And since the lands of the nuns of Santa Clara retain their immunity and are ranked as spiritual goods, on account of the extreme poverty of those servants of God, does the reverend archbishop regard that only as a physical lack of riches on their part, and no more? or as evangelical poverty which springs from the vow, institute, and profession of the life which they have chosen for Christ, and which the Apostolic See has approved? If the former, the religious frankly state that it is very alien to the ecclesiastical rules, by which the exemption and immunity ought to be measured. Otherwise, innumerable poor people, of those who are commonly called beggars [35] through the streets, would secure, on account of being equally destitute of goods with the said nuns of Santa Clara, or perhaps even more so, ecclesiastical exemption from secular judges for their furniture and petty possessions. If the reverend archbishop answers, "the second," the religious also say, with entire confidence: "What authority is that of this prelate, that he should decide in an official utterance that there is evangelical poverty in the convent of Santa Clara, and not in the other mendicant religious orders? and that the lands of the said convent of Santa Clara enjoy exemption on account of their evangelical poverty and religious institute, while it may not be enjoyed for the same reason by the lands of the other religious orders, which are so distinguished, and are approved by the Church?" Lastly, it follows that the instruction in grammar, philosophy, and theology in the colleges of Santo Tomas and San Jose renders their lands spiritual property, and exempts them from the secular judge. Yet the preaching of the word of God, the instruction in Christian doctrine, the administration of the sacraments of penance and communion, the consolation [of the faithful] with the mass, the visiting of the sick and dying, the ministrations in jails and hospitals, in order that no one may die without the sacraments: these and other spiritual works, which the holy religious orders of the city of Manila habitually perform with all classes of people, are not sufficient [in the archbishop's opinion] to exempt their lands from being profane. If then, Sire, the reverend archbishop has thus conducted himself, in matters so delicate and of the highest importance, simply because the regulars excused themselves from being parish priests subject to his visitation, what may not be feared hereafter? What privileges, exemptions, or decrees will be sufficient, so that he may not explain them as he pleases, and continually open new doors to dissensions? If with such ease he pronounces sentence on the regulars as rebellious, contumacious, and disobedient to the Church, what difficulty will he find in treating them as such--sometimes alone, and sometimes resorting to the royal court for the sake of more forcible demonstrations of his displeasure?