Schumacher, John. 2006.

The Burgos Manifesto: The authentic text and its genuine

author. Philippine Studies 54(2): 153-304. Read only pp. 153-155, 168-209. (e-copy)

The Burgos Manifesto: The Authentic Text and Its Genuine Author
John N. Schumacher, S.J.

The struggle of the Filipino clergy against the attempts taken to deprive
them of any parish of significance in favor of the friar orders reached its
culmination in the decree of 1861, leaving them almost none in the Manila archdiocese. Fr.
Pedro Pelaez led the struggle in Manila and Madrid until his death in the earthquake of
1863. Rumors circulated in Manila that he had planned a conspiracy to overthrow Spanish
rule that very day. When the Madrid newspaper, La Verdad, repeated that calumny,
the Filipino clergy issued a manifesto defending their rights and vindicating Pelaez's name.
Republished in Hong Kong in 1889, the manifesto has been attributed to Fr. Jose Burgos. The
first part of this article establishes the genuine text of the original, provides an English
translation, and identifies the 1889 interpolations. The second part investigates
whether and to what extent, the original was written by Burgos. Its conclusions trace the
factual basis for the interrelationships traditionally postulated among Pelaez, Burgos, and
Rizal.

PART ONE
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE 1864 DOCUMENT
Among the many articles, pamphlets, and even books published in the latter half of the
nineteenth century on both sides of the struggle of the Filipino clergy to defend their
parishes against their appropriation by the friar orders, the one most cited in Philippine
historiography is a manifesto first identified by Rizal in his letter to Mariano Ponce as having
its origin with Fr. José Burgos./1 This manifesto, defending Filipino clergy rights, has been
generally accepted by historians as a Burgos document, beginning with Manuel Artigas y
Cuerva in the early twentieth century. Because the original text was unknown, or rather
ignored, all have made use of the text found in a rare anti-friar pamphlet published in Hong
Kong by José Maria Basa in 1889. This text I first published in full with an English translation.
While expressing lingering doubts as to whether it had been interpolated in places by
another hand, I relied on Rizal's passing mention that it was genuinely from Burgos.
Not only did I publish it in a collection of primary documents concerning Fathers Pelaez,
Mariano Gomez, Burgos, and the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 (Schumacher 1972a, 58-115), but I
republished it in my more systematic and enlarged edition, which is more centered on
Burgos (1999, 56-105), with minor revisions of translation and notes and a more
extensive introduction. With these publications the work was generally accepted as a
genuine Burgos document. However, the doubts as to its total integrity that I expressed
more strongly in the second edition of the document led me to look further for the original
work. In the course of research for a larger study on the Cavite Mutiny, I chanced upon a
reference that alerted me to the fact that the original had been an article published in a
Madrid newspaper (Uy 1984, 228-30). This led, with the aid of two Spanish historian friends,
to the recovery of the original text, presented here with a translation, as well as the
discovery of archival documents that, while circumscribing the role of Burgos in its
composition, revealed the rather importance of the manifesto. The examination of the
genuine 1864 document in connection with other documentary evidence has enabled
me to make a more exact explanation of the role of Burgos in its composition, and a
clarification of his stance as a nationalist. Moreover, the identification of what precisely were
the interpolations in the 1889 version, through comparison with the original, has led to
concrete evidence of the generally assumed but never clearly established, direct links from
Pelaez to Burgos, and from Burgos to José Rizal, mediated by his brother Paciano. Although
the original document is not the work of Burgos alone, it was through him that it came to
Rizal. Hence, the 1889 version that I had published previously appears as ultimately the work
of Rizal, building on the foundation of Pelaez and Burgos. In the process
of showing this, we may delineate more clearly the stages of the nineteenth-century
nationalist movement, finally transmitted in quite altered, but still recognizable, form to
Bonifacio and Jacinto.//

The Nature of the Document

This document, the most substantial published text attributed to Father Burgos – if we
except the collective series of letters he wrote to the Madrid newspaper La Discusion in 1870
(Schumacher 1999, 125-82), which in fact evidence a dependence on it – was first published
in Spanish with an English translation in my two major books on Burgos (Schumacher 1972a,
58-113; 1999, 56-105), as outlined above. A partial English translation had appeared in the
1920s in a collection of essays by Filipinos, Thinking for Ourselves, published by two
professors of English (Hilario and Quirino 1928/1985, 47-63). The latter compilers, however,
did not indicate Me source from which they translated, and simply omitted, with a brief
note, many paragraphs dealing with technical ecclesiastical matters. Nonetheless, the
paragraphs actually published in full are sufficient to be certain that they translated from die
same source used by Schumacher (1972a; 1999), which, as we hope to show, although
almost certainly connected with Burgos, is not his genuine text as he
wrote it. The interpolated and abbreviated English text of Hilario and Quirino seems clearly
to be the source of the English version printed in Manuel (1955-1986, 2:82-92), though it is
not listed as a reference.
The ultimate source of all these publications used until now was an anti-friar
propaganda pamphlet of 1889, published in Hong Kong by José Ma. Basa. This publication
was actually composed of two sections, connected only by their common attacks on the
friars in the Philippines. The pamphlet as a whole bears the tide of the presumed Burgos
pamphlet, Manifesto que a la noble Nacion Espanola derigen [sic] los leales Filipinos en
defensa de su honra,[sic] j fidelidad gravemente vulneradas por el perioidico, “La Verdad" de
Madrid./2 In fact, however, the text of the supposed 1864 document occupies only the first
twenty-four out of forty-one pages in the pamphlet, finishing with the signature, "LOS
FILIPINOS" and the date of 27 June 1864. I had published this part from the Basa pamphlet
in my two Burgos books, in spite of my awareness of some interpolations. The rest of the
pamphlet is a series of ephemeral anti-friar writings in continuous pagination with the
Manifesto itself, based on alleged anti-friar incidents in Manila of 1887-1888. Pamphlets and
leaflets (proclamas) of a similar nature were widely distributed in Manila during this period
in connection with the demonstration against the friars and Archbishop Pedro Payo, O.P., by
Pedro Serrano Laktaw, Doroteo Cortes, José Ramos, and their associates, who formed the
clandestine Comité de Propaganda supporting del Pilar (Schumacher 1997, 123-27). In this
article, we are interested only in the initial 24-page section signed by
"Los Filipinos," and dated 27 June 1864, as only that section deals with the concerns of
Burgos.
Reality of the Alleged 1864 Pamphlet
An original pamphlet of 1864 has not been located either in the Philippines or elsewhere,
although two apparent references to such a pamphlet deserve attention./3 One of them is a
footnote in the careful study of Burgos's academic career (Villarroel 1971, 60, n. 84),
referring to a pamphlet in the archives of the University of Santo Tomas (AUST, Folletos, 52),
listed in the catalogue there as being of Burgos. Fr. Fidel Villaroel, O.R, kindly provided me
with a photocopy of this material. However, on closer examination dis "pamphlet" proved
actually to be the Basa version. This became clear by the appearance of an untitled
part of an anti-friar tract of 1888, whose beginning is clearly missing, on the facing page 25
of the photocopy. Moreover, the main title contained the misspelling "derigen" on the cover,
like the Basa version, although in the footnote of his published book Villarroel, probably
inadvertently, had corrected the misspelling.
However, without denying that it could have been written by Burgos, Villarroel had
rightly noted that all those who have attributed such a pamphlet to him, beginning with
Manuel Artigas (1911a, 4, cited in Villarroel 1971, n. 85), were writers who belonged to the
twentieth century. Moreover, "none of them has advanced substantial evidence to prove this
conclusion" (Villaroel 1971, 60).
There is no doubt that Artigas has been the principal source for the events
surrounding the Cavite Mutiny for all other twentieth-century writers of any seriousness.
They followed him in attributing the work to Burgos, as he had done, first in his journal,
Renacimiento Filipino (1911a), and in the same year in his well-known book with the same
title as the journal article (1911b). Until fairly recently this book, Los Sucesos de 1872,
was the standard history of the events leading to the Cavite Mutiny, though its many
weaknesses, acceptance of spurious documents, careless transcriptions, and inaccuracies
have been proven for some decades now (Schumacher 1972.b, 622-30). In spite of these
published deficiencies, whose existence has been reaffirmed in other scholarly articles and
books, O. D. Corpuz nonetheless published a translation of Artigas, ignoring, or ignorant of,
its major shortcomings almost all of which he repeats without taking any account of their
faults (Ardgas 1996). Given the lack of Spanish competence increasingly evident in historical
works, and the relative rarity of Artigas's original, the English translation will undoubtedly
further compound the ignorance of the real historical facts. (Curiously, Corpuz reproduces a
supposed doe-page of the original Spanish with the publication date of 1913, while the only
edition known to bibliographers is 1911.)
In the original, Artigas imp/ii-fry claims to have seen the pamphlet (folleto) by giving
its exact dimensions (18 1/2 cm. X 13 1/2 cm.). Given the generally careless treatment of
facts common in Artigas, even when dealing with the numerous genuine documents to
which he had access, it is all but certain that what he knew, if he read it at all, was the Basa
pamphlet. For no bibliographer among those likely to know, namely, Retana or Pardo de
Tavera, claims the existence of any pamphlet actually published in 1864, though both refer
to the Basa pamphlet we have described (Retana 1906, 3:1109, no. 2625; Pardo de Tavera
1903, 246, nos. 1597, 1598, 1599). The dimensions Artigas gives are sufficiently close to the
Basa pamphlet of 1889 – a centimeter different – that in the absence of any direct assertion
that he had handled a pamphlet of 1864, and knowing his general carelessness on details
and his haste in publishing, there is already a presumption that he was similarly deceived by
the date at the end of the Manifesto proper, i.e., on page 24, into thinking that it was indeed
a complete original pamphlet.
Not satisfied with this strong probability, I made further inquiry from
Father Villarroel, the archivist of the university./4 He graciously supplied me with
meticulously accurate information that readily explains the difference in dimensions
between those in Artigas's assertion and my photocopy of the alleged 1889 pamphlet
(Villarroel 2005a)./5 An unknown archivist of the early twentieth century had bound
together a series of miscellaneous pamphlets of vastly different dates (1826 to 1904!) and
subjects. The Basa Manifesto of twenty-four pages was by chance bound
into the resulting volume, following another related anti-friar pamphlet,
Viva Espana. Viva el Rey. Viva el Ejercito. Fuera los Frailes., precisely following page 24 of the
latter. This is followed by its purple cover, entitled VIVA ESPANA, FUERA LOS FRAILES. After
this comes the Basa Manifesto of twenty-four pages, ending as reprinted (Schumacher
1972a; 1999) with the place and date on page 24, "Manila, 27 de Julio de 1864." This, in
turn, is followed, not by the pages 25 to 41 of the Basa Manifesto, but by other anti-friar
propaganda originally forming the latter part of Viva, pages 25 to 38. It seems clear that the
archivist of that time simply saw various similar anti-friar writings of that type and, since
the first 24-page numbers corresponded, carelessly attached the second part of Viva to the
first part of the Basa Manifesto. What happened to the second part of the latter at the AUST
is unknown. Being trivial anti-friar propaganda, the pages may simply have been discarded.
But both from the sample page reproduced at the end of the photocopied Manifesto and
from the fact that its conclusion is on page 38 (the final page of Viva 118881; of Retana
1906, 3:1119, no. 2669) instead of the forty-one pages that the integral Basa Manifesto
pamphlet contained, this latter part of the AUST pamphlet clearly must belong to Viva 1888.
To anyone who has read much of dis type of anti-friar propaganda, it is not
surprising that a nonprofessional archivist of those times should have
without fur the research bound all these scurrilous materials together without consulting
any bibliography such as Pardo de Tavera (1903). The latter work certainly, and perhaps
Retana's (1906) also, already existed at the unknown dine the binding of the disparate
materials was done, since it must have been later than the 1904 English address of Taft,
rather capriciously bound into that same volume.
The fact that all these varied pamphlets were sewed together in binding, as well as
the fact that after binding the resulting volume was "guillotined," that is, all cut to one
uniform size, explains the slight difference in size – approximately a centimeter, as noted
above – between the photocopy of the Basa Manifesto from the AUST and the
measurements given by Artigas. This is true even if we are generous enough to suppose
that, in this particular case at least, that prolific but careless historian was absolutely
accurate to the last fraction of a centimeter. Finally, Artigas gives the number of pages as
twenty-four, which corresponds to the Manifesto part of the Basa pamphlet, but, as will be
seen later in this article, would certainly be much less for the genuine 1864 article in La
América. This will become clear with the reproduction of the genuine 1864 document in the
following sections of this study, with an indication of the extent of the interpolated
paragraphs of the Basa pamphlet, which lengthened the relatively brief 1864 original article
to fully twenty-four pages. This fact, together with the details so meticulously supplied
by Villarroel, clinches the case that what Artigas saw was the 1889 pamphlet, or, rather, the
first part of it. In the absence of any other assertion not dependent on Artigas, there is no
evidence that an 1864 pamphlet ever existed, much less was published in Manila. It was,
however, in Manila that composition of the 1864 article took place, which was then sent to
Spain for appearance in a periodical there, which we now know to be La América.
There is no question, therefore, that the pages following page 24 of the Basa
pamphlet are not from Burgos but from 1888-1889. For they deal entirely with events which
occurred in 1887 to 1888. But even the Manifesto itself in its twenty-four pages has sections
quite out of character with Burgos, especially at dis stage of his life when he was about to be
ordained a priest. This is especially true of that section calling for the government
confiscation of all the lands of the religious orders and their complete expulsion from the
Philippines, as I had noted from the beginning (Schumacher 1972a, 36-37; 104-6, n. 35;
1999, 34, n. 69; 98-99, nn. 34-35). That demand was a demand of the more radical
nationalists of the 1890s, not those of the 1860s. Indeed, it contradicts other
places, in the Basa version as well as in the original, where the author
praises not only the Jesuits, who had no haciendas, but Likewise the
Dominicans who did, yet is far from calling for their expulsion.

Burgos and the 1889 Manifesto

Nonetheless, though I was alert enough to observe that the 1864 text
undoubtedly had been interpolated in the Basa publication, I could not
prove it at the time. As my suspicions became stronger, I investigated the
possible existence of the original 1864 pamphlet (as I had always thought
it was) both in Spain and in the Philippines. This duality of versions was
nonetheless clear, even apart from joining to the purported Burgos origi-
nal the antifriar handbills of 1888, probably brought with him from
Manila by del Pilaf, as we have noted, in late 1888.6
Del Pilaf, however, could hardly have done much, if any, of the actual
interpolation of the original text since he left home on 28 October 1888
and, after his stop in Hong Kong with Basa, was in Barcelona by very
early January 1889. In the days of at least a month's journey from Hong
Kong to Spain, this would have precluded his spending more than a few
days in Hong Kong (del Filar 1955-1958, 1:5, 7; Rizal 1930-1938, 2:96-
97, 116). He most likely would have been the one to have brought the
andfNar leaflets to Hong Kong, whether in manuscript or printed form,
for he had been still in the Philippines when the events alleged in these
leaflets were supposed to have occurred.
Rizal, however, as we will show, almost certainly brought the 1864 text
to Basa. Likewise, he certainly aided Basa in interpolating the 1864 text,
or perhaps even did it entirely himself, leaving the publication to Basa.
For he spent a considerable amount of time in Hong Kong after leaving
6. As Pardo de Tavera correcdy notes, though the Basa pamphlet puts them
in continuous pagination with the supposed 1864 pamphlet, there are really
three separate works, each with their own title page (1903, 1597, 1598, 1599).
It is possible that the latter two had already been published in Manila in the
clandestine press used for such purposes by ]osé Ramos for the Comité de Pro-
paganda, but this can only be a plausible conjecture (Schumacher 1997, 115, n.
15; 123-24).
Original Text of the 1864 Article
Translation
TO THE NATION
The various articles concerning the parishes of the Philippines have been for some
months here the unfailing theme of the newspaper, La Verdad, published in this [sic]
capital./12 Written in a sense very favorable to the regular orders, they attribute to them
preferential rights to these parishes, from which they gratuitously aim to exclude the secular
clergy. To achieve this end they picture that clergy in a manner quite unseemly
and unworthy in the light of that clergy's merits, virtue, and knowledge. All this moves us to
abandon the usual silence for which till now we have been known and to permit ourselves
for once to direct our humble voice to the nation. We wish first to clear the atmosphere
already created, perhaps, with just that vague and indeterminate enunciation of an aborted
rebellion in this country. In addition, we will instead give proof of those rights, as well as
show the tendencies of all that those articles contain against the Filipinos.
To begin, we acknowledge that our knowledge and skills may not be at the high
cultural level of the newspaper, or those of the author of the article, who assures us that he
has brought forth irrefutable reasons in all that he has written in favor of the regular clergy,
proclaiming himself its defender without any reason. Nonetheless, we will try to
demonstrate the inaccuracy of his assessments with regard to the preferential rights to the
care of souls and the falsity of his judgments regarding the intellectual capacity of the
Filipinos, whom he has occupied himself with humiliating and belittling and against whom
he has launched dreadful and unjust invectives. And, so that no one may charge us with
interpreting his words badly, we will proceed by choosing for quotation some paragraphs of
different sections of the abovementioned newspaper, which by chance we happened to
read. If, in expressing the reasons that our limited intelligence attains, we should not be able
to imitate him in his refined and classical language, we hope that he may pardon us for the
language we use, that of truth in its naive simplicity. We can assure him that in the
bitterness of our heart at blows as harsh as unexpected, in the midst of our ineptitude and
rusticity, we pay attention to the candid manifestation of our feelings rather than to the
rules of oratory. Unfortunately, these have been interpreted until now by the warped
passions of a wretched collectivity in its selfish designs of aggrandizement, one that is
formidable for its power and the resources of which it disposes. With this idea, then, we
begin our task./13

The writer of the article says:

Apart from the right bestowed by the centuries, by custom, and by their usefulness,
apart from the acknowledged title that the regular orders have acquired there in the
Philippines to carry out the office of parish priest, there is another very strong reason
that gives them this absolute privilege. It is no other than that of the preservation,
advance, and progress of such beautiful colonies. The archbishop of Manila,
surrounded by a native secular clergy that aims at the possession of certain rights
that do not belong to it ..../14

We would suppose great ignorance of the law in the author of these phrases if we
did not have the conviction that that ignorance of his is feigned. We would not even take the
trouble to refute them if we did not believe that perhaps certain unknowing readers, who do
not have the duty of being well instructed in these matters, might have accepted in
good faith such false ideas. In order, then, to disabuse those who have been deceived, we
shall give a brief review of canonical and civil jurisprudence on the particular matter. We
observe in passing that the Laws of the Indies, and all the dispositions of law that have been
made after their compilation until 1826, acknowledge, in conformity with canon law
and the discipline of the Church, the preferential right that the secular clergy of the
Philippines has to the parishes, without stopping to consider whether or not it is a native
secular clergy.

The most recent canon law does not grant the religious the capacity to be parish
priests except where there is a lack of secular priests. This is the express teaching of
Benedict XIV, as wise a pontiff as he was zealous, in several of his constitutions and, in
particular, in that of 8 November 1751, beginning Cum Nuper,/15 where he says definitively
the following words:

It is undeniably true that, according to the ancient Canons, monks and religious were
capable of ruling parish churches, as Innocent III expressly declared in his decretal
beginning Quod Dei timorem./16 All the same, it is now certain that according to
modern canonical discipline it is forbidden to religious to undertake the care of souls
without apostolic dispensation. The Roman Pontiff does not ordinarily grant the
latter except at the petition of the bishop. Nor does the latter ordinarily request it
except when the need of the Church makes it advisable.

He goes on to bring forth the foundation of this doctrine, and continues thus in
paragraph 2:
Nor should it be thought that Our predecessor St. Pius V departed from this rule
when, by his letter that begins Exponi nobis of 24 March 1567 (and this is the
principal argument in behalf of the religious), he enabled the religious to accept
parishes and exercise other functions of parish priests in the regions of the Indies of
the Ocean Sea. For he based this concession on the fact that until that time those
religious had exercised the office of parish priests because of the lack of secular
priests. This fact shows with sufficient clarity that the dispositions of that letter are
valid only where there are not, nor can there be had, secular priests to exercise the
care of souls, according to the declaration given by Our predecessor of happy
memory, Innocent X, in his Apostolic Letter of 15 May 1607, beginning Cum sicut
accepimus. In the latter document, speaking of the Constitution of Pius, he
determines "that it has validity only in those places where parish priests are lacking."

It would be fitting to transcribe this bull in full, since it seems as if written to give
prominence to the rashness of the assertions of La Verdad cited above. But in order not to
be diffuse, we will continue only to make extracts from it. In paragraph 3, the same Benedict
XIV asserts that this was the opinion generally admitted in the Congregation of the
Council./17 In paragraph 4 he says it is not right that a privilege given to religious in times
when secular priests were not numerous in the Indies should have the same force when
there are already many of these priests there. In paragraph 5 he declares against those
religious who said that they are only subject to the bishop in officio officiando,/18 that is,
only in what belongs to the office of parish priest (an error still common among not a few
friars in the Philippines). Rather, they are also subject to the bishop with regard to their
moral life, because it is not impossible, he adds, that the life of some of them be such that it
is opposed to the office of parish priest and is a source of scandal to the people.
This is with regard to canon law. As far as civil jurisprudence is concerned, we
recommend to the meddling writer of the article in the newspaper cited above that he read
our renowned Solorzano in book 4 of the Politica Indiana and in book 3, nos. 32 and
following, of the De Indiarum gubernatione; likewise the no less renowned Frasso, De Regio
Patronatu, vol. 2, chap. 66, nos. 67 and following./19 A sample of all this is the Royal Cédula
of 1618, cited by Solorzano, that reads as follows:
My viceroy-president and oidores of the City of the Kings [Lima]/20 of
the provinces of Peru: As you are aware, at the time those provinces were discovered
there was not a sufficient number of secular clergy to administer the holy
sacraments. Moreover, the places and regions where they had to do so were so many
and so far distant from one another. Hence, the lords kings, my ancestors, requested
the Apostolic See to give permission, and to grant a dispensation, so that the
religious of the mendicant orders, or some of them, could be parish priests of certain
towns and villages of the Indies. In this way, they would supply for the lack of
ministers and would help fulfill an obligation so necessary. This concession having
been granted, the Supreme Pontiffs, Alexander, Leo, Adrian, and Pius V, dispatched
various briefs on the subject ....

In view, then, of such clear and peremptory dispositions of various holy pontiffs and
of the civil power, will there be further insistence in denying the secular clergy of the
Philippines the preferential right it has to the parishes? Will the author still have the
audacity and boldness to assert, in magisterial tones, "the native clergy aims at certain rights
that do not belong to it"?
But perhaps it will be said that these doctrines are out of date. So far is this from
being true, so far is the Apostolic See from having forgotten about the necessity that there
be a lack of secular priests in order to be able to give parishes to the friars, that it
emphasizes this in the customary faculties, that is to say, the special faculties that it is
accustomed to grant every ten years to the bishops of the Indies./21 See those granted
to the current prelates and we will read in no. 22: "[The faculty] of putting regular clergy in
charge of parishes and of empowering their vicars for them, if secular clergy be lacking."
The same newspaper continues:

The Filipino, by his nature, by his character, by influence of the climate or of race, is
not good for carrying out high offices. It is a common saying that the Tagalog is an
excellent soldier, an ordinary corporal, a bad sergeant, cannot at all discharge the
position of an officer, because he is unfit for it. Now, in the same way, the Filipino
who consecrates himself to the service of the altar can carry out well the routine
functions of a church, but he never succeeds in excelling when he is adorned with
the dignity of the priesthood. This is indubitably certain, to such an extent that
experience has shown many times what constant practice has confirmed with
numerous proofs and curious events.
The archbishop, mistakenly relying on a brief of Pope Clement XIII, wants to
expel the regulars from the administration of the parishes, substituting for the
Spanish religious parish priest the native parish priest, as if the lofty and important
mission that the former carries out could be imitated by the secular clergy, such as
 they call there those [priests] who do not have the quality of being European. – Nor
can they carry out that office because of the circumstance that their intelligence is
not at the level of the lofty charge of pastor of souls.

Either the writer of the article must be ill informed, or we greatly deceive ourselves
if, in the utterance of these absurd and provocative ideas, he has not been a traitor to his
own convictions to follow alien inspirations./22 For otherwise we do not understand how, in
his enlightenment, he can be ignorant of what Cantu brings out in his well-known Historia
Universal concerning the unity of the human species./23 That learned man says://

Furthermore, it is completely certain that the real diversities among races can be
reduced to the color of the skin and the quality of the hair, without extending itself
to the more noble organs of life. The science of Gall, which certain people attempted
to make use of in support of materialism, proves the unity of our species. A very
short time ago, Tideman [Teichmann], as a result of his excellent research on the
brain, found that that of the Negroes differs very little from ours in its exterior
structure and in no way in its internal structure. Moreover, apart from a certain more
symmetrical arrangement of the circumvolutions, it is no more like the head of the
orangutan than is that of the Europeans./24

This learned man deduces from all this that our preeminence over the Negro does
not depend on any innate superiority of intelligence but only on education./25
In proof of this well-founded and well-demonstrated opinion, we ask the writer of
the article to read the precious letter of Senor Don Francisco Lopez de Adan, formerly oidor
decano of this Royal Audiencia, written to Rev. Fr. Pedro Murillo Velarde, who printed it at
the beginning of his work, Cursus Juris Canonici./26 In it he will see that the capacity,
intelligence, and talent of the Filipino were admired and exalted by that wise magistrate, so
that he was led to say: “he seemed to find himself not in the Indies and the Philippines,
where Mercury is the ruling deity, but in the universities of Europe where Minerva is
enthroned.”/27
The Filipino Count gave the same assurance to Don Fernando VII, the father of our
august Queen (May God keep her), in the dedication to His Majesty of his book entitled
Parnaso Filipino./28 He said:

Such is the progress of the sciences in this Spanish part of Asia that, simply reading
the solemn annals of its universities, one will find thousands of students registered:
more than 700 doctors and masters in the Jesuit and Thomistic schools, many
registered lawyers, canons, one archbishop of this capital. Finally, even the pure
Indies, without any mixture of Spanish blood, have produced great men, such as a
certain Maximo, who was parish priest of Manila; a Saguinsin, of the town of Quiapo;
a Rodriguez of that of Marikina; and an Espeleta, who was bishop of Cebu, interim
governor, captain-general, and president of this Royal Audiencia./29

We would take up a great deal of paper if we were to draw up a list of the learned
men that this little city of Manila has produced. Among them there stands out the illustrious
Dr. Don Manuel José Endaya y Haro, who was canon of the cathedral of Cuenca, and
immediately after that, one of Santiago, whose bulls were granted to him by Innocent
IX without cost in view of his great merits. With the tide of Count of Norena he was bishop
of Oviedo, and of Puebla de los Angeles and archbishop of Mexico. Summoned by His
Holiness Benedict XIII to the Lateran Council, he took part in it as bishop assisting at the
Supreme Pontifical Throne and domestic prelate of the Sacred College, titles that His
Holiness gave him, as well as those of ambassador in Rome of the dominions of Spain./30
In the chronological series of bishops in these Islands, one who wishes to see will find
the names of various Filipinos, among whom we recall only those of their Illustrious
Lordships, Dr. D. Francisco Pizarro de Orellana, Dr. D. Domingo Valencia, Dr. D. Geronimo de
Herrera, Dr. D. Felipe de Molina, Master D. Protasio Cabezas, D. Isidoro Arévalo, and D.
Ignacio Salamanca. In addition, there are those who have not exercised this lofty dignity
because of their having renounced it: their Lordships Dr. D. José Cabral, parish priest of
Balayan, Batangas; D. Rodrigo de la Cueva Giron, and D. Tomas Cazanas, dean of this holy
cathedral./31 And in the primitive Society of Jesus in these Islands various renowned Filipino
priests likewise gave it splendor by their knowledge and virtue. Unfortunately, we do not
recall their names at this moment and are only able to cite a certain Fr. Pedro Vello, who was
provincial of that never sufficiently praised institute./32
If in our days we do not see more Filipinos outstanding in learning, let this not be
attributed to the influence of the climate nor much less to that of race, but rather to the
discouragement that for some years now has taken possession of the youth, because of the
almost total lack of incentive. For, as a matter of fact, what young man will still make efforts
to excel in the knowledge of law or of theology if he does not see in the future anything but
obscurity and indifference? What Filipino will still aspire to be learned and consecrate his
efforts to this goal, seeing that his most noble aspirations wither away under the lethal
influence of scorn and obscurity; and knowing that honorable and lucrative offices are for
him forbidden fruit?
Nevertheless, in spite of everything, in the midst of that discouragement, the
contemporary secular clergy of the Philippines has not been unworthy of its predecessors. It
counts today with individuals that honor it as much by their knowledge and learning as by
their virtue, zeal in the fulfillment of their duties, and selflessness. Omitting those who hold
various positions in the capital and suburbs, since they are well known to all, we refer to,
among others, the worthy provisors of the dioceses of Camarines and Cebu, the deserving
parish priests of Boac and Mogpog in the province of Mindoro [Marinduque], the parish
priests of Marikina and San Mateo in Morong, those of Calamba and Tunasan in Laguna,
those of Rosario and Tayasan in Batangas, those of Bacoor, of Naic, of Maragondon, of San
Roque, of Rosario (a) Salinas, and of Bailen in the province of Cavite. The latter deserves
special attention for his activity, since even though only an interim parish priest – and his
parish is of very recent foundation – nevertheless he has succeeded, in spite of the poverty
of that new parish, in erecting and having completed the church and the convento. At the
same time, he has encouraged cattle raising and agriculture, in particular the cultivation of
coffee, previously unknown in those forested areas. Moreover, what shall we say of the
parish priest of Lubao, Pampanga? The selflessness of that respectable old man is still fresh
in our minds, since, for the foundation of a school of primary education and of Latinity, he
applied the sum of 18,000 pesos, the fruit of forty years in the labor of the parish ministry.
We will not delay now in praising the generous altruism of the second-last parish priest of
Antipolo, the deceased D. Hermenegildo Narciso, who invested all of his savings – a
respectable amount – in beautifying his church in a fashion that everyone has admired,
from the first authority of the Islands to the least who visited that celebrated sanctuary
before the unforgettable earthquake we still recall with horror. But we cannot omit making
special mention of the previously cited parish priests of Naic and Salinas. The first deserves
mention for supporting at his own expense two primary schools in his poor parish, whose
resources were scarcely sufficient to cover his needs, and for having built and finished a
beautiful church in spite of the lack of funds. The second deserves mention for having
likewise but the convento at his own expense and contributed with his diligence and with his
own private funds to the construction of his church made of brick./33
To sum up, it would be wearisome to enumerate the individuals of the secular clergy
who, following the example of these priests, deserve well of the Church and the State for
their important services, and for the intelligence, zeal, and integrity with which they
discharge their respective responsibilities, to the satisfaction of their superiors. There are,
and there will always be, exceptions. Nevertheless, these do not destroy a truth that the
testimonies just cited above, and still others that we could cite, prove to be accurate./34
The article continues: "The archbishop of Manila is making an unjust war on the
regular clergy, who have rendered so many services to civilization and to our country."
False accusation! How and when has this archbishop made an unjust war on the
regular clergy? In what regard? All those here who know this man and are acquainted with
his acts know of nothing that tends to cause any grievance to that clergy.
"Only to a deficient imagination could the idea occur of dividing the parishes,
creating others served by the Jesuits or native priests."

Now we come to understand what they call an unjust war. Now we know just where
the regulars feel pain. Truly, the archbishop is making an unjust war against them with his
intended division of parishes, thus attacking their financial interests. For, in adopting that
measure, no matter how just and how urgently necessary it would be, he should have taken
into account the fact that the regular parish priests are those with the wealthiest parishes
and will suffer a considerable drop in their revenues. For it is clear that dividing one of the
parishes of 20, 30, or 40 thousand souls into two, three, or four, as he thought of doing
under the inspiration of his pastoral zeal, the abovementioned parish priests would cease
receiving the six, eight, or ten thousand pesos they receive each year. From this comes the
conjuring trick of presenting themselves as poor and resigned victims of this archbishop.
"Once again we call the attention of the overseas minister to the important question
today being debated in the Philippines at the instigation of the archbishop, concerning the
bestowal of parishes on the native secular priests in preference to the regular clergy"
So then, this archbishop passes over the regular clergy in filling the parishes!/35
When, and what parish, has he taken away from the friars to give it to the secular clergy? On
the contrary, is it not just recently that the latter have suffered being dispossessed of the
parish of Antipolo? Have not the Recollect Fathers made every effort to take this for
themselves, much as it caused pain to this same archbishop? In the division of some of their
parishes, carried out up to now because of the petition of the towns themselves, have any
secular clergy entered to take over the new parishes except as interim parish priest, and at
the petition of the religious superiors themselves, who did not have any friar subject to
dispose of?
Moreover, in the well-reasoned exposition that the archbishop elevated to the
Throne, he informs Her Majesty of the necessity and advisability of dividing the large
parishes (a just and urgent matter certainly), so that the parish priest can attend to the
faithful with greater solicitude, and the latter might not see themselves, as they do at
present, deprived of spiritual assistance. This is especially true of the sick who frequently die
without the sacraments, either because they live in distant barrios, so that the priest who
goes to hear their confessions, having to make a journey of five to six hours, does not reach
them before they die. Worse, in some towns the inhuman practice exists, imposed by the
parish priests, of having to carry the sick in hammocks from their houses to the church: As a
result, they either die on the way, or die like pagans in their own house if they do not have
anyone to carry them, or do not have the means to pay for their being brought to the
church. In that exposition of the archbishop, we repeat, did he ask that the new parishes be
given to the secular clergy?// Did he not propose in that very document the enlargement of
the existing mission colleges in the Peninsula, or the establishment of four other novitiates
in different places, so as to admit a larger number of friars destined to occupy the new
parishes of these Islands? If we are correctly informed, in that exposition just cited nothing
more was asked for the secular clergy than the preservation of the few or very small
parishes that remain to them and which they possess at the present time. Is this, perchance,
"to wish to expel the religious from the charge of the parishes, substituting for the Spanish
religious clergy the native parish priests"?
Perhaps someone might reply that the same exposition likewise made a proposal to
enlarge the conciliar seminary for the education of a larger number of young natives who
aspire to the priesthood. But is it not known that the future of these young men is none
other than to be the slaves of the friars? Can the majority of these young men who are
educated in the seminary have any other aspiration than that of being co-adjutors? What
motives are there, then, to accuse the archbishop, as they do, of "being deceived by certain
tendencies that are not in consonance with the rectitude that should rule his actions, and of
having had the misfortune of declaring himself an enemy of the regular clergy?"/36 What
efforts slander makes to discredit this prelate! And all of it with no more reason than that he
is a member of the secular clergy. As soon as his appointment was known here, the friars
conspired together against him to such an extent that some of them have been heard to say
that the new archbishop will not occupy for long the archiepiscopal See: intelligenti pauca
[Few words are needed for one who understands].

"It is well known and recognized by all who know the Philippine Archipelago that it
owes its development, its civilization, its progress, and its advancement to the unceasing
labors of the Spanish regular Clergy."
Come now! Are we to say that the government had nothing to do with the
civilization, the progress, and the advancement of this country? Now we are no longer in
doubt. Thank you very much, Senior writer." But as a deserved answer, let us also be
permitted to set down our opinion on the matter; and we want to tell it so that the nation
may know. In this country, the friars are the constant obstacle to all the moral and material
progress of the country and of its inhabitants. In proof of this, travel through these towns,
and one will see with amazement the most complete ignorance which they are in of the
Castilian language, in spite of the repeated royal orders and cedulas that the king has been
dispatching, commanding or recommending the teaching of that language so that it may
become widespread among the indios. Never have these had any effect because they have
been astutely frustrated by the friars, just as they are at present frustrating the new plan of
instruction that was recently ordered to be implanted here./38 There are, however,
honorable exceptions that can be mentioned, such as the Augustinian priest of Tondo, the
Dominican of Binondo, the Franciscan of Pandacan, the Recollect of Pollok, and some others
who are not only irreproachable but edifying. Among the latter we include the majority of
Dominicans, thanks to the cloister of their parish houses and to other circumstances of that
order. We are happy to render this homage to the truth, in proof of our impartiality."/39
But such excessive importance has been given them, and still is, that in their
arrogance they do not hesitate to assure us through their organ, La Verdad, that they are the
only ones to whom the country owes all the good it has, without attributing anything to the
government./40

The loss of these Islands,/41 the ideas of emancipation, which with obstinate
persistence they have been hammering at in the columns of that repeatedly cited
newspaper as well as in a certain other one of their party are nothing more than a trick with
which they aim to frighten the government and lead it to judge them necessary for the
preservation of the country. There is nothing further from our imagination than those ideas
of theirs. For we know and understand very well that, away from the Spanish name and from
the flag that waves over us, we will be nothing, and perhaps worse than nothing. For we are
not unaware that, once emancipated from the magnanimous and generous Spanish nation,
the country would be handed over to the most complete anarchy, or would be a slave under
the harsh rude of the foreigner who looks with greedy eyes for the moment in which he can
lay his claws on our coveted soil. It is to our own interest, then, to uphold that flag,
sheltering ourselves under its great shadow, a source of protection and of the highest
culture. We have proved this in the enthusiasm with which we resisted the English invasion.
During this sad and lamentable period, we have shown by our loyalty what we can be and
are.
We repeat, the loss of these Islands or their emancipation from the Mother Country,
if it should some day come about, something we do not desire, will certainly not be due to
lack of adherence of its natives to the nation, for they acknowledge themselves debtors to it
for all the benefits they enjoy today. The causes that indeed can be an occasion for the
disaster that we would lament in the depth of our heart are the injustices, the excessive
centralization of everything and in every branch of the administration, the monopoly, as
odious as it is irritating, of even the most subordinate government positions, and the
resolute protection that, for some years now, the government goes on giving to the friars to
the detriment of certain rights./43
Spaniards by conviction and by sentiments, although Filipinos by birth,/44 we
deplore the errors and the distorted policy that since the year 1836 has been observed with
respect to these provinces by the different governments that have gone on succeeding each
other since then./45
If, unfortunately, the sophisms of La Verdad should prevail, and the government does
not put forth a protecting hand to the secular clergy of this country and raise it up from the
despondency in which it lies today, if the government does not limit to some extent the
protection that it gives to the friars so as to favor the secular clergy, if instead of creating
incentives for the young men who aspire to the priesthood the government is to continue
showing them a dark and dismal future, what will happen? The prompt extinction of the
secular clergy, which is already beginning to make itself felt. For there are already scarcely
any who present themselves to don the priestly habit. This is precisely the goal toward
which the invectives of that newspaper are directed. Thus, it will leave its patrons secure in
the undisturbed possession of their parishes. No objection can then be made against this,
because the latter from their part will have their privilege, now converted into a right, due to
the lack of secular priests to serve the parishes.
The nation gains nothing with this. Time will tell what it loses. Without the secular
clergy, the government will not have the necessary counterweight or point of support for its
further objectives. For if, while the secular clergy exists, the friars dare to give themselves
such immense importance, making people believe them necessary even to the point of
exaggeration, then when the secular clergy should be lacking ... the consequence is obvious.
If it is believed necessary to have at the head of the parishes Spanish priests as a
means of upholding Spanish prestige in this archipelago and of preserving these provinces in
obedience to the Crown of Spain, by all means let seminaries be founded in the Peninsula,
and let secular priests come from there and be welcome./46 In the meantime, the friars
themselves can continue, but secularized first, and deprived of their rich haciendas, which
should pass to the authority of the State. They should be kept on a salary like the other
servants of the State, and like the virtuous and detached Jesuit Fathers. We do not know
why they look on the latter with a certain suspicion or prejudice."
For the preservation of the monastic institutes, with their estates and haciendas in
the midst of the nineteenth century, is contrary to the exigencies of the age. Only a
superficial and distorted mind can conceive such an anomaly. There was, it is true, there was
a time when the friars here were placed on the heights of Olympus from which they scoffed,
secure from the winds of contradiction, because it was believed that they were idolized by
the natives and were the only ones capable of upholding the rights of the nation. However,
that time has already passed, as the time of delusions. Now, seeing things as they are in
reality, we know that, far from the nation being sustained by the friars, it is they who are
sustained by the material force of the nation./48 Hence, no other consideration should be
given them than that of Spanish secular priests, ruled as others of the ecclesiastical state
are, by the general laws of the Church and the realm, without those exceptions and those
privileges under whose protection they allow themselves to commit the greatest abuses and
scandals. These the episcopal authority is powerless to correct; and the civil authority, or
delegates of the government, find themselves compelled to tolerate them many times,
either so as not to lose the friendship of such rich and powerful neighbors, or so as not to
bring on themselves the ill will of such terrible enemies and experience the effect of their
anger.
In doing this, perhaps they have in mind, among other deeds, a very serious and
terrible one the history of this country has transmitted to us./49 That was the assassination
in his own palace of the governor and captain general, D. Fernando Bustamante Bustillo y
Rueda with his son, in a revolt plotted in the church of the calced Augustinian Fathers. In it,
the friars of all the orders were seen with crucifixes in their hands, encouraging the rebels
with shouts of "Long live the faith of God! Long live religion"
On the inappropriateness of the existence of the religious communities, we have on
our side not only the dominant opinion today but also the renowned Cantu, named earlier,
who says in his history we have cited:/50

The priesthood is hereditary in the tribe of Levi, since the conservative power should
be linked to the past by heredity. The Supreme Pontiff, assisted by the princes of the
priests, resolves all doubts that can be raised concerning the interpretation of the
law. Nonetheless, the government is far from being sacerdotal, and the priests do not
constitute, as they do among the Orientals, a privileged caste, the guardian of
 knowledge and of worship. The tribe of Levi does not have to transmit mysteries and
frauds. On the contrary, it is obliged to make known all the books of which it is the
depositary. Neither does it exercise a direct action on the government. It possesses a
leisured existence due to the tithes. It does not possess as owner any province.

It is dispersed throughout the country, divided among the other tribes, and thus they
avoid the abuses that in other regions are produced by the close union of the priests./51 //
We would never end our task if we had to continue exposing the very many and very
grave failures of accuracy which that newspaper, badly named La Verdad [The Truth], has
committed in treating the affairs of this country. In the impossibility for now of continuing to
refute them, we will only make mention of one atrocious calumny, although it has affected
us deeply. We refer to the strange specter of rebellion that we left aside after mentioning it
at the beginning. Given currency by the friars themselves, with sorrowful surprise we find it
treated in the columns of that newspaper in the following words:

Let us see what our correspondent from Manila has to say about that most worthy
captain-general in the following paragraph of his letter dated 5 November 1863.
–“But note this, the collapse of the cathedral revealed and brought to the surface
the ugly specter of rebellion. Senor Echague here, quietly, without commotion or
disturbing measures, has saved the colony from two most serious evils. Of the two
evils, the earthquake was the lesser." As our readers can recognize, this is grave. At
the least, this means that in that country there were people disposed to attempt
rebellion. Hence it may be inferred how certain it is that all those who directly or
indirectly try to reduce, to destroy, or take away the prestige and moral force that
our Spanish Missionaries have there, and which it is so necessary to preserve in
those islands, necessarily help (even without adverting to it) the malicious in
their efforts toward emancipation. Take care, take care, our enemies are
clever and astute. If they find someone to hide them with his protection, they will be
daring and venturesome.

On reading the preceding lines, just indignation overcomes any person who has any
esteem for the truth. If the paragraph of that letter just quoted referred to one of those of
us who are alive, we would turn our heads aside in disdain and pay no attention to so gross a
calumny. But because of the very fact that it alludes to a man who cannot come out in
defense of his person because he already rests in peace, we are going to vindicate his
memory. It is a memory ever dear to us, no matter how much resentment, the spirit of
vengeance, and envy, by common consent, exert themselves to besmirch it and make it
odious. That man is the unfortunate but equally wise and virtuous priest, Fr. Pedro Pelaez,
the glory and honor of the Filipino people, who on that tragic evening of 3 June 1863
perished with other individuals, his companions of the ecclesiastical cabildo, under the ruins
of the cathedral. Yes, it is this priest, full of wisdom, a man of scrupulous conscience, a friend
of peace and enemy of all disorder, who has been mysteriously given the name of
insurgent. To him is attributed the plan of a rebellion that was to break out, according to his
detractors, on the morning of Corpus Christi during the moment of the celebration of the
sacred ceremonies of that day./52
What an absurdity! To choose a day such as that to carry it out, one on which the
whole garrison is in arms! Just this single circumstance already reveals the deceitfulness as
well as the slight mental aptitude of its inventors. To believe that a man of talent, such as the
late Father Pelaez was, could conceive this project would be the greatest insult that could be
made to his memory Let us see, nonetheless, if he had motives for thinking of such a thing
or for contriving a plot as preposterous as is supposed of him.
For a man of the stature of Father Pelaez to conceive that project, it would be
necessary that that man either had complaints against the government for having been
bypassed in his career and not having seen his services recompensed and his merits
esteemed, or, on the other hand, that he be ambitious for power and cherish intentions of
personal glorification. Fortunately, neither the one nor the other could have been possible.
Not the first, because Father Pelaez occupied a lofty place in the ecclesiastical chapter. He
held the dignity of treasurer of this holy cathedral. In addition, the government had
distinguished him many times with various honorable commissions, thus showing tokens of
the value and esteem that it had for his wisdom and virtue. With this, he was very satisfied.
Not the second either, because Father Pelaez was modest in his aspirations by the very fact
that he was virtuous. He was so content with his lot that all his efforts in the last year of his
life were directed toward sanctifying himself more and more. So pure was his life that his
confessor, the austere and virtuous Jesuit, Father Bertran, to whom he made his confession
for the last time on the very day on which it pleased Heaven to deprive us of that model of
Christian virtues, has not hesitated to assure his friends that Father Pelaez died the death of
the just.
With such antecedents then, it is not possible to believe that supposed plan of
rebellion has existed anywhere but in the head of those who invented it, who could be no
other than the friars of certain determinate religious orders, because of the resentment that
his conduct produced in them. We are going to set forth this conduct here in order that it
may be in the public domain and that the nation may be convinced of the perversity of
certain people.
Father Pelaez was a good citizen and loved much the clergy to which he belonged.
Whenever the secular clergy saw itself deprived of its parishes because of the ambition of
the friars, it was he who defended it. Although he never had the consolation of seeing the
indisputable rights of the secular clergy attended to because of the dominant power of his
adversaries, nonetheless his loyal and patriotic action offended them. Hence the grudge
they conceived against him. In addition to this, while he was vicar-capitular of this
archbishopric, sede vacante, he had to adopt, in fulfillment of his duty, certain measures –
very gentle measures certainly – against three friar parish priests because of their excesses
contrary to public morality and tranquility; one committed in the province of Cavite, and
others in that of Pampanga./53 We do not wish to give their details out of respect for
decorum (but we are ready to do so and make them public if necessity should oblige us to
do it; moreover, there are other identical cases or perhaps worse ones of which these
unhappy towns are the scene every day, we have before our eyes incontrovertible data, so
that the interested parties may deny them, if they wish). Thus, the ill will they profess
toward him will be understood. Far from ceasing with his death, it seems to burn more
fiercely. This is clearly understandable. Because during his lifeline they did not dare to hurl
any charges against him, they waited until after his death to build up against him that
calumny. But for a deed of this kind there is in the dictionary a word, which we do not apply
to them out of delicadeza. It is clear, then, that the spirit of vengeance and other evil
passions are the sole inspiration for those misled men in conceiving the existence of that
plan of rebellion of theirs, which is certainly no more than a true phantom.
 Now nothing remains for us to do but, first, to ask God that he give us a heart
capable of bearing insults and enduring calumnies. Secondly, we ask the magnanimous and
generous nation, to whom we address our words, to do justice to our loyal sentiments.

[Manila, 27 June 1864]/54 THE FILIPINOS