uppose that there are more than two millions
of people in the Philipinas Islands who confess the name of Christ,
through the influence of the fervent zeal of the religious. In the year
1655, as was stated in the preceding paragraph, for two hundred and
fifty-two missions in charge of the orders there were only fifty-nine
secular priests. In 1705, when that subjection was attempted so
earnestly by Archbishop Don Diego Camacho, the parishes were extended
by his deposition to the number of more than seven hundred. For those
parishes, according to the certification of the secretary of that
prelate, only sixty-seven secular priests were found in his diocese;
and of those only ten were suitable for administering the missions,
as the rest were occupied in the duties of necessary residence. At
present, the number of seculars is not much greater nor will it ever
be--partly because those of Europa do not have any inducement to go
to those islands, and partly because, since the Spaniards there are so
few, there cannot be many persons sprung from these kingdoms who rise
to the priesthood; further, because the Indians are generally unfit for
that holy ministry. In view of all the above, who does not see that
the orders avail themselves of their right in resisting the burden
of the visitation which the bishops are trying to impose on them?

726. Nor does it avail the opposition that Pope Clement XI determined
and declared, at the petition of the said archbishop, on January 30,
1705, "that the right of visiting the regulars in what concerns
the care of souls and the administration of the holy sacraments
belongs to the archbishop of Manila and the other bishops of the
Philipinas Islands." For besides the defects of misrepresentation and
surreptitious measures [obrepcion y subrepcion] which were then made
manifest, contained in that brief, the said pontifical declaration,
whether it be conceived as a law, as an order, or as a sentence,
cannot fail to be appealed from. This is what the orders did,
appealing to his Holiness, alleging before the archbishop who put
the brief into execution the motives which, according to law, they
rightfully had for resisting that visitation. In order to establish
the truth that the religious had many arguments in their favor, it is
not necessary to adduce other proof than what results from the fact
that the said archbishop, who was the person most interested, desisted
from the execution of the brief. Other