21. His Majesty also resolved to order and command his governor, as soon as he received that despatch, to order and take measures, as was most advisable and efficacious, to suppress the name of San Clemente which had been given to the seminary by the abbot, and to change it into that of San Phelipe, in order that no remembrance might be left of the sinister reports of which his Holiness had been informed to the discredit of the royal and earnest zeal in providing measures for the advance of religion, without giving the slightest motive for so peculiar and special influences. The fitting measures for the change of name were really taken, and that fact was recorded in the books of the accountancy and of the said college. The archbishop, dean, and cabildo were informed thereof, in order that they might properly observe it. [As punishment for his omission, Governor Zabalburú was dismissed, although his term was already ended, as were also the auditors. The governor was a just man, but his intimacy with the Jesuits caused him to be distrusted.] [Chapter xiv contains the following in regard to this seminary.] 2. During his government [i.e., of the new archbishop, Fray Francisco de la Cuesta, of the Order of San Geronimo] arrived the resolution regarding the seminary college of San Phelipe. Its erection was entrusted to his Excellency, Señor Cuesta. He having made the foundation, proceeded to draw up its rules, which being milder for the seminarists, corrected those of the most illustrious Camacho. However, most of them were not in accord with the royal patronage, and its rights. His Excellency incurred the inadvertence of prescribing in the second of his rules that the escutcheon of the royal arms should be placed on a prominent spot, while in the interior or in any other part of the said seminary, were also to be placed the arms of the archbishop. In doing so, he said that he was in accord with the second law of the first book and twenty-third título of the Recopilación [99] of these kingdoms. That would be allowable if the seminary had been founded at his cost or at the cost pro rata given by his prebendaries and others who are mentioned in the Council of Trent. In that he claimed the right of private patronage, reserving for his Majesty only the universal patronage. That was a surprising resolution, since the archbishop himself confessed that the seminary had been founded at the expense of the royal treasury, while the placing of escutcheons and arms signifies one's private expenses and special zeal; when his Majesty, without any controversy, is the sole founder. Therefore its foundation was purely lay, and in such concept, beyond any question the universal and private patronage belonged to his Majesty, as it was founded at the expense of his royal patrimony. Still more harmful were the fourth and fourteenth rules, in which it is declared that the nomination and election of the collegiates is at