CONDITION OF THE CLERGY OF THE PHILIPPINES

CONDITION OF THE CLERGY OF THE PHILIPPINESThe procurator-general of the Dominicans in Madrid, Fray Pedro Diaz del Cosio, made a representation to the queen-regent in August, 1674, in regard to the condition of the clergy of the islands, because of the almost perpetual vacancies [in the sees] of the archbishop and bishops, and the excessive subjection in which the governors held them, and the harsh treatment accorded them.1He represented that the bishopric of Nueva Caceres had been vacant for about thirty-one years; and that he who had last been presented (on September 30, 1672) had not obtained the bulls from his Holiness.That the bishopric of Cebu had not had any bishop who was regularly appointed and who took possession, for about nineteen years, when Don Fray Juan Lopez assumed that post in 1666; that the latter had been promoted to the bishopric of Manila; that Don Diego de Aguilar was presented in 1672, a Dominican of the age of sixty years, but had not yet, at that date (1674), obtained the bulls (although he had accepted the dignity)—without doubt, because he was old and lived in Mejico.That the bishopric of Nueva Segovia had been vacant for about fifteen years, since the death of the last bishop, Don Fray Rodrigo de Cardenas,2a Dominican; for he who had then (1674) been presented, namely, Don Jose Poblete, dean of the cabildo of Manila, had not yet obtained the bulls nor his authorization, for lack of money.That the archbishopric of Manila, the one which had been vacant the least time (since the death of Don Miguel de Poblete in 1668), had been given to Don Fray Juan Lopez, bishop of Cebu, whose bulls could not arrive until 1674—six years of vacancy.That the governors were interested in having vacancies; for they filled the posts provisionally, and for that reason they were slow in giving information of a vacancy.That the incomes of the bishops were scant, and were collected at the will of the governors, who paid them poorly, and curtailed them. Therefore arrangements should be made to let the bishops themselves collect their dues from the tributes, as these were paid in.That the cost of the bulls ought to be paid from the royal treasury.That appointments ought to be given to persons not over forty years of age.That they should be given to Dominican friars, who would obtain the bulls without any delay.That the third part of the income of the vacancies should be given to the persons appointed, in order to pay for the bulls.That the power of exiling bishops should be taken from the governors and Audiencia.That three auxiliary bishops should be appointed, who should succeed, according to their seniority, [in case of vacancies] in the archbishopric and bishoprics, and should begin to govern immediately.The father procurator, Fray Pedro del Cosio, set forth those claims, but no one took any notice of them. The memorial was presented to the Council, October 26, 1674. Having been investigated by the fiscal—whom, as well as the other persons who intervened in it, Father Cosio visited—it was examined in the Council, March 11, 1675, and gave rise to the following resolutions:That the governors of Filipinas should report promptly to the Council the vacancies of the bishoprics, under penalty of a fine of two thousand pesos.That the archbishop of Manila should appoint governorsad interimin the vacancies of the three bishoprics of Filipinas; and his Holiness should be petitioned for despatches, so that in such case the ecclesiastical spiritual authority should be exercised by the consecrated bishops left.That the royal officials of Mejico should remit on separate account what was owing to the archbishopand cabildo of Manila, without the governor and royal officials of Filipinas having any part in it.That the Audiencia alone could proceed, in accordance with law, against the ecclesiastics, and not the governor by himself alone.That the archbishop should report the amount of the tithes of the islands, in each of the three bishoprics, in order to erect cathedrals and establish cabildos.That the royal officials of Manila should report the amount of the third part of the [incomes of the] last vacancies of the bishoprics.It appears further: That the Council was about to resolve that one-third of the incomes of the vacancies of the bishoprics of Filipinas should belong to the treasury, and another third part should be conceded to the bishops-elect to pay for the bulls. That it was resolved to augment the income of the archbishop to five thousand pesos, and that of the bishops to four thousand pesos. That it was about to petition Roma to lower by one-third the cost of the bulls to the bishops of Filipinas. That the archbishop should punish public scandals of incontinence, both of lewd women and of men living in concubinage. That in the disputes of Don Gerónimo Herrera with the archbishop3some matters were determined in favor of the latter.1This document in the Ventura del Arco MSS. is evidently a mere synopsis of the original.↑2“In the year 61 the three bishops had died—Don Fray Rodrigo de Cardenas, of Nueva Segovia; Don Fray Antonio de San Gregorio, of Nueva Cazeres; and Doctor Don Juan Velez (a cleric, formerly dean of the holy church of Manila), of Zebú; and the royal decrees for the new incumbents did not reach Manila until the year 65. Therein were proposed the following names: For the diocese of Nueva Segovia, Fray Francisco de Navarro, a discalced Franciscan, who set a most unusual example by refusing so honorable a dignity. For that of Nueva Cazeres, Fray Francisco de la Madre de Dios (or de la Alameda) also a discalced Franciscan; but the royal decree found him dead two years before. For that of Zebú, the most illustrious Don Fray Juan Lopez, who came in this ship ‘San Joseph,’ and had been already consecrated in Mechoacan.” (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, vii, pp. 140, 141.)↑3In 1673 arose a controversy between the archbishop, Fray Juan López, and Don Jerónimo de Herrera, the chief chaplain of the royal chapel, who undertook to exercise among the soldiers the functions of parish priest. He was excommunicated by the archbishop, but instituted proceedings against that prelate in a military court. This suit was quashed by the Audiencia, but the governor withheld the archbishop’s stipends. These conflicts led to certain of the measures adopted by the Council, recorded in our text.↑PREROGATIVES OF EX-PROVINCIALSGRANTED TO THE PROCURATORS OF THE ORDER OF HERMITS OF ST. AUGUSTINE IN FILIPINASInnocent XI, Pope. In future remembrance of the affair.Not long ago it was represented to us on the part of our sons the brethren of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine of the province of the islands known as the Philippines, in the Ocean Sea that as they had to send a religious to attend to urgent matters of the said province in the Roman and Spanish royal courts, nor was any religious found willing to undertake such burden because of the very long and toilsome journey, that could not be made without grave discomforts and danger of life, as also because such procurators after laboring three years and longer in their charge were not allowed any prerogative, the same petitioners very earnestly desire a grant from us to the effect that those who for three continuous years shall exercise the duty of procurator in the said courts shall enjoy the privileges of ex-provincials. Since, moreover, not only the whole province aforesaid, but also the late prior-general of the said order, has petitioned for the grant of such indulgence, therefore the said petitioners have humbly solicitedus to make through our apostolic bounty due provision in the premises.1. Accordingly, desiring to reward the petitioners with special favors and graces, moreover considering them all and singular to be free from any sort of excommunication, ... and being not indisposed to hearken to their prayers, with the counsel of our venerable brethren the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are in charge of matters appertaining to bishops and regulars, and with the consent of the aforementioned prior general, by our apostolic authority, in virtue of these presents, we grant and allow those religious of the said province who in the future shall exercise at least for three years the duty of procurator of their province in the aforesaid courts the full and lawful possession and enjoyment of all the privileges, prerogatives, and exemptions now possessed and enjoyed by ex-provincials of the same province—due regard, however, always being had in the premises to the authority of the congregation of the same cardinals.2. Decreeing that these present letters shall always be held as binding, valid, and efficacious, and shall obtain their plenary and entire results, etc.Given at Rome, at St. Mary Major’s, under the seal of the Fisherman, December 17, 1677, the second year of our pontificate.ROYAL PATRONAGE EXTENDED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMASThe King. Inasmuch as Fray Alonso Sandín,1definitor and procurator-general of the province of Santo Rosario of the Order of St. Dominic in the Filipinas Islands, has represented to me that a public academic institution was erected in the college of Santo Tomás of the city of Manila, by a bull of his Holiness Innocent X, promulgated November 20, 1645, at the instance of the king my sovereign and father (may he rest in peace) and passed by my Council of the Indias, by virtue of which degrees in the arts and theology are granted in that institution, with full rigor of examinations and publicity, to capable persons in those islands, from which follows a notable advantage for furnishing prebends and curacies, for which the students therein compete, they petition me that, considering this, in order that the students’ energy may not decrease in what at present is flourishing, I be pleased to admit that universityunder my royal patronage, and declare myself to be its patron. My said Council, having examined the petition, together with an authentic copy of the document erecting the university and of what my fiscal said concerning it, I have considered it expedient to admit, as by this present I do, the said university of the college of Santo Tomás of the city of Manila under my protection, and declare it to be under my royal patronage. I order my president and the auditors of my Audiencia of that city, and request and charge the archbishop of the city, the bishops of the said islands, the ecclesiastical and secular cabildos, the superiors of the orders, and any other of my judges and justices of the islands, that they consider it as such, and observe it; and that they cause to be observed the privileges and exceptions that pertain to it by reason of such patronage, for so is my will. Given in Madrid, May 17, 1680.I the KingBy order of the king our sovereign:José de Veitialinage2In the city of Manila, August 21, 1681. The president and auditors of the royal Audiencia and Chancillería of these Filipinas Islands, while in royal Council, after having examined the petition of father Fray Juan de Santa María3of the Order ofPreachers, and rector of the university of Santo Tomás de Aquino, together with his Majesty’s royal decree which is mentioned therein, in which his Majesty receives his university under his royal protection and declares it to be under his royal patronage; and that due execution and fulfilment be given thereto in this royal Audiencia, together with the petition for the fiscal in the examination given it: the aforesaid took the decree in their hands, kissed it, and placed it upon their heads, as a decree of their king and legitimate sovereign (whom may the divine Majesty preserve, with increase of new kingdoms and seigniories); and in obedience thereto declared that they would observe, fulfil, and execute it, in accordance with, and as his Majesty ordains and commands, and—leaving a certified copy of it in the record books—that the original would be returned. Thus they voted and decreed and signed it with their rubrics before the fiscal.Before me:Juan Sánchez1Alonso Sandin made his profession in the Dominican convent of Salamanca, in 1658. After completing his studies, he became a teacher in the college at Plasencia, but resigned that post for the Philippine missions, being then thirty-one years of age; he came in the mission of 1671. He was a teacher in Santo Tomás at Manila, until 1676, when he was sent as procurator to Rome and Madrid, filling that office for twenty years. He died at Madrid, in May, 1701.↑2Veitia Linage is best known by his work,Norte de la contratación de las Indias occidentales(Sevilla, 1672) a valuable contribution to the history of Spanish commerce.↑3Juan de Santa María came to these islands (1666) from the Dominican convent at Sevilla, where he had professed two years before. He was occupied as a teacher in Santo Tomás, later becoming rector of the university, superior of the province, and incumbent of other high offices therein. From 1694 to 1700 he labored in the missions of Bataan. At the time of his death (April 30, 1715) he was acting provincial. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 24–26.)↑LETTER TO CARLOS IISire:Although the royal Audiencia must give you information of the controversies that have arisen between the religious of St. Dominic and the fathers of the Society of Jesus—from which resulted others between the archbishop of this city and the said fathers, as he attempted to be the judge in their suits, upon which they implored your royal aid—I cannot avoid, for my own part, giving you an account thereof, in order not to fail in my obligation. I must embark in a few days for Nueva Segovia, from which place the despatch that I would send may not arrive in time [for the mail to Acapulco], on account of the storms that may arise and the perils of the way that have been experienced—especially at this present time, with the deaths of several passengers, among them a religious of St. John of God.1And although in another letter (which I sent by way of Banta) I gave your Majesty a detailed account of the litigation that has begun to take shape between the college of San Joseph, which is in chargeof the fathers of the Society, and that of Santo Thomas, which is administered by the fathers of St. Dominic, it has seemed needful that I should continue that account, giving it quite fully on account of the unforeseen events that since have resulted. Years ago the said fathers of St. Dominic began a lawsuit against those of the Society in regard to the priority of their college, and, too, in regard to the authorization enjoyed by the Society of power to confer degrees on their students in arts and theology. After many disputes, and declarations by the royal Audiencia, both parties had recourse to your royal Council of the Indias; the Society obtained sentence in its favor, and the royal executory decree was ordered to be issued—of which, it cannot be doubted, account can be given in the Council. And although the Society have remained in peaceable possession, during the course of so long a time as has elapsed since the said executory decree, the Order of St. Dominic have tried in every way to disturb them—giving, in the “conclusions” which they print, the impression that their university is the only one [in Manila], and that the degrees conferred in that of the Society of Jesus were null and void. And now they are again styling their college of Santo Thomas a “royal college;” and for greater ostentation they placed, on the twenty-fourth of November in the past year, your Majesty’s arms over the gates of the said college. When the fathers of the Society saw this, they raised objections, demanding the observance of what was decreed and ordained by your Majesty in the above-mentioned executory decree, and that the rector of the college of Santo Thomas be notified of it, in order that he might not plead ignorance onaccount of not being an old resident of this city. The said rector, being notified of this opposition, purposely absented himself. Your royal Audiencia commanded that copies of the decisions of your royal Council, contained in the executory decree, be affixed to the doors of the said college of Santo Thomas, and posted in other public places in this city. The rector, without doubt, must have resented the command by your royal Audiencia; for upon one of the posted copies of the decisions of the Council a lay religious of St. Dominic placed another paper, in which he censured the fathers of the Society for trading and bartering.2Thereupon immediately came out your archbishop, who is of the said order,3with official statements against the Society, callingupon many laymen, residents of the city, to express their opinion on the point at issue, under [penalty of] censures. He also sent a notary to the ship “Santa Rossa” (which had put back to port), for the same purpose, because among those who had embarked thereon was Father Gerónimo de Ortega,4who had been appointed by the said order procurator-general for your royal court and that of Roma, with his companion, Father Luis de Morales.5This arrogant act was perhaps occasioned by seeing the said procurator and his companion lade on the ship various goods which they ordinarily send to the Marianas for the support and maintenance of the fathers who reside there, and of the others who (as is generally and publicly known) are aided by the said fathers with their accustomed charity and zeal.For these purposes they employ the liberal alms with which your Majesty has been pleased to coöperate in the promotion of a work so to the service of God our Lord, in that and other labors—as in the missions of China and other realms, where they are occupied in preaching the holy gospel. Besides, [I must not omit mention of] the disinterested manner in which they proceed in the administration of the missions which they occupy; this is sufficient testimony to their being so far removed from transactions of that sort, and evidence that we can and ought to understand; for every one knows that they do not exact fees for burials or marriages, or other functions. In this condition has remained the litigation of the said fathers—who are protected by your royal Audiencia; and since it is necessary for a definite account of the proceedings in future, I refer you in everything to the official legal report of the Audiencia. May our Lord prosper your Majesty with the happiness and success that Christendom needs for its protection and promotion. Manila, February 24, 1683.Francisco, bishop of Nueva Segovia.[Endorsed: “Manila; to his Majesty; 1683. The bishop of Nueva Segovia, Don Francisco Pizarro. Received on May 19, 1685, by the hand of Diego Altamirano, procurator of the Society.” These lines are followed by a brief synopsis of the bishop’s letter, and the comment, “Thus far no letter has been received from the Audiencia; but recently letters have come from the bishop of Nueva Caceres, Don Fray Andres Gonzalez, and the assistant bishop Barrientos, which mention, among other matters, the commercial transactions of the Society; and thisinformation has been handed to the fiscal.”][Endorsed: “Council; let two other letters be brought—one from this bishop, and the other from the assistant bishop Duran.”][Endorsed: “Council; June 4, 1685. Carry this to the fiscal, so that he can examine with it all the other papers relating to this subject; and let a clerk make a brief of the whole matter.”]1See account of the establishment of this hospital order in Manila (1641) in Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, vii, pp. 56–69; and the full history of its first century’s labors there, by the rector of its Manila convent, Fray Juan Manuel Maldonado de Puga (Granada, 1742).↑2Montero y Vidal cites (Hist. de Filipinas, i, p. 368) a line of this pasquinade: “He who desires to buycarajaisor frying-pans, iron, etc., resorts to the fathers of the Society.”↑3Felipe Fernández de Pardo was born on February 7, 1611, in Valladolid, of noble lineage. At the age of fifteen, he entered the Dominican order in that city. After being ordained, he spent several years as a teacher in colleges of his order, and then joined the Philippine mission, arriving in the islands in 1648. He was a teacher in Santo Thomas for several years, and then its rector; in 1660 was elected prior of the Manila convent, and afterward, provincial. In 1671, he became commissary of the Inquisition at Manila, and in 1677 archbishop of that diocese, although, as the bulls therefor did not arrive, he was not consecrated until October 28, 1681. He was a rigorous censor of public morals, and a strenuous advocate of his ecclesiastical privileges; consequently, he became embroiled with influential private persons, with the secular government, and with the religious orders. As a result, the Audiencia decreed (March, 1683) his banishment, sending him to Lingayén. The new governor, Cruzalaegui, secured Pardo’s reinstatement in his see, which occurred November 15, 1684; then followed more troubles and disputes, the archbishop seeking vengeance on his former enemies. He died on December 31, 1689. See sketch of his life inReseña biográfica, i, pp. 473–486; and an outline of his official career in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Filipinas, i, pp. 365–376.↑4Jerónimo de Ortega was born at Tudela, April 12, 1627; he was but fourteen years old when he entered the Jesuit order. In 1654 he entered the Philippine missions, where most of his term of service was devoted to the college at Manila, of which he was successively vice-rector and rector during six years; he also filled other important offices in his order. Sailing for Europe (1683), as related in our text, he died at sea before reaching Acapulco, on November 15 of that year. See Murillo Velarde’sHist. de Philipinas, fol. 356.↑5Luís de Morales was born in Tordesillas on September 29, 1641, and became a Jesuit novice at the age of seventeen. Later, he devoted himself to the Philippine missions; in Mexico he met Father Sanvitores, who selected Morales to aid him in the evangelization of the Marianas, where he labored three years. In 1671 Morales went to Manila, where he was assigned to the Tagal missions; in 1676 he became rector of Antipolo, and in 1681 vice-rector of Cavite. Going to Europe with Ortega, the latter’s death imposed his responsible mission upon Morales. Having fulfilled its duties, he desired to return to the Philippines, but was detained in Mexico seven years; he came back to Manila about 1698, and soon afterward was elected provincial. His term of office ended, he was rector of the Manila college for four years; and he died there on June 14, 1716. (Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 403–405.)↑

The procurator-general of the Dominicans in Madrid, Fray Pedro Diaz del Cosio, made a representation to the queen-regent in August, 1674, in regard to the condition of the clergy of the islands, because of the almost perpetual vacancies [in the sees] of the archbishop and bishops, and the excessive subjection in which the governors held them, and the harsh treatment accorded them.1He represented that the bishopric of Nueva Caceres had been vacant for about thirty-one years; and that he who had last been presented (on September 30, 1672) had not obtained the bulls from his Holiness.That the bishopric of Cebu had not had any bishop who was regularly appointed and who took possession, for about nineteen years, when Don Fray Juan Lopez assumed that post in 1666; that the latter had been promoted to the bishopric of Manila; that Don Diego de Aguilar was presented in 1672, a Dominican of the age of sixty years, but had not yet, at that date (1674), obtained the bulls (although he had accepted the dignity)—without doubt, because he was old and lived in Mejico.That the bishopric of Nueva Segovia had been vacant for about fifteen years, since the death of the last bishop, Don Fray Rodrigo de Cardenas,2a Dominican; for he who had then (1674) been presented, namely, Don Jose Poblete, dean of the cabildo of Manila, had not yet obtained the bulls nor his authorization, for lack of money.That the archbishopric of Manila, the one which had been vacant the least time (since the death of Don Miguel de Poblete in 1668), had been given to Don Fray Juan Lopez, bishop of Cebu, whose bulls could not arrive until 1674—six years of vacancy.That the governors were interested in having vacancies; for they filled the posts provisionally, and for that reason they were slow in giving information of a vacancy.That the incomes of the bishops were scant, and were collected at the will of the governors, who paid them poorly, and curtailed them. Therefore arrangements should be made to let the bishops themselves collect their dues from the tributes, as these were paid in.That the cost of the bulls ought to be paid from the royal treasury.That appointments ought to be given to persons not over forty years of age.That they should be given to Dominican friars, who would obtain the bulls without any delay.That the third part of the income of the vacancies should be given to the persons appointed, in order to pay for the bulls.That the power of exiling bishops should be taken from the governors and Audiencia.That three auxiliary bishops should be appointed, who should succeed, according to their seniority, [in case of vacancies] in the archbishopric and bishoprics, and should begin to govern immediately.The father procurator, Fray Pedro del Cosio, set forth those claims, but no one took any notice of them. The memorial was presented to the Council, October 26, 1674. Having been investigated by the fiscal—whom, as well as the other persons who intervened in it, Father Cosio visited—it was examined in the Council, March 11, 1675, and gave rise to the following resolutions:That the governors of Filipinas should report promptly to the Council the vacancies of the bishoprics, under penalty of a fine of two thousand pesos.That the archbishop of Manila should appoint governorsad interimin the vacancies of the three bishoprics of Filipinas; and his Holiness should be petitioned for despatches, so that in such case the ecclesiastical spiritual authority should be exercised by the consecrated bishops left.That the royal officials of Mejico should remit on separate account what was owing to the archbishopand cabildo of Manila, without the governor and royal officials of Filipinas having any part in it.That the Audiencia alone could proceed, in accordance with law, against the ecclesiastics, and not the governor by himself alone.That the archbishop should report the amount of the tithes of the islands, in each of the three bishoprics, in order to erect cathedrals and establish cabildos.That the royal officials of Manila should report the amount of the third part of the [incomes of the] last vacancies of the bishoprics.It appears further: That the Council was about to resolve that one-third of the incomes of the vacancies of the bishoprics of Filipinas should belong to the treasury, and another third part should be conceded to the bishops-elect to pay for the bulls. That it was resolved to augment the income of the archbishop to five thousand pesos, and that of the bishops to four thousand pesos. That it was about to petition Roma to lower by one-third the cost of the bulls to the bishops of Filipinas. That the archbishop should punish public scandals of incontinence, both of lewd women and of men living in concubinage. That in the disputes of Don Gerónimo Herrera with the archbishop3some matters were determined in favor of the latter.

He represented that the bishopric of Nueva Caceres had been vacant for about thirty-one years; and that he who had last been presented (on September 30, 1672) had not obtained the bulls from his Holiness.

That the bishopric of Cebu had not had any bishop who was regularly appointed and who took possession, for about nineteen years, when Don Fray Juan Lopez assumed that post in 1666; that the latter had been promoted to the bishopric of Manila; that Don Diego de Aguilar was presented in 1672, a Dominican of the age of sixty years, but had not yet, at that date (1674), obtained the bulls (although he had accepted the dignity)—without doubt, because he was old and lived in Mejico.

That the bishopric of Nueva Segovia had been vacant for about fifteen years, since the death of the last bishop, Don Fray Rodrigo de Cardenas,2a Dominican; for he who had then (1674) been presented, namely, Don Jose Poblete, dean of the cabildo of Manila, had not yet obtained the bulls nor his authorization, for lack of money.

That the archbishopric of Manila, the one which had been vacant the least time (since the death of Don Miguel de Poblete in 1668), had been given to Don Fray Juan Lopez, bishop of Cebu, whose bulls could not arrive until 1674—six years of vacancy.

That the governors were interested in having vacancies; for they filled the posts provisionally, and for that reason they were slow in giving information of a vacancy.

That the incomes of the bishops were scant, and were collected at the will of the governors, who paid them poorly, and curtailed them. Therefore arrangements should be made to let the bishops themselves collect their dues from the tributes, as these were paid in.

That the cost of the bulls ought to be paid from the royal treasury.

That appointments ought to be given to persons not over forty years of age.

That they should be given to Dominican friars, who would obtain the bulls without any delay.

That the third part of the income of the vacancies should be given to the persons appointed, in order to pay for the bulls.

That the power of exiling bishops should be taken from the governors and Audiencia.

That three auxiliary bishops should be appointed, who should succeed, according to their seniority, [in case of vacancies] in the archbishopric and bishoprics, and should begin to govern immediately.

The father procurator, Fray Pedro del Cosio, set forth those claims, but no one took any notice of them. The memorial was presented to the Council, October 26, 1674. Having been investigated by the fiscal—whom, as well as the other persons who intervened in it, Father Cosio visited—it was examined in the Council, March 11, 1675, and gave rise to the following resolutions:

That the governors of Filipinas should report promptly to the Council the vacancies of the bishoprics, under penalty of a fine of two thousand pesos.

That the archbishop of Manila should appoint governorsad interimin the vacancies of the three bishoprics of Filipinas; and his Holiness should be petitioned for despatches, so that in such case the ecclesiastical spiritual authority should be exercised by the consecrated bishops left.

That the royal officials of Mejico should remit on separate account what was owing to the archbishopand cabildo of Manila, without the governor and royal officials of Filipinas having any part in it.

That the Audiencia alone could proceed, in accordance with law, against the ecclesiastics, and not the governor by himself alone.

That the archbishop should report the amount of the tithes of the islands, in each of the three bishoprics, in order to erect cathedrals and establish cabildos.

That the royal officials of Manila should report the amount of the third part of the [incomes of the] last vacancies of the bishoprics.

It appears further: That the Council was about to resolve that one-third of the incomes of the vacancies of the bishoprics of Filipinas should belong to the treasury, and another third part should be conceded to the bishops-elect to pay for the bulls. That it was resolved to augment the income of the archbishop to five thousand pesos, and that of the bishops to four thousand pesos. That it was about to petition Roma to lower by one-third the cost of the bulls to the bishops of Filipinas. That the archbishop should punish public scandals of incontinence, both of lewd women and of men living in concubinage. That in the disputes of Don Gerónimo Herrera with the archbishop3some matters were determined in favor of the latter.

1This document in the Ventura del Arco MSS. is evidently a mere synopsis of the original.↑2“In the year 61 the three bishops had died—Don Fray Rodrigo de Cardenas, of Nueva Segovia; Don Fray Antonio de San Gregorio, of Nueva Cazeres; and Doctor Don Juan Velez (a cleric, formerly dean of the holy church of Manila), of Zebú; and the royal decrees for the new incumbents did not reach Manila until the year 65. Therein were proposed the following names: For the diocese of Nueva Segovia, Fray Francisco de Navarro, a discalced Franciscan, who set a most unusual example by refusing so honorable a dignity. For that of Nueva Cazeres, Fray Francisco de la Madre de Dios (or de la Alameda) also a discalced Franciscan; but the royal decree found him dead two years before. For that of Zebú, the most illustrious Don Fray Juan Lopez, who came in this ship ‘San Joseph,’ and had been already consecrated in Mechoacan.” (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, vii, pp. 140, 141.)↑3In 1673 arose a controversy between the archbishop, Fray Juan López, and Don Jerónimo de Herrera, the chief chaplain of the royal chapel, who undertook to exercise among the soldiers the functions of parish priest. He was excommunicated by the archbishop, but instituted proceedings against that prelate in a military court. This suit was quashed by the Audiencia, but the governor withheld the archbishop’s stipends. These conflicts led to certain of the measures adopted by the Council, recorded in our text.↑

1This document in the Ventura del Arco MSS. is evidently a mere synopsis of the original.↑

2“In the year 61 the three bishops had died—Don Fray Rodrigo de Cardenas, of Nueva Segovia; Don Fray Antonio de San Gregorio, of Nueva Cazeres; and Doctor Don Juan Velez (a cleric, formerly dean of the holy church of Manila), of Zebú; and the royal decrees for the new incumbents did not reach Manila until the year 65. Therein were proposed the following names: For the diocese of Nueva Segovia, Fray Francisco de Navarro, a discalced Franciscan, who set a most unusual example by refusing so honorable a dignity. For that of Nueva Cazeres, Fray Francisco de la Madre de Dios (or de la Alameda) also a discalced Franciscan; but the royal decree found him dead two years before. For that of Zebú, the most illustrious Don Fray Juan Lopez, who came in this ship ‘San Joseph,’ and had been already consecrated in Mechoacan.” (Concepción,Hist. de Philipinas, vii, pp. 140, 141.)↑

3In 1673 arose a controversy between the archbishop, Fray Juan López, and Don Jerónimo de Herrera, the chief chaplain of the royal chapel, who undertook to exercise among the soldiers the functions of parish priest. He was excommunicated by the archbishop, but instituted proceedings against that prelate in a military court. This suit was quashed by the Audiencia, but the governor withheld the archbishop’s stipends. These conflicts led to certain of the measures adopted by the Council, recorded in our text.↑

PREROGATIVES OF EX-PROVINCIALSGRANTED TO THE PROCURATORS OF THE ORDER OF HERMITS OF ST. AUGUSTINE IN FILIPINASInnocent XI, Pope. In future remembrance of the affair.Not long ago it was represented to us on the part of our sons the brethren of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine of the province of the islands known as the Philippines, in the Ocean Sea that as they had to send a religious to attend to urgent matters of the said province in the Roman and Spanish royal courts, nor was any religious found willing to undertake such burden because of the very long and toilsome journey, that could not be made without grave discomforts and danger of life, as also because such procurators after laboring three years and longer in their charge were not allowed any prerogative, the same petitioners very earnestly desire a grant from us to the effect that those who for three continuous years shall exercise the duty of procurator in the said courts shall enjoy the privileges of ex-provincials. Since, moreover, not only the whole province aforesaid, but also the late prior-general of the said order, has petitioned for the grant of such indulgence, therefore the said petitioners have humbly solicitedus to make through our apostolic bounty due provision in the premises.1. Accordingly, desiring to reward the petitioners with special favors and graces, moreover considering them all and singular to be free from any sort of excommunication, ... and being not indisposed to hearken to their prayers, with the counsel of our venerable brethren the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are in charge of matters appertaining to bishops and regulars, and with the consent of the aforementioned prior general, by our apostolic authority, in virtue of these presents, we grant and allow those religious of the said province who in the future shall exercise at least for three years the duty of procurator of their province in the aforesaid courts the full and lawful possession and enjoyment of all the privileges, prerogatives, and exemptions now possessed and enjoyed by ex-provincials of the same province—due regard, however, always being had in the premises to the authority of the congregation of the same cardinals.2. Decreeing that these present letters shall always be held as binding, valid, and efficacious, and shall obtain their plenary and entire results, etc.Given at Rome, at St. Mary Major’s, under the seal of the Fisherman, December 17, 1677, the second year of our pontificate.

PREROGATIVES OF EX-PROVINCIALSGRANTED TO THE PROCURATORS OF THE ORDER OF HERMITS OF ST. AUGUSTINE IN FILIPINAS

Innocent XI, Pope. In future remembrance of the affair.Not long ago it was represented to us on the part of our sons the brethren of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine of the province of the islands known as the Philippines, in the Ocean Sea that as they had to send a religious to attend to urgent matters of the said province in the Roman and Spanish royal courts, nor was any religious found willing to undertake such burden because of the very long and toilsome journey, that could not be made without grave discomforts and danger of life, as also because such procurators after laboring three years and longer in their charge were not allowed any prerogative, the same petitioners very earnestly desire a grant from us to the effect that those who for three continuous years shall exercise the duty of procurator in the said courts shall enjoy the privileges of ex-provincials. Since, moreover, not only the whole province aforesaid, but also the late prior-general of the said order, has petitioned for the grant of such indulgence, therefore the said petitioners have humbly solicitedus to make through our apostolic bounty due provision in the premises.1. Accordingly, desiring to reward the petitioners with special favors and graces, moreover considering them all and singular to be free from any sort of excommunication, ... and being not indisposed to hearken to their prayers, with the counsel of our venerable brethren the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are in charge of matters appertaining to bishops and regulars, and with the consent of the aforementioned prior general, by our apostolic authority, in virtue of these presents, we grant and allow those religious of the said province who in the future shall exercise at least for three years the duty of procurator of their province in the aforesaid courts the full and lawful possession and enjoyment of all the privileges, prerogatives, and exemptions now possessed and enjoyed by ex-provincials of the same province—due regard, however, always being had in the premises to the authority of the congregation of the same cardinals.2. Decreeing that these present letters shall always be held as binding, valid, and efficacious, and shall obtain their plenary and entire results, etc.Given at Rome, at St. Mary Major’s, under the seal of the Fisherman, December 17, 1677, the second year of our pontificate.

Innocent XI, Pope. In future remembrance of the affair.

Not long ago it was represented to us on the part of our sons the brethren of the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine of the province of the islands known as the Philippines, in the Ocean Sea that as they had to send a religious to attend to urgent matters of the said province in the Roman and Spanish royal courts, nor was any religious found willing to undertake such burden because of the very long and toilsome journey, that could not be made without grave discomforts and danger of life, as also because such procurators after laboring three years and longer in their charge were not allowed any prerogative, the same petitioners very earnestly desire a grant from us to the effect that those who for three continuous years shall exercise the duty of procurator in the said courts shall enjoy the privileges of ex-provincials. Since, moreover, not only the whole province aforesaid, but also the late prior-general of the said order, has petitioned for the grant of such indulgence, therefore the said petitioners have humbly solicitedus to make through our apostolic bounty due provision in the premises.

1. Accordingly, desiring to reward the petitioners with special favors and graces, moreover considering them all and singular to be free from any sort of excommunication, ... and being not indisposed to hearken to their prayers, with the counsel of our venerable brethren the cardinals of the Holy Roman Church who are in charge of matters appertaining to bishops and regulars, and with the consent of the aforementioned prior general, by our apostolic authority, in virtue of these presents, we grant and allow those religious of the said province who in the future shall exercise at least for three years the duty of procurator of their province in the aforesaid courts the full and lawful possession and enjoyment of all the privileges, prerogatives, and exemptions now possessed and enjoyed by ex-provincials of the same province—due regard, however, always being had in the premises to the authority of the congregation of the same cardinals.

2. Decreeing that these present letters shall always be held as binding, valid, and efficacious, and shall obtain their plenary and entire results, etc.

Given at Rome, at St. Mary Major’s, under the seal of the Fisherman, December 17, 1677, the second year of our pontificate.

ROYAL PATRONAGE EXTENDED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMASThe King. Inasmuch as Fray Alonso Sandín,1definitor and procurator-general of the province of Santo Rosario of the Order of St. Dominic in the Filipinas Islands, has represented to me that a public academic institution was erected in the college of Santo Tomás of the city of Manila, by a bull of his Holiness Innocent X, promulgated November 20, 1645, at the instance of the king my sovereign and father (may he rest in peace) and passed by my Council of the Indias, by virtue of which degrees in the arts and theology are granted in that institution, with full rigor of examinations and publicity, to capable persons in those islands, from which follows a notable advantage for furnishing prebends and curacies, for which the students therein compete, they petition me that, considering this, in order that the students’ energy may not decrease in what at present is flourishing, I be pleased to admit that universityunder my royal patronage, and declare myself to be its patron. My said Council, having examined the petition, together with an authentic copy of the document erecting the university and of what my fiscal said concerning it, I have considered it expedient to admit, as by this present I do, the said university of the college of Santo Tomás of the city of Manila under my protection, and declare it to be under my royal patronage. I order my president and the auditors of my Audiencia of that city, and request and charge the archbishop of the city, the bishops of the said islands, the ecclesiastical and secular cabildos, the superiors of the orders, and any other of my judges and justices of the islands, that they consider it as such, and observe it; and that they cause to be observed the privileges and exceptions that pertain to it by reason of such patronage, for so is my will. Given in Madrid, May 17, 1680.I the KingBy order of the king our sovereign:José de Veitialinage2In the city of Manila, August 21, 1681. The president and auditors of the royal Audiencia and Chancillería of these Filipinas Islands, while in royal Council, after having examined the petition of father Fray Juan de Santa María3of the Order ofPreachers, and rector of the university of Santo Tomás de Aquino, together with his Majesty’s royal decree which is mentioned therein, in which his Majesty receives his university under his royal protection and declares it to be under his royal patronage; and that due execution and fulfilment be given thereto in this royal Audiencia, together with the petition for the fiscal in the examination given it: the aforesaid took the decree in their hands, kissed it, and placed it upon their heads, as a decree of their king and legitimate sovereign (whom may the divine Majesty preserve, with increase of new kingdoms and seigniories); and in obedience thereto declared that they would observe, fulfil, and execute it, in accordance with, and as his Majesty ordains and commands, and—leaving a certified copy of it in the record books—that the original would be returned. Thus they voted and decreed and signed it with their rubrics before the fiscal.Before me:Juan Sánchez1Alonso Sandin made his profession in the Dominican convent of Salamanca, in 1658. After completing his studies, he became a teacher in the college at Plasencia, but resigned that post for the Philippine missions, being then thirty-one years of age; he came in the mission of 1671. He was a teacher in Santo Tomás at Manila, until 1676, when he was sent as procurator to Rome and Madrid, filling that office for twenty years. He died at Madrid, in May, 1701.↑2Veitia Linage is best known by his work,Norte de la contratación de las Indias occidentales(Sevilla, 1672) a valuable contribution to the history of Spanish commerce.↑3Juan de Santa María came to these islands (1666) from the Dominican convent at Sevilla, where he had professed two years before. He was occupied as a teacher in Santo Tomás, later becoming rector of the university, superior of the province, and incumbent of other high offices therein. From 1694 to 1700 he labored in the missions of Bataan. At the time of his death (April 30, 1715) he was acting provincial. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 24–26.)↑

ROYAL PATRONAGE EXTENDED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

The King. Inasmuch as Fray Alonso Sandín,1definitor and procurator-general of the province of Santo Rosario of the Order of St. Dominic in the Filipinas Islands, has represented to me that a public academic institution was erected in the college of Santo Tomás of the city of Manila, by a bull of his Holiness Innocent X, promulgated November 20, 1645, at the instance of the king my sovereign and father (may he rest in peace) and passed by my Council of the Indias, by virtue of which degrees in the arts and theology are granted in that institution, with full rigor of examinations and publicity, to capable persons in those islands, from which follows a notable advantage for furnishing prebends and curacies, for which the students therein compete, they petition me that, considering this, in order that the students’ energy may not decrease in what at present is flourishing, I be pleased to admit that universityunder my royal patronage, and declare myself to be its patron. My said Council, having examined the petition, together with an authentic copy of the document erecting the university and of what my fiscal said concerning it, I have considered it expedient to admit, as by this present I do, the said university of the college of Santo Tomás of the city of Manila under my protection, and declare it to be under my royal patronage. I order my president and the auditors of my Audiencia of that city, and request and charge the archbishop of the city, the bishops of the said islands, the ecclesiastical and secular cabildos, the superiors of the orders, and any other of my judges and justices of the islands, that they consider it as such, and observe it; and that they cause to be observed the privileges and exceptions that pertain to it by reason of such patronage, for so is my will. Given in Madrid, May 17, 1680.I the KingBy order of the king our sovereign:José de Veitialinage2In the city of Manila, August 21, 1681. The president and auditors of the royal Audiencia and Chancillería of these Filipinas Islands, while in royal Council, after having examined the petition of father Fray Juan de Santa María3of the Order ofPreachers, and rector of the university of Santo Tomás de Aquino, together with his Majesty’s royal decree which is mentioned therein, in which his Majesty receives his university under his royal protection and declares it to be under his royal patronage; and that due execution and fulfilment be given thereto in this royal Audiencia, together with the petition for the fiscal in the examination given it: the aforesaid took the decree in their hands, kissed it, and placed it upon their heads, as a decree of their king and legitimate sovereign (whom may the divine Majesty preserve, with increase of new kingdoms and seigniories); and in obedience thereto declared that they would observe, fulfil, and execute it, in accordance with, and as his Majesty ordains and commands, and—leaving a certified copy of it in the record books—that the original would be returned. Thus they voted and decreed and signed it with their rubrics before the fiscal.Before me:Juan Sánchez

I the King

By order of the king our sovereign:

José de Veitialinage2

In the city of Manila, August 21, 1681. The president and auditors of the royal Audiencia and Chancillería of these Filipinas Islands, while in royal Council, after having examined the petition of father Fray Juan de Santa María3of the Order ofPreachers, and rector of the university of Santo Tomás de Aquino, together with his Majesty’s royal decree which is mentioned therein, in which his Majesty receives his university under his royal protection and declares it to be under his royal patronage; and that due execution and fulfilment be given thereto in this royal Audiencia, together with the petition for the fiscal in the examination given it: the aforesaid took the decree in their hands, kissed it, and placed it upon their heads, as a decree of their king and legitimate sovereign (whom may the divine Majesty preserve, with increase of new kingdoms and seigniories); and in obedience thereto declared that they would observe, fulfil, and execute it, in accordance with, and as his Majesty ordains and commands, and—leaving a certified copy of it in the record books—that the original would be returned. Thus they voted and decreed and signed it with their rubrics before the fiscal.

Before me:

Juan Sánchez

1Alonso Sandin made his profession in the Dominican convent of Salamanca, in 1658. After completing his studies, he became a teacher in the college at Plasencia, but resigned that post for the Philippine missions, being then thirty-one years of age; he came in the mission of 1671. He was a teacher in Santo Tomás at Manila, until 1676, when he was sent as procurator to Rome and Madrid, filling that office for twenty years. He died at Madrid, in May, 1701.↑2Veitia Linage is best known by his work,Norte de la contratación de las Indias occidentales(Sevilla, 1672) a valuable contribution to the history of Spanish commerce.↑3Juan de Santa María came to these islands (1666) from the Dominican convent at Sevilla, where he had professed two years before. He was occupied as a teacher in Santo Tomás, later becoming rector of the university, superior of the province, and incumbent of other high offices therein. From 1694 to 1700 he labored in the missions of Bataan. At the time of his death (April 30, 1715) he was acting provincial. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 24–26.)↑

2Veitia Linage is best known by his work,Norte de la contratación de las Indias occidentales(Sevilla, 1672) a valuable contribution to the history of Spanish commerce.↑

3Juan de Santa María came to these islands (1666) from the Dominican convent at Sevilla, where he had professed two years before. He was occupied as a teacher in Santo Tomás, later becoming rector of the university, superior of the province, and incumbent of other high offices therein. From 1694 to 1700 he labored in the missions of Bataan. At the time of his death (April 30, 1715) he was acting provincial. (Reseña biográfica, ii, pp. 24–26.)↑

LETTER TO CARLOS IISire:Although the royal Audiencia must give you information of the controversies that have arisen between the religious of St. Dominic and the fathers of the Society of Jesus—from which resulted others between the archbishop of this city and the said fathers, as he attempted to be the judge in their suits, upon which they implored your royal aid—I cannot avoid, for my own part, giving you an account thereof, in order not to fail in my obligation. I must embark in a few days for Nueva Segovia, from which place the despatch that I would send may not arrive in time [for the mail to Acapulco], on account of the storms that may arise and the perils of the way that have been experienced—especially at this present time, with the deaths of several passengers, among them a religious of St. John of God.1And although in another letter (which I sent by way of Banta) I gave your Majesty a detailed account of the litigation that has begun to take shape between the college of San Joseph, which is in chargeof the fathers of the Society, and that of Santo Thomas, which is administered by the fathers of St. Dominic, it has seemed needful that I should continue that account, giving it quite fully on account of the unforeseen events that since have resulted. Years ago the said fathers of St. Dominic began a lawsuit against those of the Society in regard to the priority of their college, and, too, in regard to the authorization enjoyed by the Society of power to confer degrees on their students in arts and theology. After many disputes, and declarations by the royal Audiencia, both parties had recourse to your royal Council of the Indias; the Society obtained sentence in its favor, and the royal executory decree was ordered to be issued—of which, it cannot be doubted, account can be given in the Council. And although the Society have remained in peaceable possession, during the course of so long a time as has elapsed since the said executory decree, the Order of St. Dominic have tried in every way to disturb them—giving, in the “conclusions” which they print, the impression that their university is the only one [in Manila], and that the degrees conferred in that of the Society of Jesus were null and void. And now they are again styling their college of Santo Thomas a “royal college;” and for greater ostentation they placed, on the twenty-fourth of November in the past year, your Majesty’s arms over the gates of the said college. When the fathers of the Society saw this, they raised objections, demanding the observance of what was decreed and ordained by your Majesty in the above-mentioned executory decree, and that the rector of the college of Santo Thomas be notified of it, in order that he might not plead ignorance onaccount of not being an old resident of this city. The said rector, being notified of this opposition, purposely absented himself. Your royal Audiencia commanded that copies of the decisions of your royal Council, contained in the executory decree, be affixed to the doors of the said college of Santo Thomas, and posted in other public places in this city. The rector, without doubt, must have resented the command by your royal Audiencia; for upon one of the posted copies of the decisions of the Council a lay religious of St. Dominic placed another paper, in which he censured the fathers of the Society for trading and bartering.2Thereupon immediately came out your archbishop, who is of the said order,3with official statements against the Society, callingupon many laymen, residents of the city, to express their opinion on the point at issue, under [penalty of] censures. He also sent a notary to the ship “Santa Rossa” (which had put back to port), for the same purpose, because among those who had embarked thereon was Father Gerónimo de Ortega,4who had been appointed by the said order procurator-general for your royal court and that of Roma, with his companion, Father Luis de Morales.5This arrogant act was perhaps occasioned by seeing the said procurator and his companion lade on the ship various goods which they ordinarily send to the Marianas for the support and maintenance of the fathers who reside there, and of the others who (as is generally and publicly known) are aided by the said fathers with their accustomed charity and zeal.For these purposes they employ the liberal alms with which your Majesty has been pleased to coöperate in the promotion of a work so to the service of God our Lord, in that and other labors—as in the missions of China and other realms, where they are occupied in preaching the holy gospel. Besides, [I must not omit mention of] the disinterested manner in which they proceed in the administration of the missions which they occupy; this is sufficient testimony to their being so far removed from transactions of that sort, and evidence that we can and ought to understand; for every one knows that they do not exact fees for burials or marriages, or other functions. In this condition has remained the litigation of the said fathers—who are protected by your royal Audiencia; and since it is necessary for a definite account of the proceedings in future, I refer you in everything to the official legal report of the Audiencia. May our Lord prosper your Majesty with the happiness and success that Christendom needs for its protection and promotion. Manila, February 24, 1683.Francisco, bishop of Nueva Segovia.[Endorsed: “Manila; to his Majesty; 1683. The bishop of Nueva Segovia, Don Francisco Pizarro. Received on May 19, 1685, by the hand of Diego Altamirano, procurator of the Society.” These lines are followed by a brief synopsis of the bishop’s letter, and the comment, “Thus far no letter has been received from the Audiencia; but recently letters have come from the bishop of Nueva Caceres, Don Fray Andres Gonzalez, and the assistant bishop Barrientos, which mention, among other matters, the commercial transactions of the Society; and thisinformation has been handed to the fiscal.”][Endorsed: “Council; let two other letters be brought—one from this bishop, and the other from the assistant bishop Duran.”][Endorsed: “Council; June 4, 1685. Carry this to the fiscal, so that he can examine with it all the other papers relating to this subject; and let a clerk make a brief of the whole matter.”]1See account of the establishment of this hospital order in Manila (1641) in Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, vii, pp. 56–69; and the full history of its first century’s labors there, by the rector of its Manila convent, Fray Juan Manuel Maldonado de Puga (Granada, 1742).↑2Montero y Vidal cites (Hist. de Filipinas, i, p. 368) a line of this pasquinade: “He who desires to buycarajaisor frying-pans, iron, etc., resorts to the fathers of the Society.”↑3Felipe Fernández de Pardo was born on February 7, 1611, in Valladolid, of noble lineage. At the age of fifteen, he entered the Dominican order in that city. After being ordained, he spent several years as a teacher in colleges of his order, and then joined the Philippine mission, arriving in the islands in 1648. He was a teacher in Santo Thomas for several years, and then its rector; in 1660 was elected prior of the Manila convent, and afterward, provincial. In 1671, he became commissary of the Inquisition at Manila, and in 1677 archbishop of that diocese, although, as the bulls therefor did not arrive, he was not consecrated until October 28, 1681. He was a rigorous censor of public morals, and a strenuous advocate of his ecclesiastical privileges; consequently, he became embroiled with influential private persons, with the secular government, and with the religious orders. As a result, the Audiencia decreed (March, 1683) his banishment, sending him to Lingayén. The new governor, Cruzalaegui, secured Pardo’s reinstatement in his see, which occurred November 15, 1684; then followed more troubles and disputes, the archbishop seeking vengeance on his former enemies. He died on December 31, 1689. See sketch of his life inReseña biográfica, i, pp. 473–486; and an outline of his official career in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Filipinas, i, pp. 365–376.↑4Jerónimo de Ortega was born at Tudela, April 12, 1627; he was but fourteen years old when he entered the Jesuit order. In 1654 he entered the Philippine missions, where most of his term of service was devoted to the college at Manila, of which he was successively vice-rector and rector during six years; he also filled other important offices in his order. Sailing for Europe (1683), as related in our text, he died at sea before reaching Acapulco, on November 15 of that year. See Murillo Velarde’sHist. de Philipinas, fol. 356.↑5Luís de Morales was born in Tordesillas on September 29, 1641, and became a Jesuit novice at the age of seventeen. Later, he devoted himself to the Philippine missions; in Mexico he met Father Sanvitores, who selected Morales to aid him in the evangelization of the Marianas, where he labored three years. In 1671 Morales went to Manila, where he was assigned to the Tagal missions; in 1676 he became rector of Antipolo, and in 1681 vice-rector of Cavite. Going to Europe with Ortega, the latter’s death imposed his responsible mission upon Morales. Having fulfilled its duties, he desired to return to the Philippines, but was detained in Mexico seven years; he came back to Manila about 1698, and soon afterward was elected provincial. His term of office ended, he was rector of the Manila college for four years; and he died there on June 14, 1716. (Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 403–405.)↑

LETTER TO CARLOS II

Sire:Although the royal Audiencia must give you information of the controversies that have arisen between the religious of St. Dominic and the fathers of the Society of Jesus—from which resulted others between the archbishop of this city and the said fathers, as he attempted to be the judge in their suits, upon which they implored your royal aid—I cannot avoid, for my own part, giving you an account thereof, in order not to fail in my obligation. I must embark in a few days for Nueva Segovia, from which place the despatch that I would send may not arrive in time [for the mail to Acapulco], on account of the storms that may arise and the perils of the way that have been experienced—especially at this present time, with the deaths of several passengers, among them a religious of St. John of God.1And although in another letter (which I sent by way of Banta) I gave your Majesty a detailed account of the litigation that has begun to take shape between the college of San Joseph, which is in chargeof the fathers of the Society, and that of Santo Thomas, which is administered by the fathers of St. Dominic, it has seemed needful that I should continue that account, giving it quite fully on account of the unforeseen events that since have resulted. Years ago the said fathers of St. Dominic began a lawsuit against those of the Society in regard to the priority of their college, and, too, in regard to the authorization enjoyed by the Society of power to confer degrees on their students in arts and theology. After many disputes, and declarations by the royal Audiencia, both parties had recourse to your royal Council of the Indias; the Society obtained sentence in its favor, and the royal executory decree was ordered to be issued—of which, it cannot be doubted, account can be given in the Council. And although the Society have remained in peaceable possession, during the course of so long a time as has elapsed since the said executory decree, the Order of St. Dominic have tried in every way to disturb them—giving, in the “conclusions” which they print, the impression that their university is the only one [in Manila], and that the degrees conferred in that of the Society of Jesus were null and void. And now they are again styling their college of Santo Thomas a “royal college;” and for greater ostentation they placed, on the twenty-fourth of November in the past year, your Majesty’s arms over the gates of the said college. When the fathers of the Society saw this, they raised objections, demanding the observance of what was decreed and ordained by your Majesty in the above-mentioned executory decree, and that the rector of the college of Santo Thomas be notified of it, in order that he might not plead ignorance onaccount of not being an old resident of this city. The said rector, being notified of this opposition, purposely absented himself. Your royal Audiencia commanded that copies of the decisions of your royal Council, contained in the executory decree, be affixed to the doors of the said college of Santo Thomas, and posted in other public places in this city. The rector, without doubt, must have resented the command by your royal Audiencia; for upon one of the posted copies of the decisions of the Council a lay religious of St. Dominic placed another paper, in which he censured the fathers of the Society for trading and bartering.2Thereupon immediately came out your archbishop, who is of the said order,3with official statements against the Society, callingupon many laymen, residents of the city, to express their opinion on the point at issue, under [penalty of] censures. He also sent a notary to the ship “Santa Rossa” (which had put back to port), for the same purpose, because among those who had embarked thereon was Father Gerónimo de Ortega,4who had been appointed by the said order procurator-general for your royal court and that of Roma, with his companion, Father Luis de Morales.5This arrogant act was perhaps occasioned by seeing the said procurator and his companion lade on the ship various goods which they ordinarily send to the Marianas for the support and maintenance of the fathers who reside there, and of the others who (as is generally and publicly known) are aided by the said fathers with their accustomed charity and zeal.For these purposes they employ the liberal alms with which your Majesty has been pleased to coöperate in the promotion of a work so to the service of God our Lord, in that and other labors—as in the missions of China and other realms, where they are occupied in preaching the holy gospel. Besides, [I must not omit mention of] the disinterested manner in which they proceed in the administration of the missions which they occupy; this is sufficient testimony to their being so far removed from transactions of that sort, and evidence that we can and ought to understand; for every one knows that they do not exact fees for burials or marriages, or other functions. In this condition has remained the litigation of the said fathers—who are protected by your royal Audiencia; and since it is necessary for a definite account of the proceedings in future, I refer you in everything to the official legal report of the Audiencia. May our Lord prosper your Majesty with the happiness and success that Christendom needs for its protection and promotion. Manila, February 24, 1683.Francisco, bishop of Nueva Segovia.[Endorsed: “Manila; to his Majesty; 1683. The bishop of Nueva Segovia, Don Francisco Pizarro. Received on May 19, 1685, by the hand of Diego Altamirano, procurator of the Society.” These lines are followed by a brief synopsis of the bishop’s letter, and the comment, “Thus far no letter has been received from the Audiencia; but recently letters have come from the bishop of Nueva Caceres, Don Fray Andres Gonzalez, and the assistant bishop Barrientos, which mention, among other matters, the commercial transactions of the Society; and thisinformation has been handed to the fiscal.”][Endorsed: “Council; let two other letters be brought—one from this bishop, and the other from the assistant bishop Duran.”][Endorsed: “Council; June 4, 1685. Carry this to the fiscal, so that he can examine with it all the other papers relating to this subject; and let a clerk make a brief of the whole matter.”]

Sire:

Although the royal Audiencia must give you information of the controversies that have arisen between the religious of St. Dominic and the fathers of the Society of Jesus—from which resulted others between the archbishop of this city and the said fathers, as he attempted to be the judge in their suits, upon which they implored your royal aid—I cannot avoid, for my own part, giving you an account thereof, in order not to fail in my obligation. I must embark in a few days for Nueva Segovia, from which place the despatch that I would send may not arrive in time [for the mail to Acapulco], on account of the storms that may arise and the perils of the way that have been experienced—especially at this present time, with the deaths of several passengers, among them a religious of St. John of God.1

And although in another letter (which I sent by way of Banta) I gave your Majesty a detailed account of the litigation that has begun to take shape between the college of San Joseph, which is in chargeof the fathers of the Society, and that of Santo Thomas, which is administered by the fathers of St. Dominic, it has seemed needful that I should continue that account, giving it quite fully on account of the unforeseen events that since have resulted. Years ago the said fathers of St. Dominic began a lawsuit against those of the Society in regard to the priority of their college, and, too, in regard to the authorization enjoyed by the Society of power to confer degrees on their students in arts and theology. After many disputes, and declarations by the royal Audiencia, both parties had recourse to your royal Council of the Indias; the Society obtained sentence in its favor, and the royal executory decree was ordered to be issued—of which, it cannot be doubted, account can be given in the Council. And although the Society have remained in peaceable possession, during the course of so long a time as has elapsed since the said executory decree, the Order of St. Dominic have tried in every way to disturb them—giving, in the “conclusions” which they print, the impression that their university is the only one [in Manila], and that the degrees conferred in that of the Society of Jesus were null and void. And now they are again styling their college of Santo Thomas a “royal college;” and for greater ostentation they placed, on the twenty-fourth of November in the past year, your Majesty’s arms over the gates of the said college. When the fathers of the Society saw this, they raised objections, demanding the observance of what was decreed and ordained by your Majesty in the above-mentioned executory decree, and that the rector of the college of Santo Thomas be notified of it, in order that he might not plead ignorance onaccount of not being an old resident of this city. The said rector, being notified of this opposition, purposely absented himself. Your royal Audiencia commanded that copies of the decisions of your royal Council, contained in the executory decree, be affixed to the doors of the said college of Santo Thomas, and posted in other public places in this city. The rector, without doubt, must have resented the command by your royal Audiencia; for upon one of the posted copies of the decisions of the Council a lay religious of St. Dominic placed another paper, in which he censured the fathers of the Society for trading and bartering.2Thereupon immediately came out your archbishop, who is of the said order,3with official statements against the Society, callingupon many laymen, residents of the city, to express their opinion on the point at issue, under [penalty of] censures. He also sent a notary to the ship “Santa Rossa” (which had put back to port), for the same purpose, because among those who had embarked thereon was Father Gerónimo de Ortega,4who had been appointed by the said order procurator-general for your royal court and that of Roma, with his companion, Father Luis de Morales.5This arrogant act was perhaps occasioned by seeing the said procurator and his companion lade on the ship various goods which they ordinarily send to the Marianas for the support and maintenance of the fathers who reside there, and of the others who (as is generally and publicly known) are aided by the said fathers with their accustomed charity and zeal.For these purposes they employ the liberal alms with which your Majesty has been pleased to coöperate in the promotion of a work so to the service of God our Lord, in that and other labors—as in the missions of China and other realms, where they are occupied in preaching the holy gospel. Besides, [I must not omit mention of] the disinterested manner in which they proceed in the administration of the missions which they occupy; this is sufficient testimony to their being so far removed from transactions of that sort, and evidence that we can and ought to understand; for every one knows that they do not exact fees for burials or marriages, or other functions. In this condition has remained the litigation of the said fathers—who are protected by your royal Audiencia; and since it is necessary for a definite account of the proceedings in future, I refer you in everything to the official legal report of the Audiencia. May our Lord prosper your Majesty with the happiness and success that Christendom needs for its protection and promotion. Manila, February 24, 1683.

Francisco, bishop of Nueva Segovia.

[Endorsed: “Manila; to his Majesty; 1683. The bishop of Nueva Segovia, Don Francisco Pizarro. Received on May 19, 1685, by the hand of Diego Altamirano, procurator of the Society.” These lines are followed by a brief synopsis of the bishop’s letter, and the comment, “Thus far no letter has been received from the Audiencia; but recently letters have come from the bishop of Nueva Caceres, Don Fray Andres Gonzalez, and the assistant bishop Barrientos, which mention, among other matters, the commercial transactions of the Society; and thisinformation has been handed to the fiscal.”]

[Endorsed: “Council; let two other letters be brought—one from this bishop, and the other from the assistant bishop Duran.”]

[Endorsed: “Council; June 4, 1685. Carry this to the fiscal, so that he can examine with it all the other papers relating to this subject; and let a clerk make a brief of the whole matter.”]

1See account of the establishment of this hospital order in Manila (1641) in Concepción’sHist. de Philipinas, vii, pp. 56–69; and the full history of its first century’s labors there, by the rector of its Manila convent, Fray Juan Manuel Maldonado de Puga (Granada, 1742).↑2Montero y Vidal cites (Hist. de Filipinas, i, p. 368) a line of this pasquinade: “He who desires to buycarajaisor frying-pans, iron, etc., resorts to the fathers of the Society.”↑3Felipe Fernández de Pardo was born on February 7, 1611, in Valladolid, of noble lineage. At the age of fifteen, he entered the Dominican order in that city. After being ordained, he spent several years as a teacher in colleges of his order, and then joined the Philippine mission, arriving in the islands in 1648. He was a teacher in Santo Thomas for several years, and then its rector; in 1660 was elected prior of the Manila convent, and afterward, provincial. In 1671, he became commissary of the Inquisition at Manila, and in 1677 archbishop of that diocese, although, as the bulls therefor did not arrive, he was not consecrated until October 28, 1681. He was a rigorous censor of public morals, and a strenuous advocate of his ecclesiastical privileges; consequently, he became embroiled with influential private persons, with the secular government, and with the religious orders. As a result, the Audiencia decreed (March, 1683) his banishment, sending him to Lingayén. The new governor, Cruzalaegui, secured Pardo’s reinstatement in his see, which occurred November 15, 1684; then followed more troubles and disputes, the archbishop seeking vengeance on his former enemies. He died on December 31, 1689. See sketch of his life inReseña biográfica, i, pp. 473–486; and an outline of his official career in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Filipinas, i, pp. 365–376.↑4Jerónimo de Ortega was born at Tudela, April 12, 1627; he was but fourteen years old when he entered the Jesuit order. In 1654 he entered the Philippine missions, where most of his term of service was devoted to the college at Manila, of which he was successively vice-rector and rector during six years; he also filled other important offices in his order. Sailing for Europe (1683), as related in our text, he died at sea before reaching Acapulco, on November 15 of that year. See Murillo Velarde’sHist. de Philipinas, fol. 356.↑5Luís de Morales was born in Tordesillas on September 29, 1641, and became a Jesuit novice at the age of seventeen. Later, he devoted himself to the Philippine missions; in Mexico he met Father Sanvitores, who selected Morales to aid him in the evangelization of the Marianas, where he labored three years. In 1671 Morales went to Manila, where he was assigned to the Tagal missions; in 1676 he became rector of Antipolo, and in 1681 vice-rector of Cavite. Going to Europe with Ortega, the latter’s death imposed his responsible mission upon Morales. Having fulfilled its duties, he desired to return to the Philippines, but was detained in Mexico seven years; he came back to Manila about 1698, and soon afterward was elected provincial. His term of office ended, he was rector of the Manila college for four years; and he died there on June 14, 1716. (Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 403–405.)↑

2Montero y Vidal cites (Hist. de Filipinas, i, p. 368) a line of this pasquinade: “He who desires to buycarajaisor frying-pans, iron, etc., resorts to the fathers of the Society.”↑

3Felipe Fernández de Pardo was born on February 7, 1611, in Valladolid, of noble lineage. At the age of fifteen, he entered the Dominican order in that city. After being ordained, he spent several years as a teacher in colleges of his order, and then joined the Philippine mission, arriving in the islands in 1648. He was a teacher in Santo Thomas for several years, and then its rector; in 1660 was elected prior of the Manila convent, and afterward, provincial. In 1671, he became commissary of the Inquisition at Manila, and in 1677 archbishop of that diocese, although, as the bulls therefor did not arrive, he was not consecrated until October 28, 1681. He was a rigorous censor of public morals, and a strenuous advocate of his ecclesiastical privileges; consequently, he became embroiled with influential private persons, with the secular government, and with the religious orders. As a result, the Audiencia decreed (March, 1683) his banishment, sending him to Lingayén. The new governor, Cruzalaegui, secured Pardo’s reinstatement in his see, which occurred November 15, 1684; then followed more troubles and disputes, the archbishop seeking vengeance on his former enemies. He died on December 31, 1689. See sketch of his life inReseña biográfica, i, pp. 473–486; and an outline of his official career in Montero y Vidal’sHist. de Filipinas, i, pp. 365–376.↑

4Jerónimo de Ortega was born at Tudela, April 12, 1627; he was but fourteen years old when he entered the Jesuit order. In 1654 he entered the Philippine missions, where most of his term of service was devoted to the college at Manila, of which he was successively vice-rector and rector during six years; he also filled other important offices in his order. Sailing for Europe (1683), as related in our text, he died at sea before reaching Acapulco, on November 15 of that year. See Murillo Velarde’sHist. de Philipinas, fol. 356.↑

5Luís de Morales was born in Tordesillas on September 29, 1641, and became a Jesuit novice at the age of seventeen. Later, he devoted himself to the Philippine missions; in Mexico he met Father Sanvitores, who selected Morales to aid him in the evangelization of the Marianas, where he labored three years. In 1671 Morales went to Manila, where he was assigned to the Tagal missions; in 1676 he became rector of Antipolo, and in 1681 vice-rector of Cavite. Going to Europe with Ortega, the latter’s death imposed his responsible mission upon Morales. Having fulfilled its duties, he desired to return to the Philippines, but was detained in Mexico seven years; he came back to Manila about 1698, and soon afterward was elected provincial. His term of office ended, he was rector of the Manila college for four years; and he died there on June 14, 1716. (Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 403–405.)↑

Back to Index Next