Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:17:24.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Salazar's Report to the Third Mexican Council

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Ernest J. Burrus S.J.
Ernest J. Burrus S.J.*
Affiliation:
Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On February 1, 1584, Pedro Moya de Contreras, archbishop of Mexico City, dispatched the official summons to the bishops of his ecclesiastical province to attend the Third Mexican Council set for the ninth of December of that same year. At the request of the bishop of the distant diocese of Guatemala, Fray Fernando Gómez de Córdoba, of the Order of St. Jerome, the opening date was postponed to January 20, 1585.

One of the Archbishop's letters of convocation was addressed to the first bishop of the Philippines, Fray Domingo de Salazar, Dominican. From Salazar's reply we know that the Archbishop did not insist on his personal attendance nor did he even suggest that he send a delegate. The purpose of the letter was to inform Salazar of the convocation of the Council and invite him to send a written report on conditions of the Church in the Islands, and propose such problems as he thought the assembled bishop should discuss and strive to solve.

Type
Documents
Information
The Americas , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , July 1960 , pp. 65 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The full titles will be given in the notes to the text of Salazar’s report.

2 Alegre wrote: “… el ilustrísimo señor don Domingo de Salazar, primer obispo de Manila, que había juntado allá un sínodo, propuso varias dudas y artículos al concilio mexicano, y estuvo a su resolución” ( Alegre, Francisco J. S. J., Historia de la Provincia de la Compañía de Jesús de Nueva España, Nueva edición por Burras, Ernest J. S. J., y Zubillaga, Félix S. J., [4 vols; Rome, 1956–1960], I, 304).Google Scholar Cf.de Eguiara, Juan J. y Eguren, , Bibliotheca mexicana… (Mexico City, 1755), pp. 534–536.Google Scholar

3 The divisions of this summary follow those indicated in the original text.

4 The two signed and notarized copies of Salazar’s report, with numerous corrections and additions by him in both, are preserved in the Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley, in its collection of Mexican Manuscripts (M-M), number 268, folios 204–219V. The text reproduced here is that of the first copy, folios 204–211bisv. Dr. George Hammond, Director of the Bancroft Library, has generously authorized the publication of the document. For other manuscript material on the Mexican Councils, see my article, “The Author of the Mexican Council Catechisms,” in The Americas, XV (October, 1958), 171–182.

5 In the first copy of Salazar’s letter, Juan de Salcedo, secretary of the Council, wrote between the words of address and the beginning of the body of the letter: “Su Señoría, Obispo de China,” to indicate that the report came from the Bishop of the Philippines.

6 Pedro Moya de Contreras. For a biographical sketch see Cuevas, Mariano S. J., Documentos inéditos del siglo XVI para la historia de México … (Mexico City, 1914), p. 22. This work will be cited: Cuevas, Documentos.Google Scholar

7 Those who attended the Mexican Council were the Archbishop of Mexico City and Viceroy of New Spain, Don Pedro Moya de Contreras; the Bishop of Guatemala, Fray Fernando Gómez de Córdoba; the Bishop of Michoacán, Fray Juan de Medina; the Bishop of Yucatan, Fray Gregorio de Montalvo; the Bishop of Puebla, Don Diego de Romano; the Bishop of Guadalajara, Fray Domingo de Alzola; the Bishop of Oaxaca, Fray Bartolomé de Ledesma. The Bishop of Chiapas, Fray Alonso de Noreña, who owing to an injury received en route, could not attend personally, sent a delegate to represent him. The Bishop of Comayagua in Honduras begged off because of his impending voyage to Spain. The secretary of the Council, as we indicated in note 5, was Juan de Salcedo, secular priest and professor of Canon Law at the University of Mexico. The representatives of the ecclesiastical cabildos of New Spain attended, as did also several consulting theologians of the bishops, and other ecclesiastical and high civil officials. See Cuevas, Mariano S. J., Historia de la Iglesia en México (5 vols.; Tlálpam-El Paso, 1921–1928), II, 97–98 Google Scholar [to be cited Cuevas, Historia]; and Bancroft Library, M-M 268, folio 71.

8 Domingo de Salazar, O.P. (1512–1594), arrived in Manila on September 17, 1581, to govern until his return to Spain in 1591, where he died before the year 1594 was out. See Costa, H. de la S.J., “Church and State in the Philippines during the Administration of Bishop Salazar, 1581–1594,” in Hispanic American Historical Review, 30 (August, 1950), 314–335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colín, Francisco S.J., Labor evangélica de los obreros de la Compañía de Jesús en las islas Filipinas … Nueva edición … por el Pastells, Padre Pablo S.J., (3 vols.; Barcelona, 1900–1902), I, 164 note 4.Google Scholar

9 At the time of writing this report, Salazar had held two meetings or synods; see Colín-Pastells, op. cit., I, 263- 332, 518 note 2; Costa, op. cit., pp. 321–322; Blair, E. H. and Robertson, J. A., eds., The Philippine Islands (55 vols.; Cleveland, 1903–1909), XXI, 42.Google Scholar Colín-Pastells, loc. cit., thus explains its convocation: “El Obispo… hallando necessitavan de assiemo casi todas las cosas tocantes a la conciencia de los encomenderos y sus cobradores y de los ministros de iusticia y otros que pertenecían a la doctrina de los naturales, determinó poco después de llegado a celebrar un modo de sýnodo.”

10 On the difficulties and dangers of the voyage from the Philippines to Mexico, see Schurz, William L., The Manila Galleon, new ed. (New York, 1959), pp. 253–274 Google Scholar; and my study “A Diary of Exiled Philippine Jesuits, 1769–1770,” in Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, XX (January-June, 1951), 269–299.

11 Both copies are notarized by Salazar’s secretary and notary apostolic, Cristóbal Velasco (Bancroft Library, M-M 268, folios 211v and 218v–219).

12 The provisions of the Third Mexican Council were extended to the Philippines; see Cuevas, , Historia, II, 105 Google Scholar; Alegre, op. cit., I, 304.

13 “In 1579 he received the papal bulls of nomination” (Costa, op. cit., p. 319).

14 Salazar is referring to the Second Mexican Council summoned and held by Montúfar in 1565. See Cuevas, , Historia, 2, 95–96 Google Scholar; de Beristáin, José M. y Souza, , Biblioteca hispano-americana… (3rd ed.; Mexico City, 1947),Google Scholar paragraph 1893; Eguiara y Eguren, op. cit., pp. 534–536.

15 See Cuevas, , Historia, 2, 95–96 Google Scholar for the part Montúfar played in the Second Mexican Council (he had also held the First of 1555), and the same Author’s Documentos, p. xxi, for a biographical sketch of Montúfar.

16 For his participation in the Second Mexican Council, see references given in note 14.

17 Salazar is alluding to the Augustinian Fray Melchor de los Reyes, professor of Sacred Scripture at the University of Mexico since about 1565 ( Cuevas, , Historia, 2, 97).Google Scholar

18 For the part played by the papal Coena Domini in the ecclesiastical legislation of the Indies, see Morelli, Cyriacus (pseudonymn for Muriel, Domingo), Fasti Novi Orbis et ordinationum apostolicarum ad Indias pertinentium breviarium … (Venice, 1776), pp. 160, 180, 230, 268, 345Google Scholar; and Suárez, Francisco, Tractatus de religione Societatis Jesu … (Paris, 1858), pp. 466–467.Google Scholar

19 Salazar is referring to the Brief of Pius V, Exponi Nobis, of March 23, 1567. The text is given in Colín-Pastells, op. cit., III, 678.

20 This document was evidently brought to the Philippines by the officials of the first Audiencia, who arrived in Manila on May 25, 1584 (Costa, op. cit., p. 326).

21 The Third Mexican Council interpreted this and similar decrees as applicable not to provincial councils but to diocesan synods ( Cuevas, , Historia, 2, 101).Google Scholar Archbishop Moya de Contreras, who was also Viceroy of New Spain, would have acceded to the insistence of the members of the Audiencia had he not met with such determined opposition of the other Bishops. The documents of this heated controversy are preserved in the Bancroft Library, M-M 269. Cuevas, loc. cit., gives no indication that he was aware of the difference that arose between the prelates of the Council. The Council was published in the old Cathedral of Mexico City on October 18, 19 and 20, by its secretary, Juan de Salcedo; the original notarized document is preserved in the Bancroft Library, M-M 267. Thus, the Bishops won out on an important point: to publish the provisions of the Council before sending it to the King and his Consejo de Indias. This “publishing,” however, amounted merely to the reading aloud of the acts and statutes; many years would pass before royal approval could be secured for promulgation of the same through printed form; although the Holy See gave its approval in 1589, it was not until 1621 that Philip IV deigned to issue a cédula real permitting its appearance in print. The first edition is that of Mexico City, 1622.

22 Salazar is presumably alluding to the Second Mexican Council held in 1565; its provisions were not published until over two hundred years later ( Lorenzana, Francisco A., Concilios provinciales primero y segundo … [Mexico City, 1769]).Google Scholar

23 As indicated in note 7, eight bishops were summoned by the Archbishop to the Council; six were able to attend personally.

24 Hence the term “pase” or “pase regio,” that occurs so frequently in the history of colonial Spanish America; see Alegre, op. cit., III, 168; Parras, Pedro J., Gobierno de los regulares de la América … (2 vols.; Madrid, 1783), II, 483–485 Google Scholar; Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias … (3 vols.; Madrid, 1781), III, 171, s.v. Patentes.

25 See Sacrosanctum Concilium Tridentinum … additis declarationibus… (Antwerp, 1644), p. 515, Sessio XXV, De Regularibus, Caput VII: “… nec de cetero [monasterial erigantur sine episcopi, in cuius dioecesi erigenda sunt, licentia prius obtenta.”

26 The entire cédula of May 13, 1579 is reproduced in Colín-Pastells, op. cit.. III, 681–682, under the heading, “Real cédula al Gobernador de Filipinas sobre la orden que se ha de guardar para la edificación de monasterios.”

27 Salazar is referring to the renowned founder of international law, Francisco de Vitoria, O.P. For bio-bibliographical data see Solana, Marcial, Historia de la filosofía española … (Madrid, 1940), 3, 43–89.Google Scholar Salazar had been one of Vitoria’s students at the University of Salamanca; see Hanke, Lewis, Cuerpo de documentos del siglo XVI sobre los derechos de España en las Indias y las Filipinas … editados por Cario, Agustín Millares… (Mexico City, 1943), pp. xxxvi-xxxvii.Google Scholar

28 More commonly termed De Potestate Ecclesiae; see various editions in vols. I and II of Alonso Getino, Luis G., Relecciones teológicas del maestro fray Francisco de Vitoria (3 vols.; Madrid, 1933–1936).Google Scholar

29 I do not find any such reference in the printed or facsimiled editions of the De Potestate Ecclesiae (Ecclesiastica). The point is dealt with in Vitoria’s more famous Prima Relectio de Indis noviter inventis, sectio secunda, number 5, and may be consulted in any one of numerous editions and translations, such as Getino, op. cit., II, 329 (Latin text and Spanish translation); Schätzel, Walter, Franciscus de Victoria… (Tübingen, 1952), pp. 64–65 Google Scholar (Latin text and German translation); Vanderpol, Alfred, La doctrine scolastique du droit de guerre … (Paris, 1919), p. 452 Google Scholar (French translation); or in the English translation of John Pawley Bate in Scott, James Brown, The Spanish Origin of International Law… (Oxford-London, 1934),Google Scholar Appendix A, The First Relectio…, p. xxiii: “And so they err in speech and in deed, whether princes or magistrates, who strive to prevent bishops from deterring laymen from sin by fines or exile or other temporal punishments. For this is not in excess of their power, provided they do not do it from greed or for gain, but of necessity and for profit in things spiritual.”

30 On their differences see Cuevas, , Historia, 2, 54–55 Google Scholar and numerous letters of the Archbishop in vol. XI of Epistolario de Nueva España. Recopilado por Francisco del Paso y Troncoso … (16 vols.; Mexico City, 1939–1942). Enríquez was Viceroy of New Spain from 1568 to 1580; see Alegre, op. cit., I, 36.

31 This is one of the authentic Opuscula of St. Thomas and is found in all of his complete editions; it has also been published in partial editions and in English and other vernacular translations. It is found in the two well known editions: (a) Vivès (34 vols.; Paris, 1871–1880), XXIX, 91–92, under the title “Contra Impugnantes Dei Cultum et Religionem”; (b) Piana (18 vols.; Rome, 1570), XVII, Opusculum XIX, folios 153–153V, under the title “Contra impugnantes religionem.”

32 In 1588 Philip II revised the royal ceremonial and had his prerogatives extended to his Viceroys through the official Recopilación; see Cuevas, ,Historia, 2, 56–58.Google Scholar

33 Pedro de Villalobos; see Ugarte, José Bravo S.J., Historia de México (3 vols.; Mexico City, 1944–1947), II, 270.Google Scholar

34 Dr. Fernando (Hernando) Robles; see Alegre, op. cit., I, 282; Schäfer, Ernst, El Consejo real y supremo de las Indias… (2 vols.; Sevilla, 1935–1947), II, 445, 453, 459, 492)Google Scholar; Cuevas, , Historia, 2, 292.Google Scholar

35 Dr. Francisco Ceynos; see Bravo Ugarte, op. cit., II, 270.

36 Luis de Velasco, Jr., viceroy of New Spain, governed 1590-1595 and 1607-1611; see Bravo Ugarte, op. cit., II, 298.

37 Dr. Pedro Farfán; see Cuevas, , Documentos, p. 330.Google Scholar

38 Enríquez was Viceroy of Peru from 1580 until his death on March 13, 1583 (Alegre, op. cit., I, 156 note 30).

39 Held in 1582. Numerous documents and references in the original acts of the Third Mexican Council show that much of what had been discussed and decreed in the Lima Council served as a pattern for the Mexican counterpart (Bancroft Library, especially M-M 268, folios 156–172v (a series of Memoriales of Dr. Juan de la Plaza, S.J. who had been Visitador of his Order in Lima, just prior to the Council there) and folios 345–349v (significant excerpts from the acts and decrees of the Lima Council), and M-M 269, folios 247–280 with the caption “Copia del Concilio de Lima celebrado en el año de 1582.”

40 On the plight of the Philippine natives at the time of Salazar, see Phelan, John L., The Hispanization of the Philippines. Spanish Aims and Filipino Responses, 1565–1700 (Madison, 1959), pp. 93–116 Google Scholar; Lanzas, Pedro Torres and Pastells, Pablo S.J., Catálogo de los documentos relativos a las islas Filipinas existentes en el Archivo de Indias de Sevilla (9 vols.; Barcelona, 1925–1936), especially vol. III.Google Scholar

41 Salazar is referring presumably to his 1583 Memorial; see Costa, op. cit., p. 314, note 2.

42 This was the single most important theme studied in the Third Mexican Council; see Cuevas, , Historia, 2, 99, 248–249Google Scholar; the numerous documents in the Bancroft Library that deal with the problem of the Indians (M-M 69, 266–269) await a far profounder study than has yet been made.

43 That is the propagation of the faith, as is repeated in countless documents, treatises, books, etc. Salazar himself discusses the main purpose of the Spanish conquest in his “Tratado del título que los reyes de España tienen para ser señores de las Indias,” published in Hanke-Millares Cario, op. cit., pp. 185–192, although the greater part of the treatise is devoted to pointing out to the King the injustices committed against the natives.

44 Charles V.

45 Besides Salazar’s lengthy “Tratado en que se determina lo que se ha de tener acerca de llevar tributos a los infieles de las islas Filipinas” (Hanke-Millares Cario, op. cit., pp. 117–184) which deals specifically and directly with the problem of the payment of tribute by the natives, there are numerous other references to the Bishop’s position in the volumes of Colín-Pastells and Blair-Robertson, as may be seen from their indexes under the entry, “Salazar, Domingo.” Alonso de la Veracruz, close friend of Salazar and professor at the University of Mexico, wrote even more extensively on the subject in his two unpublished books: De Decimis and De Dominio infidelium, and very evidently influenced Salazar’s ideas on the subject.

46 On encomenderos and encomiendas, see Zavala, Silvio A., La encomienda indiana (Madrid, 1935)Google Scholar; Simpson, Lesley B., The Encomienda in New Spain (Berkeley, 1929)Google Scholar; Phelan, op. cit., pp. 10–11 (see also the last author’s reference to pre-Hispanic system of labor on p. 113).

47 See note 9.

48 The problems merely sketched in this paragraph are analyzed and discussed with a wealth of detail and in the light of long experience by Alonso de la Veracruz in his unpublished treatise, De Dominio infidelium, Dubium tertium.

49 The words “De Manila … las Philipinas” are in Salazar’s hand. The authentication by Salazar’s notary, Cristóbal Velasco, follows.

50 From Ciudad Rodrigo, Spain. Juan de Paz is the first name on the list of the first group of clerics to be ordained by Salazar in the Cathedral of Manila. See Salazar’s letter of June 18, 1583 to Philip II (Colín-Pastells, op. cit., I, 165 note 1).

51 From Salcedo’s notations on the letter from Salazar we know that it was “recibida en 23 de hebrero 1585, con avisos al Concilio” and that the document was “visto y apuntado en 2 de março de 1585.”