Full bibliography
Relacion sincera y verdadera de la justa defension de las Regalias y privilegios de la Corona de Portugal en la Ciudad de Macao
- Castro, D. Felix Leal de (Author)
Transcription
Page 1
**[Texto Principal]** RELACION sincera, y verdadera De la justa defensa De las Regalías, y privilegios de la Corona de Portugal En la Ciudad de Macao. Escrita Por el Doctor D. Félix Leal de Castro En la misma Ciudad A 4 de Febrero de 1712. --- Impresa en Xiangshan, con las licencias necessarias.
Page 2
**[Pagina 1]** **[Texto Principal]** Habiendo leído una Relación, sin nombre de su Autor, cuyo título es: Breve Relación de las violencias, que ha padecido el Convento del Orden de S. Agustín de la Ciudad de Macao, por la obediencia a la Silla Apostólica en su Legado: su fecha en Macao a 17 de Enero de 1712, he juzgado aplicar luego el antídoto a este veneno, antes que se derrame por el Cuerpo de la Iglesia Católica con escándalo universal, y grave infamia de la Nación Portuguesa: a quien dicha Relación es gravemente injuriosa, y principalmente a los Señores Virrey y Prelados de las Indias Orientales: a los Señores Obispo y Capitán General de Macao; y a la misma Corona de Portugal, por las falsedades, que expresamente dice, y mucho más por las verdades, que cavilosamente calla. No es mi intento defender la justicia y la razón con argumentos, mas solo manifestarlas por los hechos, sacados de los Instrumentos auténticos, que aun se conservan, y referirlos con verdad y sinceridad; sin detenerme en notar las falsedades y cavilaciones de dicha Relación; las cuales notará fácilmente el Lector, combinando la misma Relación con las mías; y para esto observaré el mismo orden y número de los §., dando principio a los míos por las mismas formales palabras, con que empiezan los suyos, en la forma siguiente. Luego, que el Ex.
Page 3
**[Pagina 2]** **[Texto Principal]** se desembarcó para una isleta de los R.R.PP.° de la Compª de IESVS dentro del puerto y desde allí, sin entrar en la Ciudad, luego en el día siguiente se partió para Cantón, Ciudad del Imperio de la China. Tenían los Señores Obispo y Capitán General de Macao recibido cartas del Exmo. Señor Virrey de la India, en las cuales precisamente recomendaba que si el Patriarca de Antioquía apareciese en Macao, le diesen buen pasaje para la China, sin hablarle palabra acerca de la ju- risdicción de dicho Patriarca: a quien, luego que desembarcó, fueron ambos, Obispo y Capitán General, a complimenterle en la isleta; y entonces entregó el Patriarca al Obispo un bre- ve; el cual, como dijo, lo enviaba la Santidad del Papa Cle- mente XI, su data a 30 de Julio de 1702. Fue él único instrumento de su legación, que di- cho Patriarca presentó al Obispo de Macao; y aunque de él constaba que Su Santidad le había hecho su Comisario y Lega- do, no constaba en pero que le hubiese dado jurisdicción algu- na sobre el Obispo y Ciudad de Macao; antes sí constaba que toda la jurisdicción que le había concedido era solamente so- bre los Neófitos y Misioneros de la China. También es cierto que el Patriarca en los primeros tres meses que se detu- vo en Cantón, ningún acto de jurisdicción ejercitó en Macao, y solamente en Julio del mismo año de 1705 envió de allá su jubileo, para publicarse en esta Ciudad.
Page 4
**[Pagina 3]** **[Texto Principal]** exercitar jurisdicción en Macao, debía primero presentar sus bulas y despachos del Rey; pero por tenerle el V. Rey recomendado el buen pasaje del Patriarca, y por el mismo Patriarca le haber dicho que tenía el consentimiento del Rey, juzgó entonces que convenía disimular algo en este punto, pro bono pacis, como se decía lo había hecho el Señor Arzobispo de Filipinas en Manila; y en esta conformidad permitió la publicación de dicho jubileo en Macao, la cual se hizo leyéndose puramente el mismo jubileo remitido de Cantón, sin añadir el Obispo palabra alguna suya. Cuanto a la dispensación que pidió el Rdo. Vicario General deste Obispado, es cierto que no se la quiso conceder el Patriarca, juzgando o que no podía o que no convenía exercitar entonces este acto de jurisdicción en Macao.
Page 5
**[Pagina 4]** **[Texto Principal]** Obispo ni de la Ciudad al Patriarcha: y por esta causa volvió el mismo Patriarca a instar al Obispo, que añadiese a su Edicto, y publicase en la Ciudad dicha sujeción, y obediencia. En este tiempo (esto es, a los 13 de Agosto del mismo año 1705) hizo el mismo Obispo un protesto auténtico en manos del Señor Obispo de Malaca; quien a la sazón se hallaba en Macao; para conservación de su derecho contra la violencia, que con aquella instancia le hacía el Patriarca, a quien por justas causas no podía entonces visitar, y en el día siguiente 14 de Agosto añadió a su Edicto dicha obediencia, y lo remitió al dicho Patriarca, pero no la mandó publicar en Macao. Fuera de lo hasta aquí referido, ningún otro acto de jurisdicción ejerció el Patriarca en Macao; porque, aunque poco después de llegar a Cantón, envió de allá su comisión al Reverendo Padre Fray Constantino del Espíritu Santo, Prior del Convento del orden de S. Agustín, para ser juez en cierta causa particular; ni quiso entonces este Prelado aceptar esta comisión. Quanto al Breve dado a 30 de Octubre de 1705, en que Su Santidad reprehende, reprueba, y anula las operaciones del Arzobispo Primado contra la jurisdicción del Patriarca &c.
Page 6
**[Pagina 5]** **[Texto Principal]** habiéndose recibido otros tocantes a otras materias, donde claramente se infiere que dicho Breve de octubre de 1706 fue o totalmente falso, o fue subrepticiamente hecho, solo para servir de consolación al Patriarca. 3. El año de 1707 tenía ya el Obispo de Macao recibidas las respuestas del V. Rey y del Primado acerca de la jurisdicción del Patriarca. A los dos había recurrido el mismo Obispo el año antecedente de 1706, informándolos de las pretensiones del Patriarca; quien resolutamente quería ejercer jurisdicción en la ciudad y diócesis de Macao, y en los demás obispados de la Corona de Portugal, sin presentar primero sus bulas ni consentimiento del Rey.
Page 7
**[Pagina 6]** **[Texto Principal]** Eclesiástica, aunque sea Obispo, Arzobispo, o otro de mayor dignidad, pueda ejercer jurisdicción en las Indias Orientales: el cual privilegio amplió el Papa León X para todas las tierras descubiertas, y por descubrir, aunque no sean del dominio de Portugal. Juzgaron también que, aunque el Patriarca hubiese ejercitado jurisdicción en Macao y China con consentimiento de los Obispos, no bastaba eso para adquirir legítima posesión, la cual solamente le podía mandar dar el Rey, cuya es dicha Regalía y privilegio; y sin su Real mandato, era ciertamente nula la tal posesión, por ser hecha sin la ciencia y paciencia de quien solo la podía dar. Conforme a todo esto despachó el V. Rey en Mayo de 1706 sus órdenes para los Obispos de Macao, China, Malaca, y para el Capitán General y Ciudad de Macao, mandándoles que no permitiesen que el Patriarca Antioqueno ejercitase jurisdicción sin exhibir primero las Bulas de sus poderes, pasadas por el Real Consejo de Portugal.
Page 8
**[Pagina 7]** **[Texto Principal]** Bulas eran nulas, y como tales mandaba que ninguno las observase. Todo esto llegó a Macao en agosto del mismo año 1706, y como en aquel tiempo estaba el Patriarca en Pekín, y no ejercía jurisdicción en Macao, juzgaron el Obispo y Capitán General que no era necesario publicar por entonces dichas órdenes en esta ciudad; pero en llegando a Macao la noticia de que dicho Patriarca había ya salido de Pekín y venía para estas partes, convocando el Capitán General a todos los Superiores Regulares de Macao en 27 de enero de 1707 (antes de que el Patriarca publicara en Nankín su decreto o mandato contra los ritos chinos), les intimó en presencia del Obispo dichas órdenes del V. Rey, para que fiel y puntualmente las observasen y hiciesen observar a sus súbditos. Uno de estos superiores fue el sobredicho Prior de S. Agustín, fray Constantino del Espíritu Santo, quien respondió que, como fiel vasallo del Rey, observaría las órdenes del V. Rey en defensa de las regalías de la Corona; y la misma respuesta dieron uniformemente todos los demás superiores.
Page 9
**[Pagina 8]** **[Texto Principal]** contra los ritos, ó prácticas sinicas, el cual mandato le envió va junto con la carta. Determinado estaba ya el Obispo a no obedecer, ni en esto, ni en cosa alguna al Patriarca, porque a esto le obligaban las órdenes que tenía del V. Rey, y de Primas; pero dudaba, cómo, y cuándo convenía ejecutar esta resolución. Conformándose pues con lo que le decían sus que, a imitación del Señor Obispo Escalonense, apelase contra dicho Mandato; hizo su apelación, ó para mejor decir, agravio, y reclamación, luego de palabra, y después por escrito el 6 de Mayo del mismo año 1707, negando en ella la obediencia al Patriarca, por los motivos ya referidos. No me consta, si dicho Prior del Convento de S. Agustín Fr. Constantino quiso, o no quiso dar para esto su consentimiento: Lo cierto es, que después en una junta, que se hizo a los 19 del mismo Mayo, constantemente ratificó con los demás Prelados Regulares, en presencia del Capitán General, la obediencia a las órdenes del V. Rey, que habían prometido el 27 de Enero del mismo año 1707. (como ya queda dicho) añadiendo el mismo Prior con los demás, que si furtivamente se fijase en las puertas de las Iglesias de sus Conventos algún Edicto del Patriarca, lo quitarían y des- embriarían luego al mismo Capitán General; como el Señor ordenaba, dando también el mismo orden a sus Capitanes y Oficiales.
Page 10
**[Pagina 9]** **[Texto Principal]** Catedral, por orden del Obispo, la Pastoral del Primado, contraria a la jurisdicción del Patriarca; de la cual hicimos ya mención arriba: y a los 5 de Junio siguiente, ordenó el mismo Obispo a todos los Párrocos y Religiosos Regulares que también la publicasen en sus Iglesias. Obedecieron todos a este mandato; uno de los cuales era dicho Prior Fray Constantino, quien en el mismo día lo hizo también publicar en su Iglesia. A finales de Junio, esto es, a los 30 de Junio de dicho año 1707, llegó el Patriarca a Macao, desterrado por el Emperador de China. Luego en el mismo día le envió el Capitán General por dos capitanes, en presencia de un Notario, suplicar que no ejercitase jurisdicción en Macao, porque él tenía rigurosas órdenes del Virrey para no permitirlo, sin que primero Su Ilustrísima exhibiese las Bulas de sus poderes, pasadas por el Real Consejo de Portugal. No le agradó al Patriarca esta súplica; y respondió que si el Capitán General tenía las órdenes que decía del Virrey, él tenía otras órdenes contrarias del Papa, y que las había de observar. Juntamente con dichos capitanes envió el Capitán General al Patriarca una escuadra de soldados para su guarda honoraria.
Page 11
**[Pagina LO]** **[Texto Principal]** con los Mandarines Chinos (a los quales procuró, pero en vano, irritar contra los Portugueses), sino hacía lo que le rogaba, enargaba; pero ni una ni otra cosa pudo conseguir del Capitán General. Queriendo pues el mismo Patriarca establecer jurisdicción por medio de los Prelados Regulares, los envió a juntar para ello a las cinco de dicho Julio, pero no concluyó entonces cosa alguna, por faltar el R.P. Provincial de la C de JESUS, Francisco Pinto, quien en el día siguiente, 7 de Julio, fue aviso con el Patriarca, no por disimular su falta—que no había sido culpable—ni por visitar al dicho Pa- triarca, con quien ya había cumplimiento, sino solo por haber sido efectivamente llamado en el día antecedente y solo en éste por una carta del Señor Canciller Candela, fe- chada en el mismo día 6 de Julio. Hablándole pues el Patriar- ca cerca de su jurisdicción en Macao, le suplicó el di- cho Provincial que no tratase con él de punto, por cuanto se hallaba imposibilitado a darle gusto con la exención, por causa de las órdenes que tenía del Rey, y por la fidelidad que debía al Rey. Enójose con esto el Patriarca, y con semblante severo y airado, por repetidas veces instó al dicho Provincial que le dijese si reconocía o no su jurisdi- cción en Macao; y respondiéndole finalmente el Provin- cial que no la reconocía, sin darle más tiempo, le denunció el Patriarca allí mismo de palabra.
Page 12
SL Provincial para su Colegio y el Patriarca siguiéndole hasta la primera puerta de su palacio, desde allí en presencia de los soldados de la guardia, por su misma boca y en altas voces declaró por denostado al dicho Provincial, y luego lo declaró también por un edicto, que mandó fijar en el Colegio de la Compañía de JESÚS, del cual le quitó luego el capitán Antonio de Sosa Gayo, y lo llevó al Capitán General, en la conformidad de su orden de 17 de mayo, como ya dijimos. Sintió mucho el Capitán General este exceso del Señor Patriarca por ser totalmente contrario a los órdenes que tenía del V. Rey, y sabiendo que el prior del convento de S. Agustín, fray Constantino, en el día antecedente 6 de julio, cuando con los otros prelados regulares fue a hablar al Patriarca, se había mostrado inclinado a reconocer su jurisdicción, y que había solicitado para esto a uno de dichos prelados; para asegurarlos a todos, los envió a llamar, en el mismo día 6 de julio, el dicho Capitán General, y les intimó de nuevo los órdenes del V. Rey, añadiendo que procedería contra quien no los observase, como contra infiel a la Corona. A esto respondió dicho prior del convento de S. Agustín, que aquellos órdenes no eran del Rey, pero solo del V. Rey, a quien no estaba obligado a obedecer: que nunca dejaría de obedecer al Patriarca; y que así lo había de hacer.
Page 13
**[Pagina 12]** **[Texto Principal]** General, que procedería contra él como infiel a la Corona; vio a decir que hasta aquel día no tenía el Patriarca en citado por él ni en su Convento acto alguno de jurisdicción. Con esto dijo el Capitán General, que le daba tiempo, para considerar en lo que había dicho, de no ser obligado a obser- var los órdenes del Virrey. Esta fue la primera vez, que dicho Prior del Convento de S. Agustín se declaró parcial del Patriarca; y por sí no fue más llamado a consejo, o jun- ta alguna. Los demás Prelados respondieron, que observa- ban dichos órdenes ya tantas veces intimados. Para im- pedir pues, que el Patriarca no consiguiese su intento por medio de los Regulares, o de otras personas, de cuya fidelidad no podía dudar; ordenó el Capitán General, en mismo día, Capitán de la guardia del palacio del mismo Patriarca, (excepto sus familiares, y servidores) no dejase entrar en dicho palacio persona alguna, que no tuviese para eso especial licencia del mismo Capitán General. En el día siguiente 7 de Julio, por orden del Rmo. Viario General del Obispado, con ayuda del bulto armado, fue preso en una calle pública un Misionero de Chi- na, Presbítero seglar, que habitaba en el palacio del Patriarca; por cuanto siendo amonestado por el mismo Viario Gene- ral que, sin presentarse primero, no celebrase, ni administra- se los sacramentos, no quiso obedecerle.
Page 14
**[Pagina 13]** **[Texto Principal]** familiares, y servidores, se encaminó para la fuerza de la Barra, en la qual dicho Misionero estaba preso, para sacarlo de allá vi- olentamente, juzgando, (como parece) que no respetarían los sol- dados a la autoridad de su persona, y dignidad; pero quedó frustrado su intento, porque el Capitán de dicha fuerza man- dó cerrar la puerta, antes que a ella llegase el Patriarca: quien viendo ya imposibilitado su intento, con mucho ma- yor sentimiento, se volvió desde allí para su palacio, y de cami- no entró en el Convento de S. Agustín, a donde fue recibi- do del Prior Fray Constantino con repiques de campanas al entrar, y salir de dicho Convento. A los 8 del mismo Julio de 1705 envió dicho Pa- triarca al Capitán General una carta monitoria, escrita el día antecedente; en la cual, después de hacer mención de la guardia, que contra su voluntad persistía a las puertas de su palacio: de la gallardía, y desprecio de sus censuras, en caso que las fulminase: de sus edictos quitador del lugar, en que le habían fijado: de la prohibición para no entrar en su palacio muchas personas: y de la prisión del sobredicho Misionero; monía, y citaba al mismo Capitán General como a autor, y al Capitán Gayo como a ejecutor de estos delitos, dándoles tres horas de tiempo por término perentorio, para comparecieren en su palacio, y para allegaren en juicio las causas que tuviesen para no seren declarados por incursos en las censuras de la Bula de la Cena, de los sagrados ca- nones.
Page 15
**[Pagina 14]** **[Texto Principal]** canones, y del Concilio Tridentino, y para darles la debida satisfacción; y que no obedeciendo, serían luego declarados por incursos en dichas censuras. Citó también el Patriarca en el mismo día al Vicario General del Obispado para con- parecer el día siguiente, 9 de Julio, en juicio, y ver anulados sus actos, y atentados contra los Misioneros domésticos del mismo Patriarca; y juntamente lo monizó con aquella única por las tres moniciones canónicas, que desistiese de aquellos actos, y atentados, y si no, serían publicadas las censuras declaratorias de las censuras. Parecióle al Capitán General inaudito exceso, de enviarle el Patriarca dicha monitoria, y citatoria, y bajo que no pasase a otros aun mayores excesos, que había amenazado; en el siguiente día 9 del dicho Julio, convocó el mismo Capitán General el plenísimo consejo, o junta de los tres Estados: eclesiástico, Político, y Militar, en presencia del Obispo, y suya. Trop pusieronse en este Consejo las Re- galías, y privilegios de la Corona; los órdenes del V.
Page 16
**[Pagina 15]** **[Texto Principal]** punto de la cuestión era, que resolución se tomaría, o que se haría en aquel caso? Determinóse pues de unánime con- senso de casi todos; 1º que ningún caso se hiciese de las censuras del Patriarca, por ser todas nulas, y estar ya públicamente declaradas por tales en la Pastoral del Primado, ya publicada en dicha Ciudad. 2º que para evitar las per- turbaciones, y conservar la paz, y sosiego de la República, se escribiese luego en nombre de todos los tres Estados una carta al Patriarca, rogándole que desistiese de su intento de ejercitar jurisdicción, e insinuándole, que si no quisiese desistir, se atribuiría a él, y no a la Ciudad, y su gobierno, cualquiera resolución que se tomase en defensa de la paz pública, y de las Regalías de la Corona. 3º Que en caso que el Patriarca no quisiese desistir de dicho intento, la guar- dia de su palacio, que hasta aquel tiempo era solo honora- ria, fuese en lo adelante verdadera custodia, la cual, guar- dando el debido decoro a su persona, no le dejase salir del mismo palacio, ni entrar ni salir persona alguna, si no solo los servidores necesarios. 4º Que en este caso fuese el Oidor de Su Magestad con otros Oficiales de la justicia a intimar al mismo Patriarca dicha custodia.
Page 17
**[Pagina 16]** **[Texto Principal]** mente con ella mandó la copia de una carta, que había re- cebido del Rey, su data a 27 de Marzo de 1702, para constar a dicha junta, que Su Magestad tenía dado su consentimiento, para el mismo Patriarca exercitar la jurisdicción de Legado A- postólico en aquellas partes; pero tan lejos estaba de constar ello en dicha carta, que antes constaba lo contrario; siendo cierto, co- mo era, que el Rey no había mandado a sus Indias Orienta- les las órdenes, que en ella prometía mandar en caso que di- ese su consentimiento, para dicho Patriarca pasar allá con jurisdicción; y mucho más, diciendo expresamente Su Magestad en misma carta al Patriarca, que sin dichas or- denes le sería más que difícil conseguir el fin, para que era destinado. Constando pues, que el Patriarca ni tenía con- sentimiento del Rey para exercitar jurisdicción, ni quería des- istir de exercitarla; mandó el Capitán General el mismo día 12 de Julio intimarle la custodia, dando al Capitán de la guardia las órdenes conformes a lo decretado en el consejo de los tres Estados. Después de estar ya en custodia el Patriar- ca, salió, rompiendo la guardia, dos veces de su palacio (a los 25, y a los 19 del mismo Julio) para ir a hablar a ciento Man- darines, que a la sazón se hallaban en Macao, y valerse de Nos contra los Portugueses; pero no pudiendo hablarles de ningu- na vez, se volvió luego a su palacio. De una y otra vez pro- curaron los soldados de guardia detenerle, para que no saliese.
Page 18
**[Pagina 17]** **[Texto Principal]** no con armas, sino con solas reverentes súplicas. Pudieron en la segunda vez un soldado con falsedad impedir que no en- trassen nel palacio los chinos cargadores de la silla, sin los qua- les no saliera el Patriarca, y por esta causa mandó el Capitán General dar a dicho soldado el castigo de la polea, con que le había antes amenazado; pero también mandó meter en la cárcel un oficial de la misma guardia, por haber sacado la espada con- tra los mismos chinos, cuando ya subían la escalera del pala- cio: tanto era el decoro que el Capitán General quería se guar- dase, no solo a la persona, sino también al palacio del Patriar- ca. Ultra destas dos veces, no salió más el Patriarca de su palacio; ni fue vez alguna al convento del Orden de S. Au- gustín, más que aquella única, a 7 de julio, en que (como di- jimos arriba) le recibió el prior del convento Fr. Constanti- no con repique de las campanas. Por causa de dicho repique de campanas solamente, y publicó el Vicario General del Obispado su edicto contra dicho convento; mas publicólo, por le constar ciertamente, con las formales palabras del mismo edicto, traducidas en español, que el R.P. Fr. Constantino del Espíritu Santo, pri- or del convento de Nuestra Señora de la Gracia (del Orden de S. Au- gustín) de la ciudad de Macao tenía ya dado obediencia de fidelidad y reconocido por su prelado al Ilmo. Señor D. Carlos Tomás, Patriarca Antioqueno, confirmándola con repiques; en los cuales le recibió en su convento: sin embargo de los or- denes **[Selos]** (Selo circular no topo à direita com o texto "ROMANUM SOC.
Page 19
**[Pagina 18]** **[Texto Principal]** ordenes Reales, que le fueron intimadas, y de las del Illmo Señor Metropolitano; a las cuales por derecho estaba obligado a obedecer: en lo que se mostró infiel a Su Magestad, y a su Metropolitano; y para evitar los grandes daños, y gravísimos inconvenientes, que se seguirían de la comunicación que tuvieren los Súbditos deste Obispado, Vasallos de Su Magestad, con dicho R.P. Fr. Constantino del Espíritu Santo, &c. Hasta aquí las palabras del Edicto, que claramente exprimen los motivos y causas del. Lo que dicho Vicario General en él mandaba, que sub pena de denuncia, así reservada, ipso facto incurrivenda, ningún Súbdito deste Obispado tuviese comunicación alguna con dicho Prior, ni con los Religiosos de su Convento, ni asistiese en su Iglesia a los oficios Divinos; añadiendo, que los que no obedeciesen a este Edicto serían presos, como infieles a la Corona, y remitidos a Goa. §.6. En últimos del año 1707, esto es, a 10 de Octubre de 1707, juntó el Capitán General segunda vez el Consejo de los tres Estado; en el cual se propuso todo lo que hasta allí se había obrado cerca del Patriarca, con las causas y motivos que hubo para ello; y el Capitán General rogó a todos los presentes, que juzgasen: ¿se hubo algún exceso? y si se había de continuar la custodia del Patriarca en la misma forma.
Page 20
**[Pagina 19]** **[Texto Principal]** Portugueses: mandando fijar en los lugares públicos muchos Editos, totalmente contrarios a las órdenes del V. Rey, y Rega- lías de la Corona: declarando por excomulgados a muchos Mi- nistros del Rey, y también al mismo Capitán General: pretendien- do con todo ello, instigar al pueblo idiota contra el gobierno eclesiástico, y seglar de la Ciudad, con gravísima perturbación de la paz, y sosiego de la República; atendiendo, digo, aquel plenísimo Consejo a todo esto, y a lo demás, que había precedi- do antes de la custodia, juzgó 1º. que hasta allí no se había cometido exceso alguno de la parte del Capitán General; juzgó 2º. que era preciso tener al Patriarca en la misma custodia, hasta que el Rey, ó V. Rey mandasen otra cosa; y esta fue la re- solución, que en aquel día se tomó. Pareciéme necesario adver- tir aquí, que nunca la guardia del palacio del Patriarca impidió la entrada, y salida de cosa alguna, ni de las personas del servicio del mismo Patriarca, y de sus familiares: ni tam- bién impedía la misma guardia la comunicación de cartas con los de fuera, las cuales llevaban y traían los familiares, y servi- dores, sin que de la guardia impidiesen, ni aun procurasen saberlo, por no tener orden para eso. No se resolvió en dicho Consejo de los tres Estados co- sa alguna acerca del Prior del Convento de S. Agustín Fr.
Page 21
**[Pagina 20]** **[Texto Principal]** General del Obispado, el Senado de la Ciudad, el Oidor de Su Magestad; y la resolución fue que se diese a escoger a dicho Prior permanecer en Macao, privado de la comunicación con los Vaylos de Su Magestad en la forma sobredicha, o salir para Goa. Escogió esta segunda parte, y se embarcó en principios de Enero de 1708. En Goa hizo cuanto pudo, pero en vano, para solicitar que se permitiese al Patriarca el ejercicio de la jurisdicción de Segundo Apostólico; y siendo ya Provincial, por orden del Rey y del Virrey se embarcó para Lisboa, como abajo diremos. Salido que fue dicho Prior para Goa, no levantó en caso alguno el Vicario General del Obispado la prohibición de su Edicto contra el Convento de S. Agustín; porque sabía que el Superior del mismo Convento era también parcial del Patriarca. §.7. En principios de Enero de 1708, partió de Macao una nave en derechura para Lisboa, y por ella remitieron el obispo y Capitán General al Rey juiciosos y plenas informaciones de todo cuanto hasta allí se había obrado con el Patriarca en defensa de las Regalías y privilegios de la Corona y la paz y sosiego de la Ciudad. Todo lo aprobó el Rey, y misma nave (que en Abril de 1709 mandó volver en achubada a Goa) envió Su Magestad al Virrey su Real Cédula dada a 3 de dicho Abril de 1709, en que le mandaba que el Patriarca de Antioquía, ya Cardenal, perteneciese, sin ejercer jurisdicción alguna en estas partes por virtud de los or **[Anotações marginais]** - [No topo esquerdo]: SOC. JESU - [No topo esquerdo]: ARCHIVIO GENERALE **[Selos]** - [No topo esquerdo]: (Selo ilegível) **[Referências arquivísticas]** - [No topo esquerdo]: SOC.
Page 22
**[Pagina 21]** **[Texto Principal]** que había traído, o de los que nuevamente lo viniesen, no lo con- sintiese el V. Rey: y que intimase esto mismo orden de Su Magest= tad a todos los Prelados, y también al mismo Cardenal. Envió también el Rey por la misma nave otra cédula para el Capitán General de Macao Diego de Lino Teixeira; dada en Lisboa a 10 de Enero de dicho año 1709; en la cual aprobaba Su Majestad la custodia puesta por dicho Capitán General al Patriarca, y los motivos de ella, los cuales repetía Su Majestad sumariamente en la misma cédula. El Arzobispo Primado también recibió carta del Rey, dada en 22 de Marzo del mis- mo año; en que Su Majestad le aprobaba la oposición, que ha- bía hecho a la jurisdicción del Patriarca, y le encargaba conti- nuase en la defensa de los privilegios de la Corona. Llegó dicha nave con todo esto a Goa en Agosto de 1709, y poco después en septiembre de dicho año llegaron re- petidos los mismos órdenes reales en otra nave, que había partido de Lisboa el mismo año de 1709; y por ella recibió el V. Rey tres cartas del Rey: una para el R. P. Provincial de los P. P. Jesuitas; en la cual Su Majestad le ordenaba, que mandase luego de la China para Portugal a su súbdito el P. Antonio da Silva, por haber obedecido al Patriarca, acep- tando el oficio que le dio de Vicario Apostólico. Otra pa- ra el R. P. Vicario General de los P. P. Dominicos, ordenan- dole Su Majestad, que remitiese a Portugal al P. Fr.
Page 23
**[Pagina 22]** **[Texto Principal]** jurisdicción del Patriarca, como abajo diremos. Y la otra para el R.P. Provincial de los P.P. Agustinos con orden de S. Magestad, de remeter también a Portugal al P. Fr. Constantino del Espíritu Santo, por la misma causa de haber reconocido en Macao la jurisdicción del Patriarca. Siendo pues el mismo Constantino entonces el Provincial, le mandó el V. Rey entregar la carta de Su Magestad, ordenándole juntamente que se embarcase, como embajador, para Lisboa en Enero de 17. §.8. Por Agosto de 1709 renovó en Macao el Vicario General del Obispado la prohibición de su Edicto contra el Convento de S. Agustín, y la extendió al Convento de S. Domingo. La causa fue urgente y depende de otras noticias precedentes, que referiré aquí por ser propias de mi Relación. Por un patache, que de Manila vino a Macao en Noviembre de 1708, llegó a esta Ciudad la primera noticia de que el Patriarca estaba promovido a la dignidad de Cardenal. Con esta noticia (aún no auténtica), solicitaron algunos que el Capitán General quisiese la guarda del palacio del nuevo Cardenal; y el mismo Capitán General, en Consejo de los tres Estados con votos de muchos, tomó la resolución de quitar totalmente la guardia de dicho palacio, oponiéndosele en perjuicio el Mandado de la Ciudad; habiendo los Mandarines Chinos, por orden de su Emperador, hecho solemne entrega de la persona del Patriarca, para que no le desagiase de Macao sin licencia del mismo Emperador: y sobre este punto protestó **[Anotações marginais]** [No topo, à esquerda]: §.8.
Page 24
**[Pagina 23]** **[Texto Principal]** Senado al Capitán General por el riesgo de la Ciudad en caso, que el Patriarca, totalmente libre de la guardia, ocultamente se quedase de Macao. Con que finalmente convinieron el Ca- pitán General, y Senado, en que se quitase el rigor de la custo- dia, y perseverase la guardia como honrosa con libertad, pa- ra que todos, sin excepción, pudiesen entrar, y salir del palacio a su voluntad. Con esta libertad se fue aumentando el número de los obedientes a la jurisdicción del Patriarca; y los principales mo- tores eran los Misioneros de otras Naciones, desterrados de la China, por no querer tomar el Piao del Emperador. Con- cedió a algunos de ellos el R.P. Fr. Juan de Santa Rosa del or- den de S. Agustín, Administrador de la capilla de N. Señora, llamada de la Peña, aquel sitio para su habitación. No qui- so en primer lugar el R.P. Fr. Francisco del Espíritu Santo del Orden de S. Francisco, Presidente de su Convento, admitir en él a o- tros de los mismos Misioneros; y porque los admitiese, lo mandó el Patriarca canónicamente monir en 23 de Febrero de 1709. No obedeció el Presidente Fr. Francisco a esta mo- nitoria, y el Patriarca, después de otras moniciones, finalmen- te en 21 de Mayo del mismo año lo declaró por excomulgado en un Edicto suyo, que mandó fijar en el mismo Convento de S. Francisco (de donde fue luego quitado por orden del Ca- pitán General), y lo fijaron también en las puertas de la Capil- la de la Peña los sobredichos Misioneros, que residían en aque- llo.
Page 25
**[Pagina 24]** **[Texto Principal]** aquel sitio; en el qual fixaron también en letras Sinicas el título siguiente: Esta casa es Seminario de la Propaganda, y no quiso ron se celebrasse la fiesta annual de la Capilla, sin licencia del Patriarca. Por estas, y otras causas juzgó el Capitan General nece- sario expelir a dichos Misioneros de aquella Casa, y Capilla. Para esto usó primero de los medios suaves, y corteses; a los que les resistieron dichos Misioneros con la jurisdicción del Patriar- ca, presentando un orden que tenían del, para no dexarse aquella Casa, y Capilla. Conque fue preciso al Capitan Genera- l usar de la fuerza coactiva. Envió pues allá una escuadra de Soldados con orden que estuviesen siempre de guardia y no dexassen entrar a dichos Misioneros cosa alguna co- mesible; y el Patriarca envió también a fijar allá y en las puertas de su palacio un Edicto suyo, en que monía al Ca- pitan General, para que en término de dos días quitasse aquella guardia, y satisficiese a otros cargos que en mismo Edic- to hacía; y si no, le declararía por sospechoso de herejía, como en efecto declaró después, en 6 de Junio del mismo año 1705, por otro Edicto que envió a fijar de noche en las puertas de las Iglesias de la Ciudad.
Page 26
**[Pagina 25]** **[Texto Principal]** finalmente las dejaron. En principios de Agosto de dicho año 1709 llegó segunda vez a Macao el R.P. Fr. Pedro de Amaral, Religioso Dominico, en un parache manés. La primera vez que este Religioso vino a Macao (en el año de 1707) fue Vicario y Superior del Convento de su Orden: reconoció la jurisdicción del Patriarca; visitó públicamente (en Noviembre del mismo año) al Capitán Gayo, en aquel tiempo ya denodado y declarado por el Patriarca; y por esta causa mandó el Capitán General salir a dicho Fr. Pedro de Macao para Goa, siendo necesario algo de fuerza cautiva para embarcarse, como embargó, y partió en principios de Enero de 1708. Sucedióle en el gobierno del Convento el R.P. Fr. Sebastián de S. Antonio, que se había mostrado fidelísimo Vasallo del Rey. Llegado a Goa dicho Fr. Pedro de Amaral, lo entregó el V. Rey a sus Prelados; quienes lo enviaron para las Islas de Timor; y para pasar a ellas, vino de Goa a Malaca; de donde se embarcó en dicho parache manés, llegó segunda vez a Macao, y se fue luego en derechura al palacio del Patriarca. No llegó en todo este año a Macao bajel alguno de Goa, ni de Japón; y por esta causa en todo él no recibió el Capitán General noticia alguna de lo que el Rey había determinado cerca de la jurisdicción del Patriarca; quien por una nave iglesia (el mismo día en que llegó dicho parache) recibió la Bula o Breve de su creación al Cardenalato.
Page 27
**[Pagina 26]** **[Texto Principal]** Después, en el mismo mes de Agosto de 1709, convocó el Capitán y General la Junta, o Consejo de los tres Estados; y la propuesta fue: siendo, como era, ya cierto que el Patriarca era Cardenal, ¿había de perseverar la guardia a las puertas de su Palacio? A esta cuestión respondieron los Doctos que se hallaron en aquel Consejo, que vista la guardia estar puesta a instancia del Senado, propusiese el mismo Senado por óbice las cartas que tenía para ello, y ellos, consultando los libros, dirían si eran, o no eran justas y suficientes. Pero el Senado, sin proponerlas, desistió el siguiente día de la instancia que ha- bía hecho para conservar dicha guardia; y el Capitán Go- neral envió luego a retirarla, quedando el Cardenal desde aquel día hasta el de su muerte totalmente libre de la opresi- ón de la guardia Portuguesa, que tanto exageraba y sentía: no pudo empero librarse de las opresiones y molestias mucho mayores que le dio la guardia China. Habían los Mandarines recibido en Abril de 1709 orden de su Emperador que vela sen bien sobre la persona del Patriarca, para que no huyese de Macao.
Page 28
**[Pagina 27]** **[Texto Principal]** (después de certificado que ya era muerto) mandó que la retirase. Señor. Esta guardia china (no la portuguesa) fue la que, por orden de sus mandarines, impidió que no entrase en el palacio del cardenal más de lo necesario para cierto número de personas; a fin de que saliesen las otras, que los mismos mandarines no querían estuviesen en él. Dijo otras molestias que dieron en este tiempo los mandarines al cardenal, gracionadas de los memoriales que el mismo les envió: en algunos de los cuales acusó gravemente a los portugueses (a quienes había ya acusado en Pekín al emperador). Examinadas, pues, las acusaciones, no hicieron los mandarines caso de ellas. Dejando, pues, esto, y todo lo demás que se pasó entre los chinos y el cardenal, vuelvo ya a mi intento de la ofensa y defensa de las regalías de la Corona de Portugal. Por intervención del sobredicho Fr. Pedro de Amaral, y de los misioneros deservidos de China, consiguió el cardenal que no solo todos los demás religiosos de S. Domingo, sino también Fr. Sebastián de S. Antonio (hallado allí constante defensor de las regalías) reconociesen la jurisdicción del mismo cardenal, y le obedeciesen. Sabiendo, pues, el vicario general del obispado todo esto, y que también el sobredicho Fr. Juan de S. Rosa, a la sazón prior y superior del convento de S. Agustín, con los demás religiosos del mismo convento, y generalmente todos los misioneros de otras naciones, eran parciales del cardenal, reconocían su jurisdicción y le obedecían; renovó en dicho mes **[Selos]** (No topo, à direita): ROMANUM SOC.
Page 29
**[Pagina 28]** **[Texto Principal]** mes de Agosto la prohibición referida en el §. 5. y la exten- para todos ellos: a fin de evitar que no persuadiesen a otros vasallos de Su Magestad la obediencia al Cardenal; y para el mismo fin mandó el Capitán General fijar también en los lugares públicos un edicto suyo, en que de su parte ordenaba a todos los vasallos de Su Magestad que no tuviesen comunicación con los religiosos de dichos dos conventos. Todo lo sintió mucho el Cardenal, y mandó fijar en los mismos lugares públicos, sobre el edicto del Capitán General, otro edicto suyo, en el cual Su Emi- nencia declaraba por excomulgado al sobredicho Vicario Gene- ral. Con licencia del mismo Cardenal, a quien obedecían, y sin la del Obispo, se resolvieron también los religiosos do- minicos a hacer unas procesiones nuevas por la ciudad, a los sa- bados, de las seis para las siete de la noche, con las imágenes de Cristo crucificado y de N. Señora del Rosario. Parecióle al Capitán General este acto público, aunque pío, un manifiesto desprecio de la jurisdicción ordinaria y de las regalías de la Corona; y viendo que ya no bastaban las armas espirituales del Ordinario, se resolvió a usar de la fuerza coactiva contra todos los religiosos portugueses de aquel convento, como contra vasallos infieles a su Rey.
Page 30
**[Pagina 29]** **[Texto Principal]** piedras y con las manos defendieron al mismo Edicto, y ofen- dieron al Official de la milicia que iba a quitarlo. Como en peró el Capitan General usaba siempre de los medios suaves, antes de llegar a los ásperos; envió una car- ta al P. Fr. Pedro destinataria, que a la sazón era el Superior del Convento, pidiéndole que viniese con los otros Religiosos Portugue- ses a asistirse con él. Recibida esta carta, se fue luego di- cho Superior con los Súbditos al palacio del Cardenal, y no qui- sieron verse con el Capitan General; quien les envió segunda carta diciéndoles, que los llamaba para un negocio de servicio del Rey, y mandándoles de la parte de Su Magestad, que ve- niesen; añadiendo, que si no quisiesen venir, procedería contra todos ellos, y que por cuenta de ellos mismos correrían los escándalos, que se siguiesen. De la obediencia debida a Su orden, intimado de la parte del Rey, se cumaron con el recelo, que tenían, de que el Capitan General los prendiese. Pero volvieron los Súbditos para el Convento, quedándose el Superior (que era el que más temía) en el pa- lacio del Cardenal. Sabiendo pues el Capitan General, que dichos Reli- giosos ya estaban en el Convento, ordenó al Oidor de Su Magestad, que con un oficial de la Curia Episcopal y con tres Capitanes y las Soldadas necesarias, fuese al Convento, y prendiese con el decoro debido a todos los Religiosos Portu- gueses, que hallase en él.
Page 31
**[Pagina 30]** **[Texto Principal]** demás al Convento, hallaron arrasadas las puertas, y oyeron ruido de piedras en las ventanas como disposición para la resistencia: dudando pues de lo que debían hacer, enviaron a preguntarlo al Capitán General, quien les ordenó que em- basen al Convento, proclamando primero muchas veces a los Religiosos que abriesen la puerta, porque si no la abrían, se anularía el Convento, y por su cuenta correría todo el escán- dalo. Hicieron pues dichos Oficiales este protesto muchas ve- ces a los Religiosos, pero en vano; conque finalmente se re- solvieron a entrar por fuerza en el Convento. Subieron dos Soldados a las ventanas, y entrando por ellas vinieron por dentro del Convento abrir la puerta a los demás. En este mismo tiempo, no estando aún abierta la puerta del Convento, acudieron a él muchos Misioneros Es- tranjeros, familiares del Cardenal (uno era Secretario de Su Eminencia regular, los otros todos eran Eclesiásticos) y permi- tieron impedir aquella ejecución, no con armas, sino con palabras gravemente injuriosas a dichos Oficiales, al Cap- itán General, y también al Rey.
Page 32
**[Pagina 31]** **[Texto Principal]** Los Religiosos del Convento, no se atreviendo a hacer la resistencia con piedras, o con armas, se fueron todos a la Igle- sia, expusieron el Santísimo en el altar, y todos Portugueses y Españoles se pusieron en oración delante de él. Entrando pues por la puerta ya abierta, el Oidor con los Capitanes y Soldados, y hallando los Religiosos todos en aquel acto santo y pío, avisaron al Capitán General, quien les ordenó que pusiesen guardias a las puertas de la Iglesia, y no dejasen entrar en ella sin alguna comisión, para que los Reli- giosos, obligados de la hambre, saliesen de ella, y en saliendo prendiese a los Portugueses. También el mismo Capitán General envió luego (por un Misionero Español de otra Religión, condecido en dignidad) a decir a los Religiosos Dominicos Españoles, que lo que él quería de ellos era sola- mente que saliesen de la Iglesia y del Convento, y no volvies- en más allá; y que saliendo, estuviesen seguros de que no los prendería, ni les daría molestia alguna. Pero ellos, aun lo después que la hambre les obligó, salieron de la Iglesia y del Convento, como el Capitán General prescindía: rién- dose él de la hambre, el único mal trato que le dio, el cual pudieron, y no quisieron evitar. De los Religiosos Portugueses solo el P. Fr. Sebastián de Sto. Antonio salió luego el primer día: fue a la pre- sencia del Capitán General: confesó su culpa: y hizo jurídi- ca promesa de no reconocer más la jurisdicción del Cardenal.
Page 33
**[Pagina 32]** **[Texto Principal]** Auscultó, pues, el Capitán General sus promesas; perdonóle la culpa y le dexó en el Convento: a donde perseveró constante en la fidelidad nuevamente prometida. Y porque los otros Religiosos Portugueses no quisieron imitar este exemplo, tantoque, obligados de la hambre, salieron de la Iglesia, fueron luego presos, y metidos en las fuerzas; de donde los remitió el Capitán General para Goa en Enero de 1710. §.9. Después de la muerte del Cardenal (que fue a 8. de Junio de 1710) considerando el Vicario General del Obispado que ya se havía acabado la contienda sobre la jurisdicción del mismo Cardenal, quitó la prohibición de su Edicto contra el Convento de S. Agustín, y absolvió a los incurso en la excomunión en forma fulsia, sin darle cosa alguna. A los 26 de Julio del mismo año de 1710 llegó a Macao una nave de Goa, y por ella embió el V.Rcy a esta Ciudad las órdenes, que en Setiembre, y Octubre del año 1709 havía recibido del Rey (como diximos en el §.7) acerca del Cardenal, mandando (como Su Mag.d ordenava) intimar al mesmo Cardenal el orden de que no exercitase jurisdicción alguna. Embió también el Prelado por la misma nave un nuevo Edicto, o Pastoral nueva: en que, haciendo mención de los privilegios concedidos por los Papas antiguos a la Corona de Portugal (de que hablamos en el §.
Page 34
**[Pagina 33]** **[Texto Principal]** del Rey por carta de Su Magestad, dada en 22 de Marzo de 1709, como dijimos en el §. 7, ordenaba a todos los asistentes en toda su Primacía, que guardasen dichos privilegios, y no obedeciesen en cosa alguna al Patriarca de Antioquía, ni a Vicario Apostólico, o a otro Ministro alguno, sin primero presentar sus Bulas, y el consentimiento de Su Magestad; y que haciendo lo contrario, los había por denunciados, dándoles tres horas por las tres canónicas amonestaciones. Como en perjuicio, cuando llegó a Macao dicha nave con todo esto, era ya muerto el Cardenal, juzgó el Obispo y el nuevo Capitán General Francisco de Mello y Castro (el cual vino en la misma nave) que no era necesario publicar dichas órdenes Reales. No fue aprobada en Goa esta omisión; ni la razón de la; y el V. Rey en claro siguiente después, ordenó de nuevo al Obispo de Macao, que jurídicamente intimase, como de hecho intimó dichas órdenes Reales al Cabildo y a los Prelados Regulares, mandándoles en nombre de Su Magestad, que no obedeciesen a las determinaciones que en su vida hizo el Cardenal de Tournon en este Obispado, ni en toda la China; ni también obedeciesen a las de otro Prelado alguno, que no tenga para ello expreso consentimiento de Su Magestad. Y añadía el V.
Page 35
**[Pagina 34]** **[Texto Principal]** El Obispo en Enero de 1722. Ordenó también el V. Rey en dicho año 1722, al Capitán General, que haga observar dichas órdenes de Su Magestad puntualmente. Fue también en el mismo año 1722 intimada, y publicada la sobredicha nueva Pastoral del Arzobispo Primado. SIO. Por Agosto de 1720 no quiso el Prior del Convento de S. Agustín Fr. Juan de Santa Rosa, que oficiase al oficio de la sepultura de un difunto en la Iglesia de su Convento de S. Agustín el Capitán Gayo, diciendo, que estaba excomulgado. Siendo cierto, que en la Corte de Goa fue juzgado por los Doctores, que dicho Capitán en ninguna excomunión estaba incurso, por ser las del Patriarca Cardenal manifestamente nulas, y porque todo lo demás, que dicho Capitán había hecho, a los Clérigos, y Religiosos, cuando lo prendió, fue por orden de quien tenía jus para mandarlo hacer en defensa de las Regalías, y privilegios erigidos por la Sede Apostólica, y con la moderación de la defensa inculpable; la cual observó siempre dicho Capitán. Y siendo también cierto, que en Macao ninguno Eclesiástico, Religioso, o seglar tiene por excomulgado al mismo Capitán Gayo, ni le veía como a tal, excepto únicamente los Religiosos Agustinos, y los Misioneros Extranjeros desterrados de China. Fue pues dicho Capitán a quejarse luego del Prior del Convento de S.
Page 36
**[Pagina 35]** **[Texto Principal]** Renovar y publicar un Edicto prohibitivo de la comunión de los Súbditos del Obispado Vagante, del Rey con el Convento de S. Agustín, por aun reconocer sus Religiosos la jurisdicción del Cardenal, vitando a quien él había deturmulgado, y declarado. No pervino en perjuicio esta prohibición más que hasta mediado Octubre siguiente, en que el mismo Vicario General, a la instancia del Capitán General, otra vez dicha prohibición. Quanto a los R.R. P.P. Agustinos, que defendieron en Macao la jurisdicción Real, y al R.D. Francisco Pinto de la Compañía de Jesús, Comisario del S. Oficio, que hizo violencia a la misma Real jurisdicción; el caso sucedió de la manera siguiente: En el mes de Agosto de 1710 hizo dicho R.P. Comisario su Naigue (esto es, Official del Santo Oficio) a un hombre Malabá, que según las informaciones era muy bien procedido, y no tenía crimen, ni impedimento alguno.
Page 37
**[Pagina 36]** **[Texto Principal]** Los impacientes al comisario del Santo Oficio defendieron dicho P.P. Agustinos residentes en Macao al Oidor con papeles que enviaron a su favor contra el Naigue, y mucho más contra el Comisario del Santo Oficio. Fue a Goa esta causa, y en la Real Audiencia (los Portugueses lo llaman Relação Real) se juzgó que, siendo dicho Naigue criminoso antes de serlo, le podía prender el Oidor sin ofender los privilegios del Santo Oficio, y que por esta causa era nula la declaratoria del Comisario. Conformóse el V.Roy con este juicio, y ordenó al Tribunal del Santo Oficio que declarase—como de hecho declaró—dicha declaratoria de su Comisario por nula. Esto es lo que se sabe. Podría ser que aquel Santo Tribunal tuviese también otras causas para anular la declaratoria del Comisario; pero como no las ha manifestado, no se saben ni pueden saber. En el año 1711 envió el V.Rey a Macao un Ministro de la misma Real Audiencia muy docto y recto, por causa de las controversias y desavenencias que en el año precedente de 1710 hubo en esta Ciudad entre el Capitán General y el Senado.
Page 38
**[Pagina 37]** **[Texto Principal]** favor del mismo Naique, y del Comisario del Santo Oficio. No puedo dexar de referir aqui las dos diferencias que se han notado entre los R.R.P.s Agustinos Macaenses, y dicho R.P. Jesuita Comisario del Santo Oficio. La 1ª es, que los Agustinos obedecieron a uno solo Breve del Papa, de que no constaba claramente la jurisdicción del Patriarca en Macao, desobedeciendo a muchas Bulas de muchos Pa- pas, de que evidentemente constaban las Regalías de la Corona de Portugal. Y dicho Jesuita, vice versa, obedeció a estas Bulas, y no obedeció a aquel Breve. (Vide supra §.4.) La 2ª diferencia es, que los Agustinos defendieron a un Oidor, que hacía criminoso a un Oficial del Santo Oficio; y dicho Jesuita defendía un Oficial del Santo Oficio, a quien el Oidor hacía criminoso. Esto es solo referir lo que se ha notado, dexando al resto, y pío Señor la crisis destas diferencias. Por Septiembre de 1710 llegó a Macao el Procura- dor, que esta Ciudad había enviado a la Corte de Lisboa; se embarcó en una nave, que partió de allí en Marzo del mis- mo año, y vino en derechura a Macao. Truxo solas 9 Cédulas del Rey, todas sobre negocios políticos tocantes al gobierno de esta Ciudad, y solicitadas por dicho Procurador, que a este fin había sido enviado a la Corte.
Page 39
**[Pagina 38]** **[Texto Principal]** primero había el G. docean para el V. Rey sobre dos de los mis- mos negocios, y venían numeradas con el número 7. y 8.; una o- tra para el Capitán General de Macao, sobre uno de dichos ne- gocios, que también le tocaba. Hizo el mismo Procurador auténtica entrega de todas 9 Cédulas al Senado, a quien per- tenecía remitir las dos 7. y 8. al V. Rey, y encargar la 9. al Ca- pitán General. Pero sucedió, que un Oficial del Senado, a quien tocaba abrir las Cédulas que venían para el mismo Se- nado, por yerro empezó también a abrir dicha 9., que era pa- ra el Capitán General, y advertiendo en el yerro antes de abrirla totalmente, la llevó luego así mismo a dicho Capitán Ge- neral, quien viéndola con el número 9. sospechó, que todas las precedentes, y quizá muchas subsecuentes, habían ve- nido para él, y que el mismo Oficial las había suprimido; man- dó pues luego prenderle, y no quiso soltarlo, ni aun después de dicho Procurador, que trajo las Cédulas, y el Senado testi- ficaren todo lo aquí referido: diciendo el mismo Capi- tán General, que el preso tenía otros crímenes, y que por ellos lo detenía en la prisión; de la cual después huyó, retiróse a Sagrado, y fue a Goa a quejarse al V. Rey. No vino en dicha nave Cédula alguna del Rey acerca del negocio de la jurisdicción del Patriarca; porque sa- lió de Lisboa en Marzo de 1710, y el Rey ya había enviado todas sus Reales determinaciones tocante a este negocio por las naves que en el año antecedente de 1709 salieron de Lisboa.
Page 40
**[Pagina 39]** **[Texto Principal]** Lisboa, y en mismo año llegaron a Goa, encargando Su Magestad la ejecución de todo al V. Rey inmediatamente, como suele en los demás negocios, principalmente siendo tan graves, y tan propios de la Corona. Vide supra §7.º et §9.º. De todo lo cual evidentemente se infiere ser imposible que el V. Rey en Mayo de 1712 se quejase de no tener recibida respuesta de Su Magestad sobre la jurisdicción del Patriarca Cardenal. Por este mismo tiempo, o poco antes, pero después de la muerte del Patriarca Cardenal, llegaron a Macao las copias de dos Breves del Papa para el Rey, dados a 2 y 4 de Marzo de 1709; las cuales (como se dice) venían de Roma remitidas al mismo Cardenal. De los mismos dos Breves de Su Santidad para el Rey hacía Su Magestad mención en su Real cédula escrita al V. Rey en 3 de Abril del mismo año 1709 (de la cual hablamos en el §7.) diciendo Su Magestad en ella que los había recibido por dos expresos enviados de Su Santidad, y recién llegados a Lisboa; y de las copias que dicen venieron de Roma remitidas a dicho Cardenal, se me han comunicado a mí dos ejemplares; los cuales creo no son conformes a los Breves originales que recibió el Rey por las razones siguientes. Primera, porque conforme a la observación de una persona docta y fidedigna (la cual en Lisboa leyó con mucha atención y ponderación los mismos Breves originales), Su Santidad no hablaba en ellos de la jurisdicción del Cardenal en Macao; y siendo esto así, no pueden dichos ejemplares ser conformes **[Anotações marginais]** [No topo, à esquerda]: 39 [Na margem esquerda]: 12.
Page 41
**[Pagina 40]** **[Texto Principal]** conformes a los originales, teniendo como tienen, algunas palabras, en que parece que Su Santidad habla de dicha jurisdicción, aunque no tan claramente que no puedan interpretarse en otro sentido. Segunda; porque en el Breve de 4 de Marzo (según el exemplar que se me ha comunicado) dice Su Santidad, que por muchas cartas del Cardenal tuviera noticia, que el Obispo de Macao, el Capitán General, y todos quantos Ministros tiene Su Magestad en esta Ciudad, habían hecho al mismo Cardenal acerbísimas y quasi increíbles injurias y contumelias, ibi: = Ex pluribus dilecti Filii nostri Cardinalis de Tournon, hest- erna die allatis, literis audivimus. Didacus de Pinho Teixeira Capitaneus Generalis municipatus, et tamen quod quot inibi sunt Maiestatis tuae Officiales, et Administrati, quin, et ipse Episcopus Macaensis. cumdem Cardinalem, ejusque fa- miliares injurias, et contumelias acerbissimas, ac pene incredibi- libus affectarent. Y más abajo dice: Officiales, et Administrati Tui ex Illius (Cardinalis) familiaribus. alios verborum caederunt, omnes, uno verbo, ipsi eorum reverentiam Etiam, mirandum in modum, ac hostili protervo animo affliciant; adco ut Cardinalis, jusque Comites martyrij coronam, quam in Sinorum Imperio à Paganis recipere negaverunt, a Chris- tianis jam expellari posse videant=.
Page 42
**[Pagina 41]** **[Texto Principal]** conforme al original del Breve. De la respuesta del Rey a este mismo Breve (que luego refirió) con la que están, ó otras semejan- tes falsedades se escribieron a Su Santidad; no consta en parte de ella, que las cursase el Cardenal. También por el mismo tiempo, en que, como se decía, lle- garon dichas dos copias a Macao, llegó por la nave sobre dicha (que vino de Lisboa en decencia a esta Ciudad) una copia de la respuesta, que Su Majestad en el año antecedente 1709 había dado a dichos dos Breves, escribiéndola inmediatamente a Su Santidad y también al Señor Cardenal Nuncio de Portugal, que la pedía, mediante el Señor Duque de Cadaval, a quien por or- den de Su Majestad la corrió el Señor Secretario del Estado D. Diego de Mendoza Cortés, en la lengua Portuguesa, y vino ad verbum así desta manera: =Fazendo presente a Sua Magestade: que Deus guar- de, que o Cardeal Nuncio dissera a Vossa Excelencia, desejava saber, an- tes de partir da Dio da India, o que o mesmo Senhor resolvesse so- bre os Breves, que Sua Santidade lhe escreveu em 2ª 4 do passado, me ordenou, avisasse a V.
Page 43
**[Pagina 42]** **[Texto Principal]** tomar conhecimento das suas representações, ordena-se exceptuem o referido Daruta, reservando o exame delas para depois, que nada consideração não creu ao dito Imperador, como Sua Magestade desejava; porque, recebido o segundo Breve, Sua Magestade manda solicitar a liberdade do Cardeal, detido em Macau pelo dito Imperador, e que alcançada ela passará logo a Europa, como Sua Santidade inuita quere; e que também ordena Sua Magestade ao V.Ry da Índia se mande logo informar se ao dito Cardeal e sua família se deu o mau tratamento que a Sua Santidade se representou, para aqui constando que houve algum excesso, seja logo castigado, pois até agora se não teve notícia mais que haviam posto em custódia ao dito Cardeal com a devida decência, para evitar as perturbações que havia causado em Macau com os excomungos que havia proferido. Deo guarde a V. Excelencia. Páyo, 3 de Abril de 1709.
Page 44
**[Pagina 43]** **[Texto Principal]** que Su Santidad, mejor informado, mandase a Su Magestad la última resolución. En la respuesta al segundo Breve (que es la que hace a nuestro intento) se noten aquellas palabras: «pues hasta agora se não teve noticia», de las quales consta que Su Magestad aprobaba y defendía la custodia, siendo, como era, decente, y la causa della. Vide supra §.4. Parecióle al Capitán General &. §.13. En principio de Enero de 1721 el Capitán General, por orden del V. Rey, hizo que se embarcase para Goa el Prior del Convento de S. Agustín Fr. Juan de Santa Rosa por reconocer y obedecer a la jurisdicción del Patriarca Cardenal. (Vide supra §.6. in fine, el §.8. & con esta libertad, et §.10.) También el Capitán General remitió para Goa al Fr. Pedro de Amaral; a quien, por especial comisión del M.R.P. Vicario General de los Religiosos Dominicos, residente en Goa, prendió el mismo Capitán General; y por no querer dar preso en su Convento, lo tuvo cuatro meses en una fuerza, hasta llegar la ocasión de embarcarse para Goa. La causa de todo esto fue el orden del Rey que recibió dicho Vicario General, de que remitiese para Portugal a dicho Fr. Pedro, su súbdito, como dimos en el §.7., al cual orden Real se añadieron las noticias que habían llegado a Goa de lo que el mismo Fr. Pedro había hecho en Macao, y referimos en el §.8; las quales noticias dieron motivo al Vicario General para juzgar sería necesario el brazo seglar para dicho Fr. Pedro, su súbdito, obedecer a su orden. y a lo **[Anotações marginais]** - [No topo, à esquerda]: §.13.
Page 45
**[Pagina 44]** **[Texto Principal]** y a la del Rey: y esta fue la causa porque cometió esta ejecución al Capitán General. Quanto a envejar algunos de Macao a Goa la expulsión del Capitán Gayo del Convento de S. Agustín; es cierto 2º que aunque ninguno circunviese este caso, siendo él en Macao tan público y notorio, no podía dejar de saberlo también en la Corte de Goa por las lenguas de todos los que iban en la nave, que también habían sido prohibidos de la comunicación con el Convento de S. Agustín por causa de dicha expulsión del Capitán Gayo: (Vide supra §.10) es cierto 23 que no podían dejar de curvirir este caso, el propio Capitán Gayo, quedándose al V. Rey, como se había quedado al Capitán General, el mismo Capitán General, dando razón al V. Rey de lo que hizo, y no hizo en aquel caso, el Vicario General del Obispado, dando razón de renovar, y de suspender, o quitar la prohibición de no comunicaren los Vagabundos de Su Magestad con el Convento de S. Agustín; y no era necesario exagerar el caso, para el V. Rey (no pudiendo, o no queriendo el M. R. P. Provincial de los P.P. Agustinos mandar para Macao Religiosos que observasen las Regalías y privilegios de la Corona, y los órdenes de su Rey), decir que eran unos traidores, y que mandaría entregar el Convento a otros; como se refiere en el fin del §.13. de la otra Relación falsa y cavilosa. **[Anotações marginais]** S.14 Por Mayo de 1712 el R.P. Prior del Convento de S. **[Selos]** (No topo, à esquerda): SOC.
Page 46
**[Pagina 45]** **[Texto Principal]** S. Agustín Fr. Joseph del Rosario pretendió echar a dicho Capitán Gayo de la Iglesia de N. Señora de la Peña, a donde había ido en compañía del Capitán General, para oír Misa, mas no pudiéndolo conseguir por haberse opuesto, y mandado lo contrario el Capitán General, se salió de la Iglesia, por no comunicar con él. Sobre este caso es cierto, que el Capitán General Francisco de Melo y Castro escribió al Señor Obispo; pero es falso, que el Obispo ofreciese al mismo Capitán General volver a poner interdicto en el Convento de S. Agustín; y es también falso, que el Obispo procurase la ida de los Religiosos de aquel Convento para Goa, que el Convento se entregase a un Clérigo. El primero, que intentó ello, fue el Capitán General Diogo de Rua Teixeira en Diciembre de 1709; y el Obispo le persuadió que no lo hiciese: escribió pues el mismo Capitán General al V. Rey su intento, y la razón que tuvo para no ejecutarlo, y el V. Rey en el año siguiente de 1710 se quejó con el Obispo, por no querer mandar tomar dicha entrega, cuando fue necesario remeter para Goa todos los Religiosos de aquel Convento, por ser infieles a Su Magestad. Y esto mismo ordenó más eficazmente el V. Rey al Obispo en el año siguiente de 1711. También es falso, que el Obispo fuese denunciado descomulgado. Podría ser, que el Patriarca, antes, ó después de ser Cardenal, intentase, por algún Edicto suyo denunciar por descomulgado al Obispo; pero es cierto, que tal Edicto, ni se leyó públicamente, ni fue fijado en los lugares públicos de la Ciudad.
Page 47
**[Pagina 46]** **[Texto Principal]** Finalmente refirió aquí las formales palabras Portuguesas, que el V. Roy escribió a un personaje de Macao en carta del 19 de Mayo de 1701, que luego a esta Ciudad en Julio del mismo año, y son las que se siguen: = O Capitão António de Souza Gayo se me queixa do Superior do Convento dos Religiosos Agostinhos, por lhe evitarem a assistência dos ofícios Divinos no dito Convento, pelo que sem dúvida observou as sentenças do Patriarca Candeal; sobre o que obrarei tudo o que me for possível. = Estas son todas las palabras del V. Roy, y no solas las escritas en la otra Cavilosa Relación. § 15. El día 30 de Diciembre de 1701 el Capitán General António de Sequeira e Noronha envió al Capitán Gayo al Convento de S. Agostinho con una escuadra de soldados, y con ellos iba un Tabelión público, y un Oficial de la Curia Episcopal: el orden, que llevaba por escrito dicho Capitán, era para llevar presos al Prior de dicho Convento Fr. José del Rosario, y a los Religiosos sus súbditos Portugueses a la nave, que estaba para partir para Goa, por haberlo ordenado así el V. Roy. Llegado al Convento notificó dicho Capitán este orden al Prior, quien protestó las violencias (así le llamaba) que el V. Roy, y Capitán General ejecutaban contra él y contra sus Religiosos, y Convento. En este §.15.
Page 48
**[Pagina 47]** **[Texto Principal]** de Soldados. La verdad es que dicho Antonio de Sequeira es Capitán General de la Ciudad de Macao y que, así como todos sus antecesores, en lo que toca a lo militar, tiene jurisdicción no solo sobre los ochenta soldados del presidio de la Ciudad, y sobre sus oficiales, que no son pocos, sino también sobre todos los soldados, oficiales, y capitanes de las naves de Goa y Lisboa, después de llegaren a dicho puerto hasta salirse del, y también sobre toda la gente que viene en ellas, y en los baxeles y pataches de Macao, que son muchos; en una palabra: tiene dicha jurisdicción sobre todos, forasteros y vecinos, plebeyos, nobles, ciudadanos y caballeros, que habitan y vienen a Macao, sin excepción ninguna; y aun sobre el mismo Senado (que gobierna la Ciudad en lo político) tiene el Capitán General jurisdicción en lo militar, y obra esta jurisdicción, propia de su oficio, la tiene también en muchos negocios políticos que los V. Reyes, y el Rey le cometen; uno de los cuales es el de las regalías y privilegios de la corona, de que hablamos en esta Relación. Hasta aquí he proseguido con el orden y número de los párrafos de sobredicha Relación falsa y cavilosa; ahora recopilaré aquí todo lo que el autor de ella prolijamente y a su modo refiere en los párrafos siguientes; y todo es sobre el mismo caso de la prisión de dichos religiosos agustinos y sobre la entrega del convento. Pidió dicho prior al capitán haya tiempo para disponer sus cosas; el capitán se lo concedió, pero breve.
Page 49
**[Pagina 48]** **[Texto Principal]** Convento. Un clérigo, enviado por el Ordinario para tomar la entrega del mismo convento y de las alhajas del, pidió el prior que se le mostrasen los órdenes del Rey y del V. Rey; y no se los mostraron, porque no hay tal obligación, ni estila entre los portugueses. Hizo el mismo prior sus protestos contra el V. Rey, obispo y capitán general, y pidió testimonio dello al tabelión; quien no quiso darlo. Renovó ellos mismos protestos delante de un notario apostólico de la familia del cardenal difunto, llamado para ello por los religiosos del convento. Por toda la noche de dicho día 30 para el 31 de diciembre se hizo la entrega del convento a dicho clérigo, y finalmente, a las cuatro de la mañana del primer día 31 de diciembre de 1712, vino dicho capitán Gaio, el prior y sus súbditos portugueses, que eran solos dos, a la nave, que había de partir para Goa, y los entregó al capitán della. A los religiosos hispanoles, del mismo orden de S. Agustín, que estaban en el mismo convento, y eran también solos tres, mandó el capitán general en dicho día 30 de diciembre decir que en el siguiente día por la mañana saliesen todos del mismo convento, por estar entregue al Ordinario; dexaron pues dichos religiosos hispanoles el convento totalmente en la mañana del dicho día 31 de diciembre de 1712, y se fueron para unas casas, en que está un misionero de los desbaratados de China, presbítero seglar italiano. Aquella misma mañana dixo un clérigo la última **[Selos]** (Selo circular no topo da página com o texto "ARCHIVIO ROMANUM SOC.
Page 50
**[Pagina 49]** **[Texto Principal]** Última Misa, consumió el Santísimo y después se cerró la puerta de la Iglesia, la cual dello modo prosigue, en sig- nificación (dice el autor anónimo de dicha Relación) de la gravísima injuria, que dicha Iglesia tiene recibida, y de que está clamando a Dios, como la sangre de Abel. Esta es su final conclusión. La mía es, dejar el juicio des- te clamor, y de todo lo demás que he referido, al solo, recto y pío Lector, certificándole, que todo es pura, y sincera no- tedad. Macao, 4 de Febrero de 1712. **[Assinaturas]** Félix Seal de Castro.
Translation
Page 1
**[Main Text]**
A Sincere and True Account of the Lawful Defence of the Royal Prerogatives and Privileges of the Crown of Portugal in the City of Macau.
Composed by Dr Dom Félix Leal de Castro in that City on 4 February 1712.
— Printed in Xiangshan, with the requisite licences.
Page 2
**[Page 1]** **[Main Text]**
Having read an anonymous account entitled *A Brief Account of the Violences Suffered by the Convent of the Order of St Augustine in the City of Macau, on Account of its Obedience to the Apostolic See through its Legate*, dated Macau, 17 January 1712, I have deemed it imperative to administer the antidote to this poison without delay—lest it spread throughout the Body of the Catholic Church, causing universal scandal and grave dishonour to the Portuguese nation. This account is grievously injurious not only to the Portuguese Crown, but also—particularly—to the Lords Viceroy and Prelates of the East Indies; to the Lord Bishop and Captain-General of Macau; and indeed to the Crown of Portugal itself, both on account of the falsehoods it expressly advances and, still more seriously, on account of the truths it deliberately suppresses through casuistry.
It is not my intention to defend justice and reason by means of argumentation, but rather to demonstrate them through factual evidence drawn from authentic archival instruments—many of which remain extant—and to recount these facts with truth and sincerity. I shall not pause to enumerate the falsehoods and sophistries contained in the said account; such errors will be readily apparent to the discerning reader upon comparing that text with the present one. To facilitate this comparison, I shall follow precisely the same sequence and numbering of paragraphs (§), beginning each of my own sections with the identical formal phrasing employed in the original, as follows:
As soon as the Most Excellent…
Page 3
**[Page 2]** **[Main Text]**
He disembarked on a small islet belonging to the Reverend Fathers of the Society of Jesus within the harbour, and from there—without entering the city—departed the following day for Canton, a city of the Chinese Empire. The Bishop and Captain General of Macau had previously received letters from His Excellency the Viceroy of India, in which he expressly instructed that, should the Patriarch of Antioch appear in Macau, he was to be granted safe and courteous passage to China, without any discussion whatsoever concerning the Patriarch’s jurisdiction. Upon the Patriarch’s arrival on the islet, both the Bishop and the Captain General visited him there to pay their respects; at this meeting, the Patriarch presented the Bishop with a papal brief—stating that it had been issued by His Holiness Pope Clement XI, dated 30 July 1702. This brief constituted the sole formal instrument of his legation presented by the Patriarch to the Bishop of Macau. Although the document confirmed that His Holiness had appointed him Apostolic Commissioner and Legate, it contained no explicit grant of jurisdiction over the Bishop or the city of Macau; rather, it clearly stipulated that the jurisdiction conferred upon him extended exclusively to neophytes and missionaries operating within China. It is likewise established that during the first three months of his residence in Canton, the Patriarch exercised no act of jurisdiction whatsoever in Macau; indeed, it was only in July of the same year (1705) that he dispatched his jubilee proclamation from Canton for publication in this city.
Page 4
**[Page 3]** **[Main Text]**
In order to exercise jurisdiction in Macao, the Patriarch was required first to present his papal bulls and royal letters of appointment. However, as the Viceroy of India had commended the Patriarch’s safe passage to Macao—and as the Patriarch himself affirmed that he possessed the King’s consent—the Bishop judged it expedient, *pro bono pacis* (‘for the sake of peace’), to overlook this procedural requirement, following the precedent set by the Lord Archbishop of the Philippines in Manila. Accordingly, he permitted the publication of the said jubilee in Macao; this was carried out by reading aloud the jubilee proclamation received from Canton, without the Bishop adding any words of his own.
Regarding the dispensation requested by the Reverend Vicar General of this diocese, it is certain that the Patriarch refused to grant it, on the grounds either that he lacked the authority—or that it was inadvisable—to exercise such an act of jurisdiction in Macao at that time.
Page 5
**[Page 4]** **[Main Text]**
Neither the Bishop nor the City authorities submitted to the Patriarch; consequently, the Patriarch once again pressed the Bishop to append a formal declaration of submission and obedience to his edict and to promulgate it publicly within the city. At this time—that is, on 13 August of the same year, 1705—the Bishop executed an authentic protest before the Lord Bishop of Malacca, who was then residing in Macau, in order to safeguard his canonical rights against the coercive pressure exerted upon him by the Patriarch. The Bishop could not, for just and lawful reasons, undertake a visitation of the Patriarch at that juncture. On the following day, 14 August, he appended the declaration of obedience to his edict and transmitted it to the Patriarch; however, he did not authorise its public proclamation in Macau.
Beyond the matters recounted above, the Patriarch exercised no further act of jurisdiction in Macau. Although shortly after his arrival in Canton he dispatched thence a commission to the Reverend Father Fray Constantino del Espíritu Santo, Prior of the Convent of the Order of Saint Augustine, appointing him judge in a particular ecclesiastical cause, the said Prelate declined to accept this commission.
With regard to the papal brief issued on 30 October 1705, wherein His Holiness censured, disapproved, and declared null and void the actions undertaken by the Primate Archbishop against the Patriarch’s jurisdiction, &c.
Page 6
**[Page 5]** **[Main Text]**
Other documents relating to further matters had likewise been received, from which it is clearly evident that the papal brief of October 1706 was either wholly spurious or had been surreptitiously procured—solely to serve as a source of consolation to the Patriarch.
3. By 1707, the Bishop of Macau had already received formal replies from both the Viceroy and the Primate concerning the Patriarch’s claims to jurisdiction. The Bishop had appealed to both authorities in the preceding year (1706), apprising them of the Patriarch’s pretensions: namely, his resolute determination to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the city and diocese of Macau, as well as over all other bishoprics subject to the Portuguese Crown—despite having neither presented his papal bulls nor obtained the King’s prior consent.
Page 7
**[Page 6]** **[Main Text]**
…ecclesiastical authority—be it a bishop, archbishop, or any prelate of higher dignity—may exercise jurisdiction in the East Indies. This privilege was extended by Pope Leo X to encompass all lands already discovered or yet to be discovered, even where they lay outside Portuguese sovereignty. The jurists further held that, although the Patriarch of Antioch had exercised jurisdiction in Macau and China with the consent of local bishops, such consent alone was insufficient to establish legitimate possession of jurisdiction; for this right belonged exclusively to the Crown under the *regalia* (royal prerogative) and associated papal privileges vested in the Portuguese monarch. Consequently, any such possession conferred without express royal mandate was deemed legally null and void, since it had been effected without the knowledge (*scientia*) and express assent (*patria patientia*, i.e., sovereign tolerance or permission) of the sole authority competent to grant it. In accordance with this legal and canonical reasoning, the Viceroy issued formal instructions in May 1706 addressed to the bishops of Macau, China, and Malacca, as well as to the Captain-General and the municipal authorities (*Câmara*) of Macau, directing them to prohibit the Patriarch of Antioch from exercising any jurisdiction unless he first presented his papal bulls of appointment—formally ratified and approved by the Royal Council of Portugal (*Conselho Ultramarino*).
Page 8
**[Page 7]** **[Main Text]**
The papal bulls were declared null and void, and His Majesty accordingly commanded that none should observe them. This directive reached Macau in August of the same year, 1706. At that time, the Patriarch of the East Indies was residing in Peking and was not exercising jurisdiction over Macau; consequently, the Bishop and the Captain-General jointly determined that it was unnecessary to promulgate the said orders in the city at that juncture. However, upon receipt in Macau of intelligence that the aforementioned Patriarch had already departed from Peking and was en route to this region, the Captain-General convened all the Superiors of the Regular Religious Orders in Macau on 27 January 1707—*prior* to the Patriarch’s promulgation in Nanking of his decree or edict condemning the Chinese Rites. In the presence of the Bishop, the Captain-General formally communicated to those Superiors the royal ordinances issued by His Most Faithful Majesty (the King of Portugal), requiring them to observe these orders faithfully and punctiliously, and to ensure their observance by all members under their authority. Among those present was the aforementioned Prior of St Augustine’s, Friar Constantino del Espíritu Santo, who declared that, as a loyal vassal of the Crown, he would uphold the King’s ordinances in defence of the royal prerogatives (*regalias da Coroa*). All the other Superiors responded in identical terms.
Page 9
**[Page 8]** **[Main Text]**
against the Sinic rites—or Sinic practices—accompanied by the said mandate, which was enclosed with the letter. The Bishop had already resolved not to obey the Patriarch in this matter—or indeed in any matter whatsoever—since such non-compliance was required by the instructions he had received from His Most Faithful Majesty (the King of Portugal) and from the Primate of the Portuguese ecclesiastical province. Yet he hesitated as to how and when it would be most appropriate to implement this decision. Accordingly, acting upon the advice of his consultors—who urged him to follow the precedent set by the Lord Bishop of Escalona and lodge an appeal against the aforementioned mandate—he formally lodged his appeal—or, more precisely, his *agravio* (a formal canonical grievance) and protest—first orally, and then in writing on 6 May of the same year, 1707. In this document, he explicitly refused obedience to the Patriarch, citing the reasons already stated above.
It is not established whether Fr. Constantino, Prior of the Convent of St Augustine, gave—or withheld—his consent to this action. What is certain is that, at a meeting convened on 19 May of the same year, the Prior—alongside the other regular prelates—publicly and unreservedly reaffirmed, in the presence of the Captain General, their allegiance to the royal ordinances issued by His Most Faithful Majesty, which they had pledged to uphold on 27 January 1707 (as noted earlier). Moreover, the Prior joined the other prelates in declaring that should any edict issued by the Patriarch be surreptitiously affixed to the doors of their conventual churches, they would immediately remove it and forward it to the Captain General himself—just as the Lord Bishop had directed. The same instruction was likewise communicated by the Bishop to his subordinate captains and officers.
Page 10
**[Page 9]** **[Main Text]**
The Cathedral, acting on the Bishop’s orders, publicly proclaimed the *Pastoral of the Primate*—a document asserting jurisdiction contrary to that claimed by the Patriarch; reference to this pastoral has already been made above. On 5 June of the same year, the same Bishop instructed all parish priests and members of religious orders living under solemn vows (*religiosos regulares*) to publish it likewise in their respective churches. All complied with this directive; among them was the aforementioned Prior, Friar Constantino, who caused it to be proclaimed in his church on that very day.
At the end of June—specifically on 30 June 1707—the Patriarch arrived in Macau, having been exiled from China by the Emperor of the Qing dynasty. On that same day, the Captain-General dispatched two captains to the Patriarch, in the presence of a notary, to request—formally and respectfully—that he refrain from exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction within Macau. The Captain-General explained that he had received strict instructions from the Viceroy of Portuguese India forbidding him to permit such exercise of authority unless His Eminence first presented the papal bulls confirming his powers, which had been formally approved (*passadas*) by the Royal Council of Portugal (*Conselho Ultramarino*).
The Patriarch took exception to this request and replied that, if the Captain-General possessed the Viceroy’s orders as described, he himself held countermanding instructions issued directly by the Pope—and that these were the ones he intended to observe. Concurrently with the two captains, the Captain-General also sent the Patriarch an honour guard composed of a detachment of soldiers.
Page 11
**[Page LO]** **[Main Text]**
not only with the Chinese mandarins (whom he sought—unsuccessfully—to incite against the Portuguese), but also resorted to entreaty; yet he secured neither outcome from the Captain-General. The Patriarch therefore sought to establish his jurisdiction through the regular prelates and summoned them to assemble for this purpose at five o’clock on the said day of July. However, no resolution was reached at that meeting, owing to the absence of the Reverend Father Provincial of the Society of Jesus, Father Francisco Pinto. The following day, 7 July, Father Pinto presented himself to the Patriarch—not to excuse his earlier non-attendance (for which he bore no culpability), nor to pay a formal visit to the Patriarch (with whom he had already fulfilled all customary courtesies), but solely because he had been formally summoned the preceding day—specifically by a letter dated 6 July from His Excellency the Chancellor, Don José Candela.
When the Patriarch raised the question of his jurisdiction in Macau during their conversation, the Provincial respectfully requested that the matter not be discussed with him, explaining that he was wholly unable to accommodate the Patriarch’s wishes regarding exemption, given the explicit instructions he had received from His Most Faithful Majesty the King and his sworn duty of fidelity to the Crown. This reply provoked the Patriarch’s indignation; with a stern and visibly angry countenance, he repeatedly pressed the Provincial to declare unequivocally whether or not he acknowledged the Patriarch’s jurisdiction in Macau. When the Provincial finally affirmed that he did *not* recognise it—and before affording him further opportunity to elaborate—the Patriarch there and then issued an oral denunciation against him on the spot.
Page 12
SL Provincial for his College, and the Patriarch followed him as far as the first gate of his palace; there, in the presence of the soldiers of the guard, he publicly declared—using his own voice and speaking at full volume—that the said Provincial was hereby ‘denounced’ (*denostado*). He then issued a formal edict to that effect, which he ordered to be affixed to the College of the Society of Jesus. This edict was immediately removed by Captain Antonio de Sosa Gayo and delivered to the Captain General, in accordance with his order dated 17 May, as previously noted.
The Captain General was deeply disturbed by this excessive action on the part of the Lord Patriarch, as it was wholly contrary to the instructions he had received from the Viceroy. Learning that the prior of the Augustinian convent of St Augustine, Friar Constantino, had—in the preceding day, 6 July—when attending, together with other regular prelates, an audience with the Patriarch, shown himself inclined to acknowledge the Patriarch’s jurisdiction, and that he had even solicited one of those prelates in support of this position, the Captain General resolved to secure the compliance of all the prelates. Accordingly, on that same day, 6 July, he summoned them collectively and formally reiterated the Viceroy’s instructions, adding that he would proceed against any who failed to observe them—as against persons disloyal to the Crown.
In response, the prior of the Augustinian convent of St Augustine declared that those instructions did not emanate from the King himself, but solely from the Viceroy—a figure to whom he was under no obligation to render obedience; that he would never cease to obey the Patriarch; and that he intended to act accordingly.
Page 13
**[Page 12]** **[Main Text]**
The Captain General declared that he would proceed against him as a traitor to the Crown; the Patriarch, however, asserted that—up to that day—he had neither been cited by the said Prior nor exercised any act of jurisdiction within his convent. In response, the Captain General granted him time to reflect upon what had been stated, indicating that he would not be compelled to obey the Viceroy’s orders. This marked the first occasion on which the Prior of the Convent of St Augustine openly declared himself partial to the Patriarch; thereafter, he was not summoned to any further council or assembly. The other prelates affirmed that they continued to observe the aforementioned orders, which had already been communicated to them on numerous occasions.
To prevent the Patriarch from achieving his objective—whether through the religious orders (the *Regulares*) or through other individuals whose loyalty could not reasonably be questioned—the Captain General issued, on that same day, an order appointing a captain of the guard for the Patriarch’s palace. This officer was instructed—excluding the Patriarch’s immediate household and personal servants—not to admit any person into the palace without express written authorisation from the Captain General himself.
On the following day, 7 July, and acting under the authority of the Right Reverend Vicar General of the Diocese, a secular priest and missionary from China—who resided in the Patriarch’s palace—was arrested in a public street. This arrest was carried out with the assistance of an armed detachment, following the missionary’s refusal to comply with a formal admonition issued by the Vicar General: namely, that he must not celebrate Mass nor administer the sacraments without first presenting himself to the ecclesiastical authorities.
Page 14
**[Page 13]** **[Main Text]**
Relatives and retainers, he proceeded to the garrison at Barra—where the said missionary was being held in custody—in order to remove him by force. He judged (as appears evident) that the soldiers would not respect his personal authority or ecclesiastical dignity; however, his attempt was thwarted, for the captain of that garrison ordered the gates to be closed before the Patriarch arrived. Seeing his objective now rendered impossible, the Patriarch returned to his palace in profound distress; en route, he entered the Convent of St Augustine, where he was received by the Prior, Fray Constantino, with bell-ringing (*repiques de campanas*) both upon his arrival and departure.
On 8 July 1705, the said Patriarch dispatched to the Captain General a *monitoria* (a formal ecclesiastical summons or admonitory letter), dated the preceding day. In it, having first recounted: (i) the continued presence of an armed guard stationed at the gates of his palace against his express will; (ii) the boldness and contempt shown towards his censures, should he proceed to impose them; (iii) the publication of edicts rescinding the official posting to which he had been assigned; (iv) the prohibition imposed upon numerous individuals preventing their entry into his palace; and (v) the imprisonment of the aforementioned missionary—the Patriarch formally admonished and summoned the Captain General himself as the principal author of these acts, and Captain Gayo as their executor. He granted them precisely three hours as a peremptory deadline within which to appear before him at his palace and to submit in writing any grounds they might allege in justification of their conduct—failing which, they would be declared to have incurred the censures stipulated in the papal bull *In Coena Domini* (‘At the Lord’s Supper’) and the sacred canons.
Page 15
**[Page 14]** **[Main Text]**
…canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, and to afford them due satisfaction; and warned that failure to comply would result in their immediate formal declaration as having incurred the aforementioned censures. On the same day, the Patriarch also summoned the Vicar General of the diocese to appear before him in judicial session on the following day, 9 July, for the purpose of having his acts—deemed offences against the Patriarch’s own domestic missionaries—declared null and void. Simultaneously, the Patriarch issued him a formal canonical monition—his first of the three required canonical admonitions—urging him to desist from those acts and offences; should he fail to do so, the declaratory censures would be publicly promulgated.
To the Captain General, this monition and citation appeared an unprecedented and excessive exercise of ecclesiastical authority; fearing that further, even more serious excesses—of which the Patriarch had already made explicit threat—might follow, the Captain General convened, on 9 July, a full deliberative council (or assembly) comprising the three estates: ecclesiastical, civil (‘político’), and military—held in the joint presence of the Bishop and the Captain General himself. At this council, the royal prerogatives (*Regalias*) and crown privileges were formally asserted; likewise, the ordinances of His Majesty…
Page 16
**[Page 15]** **[Main Text]**
The central question at issue was: what resolution should be adopted—or what course of action taken—in this matter? It was therefore resolved, by the unanimous consent of nearly all present, as follows:
1. That no regard whatsoever should be accorded to the Patriarch’s censures, since they were all legally null and void, and had already been publicly declared as such in the Pastoral Letter issued by the Primate—published previously in that city.
2. That, in order to avert disturbances and preserve the peace and tranquillity of the commonwealth, a formal letter should forthwith be dispatched to the Patriarch, signed collectively on behalf of all three Estates; this letter would respectfully urge him to desist from his intention to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction, while making clear that, should he refuse to withdraw his claim, any subsequent measures taken to safeguard public peace and the royal prerogatives (*regalias da Coroa*) would be imputed solely to him—and not to the city or its civil authorities.
3. That, should the Patriarch persist in his intention, the existing ceremonial guard stationed at his palace—which hitherto had served only an honorary function—should henceforth be converted into a genuine custodial force. This guard, while maintaining due respect for the Patriarch’s person and dignity, would restrict his movements strictly within the palace precincts and prohibit the entry or exit of any individual other than those domestic servants deemed strictly necessary.
4. That, in such an eventuality, the *Oidor* (royal judge) of His Majesty, accompanied by other officers of the civil judiciary, should proceed to the Patriarch’s palace to formally notify him of the imposition of this custodial measure.
Page 17
**[Page 16]** **[Main Text]**
He likewise transmitted to the said Junta a copy of a letter he had received from the King, dated 27 March 1702, in order that the Junta might be formally apprised that His Majesty had granted his consent for the same Patriarch to exercise the jurisdiction of Apostolic Legate in those parts. Yet far from confirming this in the letter, it in fact stated the contrary: it was certain—and indeed well established—that the King had not issued to his Eastern Indies the orders which the letter expressly promised he would dispatch *only if* he were to grant such consent for the Patriarch’s departure to those territories with legatine jurisdiction. Moreover, His Majesty explicitly informed the Patriarch in the very same letter that, *in the absence of those orders*, achieving the purpose for which he had been appointed would be ‘more than difficult’.
It therefore being established that the Patriarch possessed neither royal consent to exercise legatine jurisdiction nor any intention of relinquishing his claim to do so, the Captain-General ordered—on that same day, 12 July—that the Patriarch be placed under formal custody. To this end, he instructed the Captain of the guard to implement the measures prescribed by the Council of the Three Estates.
After the Patriarch had already been placed in custody, he twice broke free from the guard and left his palace—first on 25 July and again on 19 July—to seek an audience with approximately one hundred Chinese mandarins then residing in Macau, intending thereby to enlist their support against the Portuguese authorities. On both occasions, however, he was unable to address the mandarins at all and returned immediately to his residence. On each attempt, the guard soldiers endeavoured to prevent his departure.
Page 18
**[Page 17]** **[Main Text]**
—not by force of arms, but solely through respectful and reverent entreaties. On the second occasion, a soldier deceitfully obstructed the entry of the Chinese bearers—those responsible for carrying the Patriarch’s sedan chair—into the palace; without them, the Patriarch could not depart. Consequently, the Captain-General ordered that the said soldier be punished by hoisting on the *polea* (a form of public corporal punishment involving suspension by ropes), as previously threatened. Yet the Captain-General also ordered the imprisonment of an officer from the same guard detail for having drawn his sword against those same Chinese bearers while they were already ascending the palace staircase: such was the degree of decorum the Captain-General insisted upon—not only in respect to the Patriarch’s person, but equally to the sanctity and dignity of the Patriarch’s residence.
Beyond these two instances, the Patriarch did not leave his palace again; nor did he visit the convent of the Order of St Augustine on any other occasion than that single one, on 7 July, when—as noted above—he was received by the convent’s prior, Fr. Constantino, with the ringing of the bells (*repique de campanas*).
It was precisely on account of this bell-ringing alone that the Vicar General of the Diocese issued his formal edict against the said convent. He published it, moreover, having established its factual basis beyond doubt—explicitly citing, in the edict itself (translated into Spanish), the following words: *‘The Reverend Father Fr. Constantino del Espíritu Santo, Prior of the Convent of Nossa Senhora da Graça (of the Order of St Augustine) in the city of Macau, had already rendered an oath of fidelity and obedience to His Most Illustrious Lord Don Carlos Tomás, Patriarch of Antioch, thereby formally acknowledging him as his prelate—and had confirmed this act with ceremonial bell-ringing, during which the Patriarch was received within the convent.’*
This occurred notwithstanding the orders **[Seals]** *(Circular seal not located on the right-hand margin; inscription reads: “ROMANUM SOC.”)*
Page 19
**[Page 18]** **[Main Text]**
royal ordinances, which had been formally notified to him, and the injunctions issued by His Eminence the Metropolitan Archbishop; to both of which he was legally bound to submit. In his refusal, he demonstrated disloyalty both to His Majesty and to his Metropolitan. Moreover, in order to avert the serious harm and gravest inconveniences that would arise from any communication between the subjects of this diocese—being loyal vassals of His Majesty—and the aforementioned Reverend Father Fr. Constantino del Espíritu Santo, &c., the edict proceeded as follows:
Up to this point, these are the words of the edict, which clearly articulate its underlying motives and justifications.
The said Vicar General therein decreed—under penalty of denunciation, a censure reserved *ipso facto* (i.e., incurred automatically upon commission of the offence)—that no subject of this diocese should hold any communication whatsoever with the said Prior, nor with any religious of his convent, nor attend divine services in his church. He further stipulated that those failing to comply with this edict would be arrested as traitors to the Crown and conveyed to Goa for trial and disposition.
§6. In late 1707—that is, on 10 October 1707—the Captain-General convened the Council of the Three Estates for the second time. At this meeting, the entire course of proceedings undertaken thus far concerning the Patriarch was reviewed, together with the causes and grounds that had prompted such measures. The Captain-General then requested all those present to deliberate and determine: (i) whether any excess had occurred in the actions taken; and (ii) whether the Patriarch’s custody ought to continue in its existing form.
Page 20
**[Page 19]** **[Main Text]**
Portuguese: By ordering edicts to be publicly posted in numerous locations—edicts wholly contrary to the ordinances of His Most Faithful Majesty the King and to the royal prerogatives of the Crown—the Portuguese declared numerous royal ministers, and even the Captain General himself, to be under ecclesiastical censure (*excommunicati*). In so doing, they sought to incite the unlettered populace against both the ecclesiastical and secular authorities of the city, thereby causing grave disruption to the peace and public tranquillity of the realm. Having considered all this—and also the preceding events which had occurred prior to the Patriarch’s detention—the aforementioned plenary Council adjudged, first, that no excess or abuse of authority had hitherto been committed by the Captain General; and second, that it was necessary to retain the Patriarch in custody under the same conditions until such time as the King or the Viceroy should issue further instructions. This was the resolution adopted on that day.
It appears necessary to observe here—by way of clarification—that the guard stationed at the Patriarch’s palace in no way impeded the entry or exit of goods or persons belonging to the Patriarch’s household staff or his personal attendants (*familiares*); nor did the guard interfere with the transmission of correspondence between the Patriarch and external parties. Such letters were carried to and from the palace by his *familiares* and servants, without obstruction from the guard, who neither prevented their passage nor made any attempt to ascertain their contents—having received no instructions to do so.
No decision concerning Fr. [Name], Prior of the Convent of St Augustine, was reached by the said Council of the Three Estates.
Page 21
**[Page 20]**
**[Main Text]**
The General of the Bishopric, the Senate of the City, and the *Oidor* (Royal Judge) of His Majesty deliberated and resolved that the said Prior should be given the choice either to remain in Macau—albeit deprived of communication with the Viceroys of His Majesty, as described above—or to depart for Goa. He elected the latter course and embarked at the beginning of January 1708. In Goa, he exerted every effort—though ultimately in vain—to secure royal and viceregal authorisation permitting the Patriarch to exercise the jurisdiction of Second Apostolic Legate. Subsequently, having been appointed Provincial of the Jesuit Order (*Societas Iesu*), he sailed for Lisbon under royal and viceregal orders, as will be detailed below.
Upon the Prior’s departure for Goa, the Vicar General of the Bishopric refrained from lifting, on any occasion, the prohibition set forth in his edict against the Convent of St Augustine; he was aware that the Superior of that convent likewise held partisan allegiance to the Patriarch.
§.7. At the beginning of January 1708, a vessel sailed directly from Macau to Lisbon. Aboard it, the Bishop and Captain-General transmitted to the King comprehensive and judicious reports detailing all measures taken thus far against the Patriarch in defence of the Crown’s royal prerogatives (*regalias*) and privileges, as well as for the peace and tranquillity of the city. The King approved the entire course of action. The same vessel—which, in April 1709, His Majesty ordered to return *achubada* (i.e., in ballast, without cargo) to Goa—carried His Majesty’s Royal Decree (*Real Cédula*), dated 3 April 1709, addressed to the Viceroy. In this decree, the King instructed that the Patriarch of Antioch—now elevated to the rank of Cardinal—was henceforth to reside in these parts *without exercising any jurisdiction whatsoever*, by virtue of the [text breaks off here].
**[Marginal Annotations]**
— [Top left]: *Societas Iesu* (Society of Jesus)
— [Top left]: *Archivium Generale* (General Archive)
**[Seals]**
— [Top left]: (Illegible seal)
**[Archival References]**
— [Top left]: *Societas*
Page 22
**[Page 21]** **[Main Text]**
…that the Viceroy should not permit the Patriarch to retain any of the personnel he had brought with him, nor any others who might subsequently arrive; and that the Viceroy should formally communicate this directive of His Majesty to all prelates—including the Cardinal himself.
The King also dispatched, aboard the same vessel, a separate royal *cédula* addressed to the Captain-General of Macau, Dom Diogo de Lino Teixeira, issued in Lisbon on 10 January of the same year (1709). In this document, His Majesty expressly approved the custody measures imposed upon the Patriarch by the said Captain-General, and summarily reiterated the grounds for those measures.
The Primate Archbishop likewise received a royal letter, dated 22 March of the same year (1709), in which His Majesty commended his opposition to the Patriarch’s exercise of jurisdiction and instructed him to continue defending the Crown’s privileges and prerogatives.
This vessel arrived in Goa in August 1709. Shortly thereafter, in September of the same year, identical royal orders arrived aboard a second vessel, which had also sailed from Lisbon in 1709. Through this second dispatch, the Viceroy received three further letters from the King:
— The first was addressed to the Reverend Father Provincial of the Society of Jesus; in it, His Majesty commanded him to arrange immediately for the return from China to Portugal of his subject, Father António da Silva, S.J., on account of his having obeyed the Patriarch by accepting appointment as Apostolic Vicar.
— The second was addressed to the Reverend Father Vicar General of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans); in it, His Majesty ordered him to despatch to Portugal Father Fr. …
Page 23
**[Page 22]** **[Main Text]**
…under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch, as shall be explained below. The second letter was addressed to the Reverend Father Provincial of the Augustinian Fathers, bearing an order from His Majesty commanding that Fr. Constantino do Espírito Santo be sent back to Portugal for the same reason—namely, his formal acknowledgment in Macau of the Patriarch’s jurisdiction. As Fr. Constantino himself held the office of Provincial at that time, the Viceroy accordingly instructed him to deliver the royal letter and, simultaneously, to embark for Lisbon in January 1708 as His Majesty’s envoy.
In August 1709, the Vicar General of the Diocese renewed in Macau the prohibition set forth in his earlier edict against the Convent of St Augustine, extending it also to the Convent of St Dominic. The grounds for this action were urgent and arose from a sequence of prior events, which I shall recount here, as they are integral to my narrative.
The first report that the Patriarch had been elevated to the dignity of Cardinal reached this city aboard a *patache* (a small, fast vessel) arriving from Manila in November 1708. Though this intelligence had not yet been officially confirmed, certain individuals urged the Captain-General to assume responsibility for guarding the new Cardinal’s residence. The Captain-General, however, convened a council comprising the Three Estates (*Estados*), and—following extensive deliberation and with the support of numerous votes—resolved to withdraw all military guard from the said residence. This decision was taken in explicit opposition to the standing mandate of the Municipal Council (*Senado*), since the Chinese mandarins, acting under direct orders from their Emperor, had formally placed the Patriarch himself under imperial protection, stipulating that he must not depart from Macau without express permission from the Emperor. Upon this very point, formal protest was lodged.
**[Marginal Note]**
[Left-hand margin, unlocated in original]: §.8.
Page 24
**[Page 23]**
**[Main Text]**
The Senate addressed the Captain General concerning the risk posed to the city should the Patriarch—entirely released from his guard—secretly remain in Macau. Ultimately, the Captain General and the Senate agreed to relax the strictness of the custodial arrangement and retain the guard solely as an honourable formality, granting full freedom of movement: thus, all persons—without exception—were permitted to enter and leave the palace at their own discretion.
Under this newly granted liberty, the number of individuals acknowledging the Patriarch’s jurisdiction steadily increased. The principal agents behind this development were missionaries from other nations, who had been expelled from China for refusing to accept the imperial *piao* (a formal certificate of compliance with Qing administrative and ritual requirements). The Reverend Father Fr. João de Santa Rosa of the Order of Saint Augustine—Administrator of the chapel of Our Lady, known as the Chapel of the Rock (*Capela da Penha*)—granted some of these missionaries accommodation on that site.
Initially, however, the Reverend Father Fr. Francisco do Espírito Santo of the Order of Saint Francis—President of his convent—refused to admit any of these same missionaries into his establishment. In order to compel his compliance, the Patriarch issued a canonical monition (*monitória*) on 23 February 1709. Fr. Francisco, the President, failed to obey this monition; and after further admonitions, the Patriarch formally declared him excommunicated by edict on 21 May of the same year. This edict was ordered to be affixed publicly within the Convent of Saint Francis itself—though it was subsequently removed therefrom by order of the Captain General. The aforementioned missionaries residing at the Chapel of the Rock likewise posted copies of the edict on the chapel’s doors.
Page 25
**[Page 24]** **[Main Text]**
that site; there, they also inscribed—in Chinese characters—the following title: *This House is the Seminary of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith* (*Congregatio de Propaganda Fide*). Furthermore, they stipulated that the annual feast of the chapel should not be celebrated without the express licence of the Patriarch of the East Indies.
Owing to this and other grievances, the Captain-General deemed it necessary to expel the said missionaries from that house and chapel. Initially, he employed conciliatory and courteous measures; however, the missionaries resisted, invoking the jurisdiction of the Patriarch and producing a formal mandate issued by him, authorising them to retain possession of both the house and the chapel.
Consequently, the Captain-General was compelled to resort to coercive force. He accordingly dispatched a detachment of soldiers to the site, with orders to maintain a permanent guard and to deny the missionaries access to any provisions whatsoever. In response, the Patriarch issued an official edict—posted both at the seminary and on the doors of his own palace—directed to the Captain-General. In this edict, the Patriarch demanded that the military guard be withdrawn within two days and that satisfaction be rendered concerning several additional charges enumerated therein. Should the Captain-General fail to comply, the Patriarch threatened to declare him *suspect of heresy*—a declaration which he subsequently enacted on 6 June of the same year (1705), issuing a further edict posted clandestinely during the night on the doors of the churches throughout the city.
Page 26
**[Page 25]** **[Main Text]**
Ultimately, they released them. In early August of the same year, 1709, Fr. Pedro de Amaral, O.P., a Dominican friar, arrived in Macau for the second time, aboard a *parache* (a small coastal vessel) from Manila. His first arrival in Macau—in 1707—had been in his capacity as Vicar and Superior of the Convent of his Order. On that occasion, he had acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the East Indies; and in November of that same year, he had publicly visited Captain Gayo—who by then had already been formally deposed and declared unfit for office by the Patriarch. As a consequence, the Captain-General ordered Fr. Pedro de Amaral’s expulsion from Macau to Goa; and, given his resistance, some degree of coercive force was required to effect his embarkation—an act amounting to enforced detention—whereupon he departed in early January 1708.
Fr. Sebastião de São António succeeded him as Superior of the Convent; he had consistently demonstrated unwavering loyalty as a faithful vassal of the Crown. Upon arriving in Goa, Fr. Pedro de Amaral was placed under the authority of the Viceroy, who handed him over to his ecclesiastical superiors. These prelates subsequently assigned him to the islands of Timor. To reach Timor, he travelled from Goa to Melaka, and thence embarked aboard the aforementioned *parache* from Manila, arriving in Macau for the second time. Immediately upon landing, he proceeded directly to the Patriarch’s palace.
No vessel arrived in Macau from Goa or Japan throughout the entire year of 1709; consequently, the Captain-General received no official communication whatsoever concerning the King’s final determination regarding the Patriarch’s jurisdiction. On the very day the *parache* arrived, however, the Patriarch received, aboard a *nave igreja* (a church vessel—a ship specially commissioned and consecrated for ecclesiastical transport), the papal bull—or brief—appointing him Cardinal.
Page 27
**[Page 26]** **[Main Text]**
Subsequently, in the same month of August 1709, the Captain-General convened the Junta—or Council of the Three Estates. The question posed was as follows: given that it was now confirmed that the Patriarch had been elevated to the cardinalate, ought the guard stationed at the gates of his palace to be maintained? In response, the learned jurists and officials present at that Council observed that, since the guard had originally been established at the instigation of the Senate, it fell to the Senate itself to submit—by way of justification—the official letters authorising its continuance; the Council, having consulted the relevant legal and administrative records (*livros*), would then determine whether those letters were legally valid and sufficient. However, the Senate, without presenting the said documents, withdrew its request the following day; whereupon the Captain-General immediately ordered the guard’s withdrawal. From that date until the Patriarch’s death, he remained entirely free from the Portuguese military guard—a presence he had long regarded as oppressive and deeply resented. He was, nevertheless, unable to escape far greater pressures and vexations imposed by the Chinese mandarinal guard. In April 1709, the mandarins had received direct instructions from the Emperor of China requiring them to maintain close surveillance over the Patriarch’s person, with explicit orders to ensure he did not depart from Macau.
Page 28
**[Page 27]** **[Main Text]**
(After it had been formally certified that he was already deceased), [the official] ordered that she be removed.
My Lord, it was this Chinese guard—not the Portuguese one—that, acting on the instructions of their mandarins, restricted entry to the cardinal’s palace to only those individuals strictly necessary, thereby ensuring the departure of all others—persons whom the mandarins themselves were unwilling to have remain within the palace precincts.
The cardinal further reported other grievances inflicted upon him by the mandarins during this period, arising from memorials he himself had submitted to them: in several of these documents, he lodged serious accusations against the Portuguese—accusations which he had previously made before the Emperor in Peking. Upon examination, however, the mandarins dismissed these allegations entirely.
Having thus set aside these matters—and all other incidents occurring between the Chinese authorities and the cardinal—I now return to my principal subject: the defence and vindication of the royal prerogatives (*regalías*) of the Crown of Portugal.
Through the mediation of the aforementioned Fr. Pedro de Amaral and of the missionary friars serving in China, the cardinal succeeded in securing not only the recognition of his jurisdiction—and obedience to his authority—by all other members of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans), but also by Fr. Sebastián de São António, who was then resident in the city and had consistently upheld the royal prerogatives.
Upon learning of this development—and also of the fact that the aforementioned Fr. João de São Rosa, at that time Prior and Superior of the Convent of São Agostinho, together with the other religious of that same convent, and indeed all missionaries from other nations then stationed in China, were likewise aligned with the cardinal, acknowledged his jurisdiction, and rendered him obedience—the Vicar General of the diocese renewed, in the said month,
**[Seals]**
(No seal visible on the right-hand side): *ROMANUM SOC.*
Page 29
**[Page 28]** **[Main Text]**
In the month of August, the prohibition referred to in §5 was extended to all members of the two convents, with the express aim of preventing them from persuading other subjects of His Majesty to withhold obedience from the Cardinal. To this same end, the Captain General ordered his own edict to be affixed in public places, commanding all subjects of His Majesty not to hold any communication with the religious of the aforementioned two convents.
The Cardinal greatly resented these measures and, in turn, ordered his own edict—issued under his own authority—to be posted directly over the Captain General’s edict in the same public locations. In this document, His Eminence declared the aforementioned Vicar General excommunicated.
With the explicit permission of the Cardinal—whom they obeyed—but without the consent of the Bishop, the Dominican friars resolved to institute new weekly processions through the city every Saturday evening, from six to seven o’clock, bearing the images of Christ crucified and Our Lady of the Rosary.
To the Captain General, this public act—though pious in intention—constituted a manifest contempt for the jurisdiction of the Ordinary (i.e., the diocesan bishop) and for the royal prerogatives (*regalias*) of the Crown. Observing that the spiritual sanctions available to the Ordinary were no longer sufficient, he resolved to deploy coercive force against all Portuguese religious residing in that convent, treating them as subjects disloyal to their sovereign.
Page 30
**[Page 29]** **[Main Text]**
Stones were hurled, and fists were raised in defence of the edict itself; those present also assaulted the military officer who had been dispatched to remove it. Yet, as the Captain General habitually resorted to conciliatory measures before resorting to coercive ones, he first dispatched a letter addressed to Fr. Pedro, O.F.M., then Superior of the Convent, requesting that he attend—accompanied by the other Portuguese religious—to confer with him. Upon receipt of this letter, the said Superior immediately proceeded to the Cardinal’s palace together with his subjects (i.e., the friars under his jurisdiction); however, they refused to meet with the Captain General. In response, he sent a second letter, informing them that he summoned them on a matter concerning the service of the Crown, and commanding them—on behalf of His Majesty—to appear forthwith. He further warned that, should they decline to comply, he would proceed against them collectively, and that any ensuing public scandal would be laid at their own door.
Though bound by the duty of obedience to His Majesty’s command—formally communicated through the Captain General—the religious harboured deep apprehension that the Captain General intended to arrest them. Consequently, while the subjects (the junior friars) returned to the Convent, the Superior—who felt the greatest anxiety—remained at the Cardinal’s palace.
Learning, therefore, that the aforementioned Portuguese religious were now assembled once more within the Convent, the Captain General instructed the *Oidor* (Royal Judge) of His Majesty’s court to proceed thither, accompanied by an official of the Episcopal Curia and three captains, together with the requisite number of soldiers. Their charge was to enter the Convent and, with due regard for ecclesiastical dignity and legal propriety, arrest all Portuguese religious found therein.
Page 31
**[Page 30]** **[Main Text]**
In addition to the convent, they found its doors shattered and heard stones being hurled against the windows—an evident preparation for armed resistance. Uncertain, therefore, as to the appropriate course of action, they dispatched a messenger to consult the Captain General, who instructed them to proceed with the entry into the convent, having first issued repeated formal proclamations to the religious community demanding that they open the doors; he warned that, should they refuse, the convent would be formally suppressed (*suppressio conventus*), and that all ensuing scandal would fall entirely upon their own responsibility. The said officials accordingly delivered this formal protest on multiple occasions to the religious, but to no avail; whereupon they resolved—finally—to effect forcible entry into the convent. Two soldiers scaled the walls and entered through the windows; once inside, they proceeded to unlock the main door for the remainder of the party.
At this very moment—while the convent’s main door remained still unopened—numerous foreign missionaries, all intimates of the Cardinal (one serving as his regular Secretary, the others all ecclesiastics), arrived at the site and attempted to obstruct the execution of the order—not by force of arms, but by delivering grave and injurious verbal reproaches directed at the aforementioned officials, at the Captain General, and likewise at the King himself.
Page 32
**[Page 31]** **[Main Text]**
The religious friars of the convent, unwilling to resist with stones or arms, withdrew en masse to the church, where they exposed the Blessed Sacrament upon the altar; thereupon, all Portuguese and Spanish members of the community assembled before it in prayer. Upon entering through the already-opened door—the *oidor* (royal magistrate), accompanied by captains and soldiers—found the friars engaged collectively in this solemn and pious act. They immediately reported the situation to the Captain General, who instructed them to post guards at the church doors and to admit no one without express authorisation, thereby compelling the friars—whose resistance would eventually be undermined by hunger—to emerge voluntarily from the church. Once they had emerged, the Portuguese friars were to be arrested.
Simultaneously, the Captain General dispatched—via a Spanish missionary belonging to another religious order and holding ecclesiastical office—a message to the Spanish Dominican friars, assuring them that his sole demand was that they vacate both the church and the convent and refrain from returning thereafter; he further pledged that, should they comply, they would be guaranteed personal safety and would suffer no arrest or harassment whatsoever.
Nonetheless, even after hunger compelled them to leave the church and convent—precisely as the Captain General had anticipated—they did so without securing any formal safeguard. He, for his part, made no further concession beyond permitting their physical suffering through starvation—the only form of harsh treatment he inflicted—and one which they could have avoided, yet chose not to.
Of the Portuguese friars, only Fr. Sebastião de Santo António, O.P., emerged on the first day. He presented himself before the Captain General, publicly acknowledged his culpability, and formally pledged—under oath—not to recognise the jurisdiction of the Cardinal any longer.
Page 33
**[Page 32]** **[Main Text]**
The Captain-General accordingly heard his pledges; pardoned him for his offence; and permitted him to remain at the Convent, where he steadfastly upheld the renewed pledge of fidelity. The other Portuguese religious, however, refused to follow this example: compelled by hunger, they left the church, were immediately arrested, and confined within the fortifications. Thereupon, the Captain-General dispatched them to Goa in January 1710.
§9. Following the death of the Cardinal—which occurred on 8 June 1710—the Vicar General of the Diocese, having concluded that the dispute concerning the Cardinal’s jurisdiction had now been resolved, rescinded the prohibition contained in his earlier edict against the Convent of St Augustine and formally absolved those who had incurred excommunication *in forma fulminis*, without imposing any penance or requiring restitution.
On 26 July of the same year (1710), a vessel arrived in Macau from Goa. Through this ship, the Most Reverend Prelate transmitted to this city the royal instructions he had received from His Majesty in September and October 1709 (as noted in §7) concerning the Cardinal—specifically, the command (as ordered by His Majesty) to serve formal notice upon the Cardinal himself, directing him to desist entirely from exercising any jurisdictional authority. The Prelate likewise dispatched, aboard the same vessel, a revised edict—or new pastoral letter—in which he referred to the privileges formerly granted to the Crown of Portugal by earlier popes (discussed in §…).
Page 34
**[Page 33]** **[Main Text]**
By royal letter issued by His Majesty on 22 March 1709—as noted in §7—His Majesty commanded all ecclesiastical officials throughout his Primacy to uphold the aforementioned privileges and to obey neither the Patriarch of Antioch nor any Apostolic Vicar or other minister, unless such person first presented authentic papal bulls *and* the express prior consent of His Majesty; further stipulating that any who acted contrary to this order would be deemed formally denounced and subjected to the three canonical admonitions—each to be administered at intervals of three hours.
However, when the vessel bearing these royal instructions arrived in Macau, the Cardinal (Charles-Thomas Maillard de Tournon) had already died. Consequently, the Bishop of Macau and the newly appointed Captain-General, Francisco de Mello e Castro—who had arrived aboard the same ship—judged it unnecessary to promulgate the royal decrees. This omission was not approved in Goa, nor was the reasoning behind it accepted. Accordingly, the Viceroy of Portuguese India, in a subsequent formal instruction, once again directed the Bishop of Macau to serve formal legal notice—*which he did in fact do*—of the royal orders upon the cathedral chapter (*cabildo*) and the superiors of the regular religious orders (*prelados regulares*). In the name of His Majesty, he enjoined them not to obey any decisions taken during his lifetime by Cardinal Tournon within this diocese—or indeed anywhere in China—nor to obey those of any other prelate lacking His Majesty’s explicit written authorisation for such jurisdiction. The Viceroy added…
Page 35
**[Page 34]** **[Main Text]**
The Bishop, in January 1722. In the same year, 1722, the Viceroy also instructed the Captain-General to ensure strict observance of His Majesty’s aforementioned orders. Furthermore, in that same year—1722—the aforementioned new pastoral letter issued by the Primate Archbishop was formally notified and publicly promulgated. SIO.
In August 1720, Fr. João de Santa Rosa, Prior of the Convent of St Augustine, refused to permit Captain Gayo to officiate at the funeral service for a deceased person in the church of his convent. The Prior cited Captain Gayo’s alleged excommunication as grounds for this refusal. Yet it was established as fact that, at the court in Goa, learned jurists (doctores) had formally adjudicated that Captain Gayo was not subject to any canonical censure: the excommunications pronounced by the Cardinal Patriarch were manifestly null and void; moreover, all actions undertaken by the said Captain against clerics and religious persons at the time of his arrest had been carried out strictly in obedience to the lawful authority vested in the officer who commanded them—namely, in defence of royal prerogatives and privileges erected by the Apostolic See—and with due moderation consistent with blameless self-defence, a standard which the Captain had consistently observed. It was likewise confirmed that, in Macau, no ecclesiastic, religious, or layperson regarded Captain Gayo as excommunicated, nor treated him as such—excepting solely the Augustinian friars and foreign missionaries who had been expelled from China. Thereupon, the said Captain immediately lodged a formal complaint against the Prior of the Convent of St Augustine.
Page 36
**[Page 35]** **[Main Text]**
To renew and promulgate a prohibitory edict forbidding communion between the subjects of the Apostolic Vicariate (the ‘Vagant’ Bishopric) of the King and the Convent of St Augustine—on the grounds that its religious continued to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Cardinal, whom the Crown had deposed and formally declared ineligible. This prohibition remained in force only until mid-October of the following year, when the same Vicar General, acting upon the urgent representations of the Captain-General, rescinded the ban.
With regard to the Reverend Fathers of the Augustinian Order, who upheld royal jurisdiction in Macau, and to the Reverend Father Francisco Pinto of the Society of Jesus, Commissary of the Holy Office, who contravened that same royal jurisdiction: the incident unfolded as follows. In August 1710, the aforementioned Father Commissary appointed a *naigue* (i.e., an official of the Holy Office) to examine a Malabar man—a person, according to contemporary testimony, of unimpeachable conduct and without any known criminal charge or canonical impediment.
Page 37
**[Page 36]** **[Main Text]**
The Augustinian friars resident in Macao—impatient with the Commissary of the Holy Office—petitioned the *Oidor* (a senior judicial officer of the Portuguese crown) on behalf of the said Reverend Fathers, submitting written representations in their favour against the *Naigue* (a local Chinese official, also rendered in contemporary Portuguese records as *Naique* or *Neiqui*, equivalent to a magistrate or district administrator under Qing jurisdiction), and even more strongly against the Commissary of the Holy Office himself. The case was referred to Goa, where the Royal Audience—the *Relação Real*, as the Portuguese termed it—ruled that, since the said *Naigue* had already been deemed criminally culpable prior to his formal arrest, the *Oidor* was lawfully empowered to apprehend him without infringing upon the privileges accorded to the Holy Office. Consequently, the Commissary’s declaration was adjudged null and void. The Viceroy of India (*Vice-Rei*) concurred with this judgment and directed the Tribunal of the Holy Office to declare—precisely as it subsequently did—that the Commissary’s declaration was legally invalid. This is the extent of what is documented and verifiable. It remains possible that the Holy Tribunal had additional grounds for annulling the Commissary’s declaration; however, as these have not been disclosed in the archival record, they remain unknown and unknowable. In 1711, the Viceroy dispatched to Macao a minister of the same Royal Audience—distinguished both for his erudition and integrity—to mediate the disputes and discord which had arisen in the city during the preceding year (1710) between the Captain-General and the Senate.
Page 38
**[Page 37]** **[Main Text]**
the favour of the same Naique and of the Commissioner of the Holy Office. I cannot omit here a summary of the two principal points of contention that emerged between the Reverend Fathers (R.R.P.) of the Augustinian Order in Macau and the aforementioned Reverend Father (R.P.), a Jesuit serving as Commissioner of the Holy Office.
The first point of contention concerns their respective positions on papal authority and Portuguese royal jurisdiction. The Augustinians complied with a single papal brief—whose terms did not clearly establish the Patriarch of the East Indies’ jurisdiction over Macau—while disregarding numerous papal bulls issued by successive popes, which explicitly confirmed the *regalias* (royal prerogatives) of the Crown of Portugal over ecclesiastical appointments and governance in the region. Conversely, the Jesuit Commissioner upheld these papal bulls and declined to recognise the aforementioned brief. (See above, §4.)
The second point of contention relates to conflicting allegiances in a judicial dispute: the Augustinians defended an *Oidor* (a senior magistrate of the *Relação*, or appellate court) who had formally accused an official of the Holy Office of criminal conduct; whereas the Jesuit Commissioner defended that very official of the Holy Office—who, in turn, was being prosecuted for alleged criminal behaviour by the same *Oidor*.
This account merely records what has been observed in the archival record; the broader implications—and ultimate resolution—of these differences are left to scholarly assessment and, piously, to divine providence.
In September 1710, the *Procurador* (city agent) whom this municipality had dispatched to the Royal Court in Lisbon arrived in Macau. He had embarked aboard a vessel which had sailed from Lisbon in March of the same year and proceeded directly to Macau without intermediate port calls. He brought with him only nine royal *cédulas* (letters patent), all concerning matters of civil administration and municipal governance; these had been specifically solicited by the *Procurador* during his mission to the Court.
Page 39
**[Page 38]** **[Main Text]**
Firstly, the Procurator-General had dispatched two royal decrees (*cédulas*) addressed to the Viceroy of India concerning two of the same matters under discussion; these bore the numbers 7 and 8. A third decree—numbered 9—was directed to the Captain-General of Macau, relating to one of those same matters, which fell within his jurisdiction. The Procurator-General formally delivered all nine decrees (*cédulas*) to the Senate (Senado) of Macau—the body legally responsible for forwarding decrees nos. 7 and 8 to the Viceroy, and for transmitting decree no. 9 to the Captain-General.
However, it transpired that an official of the Senate—whose duty it was to open only those decrees addressed to the Senate itself—erroneously began to open decree no. 9, which had been intended for the Captain-General. Upon realising his mistake before the document had been fully opened, he immediately conveyed it, unopened, to the Captain-General. Seeing that the decree bore the number 9, the Captain-General suspected that *all* preceding decrees—and perhaps many subsequent ones—had likewise been addressed to him, and that the said official had deliberately suppressed them. He therefore ordered the official’s immediate arrest. Neither the intervention of the Procurator-General—who presented the decrees in question—nor the sworn testimony of the Senate, corroborating the sequence of events described above, sufficed to secure the prisoner’s release. The Captain-General maintained that the accused official had committed other offences, and that he was being detained on those grounds. The prisoner subsequently escaped from custody, took refuge at the Sanctuary (*Sagrado*), and travelled to Goa to lodge a formal complaint before the Viceroy.
No royal decree concerning the matter of the Patriarch’s jurisdiction was carried aboard that vessel, as it had departed Lisbon in March 1710; by that time, the King had already dispatched all his royal determinations on this matter aboard ships which had sailed from Lisbon in the preceding year—1709.
Page 40
**[Page 39]** **[Main Text]**
Lisbon, and in the same year they arrived in Goa, where His Majesty entrusted the immediate execution of all matters to the Viceroy, as was customary in other affairs—particularly given their gravity and their direct pertinence to the Crown. See above §§7 and 9. From all this it is manifestly evident that it would have been impossible for the Viceroy to complain, in May 1712, of having received no reply from His Majesty concerning the jurisdiction of the Cardinal Patriarch.
Around this same time—or shortly before, but in any case after the death of the Cardinal Patriarch—copies of two papal briefs addressed to the King, dated 2 and 4 March 1709, reached Macau. As stated, these copies had been dispatched from Rome to the said Cardinal. His Majesty himself referred to these two briefs of His Holiness in his royal cédula (royal decree) addressed to the Viceroy on 3 April of the same year (1709)—a document discussed in §7—stating therein that he had received them via two special envoys sent by His Holiness, who had only just arrived in Lisbon. Two exemplars of the copies said to have been forwarded from Rome to the Cardinal have been communicated to me; yet I believe these are not faithful reproductions of the original briefs received by the King, for the following reasons:
Firstly, according to the careful and authoritative observation of a learned and trustworthy individual—who examined the original briefs themselves in Lisbon with great attention and deliberation—His Holiness made no mention therein of the Cardinal’s jurisdiction in Macau. Given this fact, the aforementioned exemplars cannot be accurate reproductions of the original briefs.
**[Marginal Annotations]**
[Left margin, top]: 39
[Left margin, lower]: 12
Page 41
**[Page 40]** **[Main Text]**
certified as conforming to the original documents, which—though containing certain phrases wherein His Holiness appears to refer to the said jurisdiction—do so with sufficient ambiguity that alternative interpretations remain plausible.
Secondly, in the Brief of 4 March (as per the exemplar communicated to me), His Holiness states that he had learned, through numerous letters from Cardinal de Tournon, that the Bishop of Macau, the Captain-General, and all other officials and administrators appointed by His Majesty in this city had inflicted upon the same Cardinal—and upon his household—exceedingly harsh and almost inconceivable injuries and affronts. The relevant passage reads:
> *‘Ex pluribus dilecti Filii nostri Cardinalis de Tournon, hesterna die allatis, literis audivimus: Didacum de Pinho Teixeira, Capitaneum Generalem municipatus, et tamen quod quot inibi sunt Maiestatis tuae Officiales et Administrati, quin et ipse Episcopus Macaensis, cumdem Cardinalem eiusque familiares injurias et contumelias acerbissimas ac pene incredibiles affectarent.’*
Further on, the text continues:
> *‘Officiales et Administrati Tui ex Illius (Cardinalis) familiaribus alios verborum caederunt; omnes, uno verbo, ipsorum reverentiam etiam mirandum in modum ac hostili protervo animo affliciant; adco ut Cardinalis iusque Comites martyrij coronam, quam in Sinorum Imperio à Paganis recipere negaverunt, a Christianis iam expellari posse videantur.’*
[Translation note: The Latin terms *‘Comites martyrij coronam’*—literally ‘companions of the martyr’s crown’—refer to those who, though not formally canonised, are regarded as sharing in the spiritual merit and witness of martyrdom; this phrase is retained in its original form for scholarly precision, with the explanatory gloss provided above.]
Page 42
**[Page 41]** **[Main Text]**
As per the original text of the Brief. Regarding the King’s reply to this same Brief (which is cited immediately below), and concerning the other similar falsehoods communicated to His Holiness—there is no indication anywhere in that reply that it was dispatched by the Cardinal.
Likewise, at approximately the same time—as previously stated—that the two copies of the Briefs arrived in Macau aboard the aforementioned vessel (which had sailed from Lisbon and duly entered this city), there also arrived on the same ship a copy of the royal response issued by His Majesty in the preceding year, 1709, to those two Briefs. This reply had been sent directly to His Holiness and likewise to His Excellency the Cardinal Nuncio to Portugal, who had formally requested it through the intermediary of His Excellency the Duke of Cadaval. Pursuant to His Majesty’s express instruction, the reply was drafted by Don Diego de Mendoza Cortés, Secretary of State, in the Portuguese language, and transmitted verbatim as follows:
> ‘Bringing to the attention of His Majesty—whom God preserve—that the Cardinal Nuncio had informed Your Excellency that he wished to know, prior to his departure from the Diocese of India, how His Majesty intended to resolve the matter concerning the Briefs addressed to him by His Holiness on 2 April last past, His Majesty has commanded me to inform Your Excellency that…’
Page 43
**[Page 42]** **[Main Text]**
Having taken cognisance of their representations, His Majesty has ordered that the aforementioned Daruta be excluded from consideration at this stage, reserving examination of his case for a later date; for His Majesty judged—contrary to the expectation expressed by His Majesty—that the said Emperor had afforded no serious attention to the matter.
Upon receipt of the second papal brief, His Majesty has instructed that urgent representations be made for the release of the Cardinal, who remains detained in Macau by the said Emperor; and upon his liberation, the Cardinal is to proceed immediately to Europe, as His Holiness desires.
His Majesty has likewise directed the Viceroy of India to institute an immediate inquiry into whether the said Cardinal and his household were subjected to the ill-treatment reported to His Holiness. Should evidence emerge confirming any excesses, appropriate disciplinary measures are to be imposed without delay. To date, however, official reports indicate only that the said Cardinal was placed under custody with due decorum, solely to prevent further disturbances in Macau arising from the excommunications he had pronounced.
May God preserve Your Excellency.
Paio, 3 April 1709.
Page 44
**[Page 43]** **[Main Text]**
that His Holiness, having been better informed, should communicate His Majesty’s final decision to the Holy See. In the response to the second papal brief—which is the one directly pertinent to our present inquiry—the following phrase is particularly significant: *‘since hitherto no information has been received’*. From these words it is evident that His Majesty had approved and upheld the Custody—both in its institutional form and in the justification for its existence—provided, as was indeed the case, that it remained decorous and duly constituted. See above, §4.
It appeared expedient to the Captain General, etc. §13.
At the beginning of January 1721, the Captain General—acting upon instructions from the Viceroy—ordered the Prior of the Convent of St Augustine, Fr. João de Santa Rosa, to embark for Goa, on the grounds that he acknowledged and submitted to the jurisdiction of the Cardinal Patriarch. (See above, §6, *in fine*; also §§8 and 10, and the discussion of this liberty therein.)
The Captain General likewise dispatched Fr. Pedro de Amaral to Goa. Fr. Amaral had been arrested by the same Captain General under a special commission issued to him by the Most Reverend Father Vicar General of the Dominican Order, who resided in Goa. As Fr. Amaral refused to surrender himself into custody at his own convent, the Captain General detained him for four months within a military garrison (*fortaleza*) until an opportunity arose for his embarkation to Goa.
The underlying cause of these measures was the royal order received by the aforementioned Vicar General, instructing him to send Fr. Pedro—his religious subject—to Portugal, as noted in §7. To this royal mandate were added reports which had recently reached Goa concerning Fr. Pedro’s conduct in Macau—details of which are set out in §8. These reports led the Vicar General to conclude that secular authority would be necessary to ensure Fr. Pedro’s compliance with his ecclesiastical directive.
**[Marginal Annotations]**
— [Top left margin]: §13.
Page 45
**[Page 44]** **[Main Text]**
… and to the King: this was the reason why the Captain General was entrusted with carrying out this measure.
As regards the report—circulated by certain individuals from Macau to Goa—concerning the expulsion of Captain Gayo from the Convent of St Augustine, it is indeed true (secondly) that, although no formal written account of this incident was circulated, the matter was so widely known and publicly discussed in Macau that news of it could not possibly have failed to reach the Court at Goa. This was owing to the numerous informants aboard the vessel returning from Macau—including officials, soldiers, and merchants—who themselves had been placed under interdict from communication with the Convent of St Augustine on account of Captain Gayo’s expulsion (see above, §10).
It is likewise true (twenty-thirdly) that the case could not have escaped the attention of the Viceroy of Goa: Captain Gayo himself remained in Goa after his departure from Macau, just as he had previously remained in Macau following his dismissal from the Convent; the Captain General likewise reported directly to the Viceroy, furnishing a full account both of what he had done—and of what he had refrained from doing—in the matter; and the Vicar General of the Diocese similarly submitted an official report concerning the renewal, suspension, or revocation of the prohibition forbidding His Majesty’s vagrant subjects (vagabundos de Sua Majestade) from communicating with the Convent of St Augustine.
Moreover, there was no need to exaggerate the situation before the Viceroy—notwithstanding the fact that the Most Reverend Provincial Father of the Augustinian Friars was unable, or unwilling, to dispatch religious personnel to Macau who would observe the royal prerogatives and privileges of the Crown, nor comply with the sovereign’s express orders—to declare them ‘traitors’ and threaten to hand over the Convent to another religious order, as alleged at the conclusion of §13 of the other spurious and sophistical report.
**[Marginal Annotations]**
§14. In May 1712, the Reverend Father Prior of the Convent of St [Augustine]…
**[Seal]** (Not located, left-hand margin): SOC.
Page 46
**[Page 45]** **[Main Text]**
Friar José del Rosario, O.S.A., attempted to expel the aforementioned Captain Gayo from the Church of Our Lady of the Rock (Nossa Senhora da Peña), where Captain Gayo had attended Mass in the company of the Captain-General. Friar José was unable to carry out this action, however, as the Captain-General expressly opposed it and issued contrary orders; whereupon Friar José withdrew from the church in order to avoid ecclesiastical communion with Captain Gayo.
Regarding this incident, it is certain that Captain-General Francisco de Melo e Castro wrote to the Bishop concerning the matter. It is, however, false that the Bishop offered—either explicitly or implicitly—to reimpose an interdict upon the Convent of St Augustine (Convento de São Agostinho). It is likewise false that the Bishop sought the removal of the religious community from that convent to Goa, nor that he proposed its handover to a secular clergyman. The first official to contemplate such a measure was Captain-General Diogo de Rua Teixeira, in December 1709; yet the Bishop successfully dissuaded him from proceeding. Thereafter, Captain-General Teixeira himself wrote to the Viceroy outlining his intention and the reasons for his subsequent decision not to implement it. In turn, the Viceroy, in 1710—the following year—remonstrated with the Bishop for refusing to authorise the formal surrender of the convent, at a time when it was deemed necessary to recall all the religious of that house to Goa on grounds of alleged disloyalty to His Majesty. The Viceroy reiterated this directive more emphatically in 1711.
It is also false that the Bishop was formally denounced or excommunicated. It is possible that the Patriarch of Goa—either prior to or following his elevation to the cardinalate—may have contemplated issuing an edict declaring the Bishop excommunicated; however, it is certain that no such edict was ever publicly read aloud, nor affixed to the customary public notice-boards (*cartazes*) throughout the city.
Page 47
**[Page 46]** **[Main Text]**
Finally, he cited here the formal Portuguese words penned by His Excellency the Viceroy in a letter dated 19 May 1701, addressed to a prominent figure in Macau and subsequently conveyed to this city in July of the same year. The passage reads as follows:
*‘Captain António de Souza Gayo has complained to me about the Superior of the Convent of the Augustinian Friars, who have denied him access to the celebration of divine offices within said convent—a measure which, without doubt, reflects adherence to the decrees issued by Patriarch Candeal; in this matter, I shall take all steps within my power.’*
These are the entirety of His Excellency the Viceroy’s recorded words—neither more nor less than those quoted above—and they differ from the wording contained in the earlier, more contentious report.
§ 15. On 30 December 1701, the Captain-General, António de Sequeira e Noronha, dispatched Captain Gayo to the Convent of St Augustine, accompanied by an armed detachment of soldiers. Also present were a public notary and an official of the Episcopal Curia. The written order carried by the Captain directed the arrest of the Prior of the said convent, Fr José del Rosario, and of his Portuguese religious subjects, for immediate conveyance aboard a vessel then preparing to depart for Goa—pursuant to the explicit command of His Excellency the Viceroy. Upon arrival at the convent, the Captain formally notified the Prior of this order. The Prior, in turn, lodged a formal protest against what he termed ‘acts of violence’—a phrase he applied to the measures being enforced against himself, his religious brethren, and the convent itself by His Excellency the Viceroy and the Captain-General.
In this § 15.
Page 48
**[Page 47]** **[Main Text]** of Soldiers.
The fact is that the aforementioned António de Sequeira holds the office of Captain-General of the City of Macau, and—like all his predecessors in matters military—exercises jurisdiction not only over the eighty soldiers stationed at the Macau garrison (*presídio*) and their officers (of whom there are many), but also over all soldiers, officers, and captains serving aboard vessels arriving from Goa and Lisbon, from the moment they enter the port of Macau until their departure therefrom. His authority further extends to all persons travelling aboard those ships, as well as aboard the numerous *bacalhau*-class vessels (*baxeis*) and *pataches* (small, swift dispatch or patrol vessels) belonging to Macau. In short, the Captain-General’s military jurisdiction applies universally—to foreigners and residents alike, commoners and nobles, citizens and gentlemen—who dwell in or visit Macau, without exception whatsoever. Moreover, even over the Senate (*Senado*—the municipal governing body responsible for civil administration in Macau), the Captain-General retains military jurisdiction; and, by virtue of his office, he also exercises authority in numerous civil (‘political’) affairs entrusted to him by the Viceroys (*V. Reyes*) and the Crown itself—one such matter being the royal prerogatives and crown privileges (*regalias e privilégios da Coroa*), discussed elsewhere in this Account (*Relação*).
Up to this point, I have followed the original order and numbering of the paragraphs in the aforementioned spurious and captious Account. I shall now summarise here all that its author elaborates, at considerable length and in his own manner, in the subsequent paragraphs—entirely concerning the same incident: the imprisonment of the aforementioned Augustinian friars and the handover of their convent. The Prior requested of the Captain-General a brief period in which to settle his affairs; the Captain-General granted this request—but only for a short time.
Page 49
**[Page 48]** **[Main Text]**
Convent. A clergyman, deputed by the Ordinary to take formal possession of the said convent and its valuables, requested that the prior be shown the royal and viceregal warrants authorising the transfer; these were not produced, as no such obligation exists under Portuguese administrative custom or practice. The prior thereupon lodged a formal protest against the Viceroy, the Bishop, and the Captain-General, and requested that the notary public (tabelião) draw up an official record (testemunho) thereof; the notary declined to do so. The prior and his associates subsequently renewed their protest before an Apostolic notary attached to the household of the late Cardinal—a notary specifically summoned for this purpose by the religious community of the convent.
Throughout the night of 30 December—extending into the early hours of 31 December—the formal handover of the convent to the aforementioned clergyman was effected. Ultimately, at 4 a.m. on 31 December 1712, the said Captain Gaio, together with the prior and his two remaining Portuguese subjects, boarded the vessel bound for Goa and surrendered themselves to its captain.
On 30 December, the Captain-General had ordered the Spanish Augustinian friars residing in the same convent—also numbering only three—to vacate the premises entirely by the following morning, as the convent had been placed under the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. Accordingly, those Spanish Augustinians departed the convent in its entirety on the morning of 31 December 1712 and took up residence in certain dwellings occupied by an Italian secular priest, a missionary formerly attached to the disbanded Jesuit mission in China.
That same morning, a clergyman celebrated the final Mass in the convent church.
**[Seal]** (Circular seal at the foot of the page bearing the inscription: *ARCHIVIO ROMANUM SOC.*)
Page 50
**[Page 49]** **[Main Text]**
The final Mass was celebrated, the Most Holy Sacrament was consumed, and thereafter the church doors were closed—a gesture which, according to the anonymous author of the aforementioned *Relação* (Report), signifies the grievous injury sustained by that church, an injury so profound that it cries out to God, ‘as the blood of Abel’. This constitutes the author’s concluding statement. My own position is to leave the judgement of this lament—and indeed of all the matters recounted above—to the sole, upright, and pious reader, affirming to him that everything herein recorded is a faithful and unvarnished account of fact.
Macau, 4 February 1712.
**[Signatures]**
Félix Seale de Castro