Chapter XVIII (2)

"We, Don Fray Hernando Guerrero, by the grace of God and the holy apostolic see archbishop of these Philipinas Islands, member of his Majesty's Council, etc. Inasmuch as we ordered for just reasons that moved us thereto, in harmony with the rules of the holy Council of Trent (in chapter four, _De reformatione,_ session twenty-four), that the religious fathers of the Society of Jesus be notified--the father-provincial, Joan de Bueras, the rector, Luis de Pedraza, and the other superiors of the said order who live in this city--not to preach outside of their convents in any part of all this archbishopric, or in camps, or guardhouses, by any manner of talk or preaching, or in any other manner: that order they shall observe to the letter, under penalty of major excommunication, _late sentencie, ipso facto incurenda una protina canonica monitione premisa_, [62] and a fine of four thousand Castilian ducados for the Holy Crusade, to which we hold them immediately condemned if they do the contrary. Given in our archiepiscopal palace, in the city of Manila, October twenty-six, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five.

_Fray Hernando_, archbishop.

By order of his Lordship: _Diego Bernal_

"At the residence of the Society of Jesus in Manila, on the twenty-ninth day of the month of November [_sc_., October], one thousand six hundred and thirty-five, I read and announced the act contained in the other part [of this document], exactly as is therein contained, to the father rector, Luis de Pedraza, in the presence of the witness Diego de Rueda, royal clerk, and the fathers Pedro de Prado, procurator-general, and Gregorio Bellin. In their presence, he desired me to give him an attested copy of the act, as a protection of his right, and they were witnesses of the entire proceeding. I attest this.

_Juan de la Cueva Moran_, notary-public.

"Then immediately the said father Luis de Pedraza required me once, twice, and thrice, to set down the reply which will be declared, notwithstanding that the notification is set down. And, inasmuch as I am constrained by the said requisitions, I give it; and it is of the following tenor:

'That in all things that were not a violation of their privileges, they were prompt to obey, since they were under that obligation; but if any demand were in violation of those privileges, then they would make use of the means afforded them by the law for their defense and which his Holiness granted them. He affixed his signature, in the presence of the above witnesses.

_Luis de Pedraza_

Before me. _Joan de la Cueva Moran_, notary-public.'"

The fathers of the Society thought that act was a manifest injury to their order and privileges, for three reasons. First, because they were deprived of preaching to all persons, with no exception, without there being other cause therefor than those which your Grace may infer from the document. Second, by commanding them with excommunication and pecuniary fines, a thing which is manifestly a violation of the immunity of the regulars. Third, because they were prohibited from giving instruction in the camps and guardhouses, which is a violation of a _Clementina_, [63] as I am told, and to which no contrary decision has been rendered by the holy Council of Trent. The fathers of the Society attempted to maintain peace by all possible ways, but they were unsuccessful; and they could find no route to that end. The past governor, Don Juan Cerezo [Salamanca] who was desirous of settling the matter, undertook to secure that end by writing to the archbishop the following letter:

"Our friendship, and the respect with which I always view the affairs of your Lordship, and my obligations, constrain me to represent affectionately to your Lordship, on the present occasion, the great danger that is being incurred in maintaining the provisor in his office, in hatred of him who represents to us the royal person, so that your Lordship may consider in time the scandalous end that is threatened. And although your Lordship will doubtless proceed, I must warn you through my experience of European affairs, heedfully, that the reasons that operate in this small presidio, which is surrounded by barbarians and hostile nations, have no place in populous cities. The governors base their defense on the public peace, in the attainment of which the prelates [should] always aid, without trying to examine the governor's intention, or throwing obstacles in his path under pretext of ecclesiastical immunity; and although peace is composed of both estates, and it is the business of both to secure and maintain it, its prerogative belongs only to the royal jurisdiction.

"In order to repair these troubles, so that we can hope for great harmony in the future, I consider it as the only remedy, and the one most fitting for the authority of your Lordship, for Don Pedro de Monrroy to display his nobility of character, and resign himself of his own free will to the will of Don Sebastian, thus valuing his favor more than the comforts which he is now enjoying. If he so act, I am sure that it will open a free door for greater promotions [for him], and for the consolation of this community. Your Lordship, as a father, ought to pay attention to this without permitting the matter to be carried to a compulsory settlement, of which I have certain proofs. This opinion seemed good to father Fray Domingo Gonsalez--although, after having conferred with your Lordship, he replied to me that he does not find any secular who can fill the vacancy of the said Don Pedro de Monrroy. But I remember to have seen that your Lordship was inclined to the canon Don Pedro de Quesada. I have here been addressing your Lordship with tenderness and love; and you may believe that any action contrary to this would be held as a great disservice by his Majesty--especially, as it is understood that the points of [ecclesiastical] government are reduced to assemblies of theologians, your Lordship being their counselor. May God our Lord preserve your Lordship. From my residence.

_Don Juan Çerezo [de Salamanca]_"

Don Juan de Cerezo was not content with this letter, but, being constrained by his excellent desires, wrote another letter of the following tenor:

"As no beginning has been made in procuring the desired peace, I shall charge myself to treat of it, as it concerns so deeply the licentiate, Don Pedro de Monrroy, to whom I remain a true friend; and at the pace at which the matter is being matured it must be that some little devil has been unchained, and that he is defrauding all the gains. But, nevertheless, as all this cause is for the service of our Lord, I am confident that your Lordship and all the orders will favor it. I am awaiting joyful news this afternoon, in order to be able to commence openly to be the mediator of harmony which, it is represented to me, this community will hereafter enjoy. And should that harmony unfortunately be not attained, I rely, in everything, upon this assembly. At least will your Lordship be pleased to give such direction to it, by your great prudence, that these matters may not be further disturbed. May God preserve your Lordship, as He is able, and as I desire. From my residence, October 12, 1635.

_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. [64] 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, [65] 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:

"In the city of Manila, November twenty-three, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five. Don Fabian de Santillan y Gavilanes, schoolmaster of the holy cathedral church of this said city, apostolic judge-conservator of the Order of the Society of Jesus, etc., declared that [he makes this declaration] inasmuch as the reverend father preacher Fray Francisco de Herrera, of the Order of St. Dominic, commissary of the Holy Inquisition in these islands, sent him an oral message by the accountant, Alonso Baesa del Rio, notary-public and apostolic notary of this tribunal, yesterday, Thursday, between six and seven in the morning, asking to have Diego de Rueda sent to him (as he said that he had arrested him), for a certain declaration that he had need of making before the said father commissary. To that message the said judge-conservator also responded orally, saying that although he had arrested the said Diego de Rueda, because of what pertained to his office as judge-conservator, it was two days since he had finished with him, and that the said Diego de Rueda was no longer held prisoner at his account. Therefore, he should go to Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera, governor and captain-general of these islands, to ask for him. Nevertheless, after his declaration that he was not holding the said Diego de Rueda a prisoner, the said father commissary, by an act that he issued today, ordered the said judge-conservator, under penalties and censures, to deliver the said Diego de Rueda within two hours, and he was notified of it at the hour of nine in the morning. The judge-conservator made the same answer in writing that he had given orally to the said apostolic notary, and more fully (although the said [oral] reply was sufficient). At the hour of ten in the morning he wrote a letter to the said father commissary, sending it by Adjutant Juan de Vega Mexia, in which he offered to the commissary to draw up a document requiring, exhorting, and notifying the said governor and captain-general of these islands that, in what pertained to this court of the said apostolic judge conservator, inasmuch as the latter had no longer anything to do with the said Diego de Rueda, the governor should set him free and send him to the said father commissary. The latter answered in writing through the said adjutant, Juan de Vega Mexia, that the said governor declared that it was not his Lordship, but the said judge-conservator, who had arrested the said Diego de Rueda. And after the said reply, and for greater satisfaction, and so that his obedience, as an obedient son of the Church to the mandates of the Holy Inquisition may be recognized, the judge-conservator thereupon petitions and supplicates--and in a necessary case, requires, exhorts, and charges--Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera, governor and captain-general of these islands, in what pertains to this court of the said apostolic judge-conservator, inasmuch as the latter no longer has anything to do with the said Diego de Rueda, to free that man and send him to the father commissary, as the latter has ordered and commanded the said apostolic judge-conservator, under penalties and censures. Thus did he enact, and affixed his signature. The schoolmaster,

_Don Fabian de Santillan Y Gavilanes_

By his order:

_Alonso Baeza Del Rrio_, notary-public and apostolic notary."

After receiving this reply, the father commissary left the judge, and requested the governor to give him his familiar. His Lordship answered him that the said familiar had transgressed in the exercise of his office by having authenticated, as a royal notary, a defamatory libel; and that the punishment for that devolved upon the royal jurisdiction, according to the agreement in the new compilation [of laws]. The governor sent Diego de Rueda under arrest to the fort of Cabite, whereupon the father commissary had the governor notified of the following act through a youthful friar called Fray Ignacio Muñoz, and another who accompanied him:

"In the city of Manila, on the twenty-sixth of the month of November, one thousand six hundred and thirty-five, the reverend father Fray Francisco de Herrera, commissary of the Holy Office in these islands, declared that he is at present engaged in a cause pertaining to the tribunal of the Inquisition, in regard to a protest which is reported to be a defamatory libel against the holy Order of the Society of Jesus, and other persons occupying places of dignity. The principal witness in it is Alférez Diego de Rueda; and, for lack of him, the service and execution of the Holy Office in investigating this cause is suspended and prevented. Inasmuch as the pontiff Pius Fifth, and other pontiffs order in very strict terms that the causes of the Inquisition take precedence over all others, and that all causes cease and be superseded until the Holy Office concludes its business: therefore the said commissary ordered (and he did so order) Governor Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera, who says in his letters that he has arrested the said Diego de Rueda for having become an apostolic notary when he was a royal notary, for the purpose of authenticating the protest that is said to be a libel--an offense which by being committed in connection with this cause, belongs by law to the Inquisition, and to no other tribunal, as it is in regard to what is said to be a defamatory libel against the said order and persons; and gives him a time-limit of thirty hours within which to present Diego de Rueda at the Holy Office, under penalty of major excommunication and a fine of five thousand ducados for the expenses of this tribunal. And, under the same penalties, he orders the said governor not to make any further effort to demand or inquire about the said protest, since if it is, as is asserted, a defamatory libel, it belongs to no other judge, but only to the Holy Office; and the governor shall not molest the said prisoner until the Holy Office has entirely concluded its cause. And he thus decreed in this act, which he ordered and signed.

_Fray Francisco de Herrera_

Before me:

_Fray Ignacio Muñoz_, notary."

The friar commenced to read his act, and, at the commencement of the reading, the governor asked the friar to hand it to him. Seeing that this was the beginning of disturbances in the community, he ordered an adjutant to conduct those friars courteously to their convent at the port of Cabite, and charge their superior to retain them there and look after them well; and that they should not disturb the peace of the community for him, nor talk with the freedom and levity that they had displayed to him. The fathers of St. Dominic took occasion from that to utter innumerable evil reports about the governor, so that there was no place where they did not murmur aloud about him. Father Fray Sebastian de Oquendo of the Order of St. Dominic, in especial, went one morning to the auditor-general of war, Manuel Suarez, with a bull which he declared had been promulgated by Pius V; and having read it, he declared that the governor was excommunicated for preventing the exercise of the Inquisition's authority (although the governor declared that he did not prevent it but that he was maintaining, as he ought, the royal jurisdiction); that he was deposed, that he was not governor, and could not act as such; and that the senior auditor should immediately assume the government, and arrest Don Sebastian and place him in a fort. The auditor-general referred all the above to the governor; and, as a confirmation of this and other rumors that were current through the city, the same fathers of St. Dominic brought a friar from Cabite, named Fray Francisco Pinelo, [66] a man of talent and eloquent in the pulpit, in order that he might preach on the second Sunday of Advent, December 9, 1635. He did in fact preach [on that day], and before beginning his sermon, he said that he had called and invited the people to read a bull that he declared was given by Pius V, and was translated from Latin into Romance, in which his Holiness regards those who prevent the exercise of the Holy Inquisition's authority as infamous, and incapable of holding offices and dignities, and as _ipso facto_ deposed from them. The said father asserted all the above with such tones and manner, and at such a time, that it was clearly seen that he meant it for the governor; and that he was scoffing at him as an infamous person, and as one deposed from the government of these islands, because he had sent to Cabite the two friars who had been sent to him. He began his sermon after that, and it was throughout a satire on the Society, on the judge-conservator, and on the governor and the royal Audiencia. He said of the fathers of the Society that they were the cats of the Church, and a damnable and corruptible milk, who were trying by their deceits to influence other religious not to go to Japon. He added that such as they were members that had been lopped off from the Church; and that by their shrewdness and political methods they were insinuating themselves into everything. Of the judge-conservator he said that one would believe him a canon of London rather than of the cathedral of Manila; that the Jesuits had made him a pope or popelet, and that through him they had undertaken to give them [i.e., the other orders] pap; [67] that he was a gambler, and that he had lost some thousands of pesos, which I know is not the case. Of the governor, the preacher said that he was a Pilate, and even much worse; since Pilate had refused to intervene in the death of Christ, while the governor was trying to take part in the controversies with the archbishop; he also compared him to Herod. He talked very venomously about an auditor, and, although he did not name him, it was just as if he had done so, for one could plainly infer of whom he was speaking. He characterized him as unjust and vicious, and all without other foundation than his having declared that the judge-conservator was legal, contrary to what the fathers of St. Dominic claimed. The muttering and commotion among the audience were very marked. It is a fact that many of us think that the preacher had no other aim or motive than to disturb and rouse the crowd so that there should be an uprising, as there had been in Nueva España. And as I have already begun this matter of sermons, and so that I may not afterward interrupt the thread of my discourse, I shall say somewhat here to your Grace of the many disorders that have happened in this direction.

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 [a good] example in having founded the royal chapel in the palace, where he hears preaching, because he does not go out to their churches to hear these things. He said also that the governor was obstinate because he did not humiliate himself before the archbishop, as it was Holy Week and the season of the jubilee. The worthy father did not consider in the midst of his zeal what the governor has done 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, [68] 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. [69] 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 [70] 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, [71] 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.

Now, sir, that I may move in the matter with more security, it will be necessary, since there is no other remedy, to compel Diego de Rueda to declare to me, and attest as a notary, the contents of the protest; and in order to cause him to do so, even though he resist, I shall have to make use of the means, however harsh, that I shall find available. May God direct the matter, and may He guide me in all things so that I may be successful in serving your Lordship. Given at the palace, this day, Sunday.

_Don Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera_"

In order to bring about that settlement, the governor went, November 20, to see the archbishop, whom he consoled; and he offered to do all in his power in favor of his Lordship. The next day the same governor called a meeting of the gentlemen of the royal Audiencia, his Majesty's fiscal, and all the learned jurists in Manila. They agreed that this matter could not be settled so long as the protest did not make its appearance. In accordance with that decision, the governor wrote the following letter to the archbishop: