On the day of St. Lucy, December 13, in the convent of the Recollects of St. Augustine, father Fray Andres del Spiritu Santo preached. I was present, and his whole sermon was a satire against the judge-conservator, the fathers of the Society, and the governor. He said many evil things of them, all of which I do not remember in detail, except that he said, by mistake, of the fathers of the Society that they were Hippocrates; and then, immediately correcting himself, that they were hypocrites and arrogant fellows, and that it was the Society not of Jesus, but of the devil. He characterized the judge-conservator as a vicious fellow. The same father preached on the afternoon of Palm Sunday, in his convent. He said of the governor that he was not setting for the archbishop, and how he has aided him. He added that the governor did not understand the law of the Christians, as he had said (according to the preacher’s statement) that he could not be excommunicated. That scandalized the hearers, and was the motive for many of the city to declare (as I hear) that these sermons kindled the fire that raged, and were the cause of these revolutions.
On Sunday, the third day of Lent, February 24, 1636, at the publication of the ordinary edict, the whole city gathered in the cathedral, where I was present. The father guardian of St. Francis, Fray Juan de Piña, preached. He mentioned in the pulpit a balance that the accountant Juan Bautista de Zubiaga had brought forward against the fathers of St. Francis (who have had charge of the royal hospitals), of more than thirty thousand pesos. Inasmuch as soldiers without weapons have not been received in the hospital for many years, and a great number of men have died in it, and there is no account of what has been done with those arms, they amount, when appraised at low prices, to over thirty thousand pesos. The preacher declared that he had reason to make a greater charge and declare a larger balance against the king of España. The charge was that Fray Francisco Ximenez conquered Oran; and that one of their friars, named Zumarraga,[19] pacified Nueva España. Thus a great part of his sermon was taken up in indecorously contending and taking issue with the king of España. On the Wednesday following, February 27, the same preacher delivering a sermon in the same cathedral church, returned to the same balance, and treated the said computer of accounts, Juan Bautista de Cubiaga, with great contumely. He called him a Gascon devil, disguised as a Viscayan or Navarrese, who getting a smattering of accounts, gave out that he was an accountant, in order to come to give him a beating. And this he said amid the laughter and commotion of the audience.
On one Friday in Lent, the fifteenth of March, I was present at the convent of St. Augustine; Fray Diego de Ochoa of the same order came out to preach. At the beginning, he read a notice which said that Father Lorenso Goreto would preach on the following Tuesday at the church of the Society of Jesus, on the good thief.[20] He added that that feast of the thief was very suitable for the Society, characterizing its members as thieves. Later in the course of his sermon, he brought in the balance which, as I have told your Grace, the accountant Juan Bautista de Zubiaga presented against the Franciscan fathers concerning the hospitals. He declared it to be an Inquisition case, and that, if that holy tribunal did not take cognizance of it, he himself would seize him. This he said with loud words and a menacing aspect. And, so that your Grace may have a good laugh, I will tell you his argument for saying that it was an Inquisition case—namely, that the pontiff had seen in dreams St. Francis and St. Dominic with their shoulders holding up the church of San Giovanni in Laterano, which was about to fall—a sign that their sons must keep the Church of God upright by means of their glorious labors, as if for that reason no one of the said orders could do anything wrong. Besides the fact that your Grace will see that this vision is not of the Divine attestation—although it pertains to Christian piety to believe it, as so many others—I would never finish if I should try to tell your Grace the disorder that has reigned in the pulpits all this year. I only tell, in general, what occurred this past Lent, and even since Advent. I and many others have gone through curiosity to hear the preachers of St. Dominic, St. Francis, and the Recollects of St. Augustine. Most of the sermons have consisted of satires against the governor, the Audiencia, the judge-conservator, and the fathers of the Society of Jesus; and in utterances so extravagant that they caused a great scandal, and in things ridiculous and unworthy of the pulpit. The latter they made a professor’s chair for the avenging of their passions, instead of one for teaching the doctrine of Christ. Your Grace can see what fruit the audience would get from it.
Returning to our narrative, the fathers of St. Dominic were not content with saying the above-mentioned things in and out of the pulpits, but they incited a petition to the dean of this holy church, Don Miguel Garçetas, who, as the archbishop was excommunicated by the judge-conservator, was exercising the office of provisor and vicar-general in it; they asked him to declare the governor to be excommunicated. For I cannot tell your Grace the fear which seized the religious orders in this matter, that they must place the governor on the excommunicated list; and how many actions that he had committed for which, as they said, he had incurred excommunication—so much so, that in a paper that appeared afterward, there was mention of twenty-five excommunications that he had, in their opinion, incurred; and I do not know whether there are any more in the law. With that petition they presented a paper proving that the governor was excommunicated, and speaking indecorously of him, saying that he was a mean and foolish gentleman. The dean, who is a discreet man and aged, was quite far from assenting to the request made of him, as he saw that they were uneasy and their disturbance was superfluous.
The judge-conservator afflicted the archbishop with new censures and penalties to get him to hand over the protest, but the latter would agree to do so under no considerations. He declared that he had given it some few days before to Fray Diego Collado of the Order of St. Dominic, and that he could not get it back from him. The archbishop did not consider himself as excommunicated, although he had been declared as such. Neither did the religious consider him as such, but persuaded him that he could say mass, and he did so. The religious went in and out of his archiepiscopal palace as before, holding meetings and causing trouble in the community. Therefore, measures were taken to establish some sentinels at the archbishop’s door, so that so many religious might not enter to disturb him; but the fathers of the Society interceded with good results, so that the sentinels should be removed. That was done immediately. The archbishop left his house on the twelfth of November and retired to [the convent of] St. Francis. On the eighteenth, the four provincials of the said four orders went to consult the governor. He told them not to overturn the community as they were doing. All the efforts possible were made and various means were taken to get hold of the protest, since it was fundamental to the conclusion of the peace which was desired. The archbishop wrote the following letter to the governor from the convent of St. Francis:
“Sir:
“Since your Lordship did me the kindness to come to console me and show me favor, I have made the most strenuous efforts in the world to have the protest returned to me; but it is hammering on cold iron. What can I do? For if my intent had been not to show it, I could say that I had torn it up, or could have alleged some other pretext; and I would not have mentioned the person to whom I gave it to keep, as I knew that there was an order to sequestrate his[21] property. Since, sir, it is impossible, and it is not my fault, I do not accept the excuse that your Lordship gives me in your letter, in order to free yourself from showing me favor and undertaking to act, settle this affair as governor and friend. Therefore, I petition your Lordship,[22] as you can do for one who avails himself of your protection; for I desire ever to remain in your Lordship’s favor, and only bound to serve you all the days of my life. May our Lord preserve your Lordship’s life for long years. From this convent of St. Francis, November 24, 1635.
Fray Hernando, archbishop.”
The governor responded as follows to the above letter:
“Most thoroughly do I believe what your Lordship says in your letter in regard to the efforts made to get hold of the protest, and that your Lordship does not have it. But it is an exasperating and serious thing that Father Collado, or whoever else has it, should display this tenacious obstinacy; and that so many efforts, so many mediators, and so much argument are not sufficient to get it. It is certain, sir, that so great obstinacy in a subordinate ought not to be overlooked; for it is hindering good men so that we cannot go farther in this matter, until we have subdued that disobedience, which is unworthy of so religious a person—especially since I have given my word to burn it in the presence of your Lordship, without letting any person see it except Diego de Rueda, so that he may acknowledge before witnesses whether it is the paper which he wrote or authenticated. All these considerations, and many others which occur to me, almost render it impossible for me to serve your Lordship. On the other hand, your Lordship’s present need of my service constrains me more; and as Don Sebastian de Corcuera, I am doing more, I judge, in charging myself with these affairs than I would do in concluding them had I all the authority that your Lordship mentions.