Note 16 — Letter Written by a Citizen of Manila to an Absent Friend

Next day the archbishop presented himself with a plea of fuerza, during prison inspection, before the auditor Don Alvaro de Mesa y Lugo [sic; sc. Zapata?]; and as there was no other auditor, he issued the usual order. On Tuesday, the sixth of the same month, recourse was had to the royal Audiencia, on behalf of both the archbishop and the Society, to examine the records. The royal Audiencia, seeing that the order issued during the prison inspection was not sufficient, but defective, issued another and new one, and nothing further was discussed in that meeting of the Audiencia. Next day, Wednesday, November seven, the records were brought. The archbishop was represented by the father prior of St. Augustine, Fray Juan de Montemayor, and the father reader, Fray Diego de Ochoa, of the same order; the father definitor of the Recollects, Fray Pedro Barreto; the father guardian of St. Francis, Fray Juan de Pina; and Bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera, a secular, and the deacon and servant of the archbishop. The Society was represented by Father Diego de Bobadilla,16 and Father Lorenco Goreto, masters of theology. The latter, before all else, declared that they had no quarrel with the holy orders, and that in consequence the fathers had nothing to do there. But the others replied that they had been authorized by the archbishop. The royal Audiencia ordered the authorization to be read. It made mention only of the father reader, Fray Diego de Ochoa, father Fray Pedro Barreto, and the bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera. Thereupon, they ordered from the room the father prior of St. Augustine, and the father guardian of St. Francis, who went out somewhat shamefacedly. The secretary read the records, but was interrupted at every step by the reader Fray Diego de Ochoa, which resulted in some animosity. After the reading, the president asked the representatives of the archbishop whether they had anything to state. The bachelor Fulgencio de Ribera took the floor, and said in few words that the judge-conservator was not legitimately appointed, for there were no manifest injuries in the case. Then the president invited the two religious who had remained [to speak]. They said that those of the Society should state their case first, and accordingly the latter were given the floor—Father Diego de Bobadilla first, and then Father Lorenço Goreto. They proved in the judgment of those of us who were present (and it so seemed to me, although not much is obtained from these things) that the acts which I have mentioned are manifest injuries; and that, consequently, the judge-conservator was legally appointed. In order that your Grace may understand more of what was declared, I am sending you a summary of the allegation made by the fathers of the Society, which one of them communicated to me, and I enclose it herewith. Hence I shall not go into greater detail here, by mentioning what I have heard erudite men say in reply to certain arguments by which the other relation tries to prove that the enactments of the judge-conservator were null and void. I shall only say a word, if I remember it, on three or four points which the relation heaps together, but which are of small moment. It declares that the judge exceeded his authority in not giving the archbishop more than one hour’s time-limit in which to read the bulls and to withdraw the act, while in reality twenty-four hours were granted him; and when the secretary, Alonso Baesa del Rio, went to notify the archbishop of the act, to his offer that he could easily obtain more time from the judge, answer was made by Diego Bernal, who was the secretary of the archbishop, that they had time enough, and that no more was necessary, as they had read the bulls often enough. The point was not in this, but in the fact that the judge-conservator could not command the archbishop to withdraw the act that he had made against the Society. By that one may see the calumny in alleging that the time was insufficient to withdraw the act. The relation states that it was a dispute over jurisdiction, and that consequently, according to the ruling of the Council of Trent, judge-arbitrators were to be appointed. That is an error; for there was no contest over jurisdiction, but only that the judge-conservator, as the delegate of the supreme pontiff, ordered the archbishop to withdraw an act manifestly injurious to the Society. The relation declares that the bulls were authorized by the same judge-conservator and his secretary. That is true, but how did that cause any nullification? For the judge did not feign briefs, or say that the one that he presented was the original one, but that it was a faithful copy of the original, which the Society had showed him. Therein he obeyed the behests of the supreme pontiff, in order that such copies might have legality and authority. When the fathers of the Society had finished their statement, the president told the father reader Fray Diego de Ochoa, and the father definitor Fray Pedro Barreto, to make what further statements they had to make. But they, changing color, and being uneasy, answered clearly and frankly that they had nothing more to say, as they had not come prepared for it. I confess to your Grace that we who were present were put to the blush at seeing so shameful a thing; and we asked, since they had not come prepared, why they had come and why they had received the archbishop’s authorization. They requested that audience be granted them the next day, and, although that is contrary to common practice, it was conceded to them, so that they could at no time say that they had not presented their side of the matter, and that they were without defense. That was so clear and manifest a victory for the fathers of the Society, and before the tribunal, the officials, and the great crowd which was present, that I am surprised how those of the other side dared to utter a word. They returned to the conflict on the following Thursday; and other religious besides the two above mentioned and the secular, were summoned. Those who came newly were father Fray Antonio Gonsalez, vicar-provincial of St. Dominic; Fray Diego Collado, of the same order; and father Fray Pedro de Herrera, of St. Augustine: on entering the Audiencia, they presented their authority without being requested to do so—fearing to encounter any such jest as had happened to the others the day previous, for lack of authority. The father reader Fray Diego de Ochoa spoke first in this Audiencia, in a loud voice and with many exclamations, and casting opprobrium on the person of the judge-conservator. Then the father definitor Fray Pedro Barreto spoke. He read a short paper that he had written, saying that he had not been able to commit it to memory. He was followed by father Fray Antonio Gonsalez, who alleged a very trifling defect in the bull. After him Fray Diego Collado spoke. He said that he was the confessor of the president of Castilla when the bishop of Cordoba had a similar suit with the orders in España. Father Fray Pedro de Herrera gave his opinion last. All of them together consumed more than one and one-half hours. The fathers of the Society answered, Father Diego de Bobadilla first, and then Father Lorenso Goreto. Such was their reply that, to all of us who were present, it seemed that they had proved their case, and it is sure that they showed the act to be a manifest injury: first, because they had been ordered not to preach outside of their churches, under pain of excommunication and pecuniary fines; second, because the archbishop, through his anger toward only one of the Society, had forbidden all of them in his archbishopric to preach. The controversy then hinged on [the question] whether the prelate may prohibit some of the Society, for just causes (which he said that he had, but did not express), from preaching in camps and guardhouses. The friars said that he could, and their whole argument consisted of what the Council [of Trent] says, according to what they alleged—making fuerza out of those words, contradicente episcopo [i.e., “the bishop opposing”], and giving as explanation that the prelate may by his own authority oppose and forbid the regulars to preach, even in their own churches. Thence they inferred that the archbishop had not laid on the fathers of the Society all that he could. Those of the Society answered this at length, and showed by several books which they brought to the Audiencia that that phrase contradicente episcopo, ought not to be understood in that manner, but according to a certain Clementina which, if I am not mistaken, is that of De sepulturis, and begins with Dudum. As this was the point of all their controversy, I refer you to the statement that is enclosed herewith. But I am unable to conjecture why the other relation wastes so much paper, and becomes wearisome, by bringing in so many statements to prove that the religious may not preach in the churches of others without the permission of their owners, since the Society never claimed anything else, nor were their statements intended to prove it. And believe me, your Grace, on this second day no less glory fell to the Society than on the first. I have related this point so extensively, as some prejudiced persons have stated that the adherents of the archbishop silenced the fathers of the Society.