[57] The decree of the Audiencia which ordered the restoration of the archbishop to his see was dated October 24, 1684. He returned to Manila on November 16.
[58] This man was delegated by the city of Manila, being one of its regidors, according to Diaz (Conquistas, pp. 776, 777).
[59] Diaz states (Conquistas, p. 777) that Curuzelaegui declared on this occasion that if the home government should be offended at his restoring the archbishop, he would consider punishment by them for this cause “a great honor, even if it be capital.” Diaz praises him as “one of the best governors that these islands have had; affable, pious, magnanimous, wholly disinterested, and very liberal. He also said that he had come to Filipinas to be poor, where other governors had come to be rich. This he said very truly, for in España and Indias he had possessed much wealth—gained in the many voyages that he had made as commander of the fleet and galleons to Perú and Nueva España—which his ostentation and liberality had consumed.”
[60] Diaz gives (ut supra, pp. 778, 779) the list of these: the auditors and Governor Vargas; the preceding alcalde-mayor of Manila (either Morales, Camacho or Pimentel), and that of Camarines (Juan de Verastein); Juan Sánchez, secretary of the Audiencia; Juan Gallardo, castellan of Cavite; Sargento-mayor Alonso de Aponte y Andrade, and Captains José de Somonte, Francisco de Urrutia, Diego del Pozo y Gatica, and Miguel Machuca; Admiral Pedro de la Peña; and Captain Baltasar de Lerma, notary-public. The military officers were readily absolved, as not having been free to act, when ordered to proceed against the ecclesiastics.
[61] Diaz says (p. 779) that the archbishop at this time “absolved the auditors ad reincidentiam, within the palace, with no other witnesses than the governor, and embraced them and gave them the kiss of peace.”
[62] Spanish, irregular. In this usage irregularidad means, according to Dominguez, “a canonical impedimenta for receiving or exercising holy orders, on account of certain natural defects which produce incapacity, or of crimes or illegal acts which are committed.”
[63] See copy of this edict in Ventura del Arco MSS., iii, pp. 517–521. The statement in our text regarding penalties is inaccurate. The edict required that all confessions made to members of the cabildo be made anew; all persons married by them must appear before the archbishop within three days (or ten days for those without the jurisdiction of the city), under penalty of excommunication for European Christians, and for all others fifty lashes and three months in jail; and the same penalties for those on whom the cabildo had conferred holy orders, licenses to preach, chaplaincies, etc. This act was dated November 29, 1684.
[64] Diaz says (p. 779): “But this caused so many dissensions, and opinions from the theologians, that it was found necessary to issue another act (January 8, 1685) in which the archbishop declared the former act null, and ordered that those [married persons] should again appear in court for the revalidation of their marriages.”
[65] i.e., “they are exulting, as do the victors when they have seized their prey.”
[66] “An image of a monstrous serpent which is displayed in front of the procession on Corpus Christi Day—doubtless alluding to the eternal humiliation of the demon, conquered for ever by Jesus Christ” (Dominguez, Diccionario nacional).