_Relation of the disputes and strife between the archbishop and the
governor, Don Sebastián Hurtado de Corcuera._
The strife, being greatly inflamed by the events above mentioned,
became entangled with one of the most memorable disputes that have
occurred in the islands--a necessary occasion for the sharpest
encounter between the two jurisdictions, and one from which Don Fray
Hernando Guerrero could not excuse himself, as it concerned the most
sacred part of the ecclesiastical immunity. That was a matter in which
the archbishop could not neglect to sally out with all his might, in
order to comply with the obligation of a true prelate. The case was
as follows: There was an artilleryman in Manila, named Francisco de
Nava, who had a female slave with whom he had illicit communication,
as came to the ears of the archbishop. The archbishop ordered him to
remove from himself this occasion [for sin] by selling the slave-girl
to another person; and had the latter placed, for that purpose, in the
house of a lady who was related to Doña María de Francia, who became
fond of her and arranged to buy her from the artilleryman. The latter
was so beside himself over the loss of the said slave that he refused
to sell her at any price, saying that he wished, on the contrary,
to marry her. But Doña María de Francia so arranged matters that
the slave was sold, and came into her possession with very slight
effort. The artilleryman, grieved and regretful for what had happened,
almost became mad, and, it having been given out that he was mad,
certain violence was shown him; and on one occasion he had received
a sound beating at the house of Doña María de Francia, because he had
gone there to request that they should give him the slave, as he had
resolved to make her his wife.
Aggrieved and rendered desperate in this way, he saw the girl pass one
day in a carriage with Doña María de Francia. Going to her he asked her
whether she knew him, who was her master. The slave answered him with
some independence, whereupon he, blind with anger, drew his dagger in
the middle of the street and killed her by stabbing her, before anyone
could prevent it. All the people, both those in the carriage and those
in the street, ran tumultuously [after him]; but the artilleryman
escaped them all, and took refuge in the church of our convent in
Manila. The governor heard of what had happened, and ordered Don Pedro
de Corcuera, his nephew (who was then sargento-mayor of the camp),
to take the artilleryman from the church, saying that he could not
avail himself of the sanctuary of the church, as he had committed a
treacherous act--although it was only a homicide, and the settlement
of this question did not concern the governor. However, his action
arose mainly from the anger that he felt that what had happened was
in the presence of his nephew, Don Pedro de Corcuera--who, also being
angered at what concerned his wife, made use of his commission with
less prudence than he ought to exercise in executing such orders from
his superiors. He caused the church and convent to be surrounded; and,
going inside, examined everything, not excepting even the sacristy;
and it is even said that he declared that, if he found the artilleryman
there, he would take him out a prisoner. But not having been able to
find him then, Don Pedro left the church and convent surrounded by a
double guard. The governor added to that that he would not allow the
religious to enter or leave, until he had hold of the refugee. The
latter was finally found, and taken from the sacristy, and surrendered
to the commander of artillery, in order that he might proceed with the
trial as his competent judge; and he, either carried away by flattery,
or in obedience to the commands of the governor, proceeded so hastily
that in a very short time he condemned the artilleryman to death.
The archbishop's provisor, Don Pedro Monroy, bore himself on this
occasion with the prudence that was fitting, and proceeded against
the commander of artillery, requesting him to deliver his prisoner
and return him to the church. Having been informed that the commander
of artillery was a mere instrument, and that all his actions were
according to the impulses of the governor, he sent three lay priests to
the palace to intimate to the latter that the judge should deliver the
refugee to him. The priests entered, without anyone hindering them;
and finding that the governor had already retired, as it was then
an advanced hour of the night, they started to withdraw in order to
return next morning; but the soldiers of the guard would not permit
them to leave, saying that such was the order of the governor.
The sentence against the artilleryman having been given--which it is
said that the governor sent ready made out to the judge, to sign--they
proceeded to execute it, notwithstanding that the provisor proceeded
to threaten censures, and to impose an interdict [40] and suspension
from religious functions [_cessatio de divinis_]. The governor
ordered a gallows to be erected in front of the very church of
St. Augustine, and the criminal was hanged thereon--to the contempt
of the ecclesiastical immunity, for the [proper] place assigned
for such punishments was very distant from there. The governor,
seeing that the sentence was already executed, and that he had now
obtained the chief object of his desire, wrote to the archbishop,
requesting him to have the censures removed and the interdict raised,
and the churches opened on the day of the nativity of our Lady. The
archbishop, recognizing the duplicity of the governor, refused to
answer that letter without first consulting the orders; and, after
consulting with some of them, decided that he would not raise the
interdict, since there was less inconvenience in having it imposed
[even] on so festive a day, than there would be in his yielding on
an occasion so inimical to the ecclesiastical immunity. However, the
requests of the Recollect fathers of our father St. Augustine, who
had charge of the advocacy of the nativity, had so much influence that
the archbishop ordered the interdict to be removed, and it was done.
The commander of artillery was condemned to some pecuniary fines,
from which he appealed to the judge of appeals, who was the bishop
of Camarines. The ecclesiastical judge refusing to admit the appeal,
he threatened the royal aid of fuerza; and this question having been
examined in the royal Audiencia (which at that time consisted of but
the governor and only one auditor, Don Marcos Zapata), it was declared
in his favor, and the appeal went to the bishop of Camarines. The
latter--namely, Don Francisco Zamudio, of the order of our father
St. Augustine, and a son of the province of Méjico--declared the
commander of artillery to be free from the sentence given by the
ecclesiastical judge. The trial of the commander of artillery had its
second hearing. On that account there did not fail to result certain
charges against the governor, such as his having ordered the secular
priests to be detained in the guard-house; his declaration that he
could not be excommunicated by anyone except the pope; and that if an
order were given to him to arrest the pontiff, he would arrest him,
and even drag him along by one foot (which he was proved to have said
by several persons). The governor freed himself from all these charges
by excuses in a manifesto which he published; but as it is not a part
of my duty to examine their adequacy, I shall not do so. I shall refer
the reader to the reply made to him by a learned ecclesiastic of the
university of Méjico; [41] for there is no liberty in Filipinas to
enable any one to complain, or to speak his mind against what the
government manipulates.
The governor ordered the provisor, Don Pedro Monroy, to go to the
island of Hermosa to serve in the post of chief chaplain, endeavoring
by this means to revenge himself--as if he were able to give the former
the collation and the spiritual jurisdiction necessary. The provisor
resisted him, and informed the archbishop thereof. The governor also
wrote a letter to the latter, ordering him to appoint another provisor
in place of Don Pedro Monroy, both because he had been assigned to the
island of Hermosa and such was advisable for his Majesty's service
(the mask under which the passions of those who ought to fulfil
their duties with justice are generally cloaked), and because the
office of provisor could not be exercised by him in contradiction of
a royal decree which ordered that the provisor should not be one who
had not been graduated and who did not have the learning necessary
(although the learning of Don Pedro was sufficient, and the holy
Council [of Trent?] and the sacred canons do not fix conditions for
such an office). The archbishop convened the orders for the solution
of this matter. Having written to Father Luis Pedrosa, rector of the
Society, to attend the meeting, the said father rector excused himself;
and, although summoned the requisite number of times, he refused to
attend. Consequently, the archbishop promulgated an act, in which
he deprived the fathers of the Society of the privilege of preaching
throughout the archbishopric, of the titles of synodal examiners, and
of active and passive right of assembly with the secular priests and
the orders both in public acts and in other functions, in consideration
of the fact that they refused to concur in the defense of the rights
of the ecclesiastical estate. On the following day, Tuesday, October
9, 1635, the archbishop sent a letter to the governor, requesting him
to accept the excuse given by the provisor, so that he might not go to
serve in the post of chaplain at the island of Hermosa; for he had need
of him [_i.e._, the provisor]. The governor should know that it was
beyond the power of secular judges to appoint ecclesiastical vicars
and to confer spiritual jurisdiction. Consequently, he petitioned
the governor in his own name, that of the bishop of Cebu, and those
of the orders, to refrain from such appointment; and counseled him
that he should consult with learned persons who feared God, since
there were so many in the body of secular priests and in the orders,
in such determinations. The religious of the Society, angered at the
act of the archbishop, after various demands and replies on both sides
(which I shall not set down here, as it is not my intention to stir up
so delicate matters--in which it must be believed that each one would
strive according to the dictates of his conscience, for one cannot
imagine the opposite of either side, rather believing that the common
enemy was preparing his weapons in order to occasion the misfortunes
that followed afterward), appointed the schoolmaster, Don Fabián
de Santillán y Gabilanes, judge-conservator (because they declared
that they were prevented from the exercise of their privileges). He
accepted the appointment, and immediately erected a tribunal against
the archbishop, issuing acts against him and fulminating censures in
case he should again oppose the proceedings that had been commenced.
Who could now look for less lamentable issues than those that were
seen in these islands from so wretched beginnings, as are those
that we have seen even to our days? The archbishop was very much
grieved over this determination, for he saw arrayed against himself,
on one side, the tyrannical governor (for Don Sebastián Hurtado de
Corcuera was domineering), and on the other an order so great as the
Society. Notwithstanding he determined to present himself in the royal
Audiencia by way of [pleading] fuerza, although he recognized the
little that he could accomplish by that means. But he was unwilling
to incur the fault of having failed to take this precaution, as was
determined by the orders of these islands--who firmly and steadfastly
assisted the archbishop, aiding him to maintain the ecclesiastical
immunity, which was running so great danger. The archbishop presented
himself in the royal Audiencia, where his arguments were examined in
two meetings; and a disagreement [in the Audiencia] having resulted,
the fiscal, who was the third, undertook to discuss the question. He
declared against the archbishop, saying that the judge-conservator had
used no fuerza. The latter continued to urge his censures against the
archbishop, who, destitute of all aid, determined to surrender and
withdraw the acts. He first made a protest before Diego de Rueda,
royal notary and a familiar of the Holy Office, in regard to the
fuerza that the governor and the judge-conservator were employing
against him. When the governor learned of the protest that the
archbishop had made, he had the notary, Diego de Rueda, arrested,
through the agency of the judge-conservator, and locked him up in
the castle of Santiago, after having taken from him his deposition
as to the contents of the protest--for the governor had been informed
that it was a defamatory libel against him. The notary declared that
the protest of the archbishop contained no special clause that was
prejudicial to anyone, but that it was directed only to the defense
of his rights. After the arrest of the notary, the judge-conservator
fulminated new censures against the archbishop, ordering him to annul
the protest. The archbishop treated those censures as invalid, for the
judge-conservator's jurisdiction did not extend to the trial of that
question. He further replied that the said protest no longer remained
in his possession, as it had been given to father Fray Diego Collado
to keep. He contented himself with this reply, being unwilling again
to attempt the remedy of having recourse to the Audiencia by a plea
of fuerza, whence he knew that he would issue ill-despatched. The
archbishop retired to the convent of St. Francis, where the governor
went to see him, pretending that he wished to serve as intermediary
between the archbishop and the judge-conservator, although it was
clear that all the actions of the latter were regulated according
to the governor's intentions, and were executed by his aid. At the
end of his visit he asked the archbishop to give him the protest,
pledging his word that he only desired to burn it, without reading
it or showing it to any one. The archbishop recognized the purpose
of his pretense, and reaffirmed the first reply that he had given
the judge-conservator. In order to free himself for the time being
from the importunities of the governor, it was necessary to give him
some hope that he would make the efforts possible to get hold of the
protest and send it to him. In a letter that he sent afterward to
the governor, he wrote the following:
"After your Lordship showed me the kindness to come to console and
favor me, the most diligent efforts possible were made in order to have
the protest returned to me. But it is hammering on cold iron. What more
can I do? Had my purpose been not to show it, I could have said that
I had torn it up, or have alleged some other pretext, and would not
have indicated the person to whom I gave it to keep, as I knew that
there was an order to sequester my goods. Since it is impossible,
sir, and it is not my fault, I do not accept the excuse which your
Lordship gives me in your letter, in order to free yourself from
showing me further kindness, and from making the effort to settle this
matter as a governor and friend. Therefore, I petition your Lordship,
since this matter rests with you, and is to be settled by you alone,
and since you are all-powerful in this matter, that your Lordship do
as you are able to do for one who has recourse to your protection; for
I wish to remain in your Lordship's protection, only bound to serve
you as long as I live. May God preserve the life of your Lordship
for long years. From this convent of St. Francis, November 24, 1635.
_Fray Hernando, archbishop._"
That prelate wrote the letter with this humility and gentleness;
but it was insufficient to cause the so ingenuous confession of the
archbishop to be believed, although it was the truth.
On the other side, father Fray Francisco de Herrera, of the Order
of Preachers, commissary of the Holy Office, made a demand, asking
that the notary, Diego de Rueda, as one of his household, be given
up to him. For that purpose he fulminated censures against the
judge-conservator, demanding from him the prisoner, and ordering
him to make no further search for the protest, as that was outside
his jurisdiction. He was obeyed, and order was given to deliver
the prisoner to him; but the governor refused to deliver him
up. Consequently, the father commissary of the Holy Office sent
two religious of St. Dominic to notify the governor by another act,
similar to that sent to the judge. The governor not only did not obey
it, but arrested the two religious and sent them to Cavite with an
adjutant, and had them placed in the convent of San Telmo of their
order. Afterward, when the governor found himself at variance with
the tribunal of the Holy Office, he began to work more clearly in
the opposition that he had commenced, repeating many times that
proposition of his which speaks of the ecclesiastical estate: "In
order to curb the spirit of the obstinate and arrogant mule, take
away its fodder." That was an impious comparison, and unworthy of
a gentleman who was so good a Christian and so devout, and of whom
some pens so well affected to him write so much, that already they
pass on (as is generally said) to ennoble his actions, gilding his
errors with the excellent gold of vigor and rhetoric. Some of them,
however, refrain almost entirely from discussing this contention,
which gave the Dutch of Batavia much matter for blasphemous talk.
Don Pedro de Monroy had retired outside the walls of the city, as
he had already left the office of provisor. The governor ordered
that he be not allowed to enter the gates of the city. Consequently,
when he deemed it advisable to enter Manila to see the archbishop,
he had to disguise himself in the habit of St. Francis; and went
to enter through the gate of Santo Domingo, with a religious who
accompanied him. The commander recognized him, and, together with
the rest of the soldiers, surrounded him and tried to take him to the
governor, as they had an order for it. They would have accomplished
this, had not some religious of the convent of St. Dominic come up,
who, although maltreated by the soldiers, removed Don Pedro Monroy
from that danger, and placed him in their convent. Matters daily
continued to grow worse, for the governor neglected no occasion,
nor left any rock unturned in order to annoy the archbishop--now
taking as his instrument the judge-conservator (who was continuing to
accumulate acts against the archbishop), now arousing new causes for
controversy. However, he was impelled in all this by the suggestion
of a third party, and of late by Don Andrés Arias Xirón, who was the
secular priest most opposed to the archbishop--both in having prevented
the archbishopric from being given to him, as we have already related,
and because he was the close friend and helper of the conservator,
Don Fabián Santillán. Another and still more recent cause was, that
in the visitation that the archbishop was then making in the chapel
of Nuestra Señora de Guía, where the said Don Andrés was acting as
cura--in which the natives had deposed various charges against him;
and on account of their verbal process, as it appeared that he had
threatened them, the archbishop had ordered him by an act to leave
his benefice within four and twenty hours, and to remain six leguas
from it. Don Andrés Arias Xirón did not obey that order, and remained
in Manila, where he had recourse to the royal Audiencia by a plea of
fuerza, which was decided [to be such] by the only auditor, Don Marcos
Zapata, who was not ignorant of the rules of the Council of Trent which
forbid appeals in a trial arising from the visitation. On account of
that decision of fuerza, the archbishop declared the auditor Zapata to
be excommunicated; consequently, that official was also ready to work
against the archbishop. All greatly blame that magistrate, because
Don Sebastián de Corcuera found an aid and support in him. One would
believe that the Holy Spirit talks with the governors and auditors
of Filipinas more than with others, although these words and warnings
are declared in the chapter of Wisdom: _Discite judices finium terræ,
prebete aures vos, qui continetis multitudines, et placetis vobis in
turbis nationum; quoniam data est a Domino potestas vobis, el virtus ab
Altissimo, qui interrogabit opera vestra, et cogitationes scrutabitur,
quoniam cum essetis ministri regni illius, non recte judicastis, nec
custodistis legem justitiæ, neque secundum voluntatem Dei ambulastis._
[42] Of such ministers and counselors, the holy king said that they
who were confounded and ashamed should remove themselves far from
him: _Avertantur statim erubescentes, qui dicunt mihi, "Euge, euge!"_
(Psalm lxix). But He must have chosen on this occasion that the passion
of the governor should regard the flattery of that magistrate as to
his favor, in order to excuse his own conduct. It may be that his
error was for lack of his understanding and not of his will; and to
judge of that pertains to the Supreme Tribunal.
At that time the Order of the Society having considered the
disturbances which the judge-conservator had occasioned, full of
repentance at having been the origin of troubles of so disagreeable
publicity, in the attempt to check them for the sake of the future
made the judge-conservator renounce his commission, and be absolved
by the archbishop. This the latter did on January twenty-eighth,
1636. The governor pretended that he had been the mediator of that
agreement. The archbishop nodded acquiescence and pretended to believe
it, in order not to lose that occasion for peace. The governor went to
the archiepiscopal house, and took the archbishop to the church in his
own carriage, and there knelt down on his knees, begging pardon from
him. The good prelate gave him pardon very willingly, thinking that
that was to be the end of all those past troubles. But the common
enemy did not so permit, for he very soon relit the fire which had
only been hidden under the ashes of those courteous exteriors.