Chapter II

of this treatise.

[696] Archbishop Pardo's well known opposition to the exercise of governmental control on the basis of the royal patronage and his resistance to the pretensions of ultimate superiority over the church which the temporal government claimed and assumed are referred to in another part of this treatise. In a letter written by the archbishop relative to the ecclesiastical controversy bearing his name, Pardo made the assertion that no person was more zealous to encourage or conform to the royal authority than he, for he realized the necessity of complete temporal jurisdiction over all things secular. He stated that he had always encouraged the ecclesiastics to comply with the just demands of the civil government, "for it is just," he wrote to the king, "to observe the temporal things over which Your Majesty has providence, since the secular power must be obeyed, ... yet I cannot offend the royal person by allowing him or his servants to transgress the rules or authority of God without interposing my influence against it, even at the risk of being disgraced; ... while I am allied to the civil authority in things secular, I am the superior in spiritual matters." He continued: "God has placed side by side the ecclesiastical and temporal authorities and the latter were intended to be subject to the former, and therefore, the temporal ministers ought to cede to the spiritual, according to the rules of the Holy Catholic Church. It is manifestly unjust, therefore, that a governor, maestre de campo, or other royal official should command or summon to justice a prelate who is charged with the welfare of the souls of the people of his commonwealth" (Pardo to King, September 7, 1686, A. I., 68-1-44).

A violent, though ineffective resistance was maintained by the church when Governor Simón de Anda y Salazar sought to abolish certain practices observed in the chanting of mass. Anda based his action on his authority as vicepatron. In his stand he was supported by the archbishop and by two suffragan bishops. However, Bishop de Luna, of Camarines, who was also papal delegate, violently opposed "sending [a copy of] this scandalous mandate to the royal Audiencia--a body consisting of three magistrates, to whom an appeal may lie against the governor" (Letter of a Franciscan Friar, December 13, 1771, Blair and Robertson, L, 318-319.) That a soldier should be the final arbiter in a question belonging so pre-eminently to the ecclesiastical sphere, seemed to this bishop to be entirely subversive of the interests of religion and he turned to the audiencia for protection and support. The governor sent a squad of soldiers to arrest the prelate, and the latter was forced to leave the Islands.

In 1770, Governor Anda was vehemently opposed by the ecclesiastical authorities of the colony in his efforts, as the churchmen described it, "to interfere in the governmental and judicial rights and pre-eminences of the church." This was during the struggle over the question of episcopal visitation; in this matter the governor supported the archbishop. The former had gone so far as to declare that the friars had neither the right nor the authority to administer the sacraments. The replies of Fray Sebastián de Asunción, a Recollect, and of Antonio de San Próspero, of the Augustinians, attacked the whole foundation of the royal patronage, claiming that the church should be given entire control in ecclesiastical matters. According to their views the attention of the governor should be confined to administrative affairs (Expediente de los provinciales de Filipinas, 15 de Julio, 1772, A. I., 107-7-6). As these friars were the provincials of their orders, their opinions are of value in reflecting the ideas of the religious in the Islands on the subject of episcopal visitation. These opinions were contrary to the accepted practices and to the ideas of men of higher standing in Spain's colonial empire.

Archbishop Pardo's well-known opposition to the exercise of governmental control on the basis of the royal patronage gave him pre-eminence in these same matters.

[697] Gómez Zamora, Regio patronato, 330 et seq.

[698] Ibid., 330-354.

[699] Ibid., 378.

[700] Recopilación, 1-8-2, 3, 6. A dispute concerning the jurisdiction of the audiencia over the findings of synods arose in 1773 and again in 1776, when the Bishop of Nueva Segovia protested against the ruling of the audiencia that all the deliberations of a provincial synod which had been held in that bishopric should be submitted for its approval. The bishop appealed to the Council of the Indies and that body approved the action of the audiencia (King to the Audiencia, October 19, 1776, A. I., 105-2-9).

[701] Recopilación, 1-9-2, 7, 10.

[702] Recopilación, 1-13-23.

[703] Ibid., 1-14-1, 20, 42; 3-14-3.

[704] Ibid., 1-14-34, 38.

[705] Ibid., 44, 67.

[706] This law was nullified by the cédula of August 1, 1795, which forbade the intervention of the vicepatron and audiencia in these matters. See Recopilación, 1-6, note 17, also 1-14-37.

[707] Ibid., 68.

[708] Ibid., 71, 75.

[709] Cédula of June 1, 1574, Blair and Robertson, XXI, 27-31.

[710] Cédula of November 14, 1603, Blair and Robertson, XXI, 50-52, note.

[711] Royal order of April 6, 1609, A. I., 105-2-1.

[712] Recopilación, 1-14; 1-7-54.

[713] Ibid., 1-7-1, 36.

[714] Montero y Vidal, Historia general, I, 357-358. Illustrative of this same authority on the part of the audiencia and the Council of the Indies was the consulta of the latter tribunal, enacted January 22, 1781. The Audiencia of Manila had called the attention of the home government to the fact that the nomination of Fray Manuel de Obelar, a Dominican, to the post of apostolic vicar of the province of Fukien, China, had been irregular because it had lacked the formality of presentation by the Spanish monarch. Other nominations, namely, those of 1753 and 1759, were cited as examples wherein this formality had not been lacking. The Council of the Indies recommended to the King that the nomination should be accepted and that an ayuda de costa should be voted, but that His Holiness should be notified through the Spanish ambassador in Rome that in the future the requirements of the royal patronage should be observed, and that no appointments in China, Spain, or in the Spanish colonies should be made without the consent of the Spanish monarch (A. I., 105-3-2).

[715] Recopilación, 1-6-31 and 1-14-12, treat of the admission of foreign prelates and visitors to ecclesiastical posts within the Spanish colonial empire. The latter law stipulates, in addition, that all bulls must be confirmed by the Council of the Indies before their introduction into the Indies.

[716] Tourón proceeded to China, where he continued his inspection. He revoked many of the privileges of the Spanish friars there and forced their retirement to Manila (consulta of the Council of the Indies on the report of the proceedings of Cardinal Tourón in China, February 24, 1710, A. I., 68-2-8). That his proceedings were recognized by the Spanish government is shown by the consulta of April 21, 1708, whereby 4000 pesos were voted to defray the expenses of Tourón in the Philippines and China. This money was added to the Philippine subsidy in Mexico (ibid.).

[717] Arce to Philip III, July 30, 1619, Blair and Robertson, XVIII, 238-239.

[718] Díaz, Conquistas, II, 267, et seq.; Martínez de Zúñiga, An historical view, I, 259.

[719] Tavora to Philip IV, July 8, 1632, Blair and Robertson, XXIV, 224-228.

[720] Corcuera to Philip IV, June 30, 1636, Blair and Robertson, XXVII, 21.

[721] The cédula of December 15, 1797, authorized the installation of the Bishop of Nueva Segovia as archbishop in the vacant see of Manila, on the death of the incumbent, in accordance with the requirements of the royal patronage. On September 8, 1800, the Bishop of Cebú was designated as archbishop in the same manner. The installations were made by the vicepatron on the strength of these cédulas, with the understanding that the latter were to be followed by the proper papal bulls, executed in due form. Cédulas of December 15, 1797, and of September 9, 1800, A. I., 105-2-18.

[722] The vicepatron had a right to do this in conjunction with the prelate until August 1, 1795, when authority was bestowed upon the latter without the interference of the civil government. Recopilación, 1-6-38, note 17.

[723] Cédula of August 1, 1795, and of September 16, 1803, A. I., 105-2-10; Recopilación, 1-6, note 17.

[724] Recopilación, 1-14-71 to 75; the entire title (14) of this

## book deals with the general subject of the religious orders. The

method of procedure in such cases may be illustrated by the efforts of the government to correct the abuses of Fray Alonso Zamudio, an Augustinian, who was in charge of a parish, and who therefore was subject to episcopal visitation. He was charged with immoral and vicious conduct. The provincial of his order made an investigation and reported that the evidence brought against him would warrant his prosecution. He recommended the removal of the friar, which, he stated, he could not himself bring about because Zamudio was acting as a parish priest. The provisor of the archbishopric recommended the banishment of Zamudio, which act was carried out by the governor in acuerdo with the audiencia. A ruego y encargo was dispatched by the tribunal, soliciting the surrender of the friar. He was accordingly handed over to the civil authorities and was incarcerated in Fort Santiago until the sentence could be executed (Información del juez-provisor, y testimonio de los abusos del fraile Alonso Zamudio, May 21, 1650, A. I., 67-6-9).

[725] Recopilación, 1-14-71, 72. An illustration of the operation of this sort of banishment may be noted in the case of three Augustinian friars whose deportation was requested by their provincial. The request was ignored by Governor Anda, whereupon the provincial wrote directly to the court; consequently on April 13, 1777, the king ordered the audiencia to see that these three friars were returned to Spain; Anda was advised to give more attention in the future to matters pertaining to the royal patronage (King to the Audiencia, April 13, 1777, A. I., 105-2-9).

[726] This has been discussed in