The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898, Volume 38, 1674-1683 / Explorations by early navigators, descriptions of the islands and their peoples, their history and records of the Catholic missions, as related in contemporaneous books and manuscripts, showing the political, economic, commercial and religious conditions of those islands from their earliest relations with European nations to the close of the nineteenth century

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.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 charge of 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 on account 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.2 Thereupon immediately came out your archbishop, who is of the said order,3 with official statements against the Society, calling upon 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,4 who had been appointed by the said order procurator-general for your royal court and that of Roma, with his companion, Father Luis de Morales.5 This 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 this information 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.”]

1 See account of the establishment of this hospital order in Manila (1641) in ConcepciÓn’s Hist. 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).?

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

3 Felipe 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 in ReseÑa biogrÁfica, i, pp. 473–486; and an outline of his official career in Montero y Vidal’s Hist. de Filipinas, i, pp. 365–376.?

4 JerÓnimo 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’s Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 356.?

5 LuÍs 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.)?

Clyx.com