Carta do Bispo de Macau, D. Frei Eugénio Trigueiros, a [D. João V], rei de Portugal, sobre a questão entre o Bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições
The document is a 1741 ecclesiastical–administrative correspondence from Macau, comprising a formal letter dated 3 October 1741 from the Bishop of Macau to the Governor and Captain-General of Macau, followed by the Governor’s detailed reply, both concerning the contested scope of ecclesiastical juri...
Saved in:
| _version_ | 1877197622343630848 |
|---|---|
| archiveLocation | PT/AHU/CU/062/0004/00040 |
| building | Portugal. Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino |
| collection | Portugal. Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino |
| description | The document is a 1741 ecclesiastical–administrative correspondence from Macau, comprising a formal letter dated 3 October 1741 from the Bishop of Macau to the Governor and Captain-General of Macau, followed by the Governor’s detailed reply, both concerning the contested scope of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over garrison soldiers under Portuguese colonial rule. The Bishop asserts the universal canonical principle that all Christians—including soldiers—within the diocese are subject to his spiritual and judicial authority without requiring secular licence, invoking the *Padroado Real*, the *Leis Cordens* (Concordat), and precedents from Goa and other Catholic realms; he challenges the Governor’s claim to prior authorisation for arrests, citations, or enforcement of ecclesiastical orders, denouncing it as an abusive innovation contradicting established practice and canon law. The Governor counters that military personnel owe him absolute obedience in temporal and disciplinary matters, permitting ecclesiastical summons only with advance notification and refusing ecclesiastical arrest authority absent a sealed royal warrant (*Carta Fechada*), citing manpower constraints and royal prerogative. Both parties reference the *ouvidor* (royal magistrate), conflicting interpretations of viceregal instructions from Goa, and the juridical distinction between *foro misto* and purely ecclesiastical competence. The exchange constitutes a primary source for analysing tensions between ecclesiastical autonomy and colonial military governance in the Portuguese Empire during the mid-eighteenth century. Anexos: 1741-11-10 - Despacho do Conselho Ultramarino ao procurador da Coroa que pede o parecer sobre a carta do Bispo de Macau. No mesmo documento, contém o parecer do procurador da Coroa. 1742-02-17 - Provisão (cópia) de D. João V, rei de Portugal, ao governador e capitão-geral de Macau, Manuel Pereira Coutinho, em que ordena que a jurisdição eclesiástica só deve ser exercida nos casos que pertencem ao foro da igreja. |
| first_indexed | 2026-05-17T17:49:58Z |
| format | Manuscripts |
| fulltext | [transcription]
{{PAGE:1}}
Respondase a o Bispo q̄ a resposta q̄ lhe de o Gov.or está mto
Conforme as Leis Cordens pellas quares naõ deve Con
Cleziastica
naõ
sentir q̄ a jurisdiçaõ eclesiastica se exercire fora dos Casos
deve Con
dos Casos
q̄ pertence ao foro de Jgr.a em prejuizo da juramento da sua Caza
naõ só ceresp.o dos sold.os, mestambé de qualqr.e pessoa lega
e q̄ em pte os sold.os estiverē de sentinela em qualqr̄ parte
q̄ seja naõ podem ser presos, ou tirados da d̄ Sentinella se
não rendido; E q.to a ajuda de braço secular a deve pedir
elle Bispo ou seus ministros a Ouvidor na forma de Ley
salvo nas execuções de Sn.rs na Caza privitivo da jurisdiçaõ
eclesiastica porq̄ entaõ pode mandar prender, e executar suas an
telas pellos seos off.is sem ajude de braço secular naõ lhe sendo necessr.a
e nos Casos de foro misto, tendo elle Bispo provado q̄ esta
em posse incontestável de executar as suas snr.as pellos seos mi
nistros pode continuar
Com esta posse, qdo não Sar-se-me preciso por na Real presença de V. Mag.e a Resposta, q̄ o Gov.or
haja nesta Cid.e ordē desta Cidade deu a huma minha, em que o dissuadia de querer isentar os
de S. Alg.e encontr.o
perimentar, que mandando chamar hum Soldado, foy necessario q̄ o offi
perimentar, que mandasse a minha presença, e porq̄ soube, q̄ o dito Gover
nor se escré ciall lhe pedisse o mandasse a minha presença, e porq̄ soube, q̄ o dito Gover
nor dizia, que eu naõ podia nada com os Soldados sem Licença sua fun
lhe o q̄ ao Bispo dado em hum abuzo do meu Antecessor q̄ quando necessitava de mandar
se responde da
prender algum Soldado se valia dos Governadores para a tal execuçaõ: e ain
da q̄ a Resposta deste està taõ politica como della se vé; e me crimina do q̄
provandoselhe o zello a elle naõ pertence e só devia Louvar; porque o desfazer hum Prelado hum erro
Com q̄ defende a ju de hum menos douto Ministro, aonde o naõ pode haver muito habil, e capaz;
risticaõ Real, e a prence do Prelado, mas acerto, que se deve Louvar e naõ infimular; Com
tudo me Resolvi a enviarla a Real presença de V. Mag.e para zelar a jurisdi
deneia Com q̄ res çaõ da Igreja, que por hora naõ exercito p.a com Cento, e tantas pessoas q̄
pondeo _ Bispo tantos saõ os Soldados, porque vejo, que supposto o incivil genio deste ho
Ley 1E de Dez.ro mem o naõ poderei fazer sem grandes disturbios, e mayores inconvenien
de 1741
I
AN
A
tes. A minha Carta para elle dizia assim.
Snōr Governador, e Capitaõ Geral de Macau. Por nos
chegar alguā noticia, de que V. Sr.a Levava a mal que algum dos Sold.os
deste presidio fosse preso, notificado, ou obedecesse a alguā nossa ordem
ou de algum ministro Ecclesiastico, sem haver anterior Licença ou per
A
Ao
missaõ de V. S.ra p.a o dito effeito; se nos faz preciso expor a V.S.ra as Re
zoens, que nos assistem, e dos ditos Ministros Ecclesiasticos para as
{{PAGE:2}}
execuçoens independentes da dita Licença, para que achando as V. S.ª bem funda
das, queira desistir do tal empenho.
Primeiramente he certo em toda a Christandade, e Christãos
o sabem muito bem, que todos os Christãos, Soldados, e não Soldados, domiciliários
de qualquer Bispado, estão sujeitos a obediência, e jurisdição do Prelado de
tal Bispado, como Christãos, filhos, e súbditos da Igreja, e que assim se devem
haver a nosso respeito os domiciliários deste Bispado; e ainda não deve V. S.ª
estranhar, que digamos, que os Soldados nossos súbditos nos devem tanto maior
obediência que a V. S.ª quanto vai de ser Christão a ser soldado. Sendo lito
certo, e que a jurisdição Ecclesiástica he independente ainda do maior, e mais
levantado poder Secular; bem se segue, que não pode V. S.ª com fundamento
pretender, que não usemos da nossa jurisdição, sem obtermos a tal permissão ou
Licença de V. S.ª, e que querer V. S.ª o contrário, he impedir a jurisdição da
Igreja, o que a mesma Igreja tem muito gravemente proibido.
Além de ser contra o direito Ecclesiástico, e por isso muito
contra a consciência de V. S.ª a dependência, em que V. S.ª quer pôr a juris
dição Ecclesiástica; he contra o estilo do Reyno, e suas Conquistas, e de
todos os Reynos Catholicos, nos quais os Prelados Ecclesiasticos usam de sua
jurisdição a respeito dos seus súbditos, ainda soldados independentes
dos Governadores Seculares, que lhes não podem coarctar sem manifesta
violência. E se o Ouvidor de Macau usa da sua jurisdição a respeito
dos soldados sem a tal dependência da permissão, ou Licença de N. S.ª,
e pelo Ex.mo Snr. V. Rey de Goa foi muito estranhado o impedisse-lhe
{{PAGE:3}}
proceder Contra os Soldados Sem atal Licença do Governador, que então
era, e isto por ser o Seu Juiz Secular; O Seu Juiz Ecclesiastico, o Seu Prelado,
e o seu Bispo hade estar privado da Sua jurisdição à Respeito dos Soldados,
em quanto V.S.a lhe naõ permitte exercitalla? Por Certo, que se Nós vir-
mos precisados à Representação semelhante à que fez o Ouvidor, deve ser m.to
maior a admiração do Ex.mo Sn.r V. Rey, ou de Sua Mag.e se a Sua Real
presença dirigirmos a tal Representação, do que foy no Caso do Ouvidor.
Dirá V. S.r / e he o unico fundamento, que pode allegar/ que
o nosso Antecessor azou com alguns Governadores de Macau, de lhes pedir
que prendessem a este, ou aquelle Soldado, quando se offerecia occasião; e q̃
Supposto acha esse uzo, naõ quer, que se perca no seu tempo. Respondemos
em primeiro Lugar, que em outros mais honrosos Empregos quizeramos valer-
nos de V. S.a, e naõ nesse, em que o nosso Antecessor parece, q̃ fazia aos taes
Governadores Seos officiaes Subalternos. Respondemos em Segundo Lugar,
que huã inefficacia, e hum abuzo do nosso Antecessor, tal como esse, naõ
deve prejudicar a jurisdição da Igreja, nem nos obriga a que o sigamos,
e tenhamos por Regra; antes as Leys Ecclesiasticas, que saõ as Regras por
onde nos devemos governar, nos obrigam ao Contrario.
Quanto ao Receyo, que V. S.a tem de prejudicar ao Su-
gar, q̃ occupa, pode V. S.a estar certo, q̃ cedendo, do que por nenhum direito
lhe pertence o naõ prejudica: Nem V.S.a está obrigado a conservar abuzos,
mas a desfazelos, muito principalmente os q̃ saõ contra a Consciencia, por
serem prejudiciaes à Igreja.
{{PAGE:4}}
Também poderá V. S.ª dizer, que parecerá falta de respeito ao seu lugar,
que esteja um soldado na guarda à sua porta, e que vá um oficial ecle
siástico, e o tire da guarda, sem lho fazer a saber. Dizemos, que para se não
faltar a essa política, serão advertidos os tais oficiais, do que devem fazer
em tal caso. Das mais guardas também serão advertidos, que não tirem
os soldados, senão em caso muito urgente; e então, e também quando os sol
dados forem presos em outros lugares, ou em suas casas, os seus sargentos
o podem noticiar a V. S.ª (como é estilo nas mais partes), para que
possa dar providência à falha do soldado preso.
Isto nos parece, que V. S.ª sem desdouro algum pode
noticiar aos seus soldados, para que deem à igreja a pronta obediência, que
devem: Esperamos que V. S.ª, como tão católico, e obediente à igre
ja, queira assentir ao que temos proposto; pelo que crescerá em nós o gosto,
e edificação. Para tudo o que for do maior agrado de V. S.ª nos offere
cemos com muito cordial afeto: Com ele pedimos a Nosso Senhor que guie
a sua pessoa por muito largos, e felizes anos. Estacaõ 3 de Outubro de
1741.
Relatório do Governador de Macau.
Muitíssimo Senhor. Confesso a V. Ill.ª o grande pesar,
que recebi com a carta, que V. Ill.ª ontem me escreveste, porquanto cuidan
do eu muito em não molestar a V. Ill.ª, ou a coisa que toque à sua ju
risdição, e não me intrometendo em coisa alguma nela por evitar desabores
com V. Ill.ª, a quem desejo agradar; vejo não me ser possível acabar o
com
{{PAGE:5}}
Meu governo com o mesmo Sucesso, que até agora tenho conseguido, pois
me obriga V. Ill.ma intempestivamente, sem Causa, e sem motivo algum, que
faça necessária ao presente solução da dúvida, que me põem, a qual pudera
ficar indecisa, como até agora tem estado, sem que pudesse fazer tempo em
que fosse preciso parlamentar alla, porque a veneração, com que estimo a V. Ill.ma,
e o Cuidado, que tenho de não embaraçar o Militar com o Ecclesiástico, faria desnecessária a Resolução, que agora V. Ill.ma me obriga a dar, torno a di-
zer, fora do tempo, e sem urgência alguma; e se V. Ill.ma fizesse tão pouco
gosto, como eu faço nestes governilhos, não lhe lembraria, é Certo, o apu-
rar Coisas tão desnecessárias: e assim passo a responder à Carta de V. Ill.ma
Capítulo por Capítulo, e em recompensa do trabalho, que nisto me fez so-
mar tão contra o meu génio, e a minha profissão, peço a Deus de a V. Ill.ma
tanta Saúde, vida, descanso, e felicidades, como eu para mim desejo.
Em primeiro Lugar me diz V. Ill.ma, que lhe tinha che-
gado alguma noticia, em que eu levava a mal, que algum Militar fosse pre-
so, não ficado, ou obedecesse alguma ordem de ministros Ecclesiásticos,
sem haver anterior Licença, ou permissão minha para o dito efeito, e que
se faz preciso a V. Ill.ma expor as Razões, que assistem aos Ministros
Ecclesiásticos para tais execuções independentes da minha Licença.
A que respondo, que nos três pontos acima insinuados de prisão, notifica-
ção, ou obediência, deve haver particulares distinções, porque suposto que
V. Ill.ma na sua Carta os vai levando todos por uma medida; eu
entendo, que são diversos uns dos outros, como agora direi. No que
{{PAGE:6}}
toca a ferem os militares não ficados pelos Ministros Ecclesiasticos para defenderem, ou assistirem às Causas, que tiverem nos seus juízos, não se me oferece
duvida alguma, porque neste Caso, nem o serviço de El-Rey nosso Senhor pode
ser prejudicado, nem o seu Real Padroado, que professo defender, violentado,
ou usurpado, e assim podem os ditos militares serem notificados, sem que
preceda o dar-se primeiro parte. No que toca a serem presos por justiças,
ou ministros Ecclesiasticos, não convenho, sem que anticipadamente se me
dê parte por Carta Fechada, em a qual deva eu saber as culpas dos delin
quentes, porque não ignoro os muito poucos Casos, em que é permitido à justi
ça Ecclesiastica prender os Seculares, principalmente officiaes militares,
e ainda folgados, e muito mais nesta Cidade, adonde havendo tantos Presí
dios, há tão pouca gente que para suprir a falta de hum Soldado doente
me custa grande trabalho. Ao terceiro ponto de obedecerem os mili
tares às ordens dos Ministros Ecclesiasticos, em nenhuma forma convenho;
porque, como V. Ill.ma na sua Carta me fala geralmente em obediên
cia, sem me declarar se deve ser no espiritual, ou no temporal, no que
vai muita diferença; e assim resolvo, que no temporal não deve ter a
menor obediência ao Ecclesiastico; em quanto para o espiritual seja
necessária a obediência de qualquer delles, se me deve dar parte na for
ma sobredita, para eu os fazer obedecer a risca, sem que a V. Ill.ma lhe
custe exercer a espada da Igreja, de que todos nós os Catholicos te
mos muito temor, e Respeito.
No segundo Capitulo da Carta de V. Ill.ma, que
que
{{PAGE:7}}
Venero, me diz, que he certo, que toda a Christandade sabe, que todos os Christãos
Soldados, e não Soldados, domiciliários de qualquer Bispado, estão sujeitos à obe
diência, e jurisdição do tal Prelado, ou Bispo, como Christãos, filhos, e súbditos
da Igreja, e que assim se deve haver à respeito deste Bispado; E que ainda não
devo eu estranhar chamar (V. Ill.ma) aos militares, seus Súbditos, e que estes devem
ter maior obediência a V. Ill.ma do que a mim, quanto vai de ser soldado, a ser
Christão, e que assim pode V. Ill.ma usar de suas jurisdições para com elles, sem
lhe ser necessária a minha permissão. A que Respondo: Que he Certo, e eu
Confesso, que não só os Soldados, senão eu também devo, e estou prompto para
obedecer aos preceitos de V. Ill.ma em tudo o que tocar ao espiritual, e ao bem da
salvação de nossas almas, o que fica por conta de V. Ill.ma, e fora disto no que
toca a militar, e temporal não devem elles obedecer nesta Cidade a ordens ne
nhumas, que não forem minhas, ou de meus officiaes lhes quiserem man
dar antecipadamente, o que N. Ill.ma, ou os seus officiaes lhes quiserem man
dar, para ver se implica em alguma Coisa com o serviço del Rey, ou com
o Padroado Real, e como &.a Ill.ma no seu Capitulo
no seu Capitulo se não explica, e
só me fala geralmente; quero-me explicar com toda a clareza, e este he
o sistema que sigo: E no que forçar-me V. Ill.ma a dizer que os militares de
vem maior obediência a V. Ill.ma, que a mim; distingo, no que toca ao
espiritual, Concedo, mas no que toca ao temporal e serviço militar nego,
porquanto a mim me devem neste Caso toda a obediência, e a V. Ill.ma Ne
nhuma, e a não ser assim bem aviado iria o serviço del Rey nosso Senhor, e o Pa
droado Real: affirmando mais a V. Ill.ma, que tudo o que toca ao militar
6
{{PAGE:8}}
Nesta Cidade eu os governo, e mando sem que ninguem se possa intrometer ao
contrário, sem que primeiro anticipadamente me dê parte, para que eu dê a
prevenção necessária, para que o serviço de El-Rei nosso Senhor não tenha o me
nor prejuízo.
E no que toca ao terceiro Capítulo, em o qual V. Ill.ma me diz,
que eu quero fazer dependente o juízo Eclesiástico da minha dependência, o que
é contra o estilo do Reino, e suas Conquistas, e de todos os Reinos Ca
thólicos, nos quais os Prelados Cathólicos usam de sua jurisdição à respeito dos Seus Subditos, ainda soldados, independentes dos Governadores Secu
lares, que lhes não podem coarctar sem manifesta violência. Respondo:
Que eu não quero fazer dependente a justiça Eclesiástica do meu governo, e
senão há perto de hum anno, e meio, que governo, com o favor de Deos, esta Cid.e,
digame V. Ill.ma se alguma hora, ou em alguma ocasião me meti, ou me impor
tou o seu governo, ou se levemente por mim, ou por outrem lhe falei, ou me intro
meti em cousa de sua jurisdição, ou se algum Eclesiástico, Regular, ou
irregular, teve de mim alguma molestia, ou prejuízo, ou recebeu de mim alguma
ordem, ou se obréi com elles algum acto de jurisdição; é muito certo, que não,
e sendo assim, como, ou em que forma, quero eu como V. Ill.ma diz, fazer o
seu juízo dependente da minha jurisdição? E no que toca ao que V. Ill.ma
me diz, que em todos os Reinos Cathólicos obedecem estes aos seus Bispos,
e Prelados, tenho já respondido largamente a V. Ill.ma, que no espiritual se
me não oferece dúvida, e que no que toca ao temporal se me há de primeiro fa
zer saber na forma sobredita. Mais me diz V. Ill.ma, que o Ouvidor
{{PAGE:9}}
45
de Macao usa da Sua jurisdição com os Soldados, sem a tal dependência da permissão minha, e que isto viera decidido do Ex.mo Senhor, o Snr.
VRey, e Capitão Geral da Índia, estranhando muito ao meu Antecessor
impedir o proceder o dito Ouvidor Contra os Soldados sem permissão sua;
e que se esta competência tem hum Juiz secular, deve também o Juízo Eccle
siástico, e CVIll.ma ter a mesma. A que Respondo: Que se V. Ill.ma an
tes de se resolver a sahir em público com estas operações tivesse mais al
guma ponderação neste, e em outros Casos, e examinar-se com melhor
consideração, e menos paixão a verdade, e as circunstâncias das cousas,
estou muito certo, que V. Ill.ma
não me escreveria esta Carta, allegando
me por exemplo a Resolução, que teve o Ouvidor, o que tal não há, e in
formaram a V. Ill.ma falsamente, como o mesmo Ouvidor poderá a
V. Ill.ma dizer; e eu agora lhe digo, que a Resolução desta matéria tenho
eu por Carta particular do Ex.mo Snr., na qual me diz, que não poderá
o Ouvidor prender militar algum, sem que primeiro preceda permissão mi
nha, e que eu devo não embaracar então os seus procedimentos; e agora verá
V. Ill.ma o como esses Lizongeiros o enganam obrigando a por prescrição
hum exemplo tão falso. E se V. Ill.ma se lembrasse da pouca
cautela, com que deu crédito os tempos passados a Lizongeiros apaixo
nados, não se veria precisado a proceder Contra Pedro da Cruz tão fora
dos termos da verdade, que ao depois quando a palpou com ponderação
necessária a verdade do facto, não teve mais remédio, que por huma Contra
declaratória, affirmando, que ignorava a verdade do Caso, dando por
{{PAGE:10}}
Nullo tudo quanto tinha obrado, o que a mim, espero em Deos, me naõ succederá,
porque antes de sahir a publico com os meos projectos heide primeiro pondera-
los, e examinalos com toda a craçaõ, para que me naõ succeda deixar aclei-
çaõ dos pios Leitores, o entenderem se obres mal informado ou com paixaõ:
Mas ainda naõ está com igualdade o Simile, que V. Ill.ma me poe, di-
zendo, que deve ter a justiça Ecclesiastica a mesma prerrogativa, que teve o
Ouvidor; ainda no caso que assim fosse, antes eu dissimularia com o Ouvi-
dor o naõ me dar parte dos seus projectos com a gente militar, do que com
V. Ill.ma, porque aquelle naõ pode obrar cousa alguma, que prejudique o Pa-
droado Real, e a V. Ill.ma naõ consentirei, que se valha nunca da gente
Militar, sem que primeiro saiba eu o projecto q̄ quizer emprehender. E se
naõ se vê V. Ill.ma, como me diz, pode fazer com q̄ o militar lhe obedeça à
Minha reveria, qual he a razão, porque os Illustrissimos Senhores Bispos,
quando necessitaõ ajuda do braço secular, a pedem aos Governadores, e naõ
a mandam tirar dispoticamente? Isto está claro? Se podem, para q̄ pedem?
e se pedem, he certo que naõ podem, e tenho respondido a V. Ill.ma no
caso, que me expõem; e no que toca a dizerme V. Ill.ma
V. Ill.ma
que porà a decisão
no parecer do Exm.º Snr. o Snr. Veley, ou em Portugal na do Nosso
Soberano; digo que V. Ill.ma o faça se quizer, porque lhe prometo de me
naõ afastar hum ponto nem hum átimo, da Resoluçaõ, que vier; e este
seja toda a vontade de V. Ill.ma, para q̄ conheça o excesso com q̄
dezejo em tudo servillo, e fazerlhe a vontade: porém em quanto esta naõ
vier, me naõ afastarei do estylo em cousa algũa certamente.
{{PAGE:11}}
Mais me diz V. Ill.ma na sua Carta, que o que posso allegar a meu
favor he, que o Illustrissimo Senhor Bispo Antecessor de V. Ill.ma usou
com Governadores desta Cidade, de lhes pedir que lhes prendessem este, ou aquelle
militar quando se lhes offerecia occasião, e que achando eu este uso, não querei se perca no meu tempo: /o que he sem duvida) e assim mais me diz
V.
V. Ill.ma, que isto era hum abuso do Ill.mo Snr. Bispo, que Deos tem, o qual
V. Ill.ma quer emendar por não perder a sua jurisdição. A que respondo: Que
o Ill.mo Snr. Bispo, que Deos tem, tinha a mesmissima jurisdição, e obrigação
que V. Ill.ma tem, e assim tambem hum grande nome em toda a parte de
muitas Virtudes, e grandes Letras; as mesmas no mesmo equilíbrio, reconheco
eu tambem na Ill.ma Pessoa, e prendas de V. Ill.mas. E agora eu que sou Leigo,
e não professo Letras, por razão, ou com que fundamento não seguirei
a opinião, que seguia o Ill.mo Snr. Bispo, que Deos tem, para seguir a que
V. Ill.ma me insinua, não sendo a favor da minha Regalia, como a qual
era, e torno a dizer a V. Ill.ma, que por hora não tenho ordem alguma de meus
Superiores, que haõ só os que me podem governar para poder ceder, que em V. Ill.ma a alcançando o farei com m.to gosto.
Tambem me diz V. Ill.ma, que por se não faltar ao meu
respeito, porque parece mal tirarem-se-me os Soldados da minha porta,
ou dos Presídios, que saõ fortalezas del Rey Nosso Senhor, por hum
Official de justiça Ecclesiastica sem me fazer saber, me não faltará em
advertir esta política aos seus officiaes. A que respondo: Que por ora
a gradecendo m.to a V. Ill.ma esta galantaria,
C
esta galantaria, a não aceito, porque não neces
{{PAGE:12}}
[Kraken transcription error]
{{PAGE:13}}
[Kraken transcription error]
{{PAGE:14}}
[Kraken transcription error]
{{PAGE:15}}
[Kraken transcription error]
{{PAGE:16}}
[Kraken transcription error]
[translation]
{{PAGE:1}}
**Translation (UK Academic English, conforming to scholarly standards and British spelling conventions)**
**To the Bishop**: The reply given to Your Lordship by the Governor is, in truth, highly consonant with the *Leis Cordens* [i.e., the *Concordat* or ecclesiastical–civil concordat agreements], which expressly stipulate that ecclesiastical jurisdiction must not be exercised outside those cases properly belonging to the ecclesiastical forum—particularly where such exercise would prejudice the royal prerogative and the sovereign’s jurisdiction over his own household. This principle applies not only to soldiers, but equally to any other legally competent person; and, specifically regarding soldiers, those stationed on sentry duty at any location whatsoever may neither be arrested nor removed from their post except upon formal relief.
With regard to secular coercive assistance (*ajuda de braço secular*), the Bishop—or his duly authorised ministers—must formally request such aid from the *Ouvidor* (Royal Judge), strictly in accordance with statutory procedure; save in cases involving the execution of sentences pronounced within the *Casa privativa da jurisdição eclesiástica* (i.e., the Bishop’s private ecclesiastical court), wherein the Bishop retains full authority to order arrests and enforce judgments through his own officers, without recourse to secular enforcement—provided such assistance is not strictly necessary. In cases of *foro misto* (mixed jurisdiction), should the Bishop demonstrate an uncontested, long-standing possession (*posse incontestável*) of the right to execute his sentences through his own ministers, he may lawfully continue to do so under that established possession.
It is for this reason—and not without due deliberation—that I have deemed it necessary to submit, to the Royal Presence of Your Majesty, the response issued by the Governor in this city of Macau to a letter of mine, in which I had counselled him against seeking to exempt soldiers from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In order to verify the matter empirically, I directed that a soldier be summoned before me; it proved necessary for my officer to summon him to my presence. Upon learning that the said Governor had instructed his official to require the soldier’s attendance before me—and further, that the Governor himself maintained that I possessed no authority over soldiers without his prior licence—I was obliged to clarify that the concession formerly granted to the Bishop (which the present Governor now invokes as precedent) constituted an abuse committed by my predecessor: on those rare occasions when the latter required the arrest of a soldier, he availed himself of the Governors’ cooperation solely for purposes of execution—not as a matter of jurisdictional subordination.
Moreover, the Governor’s reply is as politically astute as it is misleading; it unjustly imputes fault to me, whereas the zeal demonstrated therein rightly belongs to the Bishop alone—and indeed merits commendation, not censure. For it is wholly praiseworthy, not culpable, when a Prelate corrects an error committed by a less learned minister—especially where the latter’s competence and capacity are evidently limited. Such correction upholds both the dignity of the Royal Patronage (*Padroado Real*) and the authority of the Prelate; it reflects sound judgment, and ought therefore to be commended, not disparaged.
Nonetheless, mindful of my duty to safeguard the integrity of ecclesiastical jurisdiction—a jurisdiction which, at present, I am unable to exercise effectively over some one hundred individuals (namely, the garrison soldiers), owing to the uncivil disposition of the incumbent Governor—I have resolved to lay this matter before Your Majesty. I foresee that, absent Royal intervention, any attempt to assert this jurisdiction would provoke grave disturbances and even greater inconveniences.
My original letter to the Governor read as follows:
> *Sir Governor and Captain-General of Macau*,
>
> Having received certain information to the effect that Your Excellency takes exception to the arrest, citation, or obedience to any of our orders—or those of any ecclesiastical minister—issued to any of the soldiers stationed at this presidio, unless preceded by Your Excellency’s express licence or authorisation for that specific purpose, we consider it necessary to set forth before Your Excellency the legal grounds underpinning the rights both of this See and of its ecclesiastical ministers.
{{PAGE:2}}
Independent actions undertaken without the aforementioned licence—whereby Your Excellency, finding them well founded, might wish to relinquish such an undertaking.
Firstly, it is universally acknowledged throughout Christendom—and well known to all Christians—that all Christians, whether soldiers or non-combatants, residing within any diocese, are subject to the obedience and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the prelate of that diocese, as Christians, children, and subjects of the Church; and thus the residents of this diocese must likewise conduct themselves towards us. Nor ought Your Excellency to find it surprising that we assert that our soldier-subjects owe us a greater degree of obedience than they do to Your Excellency, inasmuch as the obligations of a Christian are augmented—not diminished—by the added duties incumbent upon a soldier.
It is an established principle, moreover, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is independent even of the highest and most exalted secular authority; it therefore follows logically that Your Excellency cannot, on any sound basis, claim that we may not exercise our canonical jurisdiction without first obtaining Your Excellency’s permission or licence. To insist otherwise would constitute an impediment to the Church’s jurisdiction—a matter which the Church itself has gravely prohibited.
Moreover, the dependence which Your Excellency seeks to impose upon ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not only contrary to canon law—and thus gravely at odds with Your Excellency’s own conscience—but also inconsistent with the established constitutional practice (*estilo*) of the Kingdom of Portugal and its overseas dominions, as well as with the settled custom of all Catholic monarchies. In these realms, ecclesiastical prelates have always exercised their jurisdiction over their subjects—including soldiers—without subordination to secular governors, who may not curtail such jurisdiction except by manifest violence. Indeed, the Ouvidor (Royal Magistrate) of Macau exercises his judicial authority over soldiers without requiring prior permission or licence from Our Sacred Congregation (Nossa Sagrada Congregação), and the Most Excellent Lord Viceroy of Goa expressly disapproved—indeed, found it highly irregular—that any attempt should be made to impede him in this regard.
{{PAGE:3}}
Proceedings against soldiers without the prior licence of the Governor—who at that time held authority over them as their secular judge—raise a significant canonical and jurisdictional question: ought the ecclesiastical judge, namely the prelate and bishop, be deprived of his ordinary jurisdiction over such soldiers for as long as Your Excellency does not expressly permit its exercise? Certainly, if we find ourselves compelled to make a representation analogous to that submitted by the Ouvidor (Royal Magistrate), the astonishment felt by His Excellency the Viceroy—or even by His Majesty himself, were such a representation to be addressed directly to the Royal Presence—would be considerably greater than in the case of the Ouvidor.
Your Excellency may argue—and this is the sole ground you can advance—that our predecessor customarily requested successive Governors of Macau to arrest particular soldiers whenever occasion arose; and that, although this practice has become established, you are unwilling that it should lapse during your tenure. To this we reply, first, that we would gladly avail ourselves of Your Excellency’s assistance in matters of greater dignity and importance, but not in one wherein our predecessor appears to have treated those Governors as his own subordinate officers. Second, an inefficacious or abusive practice adopted by our predecessor—such as this one—neither impairs the Church’s inherent jurisdiction nor obliges us to perpetuate it as a normative precedent; rather, ecclesiastical law—the very rule by which we are bound to govern ourselves—requires precisely the opposite.
As regards Your Excellency’s concern that yielding on this point might prejudice the office you hold: you may rest assured that relinquishing what belongs to you by no legitimate right entails no injury to your position. Nor are you obliged to preserve abuses; on the contrary, you are duty-bound to abolish them—especially those which offend conscience and harm the Church.
{{PAGE:4}}
Also, Your Excellency may observe that it would appear disrespectful to your office for a soldier to be stationed on guard at your door, and for an ecclesiastical officer to remove him from duty without first informing you. We reply that, in order to avoid any breach of diplomatic protocol, such officers shall be formally instructed in advance regarding their proper conduct in such circumstances. Likewise, all other guards shall be directed not to withdraw soldiers from their posts except in cases of the utmost urgency; and in such instances—as also when soldiers are detained elsewhere or in their own dwellings—their respective sergeants may report the matter to Your Excellency (as is customary in other jurisdictions), so that appropriate measures may be taken to address the absence of the detained soldier.
We consider that Your Excellency may communicate this arrangement to your troops without any diminution of dignity, thereby urging them to render prompt obedience to the Church, as is their due. We trust that Your Excellency—being so devout a Catholic and so obedient to ecclesiastical authority—will assent to the proposals set forth above; in doing so, you will greatly enhance our satisfaction and spiritual edification. In all matters that may be most agreeable to Your Excellency, we offer our most sincere and heartfelt cooperation. With this assurance, we commend Your Excellency to the guidance of Our Lord for many long and prosperous years. Macau, 3 October 1741.
Report of the Governor of Macau.
Most Illustrious Lord,
I confess to Your Illustrious Lordship the profound regret I felt upon receiving Your Illustrious Lordship’s letter of yesterday, since I have taken great care not to trouble Your Illustrious Lordship—or to encroach in any way upon matters falling within your jurisdiction—in order to avoid causing offence to one whom I earnestly wish to please; yet I now find it impossible to conclude the matter…
{{PAGE:5}}
My administration has proceeded with the same success as hitherto achieved; yet Your Illustrious Lordship compels me—untimely, without cause, and without any justifiable reason—to resolve, at this juncture, a question which has remained deliberately unsettled until now. That question could well have continued in abeyance, as it has done for some time, without requiring formal deliberation before the relevant authority; for the profound veneration I hold for Your Illustrious Lordship, coupled with my careful regard for preserving the proper separation between military and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, would have rendered such a resolution unnecessary. I repeat: Your Illustrious Lordship’s demand for an immediate pronouncement is both premature and devoid of urgency. Moreover, were Your Illustrious Lordship to take as little pleasure in these administrative matters as I do, it is certain that You would not deem it necessary to scrutinise issues so evidently superfluous. Accordingly, I proceed to address Your Illustrious Lordship’s letter point by point. In recompense for the considerable labour this task has imposed upon me—labour wholly contrary to my natural disposition and professional calling—I commend Your Illustrious Lordship to the divine favour, praying that God may grant You as much health, longevity, repose, and felicity as I myself earnestly desire for my own person.
Firstly, Your Illustrious Lordship states that You have received certain information suggesting that I take exception to the arrest of a military officer, or to his failure to remain in custody, or to his obedience to an order issued by ecclesiastical ministers—without my prior licence or explicit authorisation for such action—and that You therefore require me to set forth the grounds upon which ecclesiastical ministers claim the authority to undertake such measures independently of my consent.
To this I reply that the three points cited above—namely, arrest, formal notification (or citation), and obedience to ecclesiastical directives—require distinct and separate consideration; for although Your Illustrious Lordship treats them collectively in Your letter as if governed by a single principle, I maintain that they are, in fact, juridically and functionally distinct from one another—as I shall now explain. With regard to…
{{PAGE:6}}
The question of whether military personnel may be summoned by ecclesiastical ministers to defend or assist in cases pending before their courts raises no difficulty in my view. In this instance, neither the service owed to His Majesty our Lord nor his Royal Patronage—which I profess to uphold—can be impaired, violated, or usurped. Consequently, the said military personnel may lawfully be notified directly, without the prior requirement of formal intimation (‘dar-se primeiro parte’).
With regard to the arrest of military personnel by secular justices or ecclesiastical ministers, I do not consent—unless I am first formally informed by sealed letter (‘Carta Fechada’) specifying the alleged offences committed by the individuals concerned. I am well aware that ecclesiastical justice is permitted to detain laypersons—including military officers and even those on leave—only in a very limited number of exceptional cases. This restraint is all the more imperative in this city, where, despite the presence of numerous garrisons, the shortage of manpower is acute: replacing even a single sick soldier entails considerable difficulty.
Concerning the third point—namely, the obligation of military personnel to obey the orders of ecclesiastical ministers—I cannot assent in any respect. As Your Illustrious Lordship states in your letter that obedience is required ‘generally’, without clarifying whether such obedience pertains to spiritual matters or temporal affairs—a distinction of fundamental importance—I must therefore rule unequivocally that military personnel owe no obedience whatsoever to ecclesiastical authorities in temporal matters. As regards spiritual matters, however, should obedience prove necessary, I require prior notification in the manner described above, so that I may ensure strict compliance on their part—thereby sparing Your Illustrious Lordship the necessity of wielding the ‘sword of the Church’, an authority which all Catholics hold in profound reverence and awe.
In the second chapter of Your Illustrious Lordship’s letter, which—
{{PAGE:7}}
I respectfully acknowledge your assertion—that it is indeed certain, and universally known throughout Christendom, that all Christians, whether soldiers or civilians, resident within any diocese, are subject to the obedience and jurisdiction of its prelate or bishop, as Christians, children, and subjects of the Church; and that this principle must likewise apply to this diocese. You further state that I ought not to find it extraordinary for Your Most Illustrious Lordship to refer to military personnel as your subjects, and that such persons owe Your Illustrious Lordship a greater degree of obedience than they do to me—since the duty of a soldier is subordinate to that of a Christian—and that Your Illustrious Lordship may therefore exercise your ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them without requiring my prior authorisation.
To this I respond: It is certainly true—and I freely confess—that not only soldiers, but I myself, am bound, and stand ready, to obey Your Illustrious Lordship’s precepts in all matters pertaining to spiritual discipline and the salvation of our souls—a responsibility which rests solely with Your Illustrious Lordship. However, in all matters concerning military affairs and temporal administration, no soldier stationed in this city is obliged to obey any orders other than those issued by myself or by my officers—unless, in advance, Your Illustrious Lordship or your officers should issue instructions whose implications we jointly assess for possible conflict with the service of His Majesty the King or with the Royal Patronage (*Padroado Real*). As Your Illustrious Lordship’s chapter does not specify these matters explicitly, but speaks only in general terms, I deem it necessary to clarify my position with full precision—and this is the principle I uphold.
Should Your Illustrious Lordship press me to affirm that military personnel owe you greater obedience than they owe to me, I make the following distinction: In spiritual matters, I concede the point; but in temporal and military matters, I categorically deny it. For in such matters, they owe me absolute obedience—and none whatsoever to Your Illustrious Lordship. Were it otherwise, the service of His Majesty our Lord and the integrity of the Royal Patronage would be gravely compromised. I further affirm to Your Illustrious Lordship that all matters relating to military affairs—
{{PAGE:8}}
In this city, I govern and command without any person being permitted to interfere contrary to my authority—unless they first inform me in advance, so that I may issue the necessary preventive measures to ensure that the service of His Majesty our Lord suffers no detriment whatsoever.
With regard to the third chapter, in which Your Most Illustrious Lordship states that I seek to render the ecclesiastical jurisdiction subject to my own civil authority—a practice contrary to the established custom of the Kingdom of Portugal, its overseas dominions, and indeed all Catholic realms, wherein Catholic prelates exercise their jurisdiction over their subjects (including soldiers) independently of secular governors, who may not restrict such ecclesiastical authority except by manifest violence—I respond as follows:
I have no intention whatsoever of subordinating ecclesiastical justice to my civil governance. Indeed, it is barely a year and a half since I assumed, with God’s grace, the government of this city. I therefore ask Your Most Illustrious Lordship: has there been any occasion—however brief—during this period when I have interfered in, or attempted to encroach upon, your ecclesiastical jurisdiction? Has any communication—whether initiated by myself or by another—passed between us concerning matters properly belonging to your spiritual authority? Has any ecclesiastic, whether secular or regular, suffered inconvenience or injury at my hands? Has any such person received an order from me, or have I performed any act whatsoever falling within the domain of ecclesiastical jurisdiction? It is entirely certain that none of these things has occurred. Given this fact, how—or in what manner—could I, as Your Most Illustrious Lordship alleges, be seeking to render your judicial authority dependent upon mine?
Moreover, with respect to Your Most Illustrious Lordship’s assertion that, in all Catholic realms, clergy are subject to their bishops and prelates, I have already replied to you at length: I raise no objection whatever in matters spiritual; however, in temporal matters affecting ecclesiastical persons or property, I must first be duly informed—precisely in the manner outlined above—before any action is taken.
Your Most Illustrious Lordship further states that the *ouvidor* [royal magistrate / crown judge]…
{{PAGE:9}}
45
The magistrate of Macau exercises his judicial authority over soldiers independently, without requiring my prior permission—a matter reportedly settled by His Excellency the Lord Viceroy and Captain-General of India, who strongly disapproved of my predecessor’s insistence that the said magistrate obtain such permission before proceeding against soldiers. It is further argued that, if a secular judge possesses this jurisdiction, then the ecclesiastical court—and the *Civillíssima* (i.e., the civil magistracy)—must possess it equally.
To this I reply: Had Your Illustrious Lordship exercised greater deliberation—both in this matter and in others—before publicly initiating such proceedings; had you examined the facts and circumstances with greater care and less passion; and had you more rigorously weighed both truth and context, I am fully confident that Your Illustrious Lordship would not have addressed me in this letter, citing as precedent a resolution allegedly issued by the magistrate—a resolution which, in fact, does not exist. Your Illustrious Lordship has been misinformed on this point, as the magistrate himself may confirm to you; and I now inform you that the authoritative position on this matter is set forth in a private letter from His Excellency the Lord Viceroy, in which he explicitly states that the magistrate may not arrest any military personnel without my prior authorisation, and that I am, in turn, obliged not to obstruct the magistrate’s lawful proceedings. Your Illustrious Lordship will now see how these *lizongeiros* (lit. ‘litigious agents’; i.e., unscrupulous legal intermediaries or petitioners) have misled you by fabricating so spurious an example. Moreover, were Your Illustrious Lordship to recall the undue credulity with which, on previous occasions, you accepted the representations of impassioned *lizongeiros*, you would not have found yourself compelled to proceed against Pedro da Cruz in a manner so manifestly at odds with the truth—so much so that, upon later subjecting the facts to due reflection and careful scrutiny, you had no recourse but to issue a corrective declaration formally acknowledging your prior ignorance of the true circumstances of the case.
{{PAGE:10}}
Having nullified all that he had previously undertaken, I trust in God that the same will not befall me; for before publishing my proposals publicly, I shall first weigh and examine them with the utmost diligence—so as to avoid leaving pious readers with the impression that my work is ill-informed or driven by passion.
Yet the analogy you, Your Illustrious Lordship, draw remains unequal: you assert that ecclesiastical justice ought to possess the same prerogative as the *ouvidor* (royal magistrate). Even were this premise granted, I should sooner overlook the *ouvidor*’s failure to inform me of his plans concerning the military forces than tolerate a similar omission on Your Illustrious Lordship’s part. For the *ouvidor* cannot undertake any action prejudicial to the Royal Patronage (*Padroado Real*); whereas I expressly withhold consent for Your Illustrious Lordship ever to employ military personnel without my prior knowledge of the project you intend to undertake.
And if, as Your Illustrious Lordship claims, you are indeed able to command the obedience of the military to your authority—as you state—I ask: why then do the Most Illustrious Lords Bishops, when requiring assistance from the secular arm, petition Governors rather than unilaterally requisitioning troops? Is this not self-evident? If they possessed such power, why would they petition? And if they must petition, it follows necessarily that they lack such power. Thus, I have answered Your Illustrious Lordship’s query directly, addressing the precise case you present.
As for Your Illustrious Lordship’s further statement—that the final decision shall rest either with the opinion of His Excellency Sir Veley, or, in Portugal, with our Sovereign—I reply that you may proceed thus, should you so wish; for I pledge that I shall deviate neither a single point nor the smallest fraction thereof from whichever resolution is issued. Let this be Your Illustrious Lordship’s sole and absolute will—so that you may perceive the depth of my earnest desire to serve you faithfully in all things and to fulfil your wishes. Nevertheless, pending receipt of that resolution, I shall assuredly adhere, in every particular, to the established protocol and customary practice.
{{PAGE:11}}
Your Excellency writes in your letter that the only justification I might advance in my own defence is that His Most Illustrious Lordship the late Bishop—the predecessor of Your Excellency—was accustomed, in his dealings with governors of this city, to request that they arrest this or that military officer whenever occasion arose; and that, having observed this practice, I am resolved it shall not lapse during my tenure. This is indeed the case. You further state, Your Excellency, that such a practice constituted an abuse on the part of the late Most Illustrious Lord Bishop (may God rest his soul), which Your Excellency now seeks to correct so as to safeguard your episcopal jurisdiction. To this I reply: The late Most Illustrious Lord Bishop (may God rest his soul) possessed precisely the same jurisdiction and canonical obligation as Your Excellency now holds; moreover, he enjoyed throughout the realm a distinguished reputation for numerous virtues and profound erudition. I acknowledge with equal regard the same balance of learning and virtue in Your Excellency’s person and accomplishments. As for myself, I am a layman, unordained and without formal scholarly training; yet on what rational or canonical ground—what principled foundation—should I abandon the course followed by the late Most Illustrious Lord Bishop (may God rest his soul), in order to adopt the alternative Your Excellency suggests, especially when that alternative does not uphold my royal prerogative—a prerogative which, I repeat to Your Excellency, remains fully intact? At present, I hold no instruction from my superiors—those sole authorities empowered to direct me—authorising any concession in this matter; should such a directive be issued and reach Your Excellency, I shall comply with the utmost readiness and goodwill.
You also inform me, Your Excellency, that, out of deference to my dignity—and lest it appear improper for soldiers stationed at my residence or within the royal presídios (fortresses belonging to His Majesty our Lord King) to be removed by an ecclesiastical officer of justice without prior notification to me—you will instruct your officials accordingly, so as to ensure due diplomatic consideration. To this I respond: While I gratefully acknowledge Your Excellency’s courtesy in making this offer, I respectfully decline it—not because I doubt its sincerity, but because I do not require it.
{{PAGE:12}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error indicator—no substantive historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the actual archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from a 16th–20th-century Portuguese colonial record, ecclesiastical register, administrative letter, or similar primary source) so that I may undertake the scholarly translation in accordance with the rigorous guidelines specified: British English orthography, academic register, historical fidelity, structural preservation, and suitability for citation in UK-based research contexts.
I remain ready to assist with prompt, precise, and contextually grounded translation upon receipt of the source material.
{{PAGE:13}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error notice—no historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the actual archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from a 16th–20th-century Portuguese colonial record, ecclesiastical register, administrative letter, or similar primary source) that requires scholarly translation. Once received, I will produce a precise, academically rigorous translation in modern British English, fully compliant with the stated guidelines—including historical fidelity, UK academic conventions, appropriate terminology handling, and structural integrity for citation and research use.
{{PAGE:14}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error placeholder—no actual historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the full archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from the Portuguese colonial records, including original Portuguese or Latin script, dates, administrative headings, or contextual fragments) so that I may undertake a rigorous, academically grounded translation in accordance with the specified guidelines: British English orthography, scholarly register, historical fidelity, and suitability for citation in UK-based historical research.
Once the source text is supplied, I will deliver a translation that:
- Distinguishes between archaic terms requiring glossing (e.g., *ouvidor* → ‘royal magistrate (ouvidor)’, a Crown-appointed judicial officer in Portuguese colonial administration’)
- Retains original structural features (marginalia, abbreviations expanded in square brackets, lacunae marked [illegible] or [gap])
- Annotates institutional roles, place names, and legal concepts with brief, parenthetical clarifications where essential for comprehension
- Adheres strictly to UK academic conventions (e.g., ‘judgement’, ‘centre’, ‘colonisation’)
I am ready to proceed upon receipt of the archival text.
{{PAGE:15}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error indicator—no substantive historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the actual archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from a 16th–20th-century Portuguese colonial record, ecclesiastical register, administrative letter, or similar primary source) that requires scholarly translation. Once received, I will produce a precise, academically rigorous translation in modern British English, adhering strictly to all eight guidelines—including preservation of historical nuance, appropriate terminology handling, structural fidelity, and suitability for citation in UK-based historical research.
{{PAGE:16}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error indicator—no substantive historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the actual archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from a 16th–20th-century Portuguese colonial record, ecclesiastical register, administrative letter, or similar primary source) so that I may undertake the scholarly translation in accordance with the rigorous guidelines specified: British English orthography, academic register, historical fidelity, structural preservation, and suitability for citation in peer-reviewed research contexts.
I remain ready to assist with prompt, precise, and contextually grounded translation upon receipt of the valid source material. |
| fulltext_transcription | {{PAGE:1}}
Respondase a o Bispo q̄ a resposta q̄ lhe de o Gov.or está mto
Conforme as Leis Cordens pellas quares naõ deve Con
Cleziastica
naõ
sentir q̄ a jurisdiçaõ eclesiastica se exercire fora dos Casos
deve Con
dos Casos
q̄ pertence ao foro de Jgr.a em prejuizo da juramento da sua Caza
naõ só ceresp.o dos sold.os, mestambé de qualqr.e pessoa lega
e q̄ em pte os sold.os estiverē de sentinela em qualqr̄ parte
q̄ seja naõ podem ser presos, ou tirados da d̄ Sentinella se
não rendido; E q.to a ajuda de braço secular a deve pedir
elle Bispo ou seus ministros a Ouvidor na forma de Ley
salvo nas execuções de Sn.rs na Caza privitivo da jurisdiçaõ
eclesiastica porq̄ entaõ pode mandar prender, e executar suas an
telas pellos seos off.is sem ajude de braço secular naõ lhe sendo necessr.a
e nos Casos de foro misto, tendo elle Bispo provado q̄ esta
em posse incontestável de executar as suas snr.as pellos seos mi
nistros pode continuar
Com esta posse, qdo não Sar-se-me preciso por na Real presença de V. Mag.e a Resposta, q̄ o Gov.or
haja nesta Cid.e ordē desta Cidade deu a huma minha, em que o dissuadia de querer isentar os
de S. Alg.e encontr.o
perimentar, que mandando chamar hum Soldado, foy necessario q̄ o offi
perimentar, que mandasse a minha presença, e porq̄ soube, q̄ o dito Gover
nor se escré ciall lhe pedisse o mandasse a minha presença, e porq̄ soube, q̄ o dito Gover
nor dizia, que eu naõ podia nada com os Soldados sem Licença sua fun
lhe o q̄ ao Bispo dado em hum abuzo do meu Antecessor q̄ quando necessitava de mandar
se responde da
prender algum Soldado se valia dos Governadores para a tal execuçaõ: e ain
da q̄ a Resposta deste està taõ politica como della se vé; e me crimina do q̄
provandoselhe o zello a elle naõ pertence e só devia Louvar; porque o desfazer hum Prelado hum erro
Com q̄ defende a ju de hum menos douto Ministro, aonde o naõ pode haver muito habil, e capaz;
risticaõ Real, e a prence do Prelado, mas acerto, que se deve Louvar e naõ infimular; Com
tudo me Resolvi a enviarla a Real presença de V. Mag.e para zelar a jurisdi
deneia Com q̄ res çaõ da Igreja, que por hora naõ exercito p.a com Cento, e tantas pessoas q̄
pondeo _ Bispo tantos saõ os Soldados, porque vejo, que supposto o incivil genio deste ho
Ley 1E de Dez.ro mem o naõ poderei fazer sem grandes disturbios, e mayores inconvenien
de 1741
I
AN
A
tes. A minha Carta para elle dizia assim.
Snōr Governador, e Capitaõ Geral de Macau. Por nos
chegar alguā noticia, de que V. Sr.a Levava a mal que algum dos Sold.os
deste presidio fosse preso, notificado, ou obedecesse a alguā nossa ordem
ou de algum ministro Ecclesiastico, sem haver anterior Licença ou per
A
Ao
missaõ de V. S.ra p.a o dito effeito; se nos faz preciso expor a V.S.ra as Re
zoens, que nos assistem, e dos ditos Ministros Ecclesiasticos para as
{{PAGE:2}}
execuçoens independentes da dita Licença, para que achando as V. S.ª bem funda
das, queira desistir do tal empenho.
Primeiramente he certo em toda a Christandade, e Christãos
o sabem muito bem, que todos os Christãos, Soldados, e não Soldados, domiciliários
de qualquer Bispado, estão sujeitos a obediência, e jurisdição do Prelado de
tal Bispado, como Christãos, filhos, e súbditos da Igreja, e que assim se devem
haver a nosso respeito os domiciliários deste Bispado; e ainda não deve V. S.ª
estranhar, que digamos, que os Soldados nossos súbditos nos devem tanto maior
obediência que a V. S.ª quanto vai de ser Christão a ser soldado. Sendo lito
certo, e que a jurisdição Ecclesiástica he independente ainda do maior, e mais
levantado poder Secular; bem se segue, que não pode V. S.ª com fundamento
pretender, que não usemos da nossa jurisdição, sem obtermos a tal permissão ou
Licença de V. S.ª, e que querer V. S.ª o contrário, he impedir a jurisdição da
Igreja, o que a mesma Igreja tem muito gravemente proibido.
Além de ser contra o direito Ecclesiástico, e por isso muito
contra a consciência de V. S.ª a dependência, em que V. S.ª quer pôr a juris
dição Ecclesiástica; he contra o estilo do Reyno, e suas Conquistas, e de
todos os Reynos Catholicos, nos quais os Prelados Ecclesiasticos usam de sua
jurisdição a respeito dos seus súbditos, ainda soldados independentes
dos Governadores Seculares, que lhes não podem coarctar sem manifesta
violência. E se o Ouvidor de Macau usa da sua jurisdição a respeito
dos soldados sem a tal dependência da permissão, ou Licença de N. S.ª,
e pelo Ex.mo Snr. V. Rey de Goa foi muito estranhado o impedisse-lhe
{{PAGE:3}}
proceder Contra os Soldados Sem atal Licença do Governador, que então
era, e isto por ser o Seu Juiz Secular; O Seu Juiz Ecclesiastico, o Seu Prelado,
e o seu Bispo hade estar privado da Sua jurisdição à Respeito dos Soldados,
em quanto V.S.a lhe naõ permitte exercitalla? Por Certo, que se Nós vir-
mos precisados à Representação semelhante à que fez o Ouvidor, deve ser m.to
maior a admiração do Ex.mo Sn.r V. Rey, ou de Sua Mag.e se a Sua Real
presença dirigirmos a tal Representação, do que foy no Caso do Ouvidor.
Dirá V. S.r / e he o unico fundamento, que pode allegar/ que
o nosso Antecessor azou com alguns Governadores de Macau, de lhes pedir
que prendessem a este, ou aquelle Soldado, quando se offerecia occasião; e q̃
Supposto acha esse uzo, naõ quer, que se perca no seu tempo. Respondemos
em primeiro Lugar, que em outros mais honrosos Empregos quizeramos valer-
nos de V. S.a, e naõ nesse, em que o nosso Antecessor parece, q̃ fazia aos taes
Governadores Seos officiaes Subalternos. Respondemos em Segundo Lugar,
que huã inefficacia, e hum abuzo do nosso Antecessor, tal como esse, naõ
deve prejudicar a jurisdição da Igreja, nem nos obriga a que o sigamos,
e tenhamos por Regra; antes as Leys Ecclesiasticas, que saõ as Regras por
onde nos devemos governar, nos obrigam ao Contrario.
Quanto ao Receyo, que V. S.a tem de prejudicar ao Su-
gar, q̃ occupa, pode V. S.a estar certo, q̃ cedendo, do que por nenhum direito
lhe pertence o naõ prejudica: Nem V.S.a está obrigado a conservar abuzos,
mas a desfazelos, muito principalmente os q̃ saõ contra a Consciencia, por
serem prejudiciaes à Igreja.
{{PAGE:4}}
Também poderá V. S.ª dizer, que parecerá falta de respeito ao seu lugar,
que esteja um soldado na guarda à sua porta, e que vá um oficial ecle
siástico, e o tire da guarda, sem lho fazer a saber. Dizemos, que para se não
faltar a essa política, serão advertidos os tais oficiais, do que devem fazer
em tal caso. Das mais guardas também serão advertidos, que não tirem
os soldados, senão em caso muito urgente; e então, e também quando os sol
dados forem presos em outros lugares, ou em suas casas, os seus sargentos
o podem noticiar a V. S.ª (como é estilo nas mais partes), para que
possa dar providência à falha do soldado preso.
Isto nos parece, que V. S.ª sem desdouro algum pode
noticiar aos seus soldados, para que deem à igreja a pronta obediência, que
devem: Esperamos que V. S.ª, como tão católico, e obediente à igre
ja, queira assentir ao que temos proposto; pelo que crescerá em nós o gosto,
e edificação. Para tudo o que for do maior agrado de V. S.ª nos offere
cemos com muito cordial afeto: Com ele pedimos a Nosso Senhor que guie
a sua pessoa por muito largos, e felizes anos. Estacaõ 3 de Outubro de
1741.
Relatório do Governador de Macau.
Muitíssimo Senhor. Confesso a V. Ill.ª o grande pesar,
que recebi com a carta, que V. Ill.ª ontem me escreveste, porquanto cuidan
do eu muito em não molestar a V. Ill.ª, ou a coisa que toque à sua ju
risdição, e não me intrometendo em coisa alguma nela por evitar desabores
com V. Ill.ª, a quem desejo agradar; vejo não me ser possível acabar o
com
{{PAGE:5}}
Meu governo com o mesmo Sucesso, que até agora tenho conseguido, pois
me obriga V. Ill.ma intempestivamente, sem Causa, e sem motivo algum, que
faça necessária ao presente solução da dúvida, que me põem, a qual pudera
ficar indecisa, como até agora tem estado, sem que pudesse fazer tempo em
que fosse preciso parlamentar alla, porque a veneração, com que estimo a V. Ill.ma,
e o Cuidado, que tenho de não embaraçar o Militar com o Ecclesiástico, faria desnecessária a Resolução, que agora V. Ill.ma me obriga a dar, torno a di-
zer, fora do tempo, e sem urgência alguma; e se V. Ill.ma fizesse tão pouco
gosto, como eu faço nestes governilhos, não lhe lembraria, é Certo, o apu-
rar Coisas tão desnecessárias: e assim passo a responder à Carta de V. Ill.ma
Capítulo por Capítulo, e em recompensa do trabalho, que nisto me fez so-
mar tão contra o meu génio, e a minha profissão, peço a Deus de a V. Ill.ma
tanta Saúde, vida, descanso, e felicidades, como eu para mim desejo.
Em primeiro Lugar me diz V. Ill.ma, que lhe tinha che-
gado alguma noticia, em que eu levava a mal, que algum Militar fosse pre-
so, não ficado, ou obedecesse alguma ordem de ministros Ecclesiásticos,
sem haver anterior Licença, ou permissão minha para o dito efeito, e que
se faz preciso a V. Ill.ma expor as Razões, que assistem aos Ministros
Ecclesiásticos para tais execuções independentes da minha Licença.
A que respondo, que nos três pontos acima insinuados de prisão, notifica-
ção, ou obediência, deve haver particulares distinções, porque suposto que
V. Ill.ma na sua Carta os vai levando todos por uma medida; eu
entendo, que são diversos uns dos outros, como agora direi. No que
{{PAGE:6}}
toca a ferem os militares não ficados pelos Ministros Ecclesiasticos para defenderem, ou assistirem às Causas, que tiverem nos seus juízos, não se me oferece
duvida alguma, porque neste Caso, nem o serviço de El-Rey nosso Senhor pode
ser prejudicado, nem o seu Real Padroado, que professo defender, violentado,
ou usurpado, e assim podem os ditos militares serem notificados, sem que
preceda o dar-se primeiro parte. No que toca a serem presos por justiças,
ou ministros Ecclesiasticos, não convenho, sem que anticipadamente se me
dê parte por Carta Fechada, em a qual deva eu saber as culpas dos delin
quentes, porque não ignoro os muito poucos Casos, em que é permitido à justi
ça Ecclesiastica prender os Seculares, principalmente officiaes militares,
e ainda folgados, e muito mais nesta Cidade, adonde havendo tantos Presí
dios, há tão pouca gente que para suprir a falta de hum Soldado doente
me custa grande trabalho. Ao terceiro ponto de obedecerem os mili
tares às ordens dos Ministros Ecclesiasticos, em nenhuma forma convenho;
porque, como V. Ill.ma na sua Carta me fala geralmente em obediên
cia, sem me declarar se deve ser no espiritual, ou no temporal, no que
vai muita diferença; e assim resolvo, que no temporal não deve ter a
menor obediência ao Ecclesiastico; em quanto para o espiritual seja
necessária a obediência de qualquer delles, se me deve dar parte na for
ma sobredita, para eu os fazer obedecer a risca, sem que a V. Ill.ma lhe
custe exercer a espada da Igreja, de que todos nós os Catholicos te
mos muito temor, e Respeito.
No segundo Capitulo da Carta de V. Ill.ma, que
que
{{PAGE:7}}
Venero, me diz, que he certo, que toda a Christandade sabe, que todos os Christãos
Soldados, e não Soldados, domiciliários de qualquer Bispado, estão sujeitos à obe
diência, e jurisdição do tal Prelado, ou Bispo, como Christãos, filhos, e súbditos
da Igreja, e que assim se deve haver à respeito deste Bispado; E que ainda não
devo eu estranhar chamar (V. Ill.ma) aos militares, seus Súbditos, e que estes devem
ter maior obediência a V. Ill.ma do que a mim, quanto vai de ser soldado, a ser
Christão, e que assim pode V. Ill.ma usar de suas jurisdições para com elles, sem
lhe ser necessária a minha permissão. A que Respondo: Que he Certo, e eu
Confesso, que não só os Soldados, senão eu também devo, e estou prompto para
obedecer aos preceitos de V. Ill.ma em tudo o que tocar ao espiritual, e ao bem da
salvação de nossas almas, o que fica por conta de V. Ill.ma, e fora disto no que
toca a militar, e temporal não devem elles obedecer nesta Cidade a ordens ne
nhumas, que não forem minhas, ou de meus officiaes lhes quiserem man
dar antecipadamente, o que N. Ill.ma, ou os seus officiaes lhes quiserem man
dar, para ver se implica em alguma Coisa com o serviço del Rey, ou com
o Padroado Real, e como &.a Ill.ma no seu Capitulo
no seu Capitulo se não explica, e
só me fala geralmente; quero-me explicar com toda a clareza, e este he
o sistema que sigo: E no que forçar-me V. Ill.ma a dizer que os militares de
vem maior obediência a V. Ill.ma, que a mim; distingo, no que toca ao
espiritual, Concedo, mas no que toca ao temporal e serviço militar nego,
porquanto a mim me devem neste Caso toda a obediência, e a V. Ill.ma Ne
nhuma, e a não ser assim bem aviado iria o serviço del Rey nosso Senhor, e o Pa
droado Real: affirmando mais a V. Ill.ma, que tudo o que toca ao militar
6
{{PAGE:8}}
Nesta Cidade eu os governo, e mando sem que ninguem se possa intrometer ao
contrário, sem que primeiro anticipadamente me dê parte, para que eu dê a
prevenção necessária, para que o serviço de El-Rei nosso Senhor não tenha o me
nor prejuízo.
E no que toca ao terceiro Capítulo, em o qual V. Ill.ma me diz,
que eu quero fazer dependente o juízo Eclesiástico da minha dependência, o que
é contra o estilo do Reino, e suas Conquistas, e de todos os Reinos Ca
thólicos, nos quais os Prelados Cathólicos usam de sua jurisdição à respeito dos Seus Subditos, ainda soldados, independentes dos Governadores Secu
lares, que lhes não podem coarctar sem manifesta violência. Respondo:
Que eu não quero fazer dependente a justiça Eclesiástica do meu governo, e
senão há perto de hum anno, e meio, que governo, com o favor de Deos, esta Cid.e,
digame V. Ill.ma se alguma hora, ou em alguma ocasião me meti, ou me impor
tou o seu governo, ou se levemente por mim, ou por outrem lhe falei, ou me intro
meti em cousa de sua jurisdição, ou se algum Eclesiástico, Regular, ou
irregular, teve de mim alguma molestia, ou prejuízo, ou recebeu de mim alguma
ordem, ou se obréi com elles algum acto de jurisdição; é muito certo, que não,
e sendo assim, como, ou em que forma, quero eu como V. Ill.ma diz, fazer o
seu juízo dependente da minha jurisdição? E no que toca ao que V. Ill.ma
me diz, que em todos os Reinos Cathólicos obedecem estes aos seus Bispos,
e Prelados, tenho já respondido largamente a V. Ill.ma, que no espiritual se
me não oferece dúvida, e que no que toca ao temporal se me há de primeiro fa
zer saber na forma sobredita. Mais me diz V. Ill.ma, que o Ouvidor
{{PAGE:9}}
45
de Macao usa da Sua jurisdição com os Soldados, sem a tal dependência da permissão minha, e que isto viera decidido do Ex.mo Senhor, o Snr.
VRey, e Capitão Geral da Índia, estranhando muito ao meu Antecessor
impedir o proceder o dito Ouvidor Contra os Soldados sem permissão sua;
e que se esta competência tem hum Juiz secular, deve também o Juízo Eccle
siástico, e CVIll.ma ter a mesma. A que Respondo: Que se V. Ill.ma an
tes de se resolver a sahir em público com estas operações tivesse mais al
guma ponderação neste, e em outros Casos, e examinar-se com melhor
consideração, e menos paixão a verdade, e as circunstâncias das cousas,
estou muito certo, que V. Ill.ma
não me escreveria esta Carta, allegando
me por exemplo a Resolução, que teve o Ouvidor, o que tal não há, e in
formaram a V. Ill.ma falsamente, como o mesmo Ouvidor poderá a
V. Ill.ma dizer; e eu agora lhe digo, que a Resolução desta matéria tenho
eu por Carta particular do Ex.mo Snr., na qual me diz, que não poderá
o Ouvidor prender militar algum, sem que primeiro preceda permissão mi
nha, e que eu devo não embaracar então os seus procedimentos; e agora verá
V. Ill.ma o como esses Lizongeiros o enganam obrigando a por prescrição
hum exemplo tão falso. E se V. Ill.ma se lembrasse da pouca
cautela, com que deu crédito os tempos passados a Lizongeiros apaixo
nados, não se veria precisado a proceder Contra Pedro da Cruz tão fora
dos termos da verdade, que ao depois quando a palpou com ponderação
necessária a verdade do facto, não teve mais remédio, que por huma Contra
declaratória, affirmando, que ignorava a verdade do Caso, dando por
{{PAGE:10}}
Nullo tudo quanto tinha obrado, o que a mim, espero em Deos, me naõ succederá,
porque antes de sahir a publico com os meos projectos heide primeiro pondera-
los, e examinalos com toda a craçaõ, para que me naõ succeda deixar aclei-
çaõ dos pios Leitores, o entenderem se obres mal informado ou com paixaõ:
Mas ainda naõ está com igualdade o Simile, que V. Ill.ma me poe, di-
zendo, que deve ter a justiça Ecclesiastica a mesma prerrogativa, que teve o
Ouvidor; ainda no caso que assim fosse, antes eu dissimularia com o Ouvi-
dor o naõ me dar parte dos seus projectos com a gente militar, do que com
V. Ill.ma, porque aquelle naõ pode obrar cousa alguma, que prejudique o Pa-
droado Real, e a V. Ill.ma naõ consentirei, que se valha nunca da gente
Militar, sem que primeiro saiba eu o projecto q̄ quizer emprehender. E se
naõ se vê V. Ill.ma, como me diz, pode fazer com q̄ o militar lhe obedeça à
Minha reveria, qual he a razão, porque os Illustrissimos Senhores Bispos,
quando necessitaõ ajuda do braço secular, a pedem aos Governadores, e naõ
a mandam tirar dispoticamente? Isto está claro? Se podem, para q̄ pedem?
e se pedem, he certo que naõ podem, e tenho respondido a V. Ill.ma no
caso, que me expõem; e no que toca a dizerme V. Ill.ma
V. Ill.ma
que porà a decisão
no parecer do Exm.º Snr. o Snr. Veley, ou em Portugal na do Nosso
Soberano; digo que V. Ill.ma o faça se quizer, porque lhe prometo de me
naõ afastar hum ponto nem hum átimo, da Resoluçaõ, que vier; e este
seja toda a vontade de V. Ill.ma, para q̄ conheça o excesso com q̄
dezejo em tudo servillo, e fazerlhe a vontade: porém em quanto esta naõ
vier, me naõ afastarei do estylo em cousa algũa certamente.
{{PAGE:11}}
Mais me diz V. Ill.ma na sua Carta, que o que posso allegar a meu
favor he, que o Illustrissimo Senhor Bispo Antecessor de V. Ill.ma usou
com Governadores desta Cidade, de lhes pedir que lhes prendessem este, ou aquelle
militar quando se lhes offerecia occasião, e que achando eu este uso, não querei se perca no meu tempo: /o que he sem duvida) e assim mais me diz
V.
V. Ill.ma, que isto era hum abuso do Ill.mo Snr. Bispo, que Deos tem, o qual
V. Ill.ma quer emendar por não perder a sua jurisdição. A que respondo: Que
o Ill.mo Snr. Bispo, que Deos tem, tinha a mesmissima jurisdição, e obrigação
que V. Ill.ma tem, e assim tambem hum grande nome em toda a parte de
muitas Virtudes, e grandes Letras; as mesmas no mesmo equilíbrio, reconheco
eu tambem na Ill.ma Pessoa, e prendas de V. Ill.mas. E agora eu que sou Leigo,
e não professo Letras, por razão, ou com que fundamento não seguirei
a opinião, que seguia o Ill.mo Snr. Bispo, que Deos tem, para seguir a que
V. Ill.ma me insinua, não sendo a favor da minha Regalia, como a qual
era, e torno a dizer a V. Ill.ma, que por hora não tenho ordem alguma de meus
Superiores, que haõ só os que me podem governar para poder ceder, que em V. Ill.ma a alcançando o farei com m.to gosto.
Tambem me diz V. Ill.ma, que por se não faltar ao meu
respeito, porque parece mal tirarem-se-me os Soldados da minha porta,
ou dos Presídios, que saõ fortalezas del Rey Nosso Senhor, por hum
Official de justiça Ecclesiastica sem me fazer saber, me não faltará em
advertir esta política aos seus officiaes. A que respondo: Que por ora
a gradecendo m.to a V. Ill.ma esta galantaria,
C
esta galantaria, a não aceito, porque não neces
{{PAGE:12}}
[Kraken transcription error]
{{PAGE:13}}
[Kraken transcription error]
{{PAGE:14}}
[Kraken transcription error]
{{PAGE:15}}
[Kraken transcription error]
{{PAGE:16}}
[Kraken transcription error] |
| fulltext_translation | {{PAGE:1}}
**Translation (UK Academic English, conforming to scholarly standards and British spelling conventions)**
**To the Bishop**: The reply given to Your Lordship by the Governor is, in truth, highly consonant with the *Leis Cordens* [i.e., the *Concordat* or ecclesiastical–civil concordat agreements], which expressly stipulate that ecclesiastical jurisdiction must not be exercised outside those cases properly belonging to the ecclesiastical forum—particularly where such exercise would prejudice the royal prerogative and the sovereign’s jurisdiction over his own household. This principle applies not only to soldiers, but equally to any other legally competent person; and, specifically regarding soldiers, those stationed on sentry duty at any location whatsoever may neither be arrested nor removed from their post except upon formal relief.
With regard to secular coercive assistance (*ajuda de braço secular*), the Bishop—or his duly authorised ministers—must formally request such aid from the *Ouvidor* (Royal Judge), strictly in accordance with statutory procedure; save in cases involving the execution of sentences pronounced within the *Casa privativa da jurisdição eclesiástica* (i.e., the Bishop’s private ecclesiastical court), wherein the Bishop retains full authority to order arrests and enforce judgments through his own officers, without recourse to secular enforcement—provided such assistance is not strictly necessary. In cases of *foro misto* (mixed jurisdiction), should the Bishop demonstrate an uncontested, long-standing possession (*posse incontestável*) of the right to execute his sentences through his own ministers, he may lawfully continue to do so under that established possession.
It is for this reason—and not without due deliberation—that I have deemed it necessary to submit, to the Royal Presence of Your Majesty, the response issued by the Governor in this city of Macau to a letter of mine, in which I had counselled him against seeking to exempt soldiers from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. In order to verify the matter empirically, I directed that a soldier be summoned before me; it proved necessary for my officer to summon him to my presence. Upon learning that the said Governor had instructed his official to require the soldier’s attendance before me—and further, that the Governor himself maintained that I possessed no authority over soldiers without his prior licence—I was obliged to clarify that the concession formerly granted to the Bishop (which the present Governor now invokes as precedent) constituted an abuse committed by my predecessor: on those rare occasions when the latter required the arrest of a soldier, he availed himself of the Governors’ cooperation solely for purposes of execution—not as a matter of jurisdictional subordination.
Moreover, the Governor’s reply is as politically astute as it is misleading; it unjustly imputes fault to me, whereas the zeal demonstrated therein rightly belongs to the Bishop alone—and indeed merits commendation, not censure. For it is wholly praiseworthy, not culpable, when a Prelate corrects an error committed by a less learned minister—especially where the latter’s competence and capacity are evidently limited. Such correction upholds both the dignity of the Royal Patronage (*Padroado Real*) and the authority of the Prelate; it reflects sound judgment, and ought therefore to be commended, not disparaged.
Nonetheless, mindful of my duty to safeguard the integrity of ecclesiastical jurisdiction—a jurisdiction which, at present, I am unable to exercise effectively over some one hundred individuals (namely, the garrison soldiers), owing to the uncivil disposition of the incumbent Governor—I have resolved to lay this matter before Your Majesty. I foresee that, absent Royal intervention, any attempt to assert this jurisdiction would provoke grave disturbances and even greater inconveniences.
My original letter to the Governor read as follows:
> *Sir Governor and Captain-General of Macau*,
>
> Having received certain information to the effect that Your Excellency takes exception to the arrest, citation, or obedience to any of our orders—or those of any ecclesiastical minister—issued to any of the soldiers stationed at this presidio, unless preceded by Your Excellency’s express licence or authorisation for that specific purpose, we consider it necessary to set forth before Your Excellency the legal grounds underpinning the rights both of this See and of its ecclesiastical ministers.
{{PAGE:2}}
Independent actions undertaken without the aforementioned licence—whereby Your Excellency, finding them well founded, might wish to relinquish such an undertaking.
Firstly, it is universally acknowledged throughout Christendom—and well known to all Christians—that all Christians, whether soldiers or non-combatants, residing within any diocese, are subject to the obedience and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the prelate of that diocese, as Christians, children, and subjects of the Church; and thus the residents of this diocese must likewise conduct themselves towards us. Nor ought Your Excellency to find it surprising that we assert that our soldier-subjects owe us a greater degree of obedience than they do to Your Excellency, inasmuch as the obligations of a Christian are augmented—not diminished—by the added duties incumbent upon a soldier.
It is an established principle, moreover, that ecclesiastical jurisdiction is independent even of the highest and most exalted secular authority; it therefore follows logically that Your Excellency cannot, on any sound basis, claim that we may not exercise our canonical jurisdiction without first obtaining Your Excellency’s permission or licence. To insist otherwise would constitute an impediment to the Church’s jurisdiction—a matter which the Church itself has gravely prohibited.
Moreover, the dependence which Your Excellency seeks to impose upon ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not only contrary to canon law—and thus gravely at odds with Your Excellency’s own conscience—but also inconsistent with the established constitutional practice (*estilo*) of the Kingdom of Portugal and its overseas dominions, as well as with the settled custom of all Catholic monarchies. In these realms, ecclesiastical prelates have always exercised their jurisdiction over their subjects—including soldiers—without subordination to secular governors, who may not curtail such jurisdiction except by manifest violence. Indeed, the Ouvidor (Royal Magistrate) of Macau exercises his judicial authority over soldiers without requiring prior permission or licence from Our Sacred Congregation (Nossa Sagrada Congregação), and the Most Excellent Lord Viceroy of Goa expressly disapproved—indeed, found it highly irregular—that any attempt should be made to impede him in this regard.
{{PAGE:3}}
Proceedings against soldiers without the prior licence of the Governor—who at that time held authority over them as their secular judge—raise a significant canonical and jurisdictional question: ought the ecclesiastical judge, namely the prelate and bishop, be deprived of his ordinary jurisdiction over such soldiers for as long as Your Excellency does not expressly permit its exercise? Certainly, if we find ourselves compelled to make a representation analogous to that submitted by the Ouvidor (Royal Magistrate), the astonishment felt by His Excellency the Viceroy—or even by His Majesty himself, were such a representation to be addressed directly to the Royal Presence—would be considerably greater than in the case of the Ouvidor.
Your Excellency may argue—and this is the sole ground you can advance—that our predecessor customarily requested successive Governors of Macau to arrest particular soldiers whenever occasion arose; and that, although this practice has become established, you are unwilling that it should lapse during your tenure. To this we reply, first, that we would gladly avail ourselves of Your Excellency’s assistance in matters of greater dignity and importance, but not in one wherein our predecessor appears to have treated those Governors as his own subordinate officers. Second, an inefficacious or abusive practice adopted by our predecessor—such as this one—neither impairs the Church’s inherent jurisdiction nor obliges us to perpetuate it as a normative precedent; rather, ecclesiastical law—the very rule by which we are bound to govern ourselves—requires precisely the opposite.
As regards Your Excellency’s concern that yielding on this point might prejudice the office you hold: you may rest assured that relinquishing what belongs to you by no legitimate right entails no injury to your position. Nor are you obliged to preserve abuses; on the contrary, you are duty-bound to abolish them—especially those which offend conscience and harm the Church.
{{PAGE:4}}
Also, Your Excellency may observe that it would appear disrespectful to your office for a soldier to be stationed on guard at your door, and for an ecclesiastical officer to remove him from duty without first informing you. We reply that, in order to avoid any breach of diplomatic protocol, such officers shall be formally instructed in advance regarding their proper conduct in such circumstances. Likewise, all other guards shall be directed not to withdraw soldiers from their posts except in cases of the utmost urgency; and in such instances—as also when soldiers are detained elsewhere or in their own dwellings—their respective sergeants may report the matter to Your Excellency (as is customary in other jurisdictions), so that appropriate measures may be taken to address the absence of the detained soldier.
We consider that Your Excellency may communicate this arrangement to your troops without any diminution of dignity, thereby urging them to render prompt obedience to the Church, as is their due. We trust that Your Excellency—being so devout a Catholic and so obedient to ecclesiastical authority—will assent to the proposals set forth above; in doing so, you will greatly enhance our satisfaction and spiritual edification. In all matters that may be most agreeable to Your Excellency, we offer our most sincere and heartfelt cooperation. With this assurance, we commend Your Excellency to the guidance of Our Lord for many long and prosperous years. Macau, 3 October 1741.
Report of the Governor of Macau.
Most Illustrious Lord,
I confess to Your Illustrious Lordship the profound regret I felt upon receiving Your Illustrious Lordship’s letter of yesterday, since I have taken great care not to trouble Your Illustrious Lordship—or to encroach in any way upon matters falling within your jurisdiction—in order to avoid causing offence to one whom I earnestly wish to please; yet I now find it impossible to conclude the matter…
{{PAGE:5}}
My administration has proceeded with the same success as hitherto achieved; yet Your Illustrious Lordship compels me—untimely, without cause, and without any justifiable reason—to resolve, at this juncture, a question which has remained deliberately unsettled until now. That question could well have continued in abeyance, as it has done for some time, without requiring formal deliberation before the relevant authority; for the profound veneration I hold for Your Illustrious Lordship, coupled with my careful regard for preserving the proper separation between military and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, would have rendered such a resolution unnecessary. I repeat: Your Illustrious Lordship’s demand for an immediate pronouncement is both premature and devoid of urgency. Moreover, were Your Illustrious Lordship to take as little pleasure in these administrative matters as I do, it is certain that You would not deem it necessary to scrutinise issues so evidently superfluous. Accordingly, I proceed to address Your Illustrious Lordship’s letter point by point. In recompense for the considerable labour this task has imposed upon me—labour wholly contrary to my natural disposition and professional calling—I commend Your Illustrious Lordship to the divine favour, praying that God may grant You as much health, longevity, repose, and felicity as I myself earnestly desire for my own person.
Firstly, Your Illustrious Lordship states that You have received certain information suggesting that I take exception to the arrest of a military officer, or to his failure to remain in custody, or to his obedience to an order issued by ecclesiastical ministers—without my prior licence or explicit authorisation for such action—and that You therefore require me to set forth the grounds upon which ecclesiastical ministers claim the authority to undertake such measures independently of my consent.
To this I reply that the three points cited above—namely, arrest, formal notification (or citation), and obedience to ecclesiastical directives—require distinct and separate consideration; for although Your Illustrious Lordship treats them collectively in Your letter as if governed by a single principle, I maintain that they are, in fact, juridically and functionally distinct from one another—as I shall now explain. With regard to…
{{PAGE:6}}
The question of whether military personnel may be summoned by ecclesiastical ministers to defend or assist in cases pending before their courts raises no difficulty in my view. In this instance, neither the service owed to His Majesty our Lord nor his Royal Patronage—which I profess to uphold—can be impaired, violated, or usurped. Consequently, the said military personnel may lawfully be notified directly, without the prior requirement of formal intimation (‘dar-se primeiro parte’).
With regard to the arrest of military personnel by secular justices or ecclesiastical ministers, I do not consent—unless I am first formally informed by sealed letter (‘Carta Fechada’) specifying the alleged offences committed by the individuals concerned. I am well aware that ecclesiastical justice is permitted to detain laypersons—including military officers and even those on leave—only in a very limited number of exceptional cases. This restraint is all the more imperative in this city, where, despite the presence of numerous garrisons, the shortage of manpower is acute: replacing even a single sick soldier entails considerable difficulty.
Concerning the third point—namely, the obligation of military personnel to obey the orders of ecclesiastical ministers—I cannot assent in any respect. As Your Illustrious Lordship states in your letter that obedience is required ‘generally’, without clarifying whether such obedience pertains to spiritual matters or temporal affairs—a distinction of fundamental importance—I must therefore rule unequivocally that military personnel owe no obedience whatsoever to ecclesiastical authorities in temporal matters. As regards spiritual matters, however, should obedience prove necessary, I require prior notification in the manner described above, so that I may ensure strict compliance on their part—thereby sparing Your Illustrious Lordship the necessity of wielding the ‘sword of the Church’, an authority which all Catholics hold in profound reverence and awe.
In the second chapter of Your Illustrious Lordship’s letter, which—
{{PAGE:7}}
I respectfully acknowledge your assertion—that it is indeed certain, and universally known throughout Christendom, that all Christians, whether soldiers or civilians, resident within any diocese, are subject to the obedience and jurisdiction of its prelate or bishop, as Christians, children, and subjects of the Church; and that this principle must likewise apply to this diocese. You further state that I ought not to find it extraordinary for Your Most Illustrious Lordship to refer to military personnel as your subjects, and that such persons owe Your Illustrious Lordship a greater degree of obedience than they do to me—since the duty of a soldier is subordinate to that of a Christian—and that Your Illustrious Lordship may therefore exercise your ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them without requiring my prior authorisation.
To this I respond: It is certainly true—and I freely confess—that not only soldiers, but I myself, am bound, and stand ready, to obey Your Illustrious Lordship’s precepts in all matters pertaining to spiritual discipline and the salvation of our souls—a responsibility which rests solely with Your Illustrious Lordship. However, in all matters concerning military affairs and temporal administration, no soldier stationed in this city is obliged to obey any orders other than those issued by myself or by my officers—unless, in advance, Your Illustrious Lordship or your officers should issue instructions whose implications we jointly assess for possible conflict with the service of His Majesty the King or with the Royal Patronage (*Padroado Real*). As Your Illustrious Lordship’s chapter does not specify these matters explicitly, but speaks only in general terms, I deem it necessary to clarify my position with full precision—and this is the principle I uphold.
Should Your Illustrious Lordship press me to affirm that military personnel owe you greater obedience than they owe to me, I make the following distinction: In spiritual matters, I concede the point; but in temporal and military matters, I categorically deny it. For in such matters, they owe me absolute obedience—and none whatsoever to Your Illustrious Lordship. Were it otherwise, the service of His Majesty our Lord and the integrity of the Royal Patronage would be gravely compromised. I further affirm to Your Illustrious Lordship that all matters relating to military affairs—
{{PAGE:8}}
In this city, I govern and command without any person being permitted to interfere contrary to my authority—unless they first inform me in advance, so that I may issue the necessary preventive measures to ensure that the service of His Majesty our Lord suffers no detriment whatsoever.
With regard to the third chapter, in which Your Most Illustrious Lordship states that I seek to render the ecclesiastical jurisdiction subject to my own civil authority—a practice contrary to the established custom of the Kingdom of Portugal, its overseas dominions, and indeed all Catholic realms, wherein Catholic prelates exercise their jurisdiction over their subjects (including soldiers) independently of secular governors, who may not restrict such ecclesiastical authority except by manifest violence—I respond as follows:
I have no intention whatsoever of subordinating ecclesiastical justice to my civil governance. Indeed, it is barely a year and a half since I assumed, with God’s grace, the government of this city. I therefore ask Your Most Illustrious Lordship: has there been any occasion—however brief—during this period when I have interfered in, or attempted to encroach upon, your ecclesiastical jurisdiction? Has any communication—whether initiated by myself or by another—passed between us concerning matters properly belonging to your spiritual authority? Has any ecclesiastic, whether secular or regular, suffered inconvenience or injury at my hands? Has any such person received an order from me, or have I performed any act whatsoever falling within the domain of ecclesiastical jurisdiction? It is entirely certain that none of these things has occurred. Given this fact, how—or in what manner—could I, as Your Most Illustrious Lordship alleges, be seeking to render your judicial authority dependent upon mine?
Moreover, with respect to Your Most Illustrious Lordship’s assertion that, in all Catholic realms, clergy are subject to their bishops and prelates, I have already replied to you at length: I raise no objection whatever in matters spiritual; however, in temporal matters affecting ecclesiastical persons or property, I must first be duly informed—precisely in the manner outlined above—before any action is taken.
Your Most Illustrious Lordship further states that the *ouvidor* [royal magistrate / crown judge]…
{{PAGE:9}}
45
The magistrate of Macau exercises his judicial authority over soldiers independently, without requiring my prior permission—a matter reportedly settled by His Excellency the Lord Viceroy and Captain-General of India, who strongly disapproved of my predecessor’s insistence that the said magistrate obtain such permission before proceeding against soldiers. It is further argued that, if a secular judge possesses this jurisdiction, then the ecclesiastical court—and the *Civillíssima* (i.e., the civil magistracy)—must possess it equally.
To this I reply: Had Your Illustrious Lordship exercised greater deliberation—both in this matter and in others—before publicly initiating such proceedings; had you examined the facts and circumstances with greater care and less passion; and had you more rigorously weighed both truth and context, I am fully confident that Your Illustrious Lordship would not have addressed me in this letter, citing as precedent a resolution allegedly issued by the magistrate—a resolution which, in fact, does not exist. Your Illustrious Lordship has been misinformed on this point, as the magistrate himself may confirm to you; and I now inform you that the authoritative position on this matter is set forth in a private letter from His Excellency the Lord Viceroy, in which he explicitly states that the magistrate may not arrest any military personnel without my prior authorisation, and that I am, in turn, obliged not to obstruct the magistrate’s lawful proceedings. Your Illustrious Lordship will now see how these *lizongeiros* (lit. ‘litigious agents’; i.e., unscrupulous legal intermediaries or petitioners) have misled you by fabricating so spurious an example. Moreover, were Your Illustrious Lordship to recall the undue credulity with which, on previous occasions, you accepted the representations of impassioned *lizongeiros*, you would not have found yourself compelled to proceed against Pedro da Cruz in a manner so manifestly at odds with the truth—so much so that, upon later subjecting the facts to due reflection and careful scrutiny, you had no recourse but to issue a corrective declaration formally acknowledging your prior ignorance of the true circumstances of the case.
{{PAGE:10}}
Having nullified all that he had previously undertaken, I trust in God that the same will not befall me; for before publishing my proposals publicly, I shall first weigh and examine them with the utmost diligence—so as to avoid leaving pious readers with the impression that my work is ill-informed or driven by passion.
Yet the analogy you, Your Illustrious Lordship, draw remains unequal: you assert that ecclesiastical justice ought to possess the same prerogative as the *ouvidor* (royal magistrate). Even were this premise granted, I should sooner overlook the *ouvidor*’s failure to inform me of his plans concerning the military forces than tolerate a similar omission on Your Illustrious Lordship’s part. For the *ouvidor* cannot undertake any action prejudicial to the Royal Patronage (*Padroado Real*); whereas I expressly withhold consent for Your Illustrious Lordship ever to employ military personnel without my prior knowledge of the project you intend to undertake.
And if, as Your Illustrious Lordship claims, you are indeed able to command the obedience of the military to your authority—as you state—I ask: why then do the Most Illustrious Lords Bishops, when requiring assistance from the secular arm, petition Governors rather than unilaterally requisitioning troops? Is this not self-evident? If they possessed such power, why would they petition? And if they must petition, it follows necessarily that they lack such power. Thus, I have answered Your Illustrious Lordship’s query directly, addressing the precise case you present.
As for Your Illustrious Lordship’s further statement—that the final decision shall rest either with the opinion of His Excellency Sir Veley, or, in Portugal, with our Sovereign—I reply that you may proceed thus, should you so wish; for I pledge that I shall deviate neither a single point nor the smallest fraction thereof from whichever resolution is issued. Let this be Your Illustrious Lordship’s sole and absolute will—so that you may perceive the depth of my earnest desire to serve you faithfully in all things and to fulfil your wishes. Nevertheless, pending receipt of that resolution, I shall assuredly adhere, in every particular, to the established protocol and customary practice.
{{PAGE:11}}
Your Excellency writes in your letter that the only justification I might advance in my own defence is that His Most Illustrious Lordship the late Bishop—the predecessor of Your Excellency—was accustomed, in his dealings with governors of this city, to request that they arrest this or that military officer whenever occasion arose; and that, having observed this practice, I am resolved it shall not lapse during my tenure. This is indeed the case. You further state, Your Excellency, that such a practice constituted an abuse on the part of the late Most Illustrious Lord Bishop (may God rest his soul), which Your Excellency now seeks to correct so as to safeguard your episcopal jurisdiction. To this I reply: The late Most Illustrious Lord Bishop (may God rest his soul) possessed precisely the same jurisdiction and canonical obligation as Your Excellency now holds; moreover, he enjoyed throughout the realm a distinguished reputation for numerous virtues and profound erudition. I acknowledge with equal regard the same balance of learning and virtue in Your Excellency’s person and accomplishments. As for myself, I am a layman, unordained and without formal scholarly training; yet on what rational or canonical ground—what principled foundation—should I abandon the course followed by the late Most Illustrious Lord Bishop (may God rest his soul), in order to adopt the alternative Your Excellency suggests, especially when that alternative does not uphold my royal prerogative—a prerogative which, I repeat to Your Excellency, remains fully intact? At present, I hold no instruction from my superiors—those sole authorities empowered to direct me—authorising any concession in this matter; should such a directive be issued and reach Your Excellency, I shall comply with the utmost readiness and goodwill.
You also inform me, Your Excellency, that, out of deference to my dignity—and lest it appear improper for soldiers stationed at my residence or within the royal presídios (fortresses belonging to His Majesty our Lord King) to be removed by an ecclesiastical officer of justice without prior notification to me—you will instruct your officials accordingly, so as to ensure due diplomatic consideration. To this I respond: While I gratefully acknowledge Your Excellency’s courtesy in making this offer, I respectfully decline it—not because I doubt its sincerity, but because I do not require it.
{{PAGE:12}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error indicator—no substantive historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the actual archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from a 16th–20th-century Portuguese colonial record, ecclesiastical register, administrative letter, or similar primary source) so that I may undertake the scholarly translation in accordance with the rigorous guidelines specified: British English orthography, academic register, historical fidelity, structural preservation, and suitability for citation in UK-based research contexts.
I remain ready to assist with prompt, precise, and contextually grounded translation upon receipt of the source material.
{{PAGE:13}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error notice—no historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the actual archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from a 16th–20th-century Portuguese colonial record, ecclesiastical register, administrative letter, or similar primary source) that requires scholarly translation. Once received, I will produce a precise, academically rigorous translation in modern British English, fully compliant with the stated guidelines—including historical fidelity, UK academic conventions, appropriate terminology handling, and structural integrity for citation and research use.
{{PAGE:14}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error placeholder—no actual historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the full archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from the Portuguese colonial records, including original Portuguese or Latin script, dates, administrative headings, or contextual fragments) so that I may undertake a rigorous, academically grounded translation in accordance with the specified guidelines: British English orthography, scholarly register, historical fidelity, and suitability for citation in UK-based historical research.
Once the source text is supplied, I will deliver a translation that:
- Distinguishes between archaic terms requiring glossing (e.g., *ouvidor* → ‘royal magistrate (ouvidor)’, a Crown-appointed judicial officer in Portuguese colonial administration’)
- Retains original structural features (marginalia, abbreviations expanded in square brackets, lacunae marked [illegible] or [gap])
- Annotates institutional roles, place names, and legal concepts with brief, parenthetical clarifications where essential for comprehension
- Adheres strictly to UK academic conventions (e.g., ‘judgement’, ‘centre’, ‘colonisation’)
I am ready to proceed upon receipt of the archival text.
{{PAGE:15}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error indicator—no substantive historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the actual archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from a 16th–20th-century Portuguese colonial record, ecclesiastical register, administrative letter, or similar primary source) that requires scholarly translation. Once received, I will produce a precise, academically rigorous translation in modern British English, adhering strictly to all eight guidelines—including preservation of historical nuance, appropriate terminology handling, structural fidelity, and suitability for citation in UK-based historical research.
{{PAGE:16}}
The provided text contains only a Kraken transcription error indicator—no substantive historical document content has been supplied for translation.
Please provide the actual archival text (e.g., a legible excerpt from a 16th–20th-century Portuguese colonial record, ecclesiastical register, administrative letter, or similar primary source) so that I may undertake the scholarly translation in accordance with the rigorous guidelines specified: British English orthography, academic register, historical fidelity, structural preservation, and suitability for citation in peer-reviewed research contexts.
I remain ready to assist with prompt, precise, and contextually grounded translation upon receipt of the valid source material. |
| genre | Manuscripts |
| genre_facet | Manuscripts |
| hierarchy_browse | Cx. 04{{{_ID_}}}zotero-coll-8QZFIC6C |
| hierarchy_parent_id | zotero-coll-8QZFIC6C |
| hierarchy_parent_title | Cx. 04 |
| hierarchy_sequence | 0000 |
| hierarchy_top_id | zotero-coll-WX87PJHD |
| hierarchy_top_title | News |
| hierarchytype | Default |
| id | zotero-7T4PMUN7 |
| institution | zotero_group |
| last_indexed | 2026-09-24T07:28:05Z |
| latest_content_date | 2026-09-24T07:28:05Z |
| publishDate | 1739-11-25 |
| publishDateRange | 1739 |
| publishDateSort | 1739 |
| record_format | zotero |
| spelling | Carta do Bispo de Macau, D. Frei Eugénio Trigueiros, a [D. João V], rei de Portugal, sobre a questão entre o Bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições The document is a 1741 ecclesiastical–administrative correspondence from Macau, comprising a formal letter dated 3 October 1741 from the Bishop of Macau to the Governor and Captain-General of Macau, followed by the Governor’s detailed reply, both concerning the contested scope of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over garrison soldiers under Portuguese colonial rule. The Bishop asserts the universal canonical principle that all Christians—including soldiers—within the diocese are subject to his spiritual and judicial authority without requiring secular licence, invoking the *Padroado Real*, the *Leis Cordens* (Concordat), and precedents from Goa and other Catholic realms; he challenges the Governor’s claim to prior authorisation for arrests, citations, or enforcement of ecclesiastical orders, denouncing it as an abusive innovation contradicting established practice and canon law. The Governor counters that military personnel owe him absolute obedience in temporal and disciplinary matters, permitting ecclesiastical summons only with advance notification and refusing ecclesiastical arrest authority absent a sealed royal warrant (*Carta Fechada*), citing manpower constraints and royal prerogative. Both parties reference the *ouvidor* (royal magistrate), conflicting interpretations of viceregal instructions from Goa, and the juridical distinction between *foro misto* and purely ecclesiastical competence. The exchange constitutes a primary source for analysing tensions between ecclesiastical autonomy and colonial military governance in the Portuguese Empire during the mid-eighteenth century. Anexos: 1741-11-10 - Despacho do Conselho Ultramarino ao procurador da Coroa que pede o parecer sobre a carta do Bispo de Macau. No mesmo documento, contém o parecer do procurador da Coroa. 1742-02-17 - Provisão (cópia) de D. João V, rei de Portugal, ao governador e capitão-geral de Macau, Manuel Pereira Coutinho, em que ordena que a jurisdição eclesiástica só deve ser exercida nos casos que pertencem ao foro da igreja. Manuscripts Portugal. Arquivo Histórico Ultramarino PT/AHU/CU/062/0004/00040 1739-11-25 Archival Epistolary Exchange Bishop Dom Eugénio Trigueiros Bishop Eugénio Trigueiros Dom José Henriques Carvalhal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Ecclesiastical–Administrative Correspondence Ecclesiastical–Secular Jurisdictional Boundaries Governor and Captain-General of Macau Jurisdictional Dispute over Soldiers Legal Commentary on Jurisdictional Competence Luís Manuel da Foz Macau Ecclesiastical Administration Macau Garrison Macau Governor’s Administrative Authority Macau Military Jurisdiction Dispute Ouvidor of Macao Portuguese Padroado Real Royal Administrative Directive colonial governance Macau {{PAGE:1}} Respondase a o Bispo q̄ a resposta q̄ lhe de o Gov.or está mto Conforme as Leis Cordens pellas quares naõ deve Con Cleziastica naõ sentir q̄ a jurisdiçaõ eclesiastica se exercire fora dos Casos deve Con dos Casos q̄ pertence ao foro de Jgr.a em prejuizo da juramento da sua Caza naõ só ceresp.o dos sold.os, mestambé de qualqr.e pessoa lega e q̄ em pte os sold.os estiverē de sentinela em qualqr̄ parte q̄ seja naõ podem ser presos, ou tirados da d̄ Sentinella se não rendido; E q.to a ajuda de braço secular a deve pedir elle Bispo ou seus ministros a Ouvidor na forma de Ley salvo nas execuções de Sn.rs na Caza privitivo da jurisdiçaõ eclesiastica porq̄ entaõ pode mandar prender, e executar suas an telas pellos seos off.is sem ajude de braço secular naõ lhe sendo necessr.a e nos Casos de foro misto, tendo elle Bispo provado q̄ esta em posse incontestável de executar as suas snr.as pellos seos mi nistros pode continuar Com esta posse, qdo não Sar-se-me preciso por na Real presença de V. Mag.e a Resposta, q̄ o Gov.or haja nesta Cid.e ordē desta Cidade deu a huma minha, em que o dissuadia de querer isentar os de S. Alg.e encontr.o perimentar, que mandando chamar hum Soldado, foy necessario q̄ o offi perimentar, que mandasse a minha presença, e porq̄ soube, q̄ o dito Gover nor se escré ciall lhe pedisse o mandasse a minha presença, e porq̄ soube, q̄ o dito Gover nor dizia, que eu naõ podia nada com os Soldados sem Licença sua fun lhe o q̄ ao Bispo dado em hum abuzo do meu Antecessor q̄ quando necessitava de mandar se responde da prender algum Soldado se valia dos Governadores para a tal execuçaõ: e ain da q̄ a Resposta deste està taõ politica como della se vé; e me crimina do q̄ provandoselhe o zello a elle naõ pertence e só devia Louvar; porque o desfazer hum Prelado hum erro Com q̄ defende a ju de hum menos douto Ministro, aonde o naõ pode haver muito habil, e capaz; risticaõ Real, e a prence do Prelado, mas acerto, que se deve Louvar e naõ infimular; Com tudo me Resolvi a enviarla a Real presença de V. Mag.e para zelar a jurisdi deneia Com q̄ res çaõ da Igreja, que por hora naõ exercito p.a com Cento, e tantas pessoas q̄ pondeo _ Bispo tantos saõ os Soldados, porque vejo, que supposto o incivil genio deste ho Ley 1E de Dez.ro mem o naõ poderei fazer sem grandes disturbios, e mayores inconvenien de 1741 I AN A tes. A minha Carta para elle dizia assim. Snōr Governador, e Capitaõ Geral de Macau. Por nos chegar alguā noticia, de que V. Sr.a Levava a mal que algum dos Sold.os deste presidio fosse preso, notificado, ou obedecesse a alguā nossa ordem ou de algum ministro Ecclesiastico, sem haver anterior Licença ou per A Ao missaõ de V. S.ra p.a o dito effeito; se nos faz preciso expor a V.S.ra as Re zoens, que nos assistem, e dos ditos Ministros Ecclesiasticos para as {{PAGE:2}} execuçoens independentes da dita Licença, para que achando as V. S.ª bem funda das, queira desistir do tal empenho. Primeiramente he certo em toda a Christandade, e Christãos o sabem muito bem, que todos os Christãos, Soldados, e não Soldados, domiciliários de qualquer Bispado, estão sujeitos a obediência, e jurisdição do Prelado de tal Bispado, como Christãos, filhos, e súbditos da Igreja, e que assim se devem haver a nosso respeito os domiciliários deste Bispado; e ainda não deve V. S.ª estranhar, que digamos, que os Soldados nossos súbditos nos devem tanto maior obediência que a V. S.ª quanto vai de ser Christão a ser soldado. Sendo lito certo, e que a jurisdição Ecclesiástica he independente ainda do maior, e mais levantado poder Secular; bem se segue, que não pode V. S.ª com fundamento pretender, que não usemos da nossa jurisdição, sem obtermos a tal permissão ou Licença de V. S.ª, e que querer V. S.ª o contrário, he impedir a jurisdição da Igreja, o que a mesma Igreja tem muito gravemente proibido. Além de ser contra o direito Ecclesiástico, e por isso muito contra a consciência de V. S.ª a dependência, em que V. S.ª quer pôr a juris dição Ecclesiástica; he contra o estilo do Reyno, e suas Conquistas, e de todos os Reynos Catholicos, nos quais os Prelados Ecclesiasticos usam de sua jurisdição a respeito dos seus súbditos, ainda soldados independentes dos Governadores Seculares, que lhes não podem coarctar sem manifesta violência. E se o Ouvidor de Macau usa da sua jurisdição a respeito dos soldados sem a tal dependência da permissão, ou Licença de N. S.ª, e pelo Ex.mo Snr. V. Rey de Goa foi muito estranhado o impedisse-lhe {{PAGE:3}} proceder Contra os Soldados Sem atal Licença do Governador, que então era, e isto por ser o Seu Juiz Secular; O Seu Juiz Ecclesiastico, o Seu Prelado, e o seu Bispo hade estar privado da Sua jurisdição à Respeito dos Soldados, em quanto V.S.a lhe naõ permitte exercitalla? Por Certo, que se Nós vir- mos precisados à Representação semelhante à que fez o Ouvidor, deve ser m.to maior a admiração do Ex.mo Sn.r V. Rey, ou de Sua Mag.e se a Sua Real presença dirigirmos a tal Representação, do que foy no |
| spellingShingle | Carta do Bispo de Macau, D. Frei Eugénio Trigueiros, a [D. João V], rei de Portugal, sobre a questão entre o Bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições Archival Epistolary Exchange Bishop Dom Eugénio Trigueiros Bishop Eugénio Trigueiros Dom José Henriques Carvalhal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Ecclesiastical–Administrative Correspondence Ecclesiastical–Secular Jurisdictional Boundaries Governor and Captain-General of Macau Jurisdictional Dispute over Soldiers Legal Commentary on Jurisdictional Competence Luís Manuel da Foz Macau Ecclesiastical Administration Macau Garrison Macau Governor’s Administrative Authority Macau Military Jurisdiction Dispute Ouvidor of Macao Portuguese Padroado Real Royal Administrative Directive colonial governance Macau |
| title | Carta do Bispo de Macau, D. Frei Eugénio Trigueiros, a [D. João V], rei de Portugal, sobre a questão entre o Bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições |
| title_autocomplete | Carta do Bispo de Macau, D. Frei Eugénio Trigueiros, a [D. João V], rei de Portugal, sobre a questão entre o Bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições |
| title_full | Carta do Bispo de Macau, D. Frei Eugénio Trigueiros, a [D. João V], rei de Portugal, sobre a questão entre o Bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições |
| title_fullStr | Carta do Bispo de Macau, D. Frei Eugénio Trigueiros, a [D. João V], rei de Portugal, sobre a questão entre o Bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições |
| title_full_unstemmed | Carta do Bispo de Macau, D. Frei Eugénio Trigueiros, a [D. João V], rei de Portugal, sobre a questão entre o Bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições |
| title_short | Carta do Bispo de Macau, D. Frei Eugénio Trigueiros, a [D. João V], rei de Portugal, sobre a questão entre o Bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições |
| title_sort | carta do bispo de macau, d. frei eugénio trigueiros, a [d. joão v], rei de portugal, sobre a questão entre o bispo e o governador relativa aos limites das respectivas jurisdições |
| topic | Archival Epistolary Exchange Bishop Dom Eugénio Trigueiros Bishop Eugénio Trigueiros Dom José Henriques Carvalhal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Ecclesiastical–Administrative Correspondence Ecclesiastical–Secular Jurisdictional Boundaries Governor and Captain-General of Macau Jurisdictional Dispute over Soldiers Legal Commentary on Jurisdictional Competence Luís Manuel da Foz Macau Ecclesiastical Administration Macau Garrison Macau Governor’s Administrative Authority Macau Military Jurisdiction Dispute Ouvidor of Macao Portuguese Padroado Real Royal Administrative Directive colonial governance Macau |
| topic_autocomplete | Archival Epistolary Exchange Bishop Dom Eugénio Trigueiros Bishop Eugénio Trigueiros Dom José Henriques Carvalhal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Ecclesiastical–Administrative Correspondence Ecclesiastical–Secular Jurisdictional Boundaries Governor and Captain-General of Macau Jurisdictional Dispute over Soldiers Legal Commentary on Jurisdictional Competence Luís Manuel da Foz Macau Ecclesiastical Administration Macau Garrison Macau Governor’s Administrative Authority Macau Military Jurisdiction Dispute Ouvidor of Macao Portuguese Padroado Real Royal Administrative Directive colonial governance Macau |
| topic_facet | Archival Epistolary Exchange Bishop Dom Eugénio Trigueiros Bishop Eugénio Trigueiros Dom José Henriques Carvalhal Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over Military Personnel Ecclesiastical–Administrative Correspondence Ecclesiastical–Secular Jurisdictional Boundaries Governor and Captain-General of Macau Jurisdictional Dispute over Soldiers Legal Commentary on Jurisdictional Competence Luís Manuel da Foz Macau Ecclesiastical Administration Macau Garrison Macau Governor’s Administrative Authority Macau Military Jurisdiction Dispute Ouvidor of Macao Portuguese Padroado Real Royal Administrative Directive colonial governance Macau |
| url | https://macau-legacy.usj.edu.mo/docs/7T4PMUN7/viewer_7T4PMUN7.html |
| zotero_collection_key | 8QZFIC6C |