"Behold, then, that one of the principal obligations of a bishop is to defend with rigour the deposit of doctrine and faith which has been confided to him; and if the threatened danger be from any great potentate, to remonstrate, with respect and submission, to the end that he be not their accomplices and participators in the crime, by a cowardly condescension. This was practised by Saint John Chrysostom, with the emperors of the east; by Saint Ambrose, with those of the west; and by Saint Augustine with the pro-consuls of Africa; those were the great lords on earth; but notwithstanding; those bishops remonstrated when they commanded any thing that might injure religion or the church; and is it possible that the supreme government of this city shall inform the archbishop that he is blindly to obey, and execute the decrees that may be given in religious and ecclesiastical matters, even though they disturb his conscience, and appear to him to be opposed to orthodox doctrines, because such decrees are to be irresistible? Oh! "irresistible decrees"—this expression appears to me to be very strong, and little used by jurists and theologians; they opine that all human authority, however great it may be, and however vast and profound its acquired knowledge, can never arrive at a degree of infallibility in its decisions; it may always be deceived or deceive: consequently its resolutions ought never to be invariable—this privilege the Supreme Being alone possesses. Fenelon and other politicians assert, that it is more glorious, and a proof of a more elevated soul in that monarch or government who, convinced of having committed an error against religion, reason or justice in their decrees, shall revoke them, than it is never to err; indeed to insist on the execution of an order, merely because it has been given in despite of the inconveniences and obstacles that have been shown to exist; it being opposed to morality, evangelical doctrine, and the dispositions of the church, is a most oppressive yoke. With respect to myself, I can assure you, that I have often remonstrated and even exclaimed against the decrees of my superiors; who, being satisfied with the justness of my arguments, have ordered them to be revoked, or varied. When a prelate of the church speaks on spiritual or ecclesiastical points, he is worthy of being listened to, and his reasonings examined, because God himself, by his evangelist St. Matthew, says, that those who hear him hear the divinity, and that those who despise him despise the Supreme Being.
"Notwithstanding this doctrine, you say in your note that I am to obey the decrees of the government, without replying or remonstrating, because they are irrevocable; or that I choose the line of conduct I intend to adopt; this I did on the twenty-fourth of July last, when I put into the hands of his excellency my written resignation of the archiepiscopal dignity, begging his acceptance of it, for the reasons therein alleged; I also begged that he would grant me a passport to Europe by Panama, as my advanced age of eighty years, and consequent debility, would not enable me to bear the hardships of a passage by Cape Horn; his excellency acceded to my solicitude, and even promised to procure me a vessel for my passage.
"If I then made a tender of my dignity, founded on the motives there alleged, I now repeat it, adding to those causes that of not being able to exist in a country where the prelate of the church is forced to keep silence, and stifle the strongest sentiments of his conscience, and obliged to act in opposition to them—I was born to become a citizen of a celestial country; this is my only aim, and every thing that opposes it, is, to me, disgusting. I hope that as soon as possible my resignation will be accepted, that I may be relieved from a charge which has become insupportable.—Our Lord preserve your life for many years.
"Bartolomé Maria de las Heras."
"Lima, Sept. 1st, 1821."
The answer to this note set forth, that the urgency of public business did not allow time to answer with "victorious arguments" the archbishop's reasonings; but that the whole correspondence should be laid before the public for their opinion. This, however, never took place, but the Protector accepted the resignation of the archbishop, ordering his excellency to leave Lima within the term of forty-eight hours, and to wait at Chancay, fourteen leagues from Lima, the determination of the government.
On the thirteenth of November the archbishop embarked at Chancay for Rio de Janeiro; the Protector, as in many other cases, forgetting to fulfil his promise of preparing a vessel to conduct him to Panama.
Before leaving Chancay, the archbishop addressed the following letter to Lord Cochrane:
"My Dear Lord,—The time is arrived for my return to Spain, the Protector having granted to me the necessary passport. The polite attention which I owe to your excellency, and the peculiar qualifications which adorn and distinguish you, oblige me by this measure to manifest to you my most sincere esteem and regard.
"In Spain, if God grants that I may arrive in safety, or in any other part where I may exist, I request that you will deign to command me. On leaving this country, I am convinced that its independence is for ever sealed. This I will represent to the Spanish government and to the papal see, and I will also do every thing to abate their obstinacy, and to preserve the tranquillity, and to further the views of the inhabitants of America, who are dear to me.