op Pardo and the secular
authorities. Hundreds of documents and printed books are extant
concerning this dispute, but our limited space will not allow us
to reproduce many of these; it seems most useful for our purpose
to give an outline of the main events during that time, as told by
some of those who took part therein, both secular and religious, and
representing different sides of the controversy. These contemporary
documents are reenforced with abundant citations from the chroniclers
of the religious orders--the Augustinian Diaz, the Jesuit Murillo
Velarde, the Dominican Salazar, and the Recollect Concepcion;
these are found in the annotations accompanying our text. The first
account is that written by Juan Sanchez, secretary of the Audiencia,
dated June 15, 1683; he relates the difficulties which arose between
the secular and the religious authorities during the three years
preceding that date--that controversy having begun in 1680, with
the complaint of the cura of Vigan against the acting head of the
diocese of Nueva Segovia, that the latter does not reside at the seat
of that bishopric, and interferes with the above cura. The Audiencia
undertakes to settle the affair, and the archbishop insists that it
belongs to his jurisdiction. His cathedral chapter are offended at
certain proceedings of his, and jealous of the influence acquired
over him by Fray Raimundo Berart, a friar of the Dominican order
(to which Pardo also belongs). The new bishop of Nueva Segovia
also claims that the Vigan case belongs to his jurisdiction, not
the archbishop's. Several other cases occur in which Pardo acts
in an arbitrary manner, among them his seizure of a shipment of
goods for the Jesuits, and his excommunication of a Jesuit for
declining to render him an accounting in a certain executorship
entrusted to the latter--Ortega alleging that this affair, as purely
secular, pertains to the Audiencia alone. The Audiencia endeavor to
restrain Pardo, but in vain; and the strained relations between them
quickly grow into open hostilities. The situation is complicated
by various antagonistic elements, which may be briefly summarized
thus: The archbishop's arbitrary conduct toward his own clerics and
other persons, and his strenuous insistence on his ecclesiastical
prerogatives; the undue influence over him obtained by his Dominican
brethren; the jealousies between the various religious orders; and,
still more fundamental, the unceasing confli