Don Juan Çerezo Salamanca”
The dean of this holy church, Don Miguel Garçetas, also did on his part what he could to stay this storm; and he with three other dignidades went about among the four orders, to talk to their superiors in order that they might aid with their advice, so that the affair of Don Pedro de Monrroy might be directed to the satisfaction of the governor, since he had so good an intention; and, at the same time, so that they might annul the resolution taken against the Society in the meeting above mentioned. Each one in private promised mountains of gold. They met with the archbishop; and the bishop of Nueva Segovia and some seculars having attended that meeting, they were not allowed to take part in it, because others thought that they were on the side of the Society, and that they were inclined to support the governor’s decision. In that assembly not only did its members not revoke the resolution, as each one had promised, but they confirmed it and refused to give satisfaction to the governor in regard to Don Pedro de Monrroy.
Immediately the obstinacy and stubbornness of the participants in the meeting was learned; and those who had tried to act as angels of peace felt it keenly, especially Don Juan Cerezo. As he had exerted himself most in striving for peace, his grief at seeing that his good desire had not been obtained was greatest. Therefore he wrote the following letter to the archbishop:
“By your Lordship’s letter I have learned the opinions of the religious who attended the meeting of last night. Of the purpose that animates them and their hearts, may God judge. With this outcome I retire from these matters, and my only desire is that they come out right. I meddled in the affair because I thought it expedient and desirable to procure, by honorable means, the restoration of your Lordship’s liberty of the ordinary jurisdiction. That was injured and enslaved, the moment when it was subject to the hindrance of not being able to alter anything without a fresh intervention of the orders, and of being obliged to temporize with them so much as your Lordship indicates; for the person and dignity of the archbishop of Manila are of great importance, and his feelings of anger should be of less duration, so that he should not be compelled to chide the quarrels of others with his crozier.
“I petition your Lordship to keep this in mind, for I say it through my love as a son of your Lordship, as a corrective for the present and a warning for the future; and the greatest happiness exists when the two heads of the state are in harmony. May God direct it, as He is able, and preserve your Lordship, as I desire. From my residence, October 19, 1635.
Don Juan Çerezo [Salamanca]”
The fathers of the Society, seeing that the peace measures had been useless, and that the doors to any suitable settlement were tightly closed on them on the part of the archbishop and the religious who were their opponents; and that two days afterward they had notified the rector of the Society of the first act, they had notified the minister of Santa Cruz of another (that place being a mission of the Society), in order that he should not instruct certain Indians, a right which the preceding prelate had given to the Society.[15] It was rumored that the archbishop was trying to deprive them of the confessional. Daily new troubles were feared, and the fathers of the Society were compelled to appoint a judge-conservator; and one was in fact appointed on the second of November, 1635. This was Don Fabian de Santillan y Cavilanes, schoolmaster of this holy metropolitan church. He was not serving ad interim, as the other relation declares, but held that office in regular appointment, and had held it for several years. He was the son of a treasurer of the royal exchequer. Alonso Baesa del Rio was assigned as his notary, a notary-public and a man of vast experience and skill in papers. The judge-conservator ordered the archbishop, under penalty of major excommunication and a fine of four thousand ducados for the Holy Crusade, to repeal the acts passed against the Society, as they were manifestly injurious. Before he was notified of this act, the secretary read to him his appointment as judge-conservator made on behalf of the Society. This is apparent by the identical acts, which I have seen. I advise your Grace of this so that you may have accurate information on this point; for it is stated and restated often, in the other relation, that the archbishop was not notified legally before they notified him of the act of the judge-conservator. He was notified, for it is certain that the first document read to him by the secretary was the appointment as judge-conservator, as above stated. Later, the same secretary read to him the bull for judge-conservators, and that of Gregory XIII, in which he concedes authority to the fathers of the Society to preach anywhere. The secretary entering the archbishop’s hall with the documents, the latter asked him what he had, and he answered that they were the bulls. “But why?” added the archbishop; and Fray Antonio Gonsalez, who was in his company, said: “He has been tired, for we have already seen them in the collection of bulls.” If this is so, I am surprised that the hostile relation states that the act of the judge-conservator was null and void, as he did not first exhibit the briefs (of which no notice was taken) to the archbishop. The latter’s procurators also were not bashful, and were so bold as to allege the same in public session of the Audiencia. But they were convinced by the secretary that he read the acts, whereupon an auditor declared: “We must pay heed to this, and not to the new falsehoods that they bring.”
Next day the archbishop presented himself with a plea of fuerza, during prison inspection, before the auditor Don Alvaro de Mesa y Lugo [sic; sc. Zapata?]; and as there was no other auditor, he issued the usual order. On Tuesday, the sixth of the same month, recourse was had to the royal Audiencia, on behalf of both the archbishop and the Society, to examine the records. The royal Audiencia, seeing that the order issued during the prison inspection was not sufficient, but defective, issued another and new one, and nothing further was discussed in that meeting of the Audiencia. Next day, Wednesday, November seven, the records were brought. The archbishop was represented by the father prior of St. Augustine, Fray Juan de Montemayor, and the father reader, Fray Diego de Ochoa, of the same order; the father definitor of the Recollects, Fray Pedro Barreto; the father guardian of St. Francis, Fray Juan de Pina; and Bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera, a secular, and the deacon and servant of the archbishop. The Society was represented by Father Diego de Bobadilla,[16] and Father Lorenco Goreto, masters of theology. The latter, before all else, declared that they had no quarrel with the holy orders, and that in consequence the fathers had nothing to do there. But the others replied that they had been authorized by the archbishop. The royal Audiencia ordered the authorization to be read. It made mention only of the father reader, Fray Diego de Ochoa, father Fray Pedro Barreto, and the bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera. Thereupon, they ordered from the room the father prior of St. Augustine, and the father guardian of St. Francis, who went out somewhat shamefacedly. The secretary read the records, but was interrupted at every step by the reader Fray Diego de Ochoa, which resulted in some animosity. After the reading, the president asked the representatives of the archbishop whether they had anything to state. The bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera took the floor, and said in few words that the judge-conservator was not legitimately appointed, for there were no manifest injuries in the case. Then the president invited the two religious who had remained [to speak]. They said that those of the Society should state their case first, and accordingly the latter were given the floor—Father Diego de Bobadilla first, and then Father Lorenço Goreto. They proved in the judgment of those of us who were present (and it so seemed to me, although not much is obtained from these things) that the acts which I have mentioned are manifest injuries; and that, consequently, the judge-conservator was legally appointed. In order that your Grace may understand more of what was declared, I am sending you a summary of the allegation made by the fathers of the Society, which one of them communicated to me, and I enclose it herewith. Hence I shall not go into greater detail here, by mentioning what I have heard erudite men say in reply to certain arguments by which the other relation tries to prove that the enactments of the judge-conservator were null and void. I shall only say a word, if I remember it, on three or four points which the relation heaps together, but which are of small moment. It declares that the judge exceeded his authority in not giving the archbishop more than one hour’s time-limit in which to read the bulls and to withdraw the act, while in reality twenty-four hours were granted him; and when the secretary, Alonso Baesa del Rio, went to notify the archbishop of the act, to his offer that he could easily obtain more time from the judge, answer was made by Diego Bernal, who was the secretary of the archbishop, that they had time enough, and that no more was necessary, as they had read the bulls often enough. The point was not in this, but in the fact that the judge-conservator could not command the archbishop to withdraw the act that he had made against the Society. By that one may see the calumny in alleging that the time was insufficient to withdraw the act. The relation states that it was a dispute over jurisdiction, and that consequently, according to the ruling of the Council of Trent, judge-arbitrators were to be appointed. That is an error; for there was no contest over jurisdiction, but only that the judge-conservator, as the delegate of the supreme pontiff, ordered the archbishop to withdraw an act manifestly injurious to the Society. The relation declares that the bulls were authorized by the same judge-conservator and his secretary. That is true, but how did that cause any nullification? For the judge did not feign briefs, or say that the one that he presented was the original one, but that it was a faithful copy of the original, which the Society had showed him. Therein he obeyed the behests of the supreme pontiff, in order that such copies might have legality and authority. When the fathers of the Society had finished their statement, the president told the father reader Fray Diego de Ochoa, and the father definitor Fray Pedro Barreto, to make what further statements they had to make. But they, changing color, and being uneasy, answered clearly and frankly that they had nothing more to say, as they had not come prepared for it. I confess to your Grace that we who were present were put to the blush at seeing so shameful a thing; and we asked, since they had not come prepared, why they had come and why they had received the archbishop’s authorization. They requested that audience be granted them the next day, and, although that is contrary to common practice, it was conceded to them, so that they could at no time say that they had not presented their side of the matter, and that they were without defense. That was so clear and manifest a victory for the fathers of the Society, and before the tribunal, the officials, and the great crowd which was present, that I am surprised how those of the other side dared to utter a word. They returned to the conflict on the following Thursday; and other religious besides the two above mentioned and the secular, were summoned. Those who came newly were father Fray Antonio Gonsalez, vicar-provincial of St. Dominic; Fray Diego Collado, of the same order; and father Fray Pedro de Herrera, of St. Augustine: on entering the Audiencia, they presented their authority without being requested to do so—fearing to encounter any such jest as had happened to the others the day previous, for lack of authority. The father reader Fray Diego de Ochoa spoke first in this Audiencia, in a loud voice and with many exclamations, and casting opprobrium on the person of the judge-conservator. Then the father definitor Fray Pedro Barreto spoke. He read a short paper that he had written, saying that he had not been able to commit it to memory. He was followed by father Fray Antonio Gonsalez, who alleged a very trifling defect in the bull. After him Fray Diego Collado spoke. He said that he was the confessor of the president of Castilla when the bishop of Cordoba had a similar suit with the orders in España. Father Fray Pedro de Herrera gave his opinion last. All of them together consumed more than one and one-half hours. The fathers of the Society answered, Father Diego de Bobadilla first, and then Father Lorenso Goreto. Such was their reply that, to all of us who were present, it seemed that they had proved their case, and it is sure that they showed the act to be a manifest injury: first, because they had been ordered not to preach outside of their churches, under pain of excommunication and pecuniary fines; second, because the archbishop, through his anger toward only one of the Society, had forbidden all of them in his archbishopric to preach. The controversy then hinged on [the question] whether the prelate may prohibit some of the Society, for just causes (which he said that he had, but did not express), from preaching in camps and guardhouses. The friars said that he could, and their whole argument consisted of what the Council [of Trent] says, according to what they alleged—making fuerza out of those words, contradicente episcopo [i.e., “the bishop opposing”], and giving as explanation that the prelate may by his own authority oppose and forbid the regulars to preach, even in their own churches. Thence they inferred that the archbishop had not laid on the fathers of the Society all that he could. Those of the Society answered this at length, and showed by several books which they brought to the Audiencia that that phrase contradicente episcopo, ought not to be understood in that manner, but according to a certain Clementina which, if I am not mistaken, is that of De sepulturis, and begins with Dudum. As this was the point of all their controversy, I refer you to the statement that is enclosed herewith. But I am unable to conjecture why the other relation wastes so much paper, and becomes wearisome, by bringing in so many statements to prove that the religious may not preach in the churches of others without the permission of their owners, since the Society never claimed anything else, nor were their statements intended to prove it. And believe me, your Grace, on this second day no less glory fell to the Society than on the first. I have related this point so extensively, as some prejudiced persons have stated that the adherents of the archbishop silenced the fathers of the Society.
The gentlemen of the royal Audiencia remained in the hall, and on voting on the point of fuerza they were divided. Thereupon, his Majesty’s fiscal was appointed, as that pertains to him by law. His vote, it appears, was cast in favor of the fathers of the Society. Consequently, it was declared that the judge-conservator had not used fuerza toward the archbishop, and that he should proceed with his commission. Some persons were not lacking who tried to suspend the proceedings and declare them null and void, because the archbishop’s representatives were not notified that it was because the auditors’ opinions were discordant that his Majesty’s fiscal had been appointed judge. They did not take note that this matter of making notifications and summons is an act of superiority and jurisdiction; and that, as the royal Audiencia does not hold that in ecclesiastical matters, it does not employ such acts, and only declares whether the ecclesiastical judge practices fuerza or no—and this not as judge of the ecclesiastical estate, but as a political governor who desires peace in his country. The other and contradictory relation also tries to prove the proceedings null because, before the royal Audiencia declared that the judge-conservator was not committing fuerza, the procurators of the archbishop drew up a petition which they presented to the president, in which they challenged the auditor Zapata. But he who regards this as nullification, proves that he is but little accustomed to the manner of procedure of the Audiencia; for in the first place the petition was not presented in time, and second, it was not signed by a lawyer—an essential lack, as that is contrary to his Majesty’s orders for what is to be done in such cases of challenging a judge, and especially so superior a judge as an auditor.
As the judge-conservator was declared by the Audiencia to be legal, he proceeded, constraining the archbishop with censures so that he should furnish an official statement of the acts issued against the Society. He did so, sending the original act already mentioned, the original [record of the] meeting that he held with the religious, and the act that was issued ordering the fathers of the Society not to minister to the Indians of Santa Cruz. Within a few days the matter was well on the way to a conclusion and settlement, when it was discovered that the archbishop and some of the said three orders of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and St. Augustine, had held a meeting, and under color of a protest had issued a defamatory libel, in which they linked the same judge-conservator, the Society of Jesus, the governor, and the royal Audiencia, because these had declared against their will. This document was a matter of common talk and notoriety, not only because it was declared by many of the townspeople, who had heard it from those who had been present at the meeting (and as there were so many of them it could not be kept secret); but also, as soon as it was requested, the archbishop told the father rector, Luis de Pedrasa, that he would not give up such a paper, even if he were deprived of the archbishopric; and father Fray Pedro de Herrera, his procurator, said that they would not give it even if they were hanged. The father provincial of St. Francis asked Adjutant Juan de Vega Mexia, why he demanded such a paper, for it was not well for the Society, or their judge-conservator, or the governor, or the royal Audiencia to see it. This tone increased the reports of the townspeople, and the constant rumor that that protest was a defamatory libel and contained grievous things about many persons. It was authenticated by a royal clerk named Diego de Rueda, who is also a familiar of the Holy Office. The judge-conservator arrested him, and took his confession, in which, although he did not tell openly all that the protest contained, he made known sufficient of it so that one could get light on the matter. The judge-conservator petitioned the governor for the aid of the civil arm, and on Friday, November 16, arrested the clerk by its help. The commissary of the Holy Office, Fray Francisco de Herrera, of the Order of St. Dominic, came out to demand his familiar from the judge-conservator. The judge answered that he had already taken his statement; that, although he had arrested him so that he might declare more, the man was no longer necessary to him; and that it did not concern him, and they should demand the familiar from the governor, who had him. The father commissary answered that the reply of the judge was not satisfactory, and that his familiar should be handed over to him. The judge answered that in writing, as follows: