the king of Spain.” A Protestant writer is cited as saying that Alva made this same declaration to Carlos III, in writing. [↑]
[12] Spanish, capas y sombreros; an edict had been issued forbidding these to be worn by the inhabitants of Madrid. [↑]
[13] Alluding to accusations against the personal character of Isabel Farnese, Carlos’s mother and wife of Felipe V. [↑]
[14] “Don Joseph Raon was one of the most shrewd of the governors of Manila in enriching himself without causing any one to complain; but he did nothing whatever for the service of the king. In 1768, Manila was at the same point where the English left it in 1763, without cannon or gunpowder, the troops ill-fed and ill-paid.” (Le Gentil, Voyage, ii, p. 167.) It will be remembered that the French scientist was in Manila at the same time when Raón was. [↑]
[15] In Política de España en Filipinas, 1894, pp. 175, 176, Retana describes a collection of documents which he had recently acquired, relating to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the islands. Among these were the official expedientes, and a series which contained the inventories of all the property which the Jesuits possessed. The list of the papers and letters found in the college of San Ignacio formed a folio volume of more than 600 pages. (There was also a list of all the books which the Jesuits kept for sale. Among these were more than 200 copies of Noceda’s Diccionario, the first edition, of which copies are now considered exceedingly rare. “In this inventory appear books of which I believe not a single copy is now in existence.”) The collection thus acquired by Retana contained original letters from Anda and Santa Justa to Conde de Aranda, and others by the Jesuit Clain, Camacho, Raón, Anda, Basco, and other noted persons. At the time, according to Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 222) this collection, which contained more than 20,000 folios, was deposited in the Colegio de Agustinos at Valladolid. [↑]
[16] It is interesting to compare with this episode that of the banishment of the French Jesuits in Louisiana (1763), as related by Father François P. Watrin; see Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents, lxx (Cleveland, 1900), pp. 211–301. Some of those exiles took refuge in the Spanish-American colonies; others proceeded to France, but found that their order was being driven out of that country. [↑]
[17] Le Gentil states (Voyage, ii, p. 167) that Cosio was banished to Africa. [↑]
[18] Doubtless referring to appraisals and inventories made afterward by Anda, who caused this to be done with great exactness. [↑]
[19] Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, ii, p. 250) of the great college of San Ignacio: “It is said that the building of this church of the Society, its great convent, and the college of San Jose (which it has close by) cost 150,000 pesos;” also that it occupied 34,000 square varas of space (or more than six acres). [↑]
[20] At a fiesta held in the Jesuit church at Manila, in 1623 the statues of canonized Jesuits were placed at the altar. “Their garments were richly embroidered with gold and silver thread in intricate designs, and were all covered with jewels—diamonds, pearls, rubies, emeralds, seed-pearls, and other precious stones—arranged in such a manner that their luster and varied colors gave them a most pleasing and beautiful appearance. On the image of St. Xavier were faithfully counted more than 15,000 precious stones and pearls, among them more than a thousand diamonds. On that of St. Ignatius there were more than 20,000 jewels, and of these over 800 were diamonds.” (Murillo Velarde, Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 41b, 42.) [↑]
[21] A royal decree printed at Lima in 1777 orders the presidents and auditors of the audiencias in those regions and Filipinas, and archbishops and bishops in all the Spanish dominions beyond the seas, to exercise great care and vigilance that no person shall talk, write, or argue about the extinction of the Society of Jesus, or the causes which led to it. [↑]
[22] There is a play on words here, salud meaning both “greeting” and “salvation.” [↑]
[23] Contemporaneous documents preserved with this decree by Santa Justa show that the imprints to which he refers were as follows (their titles being here translated):
1. “Instruction to the princes regarding the policy of the Jesuit fathers, illustrated with extensive notes, and translated from the Italian into Portuguese, and now into Castilian, with a supplement on the orthodox belief of the Jesuits. With permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the printing-office of Pantaleon Azuar, Arenal street, the house of his Excellency the Duke de Arcos. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in the bookstore of Joseph Botanero on the said street of Arenal, corner of Zarsa street.”
2. “Reflections on the memorial presented to his Holiness Clement XIII by the general of the Jesuits, in which are related various deeds of the superiors and missionaries of that order in all parts of the world, intended to frustrate the measures of the popes against their proceedings and doctrines, but which demonstrate the absolute incorrigibleness of that body. Translated from the Italian. Madrid; by Joachim de Ibarra. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in Francisco Fernandez street, in front of the steps of San Phelipe el Real.”
3. “Continuation of the portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and illustrious Catholics, etc. Third edition, with permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the shop of the widow of Ericeo Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.”
4. “Portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and most illustrious Catholics: authorized judgment formed of the Jesuits, with authentic and undeniable testimonies by the greatest and most distinguished men of both Church and State, from the year 1540, in which their order was founded, until 1650. Translated from the Portuguese into Castilian, in order to banish the obstinate prejudices and voluntary blindness of many unwary and deluded persons who close their eyes against the beauteous splendor of the truth. Third edition. With permission of the authorities, at Madrid. At the shop of the widow of Elicio Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.” [↑]
[24] It seems that Auditor Basaraz prohibited the circulation of these books, in which he was supported by Raón; consequently the books that had been seized were held back, notwithstanding Santa Justa’s protest, and the matter was not settled in court, as it should have been. (Montero y Vidal, Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 196, 224.) [↑]
[25] Referring to the Order of St. Francis, since many of its members were martyred in the Japanese persecutions. (About the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits, their enemies declared that, while martyrs abounded in the other religious orders, the Jesuits escaped that fate among the heathen.) In the other missions, the allusion is to the noted controversy over the Chinese rites, in which the Jesuits were accused of undue laxity and connivance with heathen customs; the same accusation was also made against them in some of the American missions. [↑]