never had ministered to the Indians, nor were they then doing so, as being dependent upon the ordinaries, but with pontifical jurisdiction, remaining in all matters subject to the visitation and correction of their provincials; therefore they must necessarily censure and refuse now this new administration and attempted subjection, which they did not profess and to which God did not call them. Nor do the precedents [brought forward] from America militate against this argument when it is said that there is but one and the same rule, and one and the same form of government, in essentials, for the religious order or orders whose sons find themselves in America and in Filipinas; for those who are in those islands say, with all esteem and reverence, that there are some things more suitable to be admired than imitated, and that, while they admire the courage [of those in America], they confess that they do not possess courage to imitate them in this matter. They add that, if in America and Filipinas a religious order is one and the same, likewise throughout the world the faith and the church of Jesus Christ is one and the same; and nevertheless, if a Catholic, simply because he had chosen an estate of life, should exhort all others to embrace the same, it would not be judicious counsel, or in conformity to the spirit of God; for that Spirit inspires, influences, and calls whomsoever He will, choosing some for an occupation, and dissuading others from that same employ. And thus it is evident, likewise, that in the one religious order some have a vocation for going from Europa to the Indias, and others have not. Then why cannot the same occur in regard to being or not being parish priests subject to the ordinary?