A Digital Repatriation of a Lost archive of the Spanish Pacific: The Library of The Convent of San Pablo (Manila, 1762)

The city of the most holy name of Jesus on the twenty-ninth day of the month of April of one thousand six hundred and twenty-five.

Your most reverend lordship lord bishop of Cebu Don Fray Pedro de Arce [exercising] the commission from our father provincial to undertake the investigation about the missing cross (the cross [originally] found with the most holy child Jesus). His most reverend lordship made Padre Fray Juan Ruiz, prior of the convent of Cabcar, appear before you and from [him] a legal oath was received, placing his hand over his chest. He did this and promised to speak the truth. Having been asked, he said that this declarant knows that among the jewels of the child Jesus was a [Spanish] golden cross enameled black which was [the cross] with which the child was found. And that Padre Fray Juan de Tujo, when he turned over the chest to go to the chapter assembly, turned over to Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez the whole chest, sacristy, and jewels, etc. of the holy child along with the missing cross as stated in the registry signed by him and by Padres Fray Juan de Tujo and Antonio Ximenez. And this declarant has heard that a few days ago, a slave of the convent called Tomás stole said cross and a necklace. The necklace was found in the possession of a Sangley to whom said Tomás had pawned [the item]. And without knowing that it was the missing cross in, he did not undertake to report [the matter], thinking it was of little worth and value until one day, when Padre Fray Juan de Ricovayo, his lordship's colleague, came to the convent and was shown the jewels of the most holy child. And he heard that the cross which had been found with the holy child was missing and he later went to the church to see if it was placed on the child as it usually was and did not find it. Said Tomás confessed that he stole it during the chapter meeting, along with the necklace. And it seems that way because Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez, who ended up as vicar, had gone out of the convent to get cured. And this declarant had himself gone with his permission to entertain himself in Cabcar. And because of this the key of the holy child passed

through many and many hands. And with this, said slave Tomás found the opportunity to commit said theft and he also states on record that he stole it during the chapter meeting because one day Padre Fray Juan de Montemayor came to this convent as prior, according to this declarant, to check the jewels of the child. Said father prior replied to them "well, the child has jewels." And this declarant answered him "yes and lots of them." And afterwards said prior responded "well, let's have a look at them." And comparing [the jewels] with the record of Prior Fray Juan de Tujo, it came to light that a cross was missing [but they] did not know if it was the cross which was [originally] found with the child. And this errand of looking at the jewels was done after Padre Fray Antonio had left this convent for Panay without having turned over the jewels because he was in a hurry for the collection of rice as he had the chance to board a sampan. And this is the truth for the oath he took in which he affirmed it and ratified it and said that he was of forty years of age more or less. He signed it in his name and with his most reverend lordship.

Fray Pedro, Bishop of the Most Holy Name of Jesus

Fray Joan Ruiz

Before myself Fray Juan de Ricovayo

{On the left margin: Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez}

The City of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, thirtieth day of April, year sixteen twenty-five

For the investigation that we are ordered to do regarding the missing cross that belonged to the child Jesus which was [originally] found with the child etc. Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez appeared before you and from him a legal oath was received upon his word as priest and under [threat] of ecclesiastical punishment. He swore the above and promised to

because Padre Fray Juan Ruiz always had the keys to the sanctum and the tabernacle of the child Jesus and he could have been careless and [someone may have] taken the keys from him and stolen the said chain and cross of the child. And the declarant says and declares that in the time that Padre Fray Juan de Tujo was prior, said father prior never gave the key to the child except to one of his colleagues for the display of [the child]. And this [was] always [done] with [the child wearing] the surplice. And he never gave the key to the black man as is now being done in the time of said Father Montemayor when said black man Tomás always [opens] the tabernacle. And the declarant confirms this knowledge under oath. It is recorded that he affirms it and ratifies it and signs it. Added between the lines "the said prior Fray Juan Ruiz" valid = And crossed-out "Juana de Ce" not valid etc.

Fray Pedro Bishop of the Most Holy Name of Jesus

Fray Antonio Ximénez

Before myself Fray Juan de Ricovayo

{On the left margin: Testimony of Father Prior Fray Juan de Montemayor}

The City of the Most Holy Name of Jesus on the fourth of April of sixteen twenty-five, his most reverend lordship for the said investigation and to know when and how was lost the cross with which the most holy child was [originally] found, summoned Padre Fray Juan de Montemayor before him, prior of the convent of the child Jesus of this city. From him was received a legal oath on his word as priest and by the [religious] order that he [is a member of]. Having placed his hand [on] his chest he gave [the above oath] and promised to tell the truth. [He was] asked what he knew about the case and the news that he had had about it. He said that when he became prior of this convent he did not even know that the holy child had jewels nor had he heard about it until, after fifteen or twenty days more or less after his arrival. [At that time] Padre Fray Juan Ruiz told this declarant that the child had jewels. And then at that moment this declarant, with Padre Fray Juan Ruiz, went to see them. [They] compared the said jewels one by one with the record that Padre Fray Juan de Tujo had left. [This record was signed with Fray Tujo's name and the name] of Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez. This declarant could not find the cross and moreover [he could not find] a necklace that, based on the record, weighed one tae. This declarant asked Padre Fray Juan Ruiz "what cross would be the one that was missing?" [Ruiz] could not ascertain [to this declarant] whether it was the cross with which the child was [originally] found or another [cross] because the said Padre Fray Juan Ruiz was not aware of how it looked like. Nor did the record of the jewels indicate anything more than these words "an enamelled golden cross found with the child" and almost all of the [crosses] he had were made of gold and enamelled. Moreover, the record adds "with a string of pearls and gold" and the cross that is on this string is not the one that is missing, despite having [an image of] our lady on the one side and [of] Christ on the other side there. This worsened the confusion with which Padre Fray Juan Ruiz told this declarant the above. [He said] that he was not sure but that it seemed to him that the cross that they said was found with the child had the image of our lady. Later as it seemed that the cross was not there on this string but instead that it was the necklace stolen by the thief. With these doubts, the declarant says that he waited for Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez [to return] from Panay. And when [Ximénez] returned, [Ximénez] did not know how to report the cross and necklace['s disappearance] and instead he felt frustrated and said that this declarant was harassing him. And because of this [reaction] and because of the said sadness this declarant doubted whether this cross or some other [cross that] was missing, until was seen [during the]

stolen the cross, said during the current prior’s mandate and with Padre Fray Juan Ruiz as the vicar of the convent. And it was during the time that Padre Fray Antonio Ximénez was in Panay collecting some rice. So that the father provincial may be informed of what occurred according to the investigation that was undertaken about the cross, I give this [document] signed in my name and with my seal, which is dated 21 de Mayo de 1625.

Manuel Ribero.