ven in their own churches. Thence they inferred that the
archbishop had not laid on the fathers of the Society all that he
could. Those of the Society answered this at length, and showed by
several books which they brought to the Audiencia that that phrase
_contradicente episcopo_, ought not to be understood in that manner,
but according to a certain Clementina which, if I am not mistaken,
is that of _De sepulturis_, and begins with _Dudum_. As this was the
point of all their controversy, I refer you to the statement that
is enclosed herewith. But I am unable to conjecture why the other
relation wastes so much paper, and becomes wearisome, by bringing
in so many statements to prove that the religious may not preach in
the churches of others without the permission of their owners, since
the Society never claimed anything else, nor were their statements
intended to prove it. And believe me, your Grace, on this second day
no less glory fell to the Society than on the first. I have related
this point so extensively, as some prejudiced persons have stated that
the adherents of the archbishop silenced the fathers of the Society.

The gentlemen of the royal Audiencia remained in the hall, and
on voting on the point of fuerza they were divided. Thereupon,
his Majesty's fiscal was appointed, as that pertains to him by
law. His vote, it appears, was cast in favor of the fathers of the
Society. Consequently, it was declared that the judge-conservator had
not used fuerza toward the archbishop, and that he should proceed
with his commission. Some persons were not lacking who tried to
suspend the proceedings and declare them null and void, because the
archbishop's representatives were not notified that it was because the
auditors' opinions were discordant that his Majesty's fiscal had been
appointed judge. They did not take note that this matter of making
notifications and summons is an act of superiority and jurisdiction;
and that, as the royal Audiencia does not hold that in ecclesiastical
matters, it does not employ such acts, and only declares whether the
ecclesiastical judge practices fuerza or no--and this not as judge
of the ecclesiastical estate, but as a political governor who desires
peace in his country. The other and contradictory relation also tries
to prove the proceedings null because, before the royal Audiencia
declared that the judge-conservator was not committing fuerza, the
procurators of the archbishop drew up a p