# Chapter 1: Images

## The Project Gutenberg eBook of Doctrina Christiana

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Doctrina Christiana

Editor: Edwin Wolf

Release date: June 23, 2005 [eBook #16119]
Most recently updated: January 1, 2021

Language: English, Spanish, Tagalog

Credits: Produced by Jeroen Hellingman, Tamiko I. Camacho, and the
PG Distributed Proofreaders Team

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA ***

Notice: For proper display, this file requires a Unicode-aware old Tagalog (Baybayin) font to display correctly. Such fonts can be located on the internet by searching for download Baybayin font.

# Doctrina Christiana

# The First Book Printed in the Philippines.
Manila, 1593. A Facsimile of the Copy in
the Lessing J. Rosenwald Collection.
Library of Congress, Washington.

## With an Introductory Essay
By
Edwin Wolf 2nd

# Acknowledgements

I want here to express my thanks and appreciation to Mr. Lessing J. Rosenwald, through whose kindness this unique Doctrina was presented to the Library of Congress and with whom the idea of this publication originated. His interest and enthusiasm made possible my work, and his friendly advice and encouragement have been both valuable and heart-warming.

I also wish to thank others who have given me great assistance. They are Dr. A.S.W. Rosenbach to whom I continually turned for advice, Dr. Lawrence C. Wroth of the John Carter Brown Library and Dr. Leslie W. Dunlap of the Library of Congress who very kindly read over my manuscript and gave me the benefit of their suggestions and criticisms, Mr. David C. Mearns and Miss Elsie Rackstraw of the Library of Congress and Mrs. Ruth Lapham Butler of the Ayer Collection of the Newberry Library who so freely and generously made available to me the great collections of works on the Philippines in their libraries, Dr. John H. Powell of the Free Library of Philadelphia who helped me find reference books of the utmost importance, and the many librarians who courteously answered written queries about early Philippine material. Edwin Wolf 2nd.

[1]

# Doctrina Christiana

The first book printed in the Philippines has been the object of a hunt which has extended from Manila to Berlin, and from Italy to Chile, for four hundred and fifty years. The patient research of scholars, the scraps of evidence found in books and archives, the amazingly accurate hypotheses of bibliographers who have sifted the material so painstakingly gathered together, combine to make its history a bookish detective story par excellence.

It is easy when a prisoner has been arrested and brought to the dock to give details of his complexion, height, characteristics and identifying marks, to fingerprint him and to photograph him, but how inadequate was the description before his capture, how frequently did false scents draw the pursuer off the right track! It is with this in mind that we examine the subject of this investigation, remembering that it has not been done before in detail. And, to complete the case, the book has been photographed in its entirety and its facsimile herewith published.

In studying the Doctrina Christiana of 1593 there are four general problems which we shall discuss. First, we shall give a physical description of the book. Secondly, we shall trace chronologically the bibliographical history of the Doctrina, that is, we shall record the available evidence which shows that it was the first book printed in the Philippines, and weigh the testimonies which state or imply to the contrary. Thirdly, we shall try to establish the authorship of the text, and lastly, we shall discuss the actual printing.

It hardly needs be told why so few of the incunabula of the Philippines have survived. The paper on which they were printed was one of [2] the most destructible papers ever used in book production. The native worms and insects thrived on it, and the heat and dampness took their slower but equally certain toll. Add to these enemies the acts of providence of which the Philippines have received more than their share—earthquake, fire and flood—and the man-made devastations of war, combined with the fact that there was no systematic attempt made in the Philippines to preserve in archives and libraries the records of the past, and it can well be understood why a scant handful of cradle-books have been preserved. The two fires of 1603 alone, which burned the Dominican convent in Manila to the ground and consumed the whole of Binondo just outside the walls, must have played untold havoc upon the records of the early missionaries. Perhaps the only copies of early Philippine books which exist today, unchronided and forgotten, are those which were sent to Europe in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, and may now be lying uncatalogued in some library there.

One copy of this Doctrina was sent to Philip II by the Governor of the Philippines in 1593; and in 1785 a Jesuit philologist, Hervas y Panduro, printed Tagalog texts from a then extant copy. Yet, since that time no example is recorded as having been seen by bibliographer or historian. The provenance of the present one is but imperfectly known. In the spring of 1946 William H. Schab, a New York dealer, was in Paris, and heard through a friend of the existence of a 1593 Manila book. He expressed such incredulity at this information that his friend, feeling his integrity impugned, telephoned the owner then and there, and confirmed the unbelievable “1593.” Delighted and enthused, Schab arranged to meet him, found that he was a Paris bookseller and collector who specialized in Pacific imprints and was fully aware of the importance of the volume, and induced him to sell the precious Doctrina. He brought it back with him to the United States and offered it to Lessing J. Rosenwald, who promptly purchased it and presented it to the Library of Congress. Where [3] the book had been before it reached Paris we do not know. Perhaps it is the very copy sent to Philip II, perhaps the copy from which Hervas got his text. Indeed, it may have been churned to the surface by the late Civil War in Spain, and sent from there to France. In the course of years from similar sources may come other books to throw more light upon the only too poorly documented history of the establishment of printing in the Philippine Islands.

## The Physical Description

Let us first examine the book as it appears before us. The title-page reads:

The book, printed in Gothic letters and Tagalog1 characters on paper made from the paper mulberry, now browned and brittle with age, consists of thirty-eight leaves, comprising a title-page as above, under a woodcut2 of St. Dominic, with the verso originally blank, but in this copy bearing the contemporary manuscript inscription, Tassada en dos rreales, signed Juan de Cuellar; and seventy-four pages of text in Spanish, Tagalog transliterated into roman letters, and Tagalog in Tagalog characters. The size of the volume, which is unbound, is 9⅛ by 7 inches, [4] although individual leaves vary somewhat due to chipping. Some of the leaves have become separated from their complements, but enough remain in the original stitching to indicate that the book was originally made up in four gatherings, the first of twelve leaves, the second of ten, the third of ten, and the fourth of six. Although the book is of the size called quarto, the method of printing must have been page by page, so it is doubtful that each sheet was folded twice in the usual quarto manner, but more probable that it was printed four pages to a sheet of paper approximately 9⅛ by 14 inches, which was folded once.

The volume is printed throughout by the xylographic method, that is to say, each page of text is printed from one wood-block which was carved by hand. Along the inner margins of some pages are vertical lines which were made by the inked edge of the block, and the grain of the wood has caused striations to appear in the printed portions throughout. The unevenness of the impression indicates that the pages were printed in some primitive manner without the help of a conventional press.

The paper, which is one of the distinctive features of most old Oriental books, has been discussed at length by Pardo de Tavera in his study of early Philippine printing, and we can do no better than translate the relevant passage in full:

“I have said before that the material composition of our books is inferior. The imprints before 1830 were made on a paper called by some rice paper, by others silk paper, and by still others China paper, according to their taste. It is detestable, brittle, without consistency or resistance, and was called rice paper because it was supposed to be made from that grain. It was the only kind then used in the Philippines, not only for printing, but for all manner of writing, letters, etc., and it is even recorded that in 1874 when tobacco was a state monopoly, cigarettes were made with this paper, and that the Indians and Chinese preferred it (and perhaps they still do) to rag paper or other kinds, because of the horrible taste it gives the tobacco.

“In China they commonly made paper of bamboo, but more principally from cotton and a plant which travellers have cited only by its common name, which they transcribe in various ways, calling it kochu, kotsu, or kotzu. Today it is known that this plant is an ulmacea (Broussonetia papyrifera) from a mash of which they [5] still make cloth in Japan. Cotton paper is superior to it, and naturally more expensive; but the paper of inferior quality which was received in Manila, where nothing was imported regularly but common articles of low price, was of kotsu. As all Chinese-made paper it was coated with alum, the finer [the paper] the thicker [the coating], for the purpose of whitening it and making the surface smooth, a deplorable business, for it made the paper very moisture absorbent, a condition fatal in such a humid climate as in these islands. Moreover, as the alum used is impure and contains a large proportion of iron salts, the humidity and weather oxidize it which finally darkens the paper, so that Philippine books present a coloration which runs the gamut of tones from the color of bone to that of dark cinnamon.”3

Because the Doctrina Christiana, which may well be translated “The Teachings of Christianity,” contains the basic elements of the religion which the missionaries were trying to spread among the unbaptized in the remote regions of the world, it was the most useful handbook they had. A summary of the contents of the present edition shows the fundamental character of the work. After a syllabary comes the Pater Noster, the primary and most popular prayer of Christianity. Then follow the Ave Maria, Credo, Salve Regina, Articles of Faith, Ten Commandments, Commandments of the Holy Church, Sacraments of the Holy Church, Seven Mortal Sins, Fourteen Works of Charity, Confession and Catechism. Here in a small compass is presented the simplest, most easily learned and most essential tenets of the Catholic Church.

So useful was the Doctrina considered as a guide for those who had just been, or were about to be, converted that the missionary fathers placed it in most cases foremost among the books necessary to have in print in a strange land. It is generally accepted today, although no extant copy is known, that the first book printed in Mexico4 in 1539 was a Doctrina in Mexican and Spanish. Recent research has shown that the second book printed by the pioneer Jesuit press at Goa, in India, in 1557 was St. Francis Xavier’s Doutrina Christão 5 in the Malay language, of which also no copy has yet been located. But there are copies of the first book to come from a South American press, another Doctrina6 printed in [6] the native and Spanish languages at Lima in 1584. So the choice of this book as the first to be printed at Manila follows a widespread precedent.

We have then a book, the Doctrina Christiana, in Spanish and Tagalog, corrected by priests of more than one order—and this is important in tracing the authorship of the work—and printed by the xylographic method with license at Manila at the Dominican Church of San Gabriel in 1593. So much we get from the title, and in itself it is a fairly complete story, but from the date of its issue until the present time that very fundamental information has not been completely recorded.

## The Bibliographical History

In tracing our clues down through the years, we find at the very beginning the most valuable evidence which has been uncovered, short of the book itself. From Manila on June 20, 1593, the Governor of the Philippines, Gomez Perez Dasmariñas, wrote a letter to Philip II of Spain in which he said:

“Sire, in the name of Your Majesty, I have for this once, because of the existing great need, granted a license for the printing of the Doctrinas Christianas, herewith enclosed—one in the Tagalog language, which is the native and best of these islands, and the other in Chinese—from which I hope great benefits will result in the conversion and instruction of the peoples of both nations; and because the lands of the Indies are on a larger scale in everything and things more expensive, I have set the price of them at four reales a piece, until Your Majesty is pleased to decree in full what is to be done.”7

This states unequivocally that two books were printed at Manila some time before June 20, 1593, one of which was the Doctrina in Tagalog, and the other the same work in Chinese. Although we are chiefly concerned here with the former, the fact that they were produced at about the same time and probably at the same place makes it necessary to trace the history of both in order to reconstruct the circumstances surrounding [7] the production of the one. Of the Chinese Doctrina no copy has yet come to light, and except for two 1593 references, there are no records of its existence.

Another document8 of 1593 verifies the information given in the letter of Dasmariñas, differing from it only in one detail. In the Archives of the Indies was found a manuscript account of 1593 listing books written in the Philippines, which says:

“There have been printed primers and catechisms of the faith, one in Spanish and Tagalog, which is the native language, and the other in Chinese, which are being sent to Your Majesty, the Tagalog priced at two reales and the Chinese at four, which is hoped will be of great benefit.”

The accounts of the printing of two Doctrinas contained in these documents confirm some of the information of the title and add a bit more. First, the letter says that the book was printed by permission given by the Governor, which agrees with the “with license” of the title, “for this once because of the existing great need.” By a royal cedula9 of September 21, 1556, which was promulgated again on August 14, 1560, it had been ordered that Justices “not consent to or permit to be printed or sold any book containing material concerning the Indies without having special license sent by our Royal Council of the Indies,” and on May 8, 1584 this was implemented by the further order “that when any grammar or dictionary of the language of the Indies be made it shall not be published, or printed or used unless it has first been examined by the Bishop and seen by the Royal Audiencia.” This latter portion was applied specifically to the Philippines in a letter10 from Philip II to the Audiencia of Manila, also dated May 8, 1584, to which further reference will be made. It can be gathered from Dasmariñas’ implied apology that he had never before given such a license, and, since he had arrived in the Philippines in 1590, that no books had been printed between that time and the licensing of the Doctrinas. It is, moreover, likely that if any similar books had been [8] printed during the administrations of his predecessors he would have mentioned the fact as a precedent for acting contrary to the cedulas.

According to Dasmariñas he had priced the books at four reales a piece, which followed the regular Spanish procedure, under which books were subject to price control. The Governor, it will be noted, also apologized for the high price he was forced to set, giving general high prices11 as his excuse. Yet, while the appraisal of four reales for this book was high compared to the prevailing scale in Spain, it was not high compared to prices allowed in Mexico. On June 6, 1542 the Emperor had given the Casa de Cromberger, the first printing-house in Mexico, permission12 to sell books printed there at seventeen maravedís a sheet, or exactly one half a real. If we assume that, although the Doctrina had been printed page by page, it was quarto in size and so appraised on the basis of eight pages to a sheet, we find that the price per sheet comes to about fourteen maravedís, or less than half a real. However, a contradiction occurs between the letter of Dasmariñas and this copy of the Doctrina, supported by the other 1593 document. On the verso of the title, Juan de Cuellar,13 the Governor’s secretary and the logical person to sign the official valuation, gives the price as two reales, and the 1593 account, while agreeing with the letter as far as the Chinese Doctrina is concerned, also lists the price of the Tagalog Doctrina as two reales. It is impossible to say what caused the discrepancy; perhaps it was a decision on Dasmariñas’ part to lower the cost, notwithstanding inflationary values, in order to make the book more readily available for the natives who were not economically as well off as the Chinese, or it could be that after the letter had been written it was noticed that the Chinese volume was larger than the Tagalog one, and some adjustment made. In any event, the price of this Doctrina was finally set at two reales, making it less than half the price allowed in Mexico fifty years before.

The evidence of the two 1593 documents would seem conclusive [9] with regard to printing in 1593, but witnesses were not long in appearing who stated something quite different. The earliest of these was Pedro Chirino,14 a Jesuit priest, who came to the Philippines with Dasmariñas in 1590. He went back to Europe in 1602, and while there had a history of the Philippines printed at Rome in 1604. In 1606 he returned to the islands, where he died in 1635. He left unpublished the manuscript of another and more detailed history, dated 1610, which contains a most significant passage, where, after speaking of various early writers in native languages, he continues:

“Those who printed first were; P. Fr. Juan de Villanueva of the Order of St. Augustine [who printed] certain little tracts, and P. Fr. Francisco de San Joseph of the Order of St. Dominic [who printed] larger things of more bulk.”15

Concerning this Juan de Villanueva16 very little indeed is known. From what has been recorded it would seem that there were two Augustinians of the same name who were in the Philippines before 1600. The first of these was a secular priest who came to Cebú about 1566, may have taken the Augustinian habit some time after his arrival, and died not long after 1569. The other Juan de Villanueva, the date of whose arrival is unknown, was in Lubao in 1590, in Hagonoy in 1593, and prior of Batangas from 1596 until his death in 1599. Of the two there can be no doubt but that Chirino referred to the second one. But, apart from Chirino’s note, there is no record anywhere that works by him existed, nor do the Augustinian chroniclers themselves, except for the modern Santiago Vela who knew of Chirino’s citation, mention him as a linguist or a writer. The only possibility is that between 1593 and 1599 Villanueva had printed some small xylographic books no copies and no further record of which have appeared.

As for Francisco de San Joseph, or Blancas de San José as he is more frequently called, there are other references to his part in the establishment of printing in the islands. From information doubtless obtained from [10] Diego Aduarte, then in Spain, Alonso Fernandez wrote in his ecclesiastical history, printed at Toledo in 1611:

“Father Fr. Francisco Blancas printed in the Tagalog language and characters a book of Our Lady of the Rosary in the year 1602, which was the first book that was printed there of that or any other material. After this he printed another of the sacraments in the language of the Philippines, in both characters, theirs and ours, from which the greatest results have been achieved.”17

Two years later the same author published at Madrid an account18 of the miracles performed by the Rosary of the Virgin, in which he included a list of “Of some writers of the Order of St. Dominic who were living in this year 1612,” and gave the same information as above, adding only that the printing took place in Bataan.

Diego Aduarte,19 whose history of the Dominican province of the Philippines is one of the best contemporary ones written, bears out these statements of which he was most probably the source. Aduarte came to the islands in company with his close friend Blancas de San José in 1595, went back to Spain as procurator of his order in 1607, and returned to Manila in 1628, staying in the Orient until his death in 1636. His history was continued and edited after his death by a fellow Dominican, Domingo Gonçalez, who had it printed in 1640. Summarizing the life and accomplishments of Blancas de San José, Aduarte wrote:

“So he was sent to Bataan, which is near there [Manila], where he learned the language of the Indians, called Tagalog, which is the most common in this country and is used among the Indians for many leagues around the city. So rapid was his study of the language that he began to preach in it within three months, and could teach it to others in six.... And believing that he was the instrument needed to bring the holy gospel to the Indians, he spared no pains to investigate the fitness of their words, the way to use them, and all the rest so that he could succeed in mastering it.... He wrote many books of devotion for them, and since there was no printing in these islands, and no one who understood it or who was a journeyman printer, he planned to have it done through a Chinaman, a good Christian, who, seeing that the books of P. Fr. Francisco were sure to be of great use, bestowed so much care upon this undertaking that he finally succeeded, aided by those who told him whatever they knew about it, in learning everything necessary to do printing; and he printed [11] these books. . . . He [Blancas de San José] printed a grammar to learn the Tagalog language, a memorial of the Christian life, a book on the four last things, another on the preparation for the communion, a confessionary, another on the mysteries of the Rosary of Our Lady, and another to teach the Tagalog Indians the Spanish language, and he left many very pious and curious works in the language of these Indians.”20

Blancas de San José,21 as we have noted, came to the Philippines in 1595. He was at Abucay in Bataan from 1598 until 1602, and then spent several years in and about Manila, preaching to the Indians and the Chinese, whose language he also mastered. In 1614 he set out for Spain, but died on the voyage before reaching Mexico. Of the books which he is said to have had printed, only two are known to be extant, the Arte y Reglas de la Lengva Tagala 22 and the Librong Pagaaralan nang manga Tagalog nang uicang Castilla 23 (or Libro en qve aprendan los Tagalos, la lengua Castellana), both printed at Bataan in 1610, and until the discovery of the present Doctrina and the Ordinationes of 1604 the earliest surviving Philippine imprints known.

We have not cited here in detail the account of Juan Lopez24 in the fifth part of his history of the Dominicans, because, although it was printed nineteen years before the appearance of Aduarte’s work, the information therein contained regarding the Philippines was acknowledgedly obtained from the unfinished manuscript which Aduarte had with him in Spain. The pertinent passages add nothing to Aduarte’s information, and even the wording is reminiscent of his.

The first suggestion that early Philippine books may have been printed from wood-blocks occurred in Quétif and Echard’s bibliography of Dominican writers printed at Paris in 1719. There, after listing eight works by Blancas de San José, they add:

“He published all these in the Philippines with the help of a Chinese Christian using Chinese blocks, for in his day European typographers had not yet arrived in those islands, nor did they have types for their language.”25

[12]

This was an amazing suggestion, for as far as we know the bibliographers who made it had not actually seen the books; nor is it entirely true. The first two works listed are two books we know were printed typographically in 1610. The sixth is De los mysterios del Rosario de nuestra Señora Tagalice, the book referred to by Fernández as having been printed in 1602, and generally accepted as being from movable type, although no copy has been discovered to prove it. And yet, it is not at all impossible that some time before 1602 Blancas de San José had some of his writings printed from blocks. In any event, the idea, later developed by Medina and Retana, that xylography was used before a real printing-press was established, may have come from this not wholly accurate note.

For almost a hundred and fifty years no historian or bibliographer wrote anything to challenge the basic affirmations of Chirino, Fernández and Aduarte. In the middle of the 18th century, Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro,26 a Jesuit, was forced by the expulsion of the Jesuits from Spain to seek refuge in the Papal States, and took up residence at Cesena. There he began work on a tremendous universal history of the spiritual development of man, into which he wove the results of his philosophical, social and linguistic studies. These last were of particular importance, and Hervas is regarded as the true founder of the science of linguistics and comparative philology. In 1785 he published the eighteenth volume of his massive work, the Origine, formazione, meccanismo, ed armonia degl’ idiomi, in which he printed a Tagalog Ave Maria as written in 1593, with the note:

“The Ave Maria in the Tagalog of 1593 is to be read in the Tagalog-Spanish Doctrina Christiana which was printed in Tagalog and roman characters by the Dominican fathers in their printing-house at Manila in the year 1593.”27

In 1787 he finished his twenty-first volume, Saggio pratico,28 which was another philological study, including the Pater Noster in over three hundred languages and dialects, among them Tagalog, again from the 1593 Doctrina. Here, then, is ample proof that a copy of this book was known [13] to Hervas in 1785, and the only information which his loose transcription of the title failed to give was that the volume was “corrected by members of the orders,” that it was printed with license, and that it was printed at San Gabriel.

At the beginning of the following century two German scholars, familiar with Hervas’ writings, noted the 1593 Doctrina. Franz Carl Alter,29 in his monograph on the Tagalog language, printed the Ave Maria from the text which had appeared in 1785, and Johann Christoph Adelung,30 in his Mithridates, a comprehensive study of languages, included the Tagalog Pater Noster from the Saggio pratico of 1787. The latter also listed in a short bibliography of the Tagalog language the Doctrina of 1593, giving exactly the same information about it that Hervas had. Neither of these men apparently saw a copy of the book, limiting themselves to extracts from Hervas, but they perpetuated an earlier reference of the utmost importance.

Shortly after the two Germans published their notices of the 1593 Doctrina an entry appeared of a book printed at Manila in 1581. José Mariano Beristain y Sousa, a learned Mexican writer, issued in 1819–21 a bibliography of Spanish-American books, in which he listed alphabetically the authors, giving a short biography of each and adding a list of his works. Under Juan de Quiñones we find:

“‘Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Tagala,’ Imp. en Manila, 1581.”31

No specific authority is given for this entry, but in his sketch of the life of Quiñones Beristain cited as sources, Juan de Grijalva, Nicolás Antonio, Gaspar de San Agustin, and José Sicardo. It would seem logical that one of these must have mentioned such a work as printed in Manila in 1581, but in tracing down the sources no such precise notice is found.

Grijalva simply said that Quiñones “concerned himself with Tagalog and made a vocabulary and grammar of it.”32 Antonio33 referred to [14] Grijalva, and carried the matter no further. San Agustin, describing the Franciscan chapter of 1578, wrote:

“It was determined moreover in this chapter that P. Fr. Juan de Quiñones, prior of the Convent of Taal in Tagalos, and Fr. Diego de Ochoa, prior of Bacolor in Pampanga, should compose and fashion grammars, dictionaries, and confessionaries in the two languages [respectively Tagalog and Pampanga] in which they had ventured; which they executed very promptly and well, and these were of great use to those who came to these islands, for they had these by which they could study the languages.”34

Later, San Agustin, again mentioning Quiñones, referred to Grijalva, and added as an additional source for his information Tómas de Herrera. Sicardo35 added nothing new. Herrera, not cited directly by Beristain, may however have been the source from which the “Imp.” of his entry came. Herrera wrote:

“He [Quiñones] was the first to have learned the Tagalog language of which he published a grammar and dictionary as an aid to the ministers of the gospel.”

If Beristain read this, he may have been misled by the Latin of “published,”36 in lucem edidit, which may indeed mean printed and published, but also means quite properly published in the sense of written in manuscript and copied and circulated. We agree with Schilling37 that this latter meaning was the one intended. One other statement that Quiñones’ works were printed may derive from the same misunderstanding. About the year 1801 Pedro Bello wrote an account, still in manuscript and unpublished, of the writings of the Augustinians. His remarks on Quiñones, first printed by Santiago Vela38, we believe are only an extension of Herrera’s in lucem edidit.

This same confusion in terminology has been used39 to support Beristain’s claim by introducing as evidence the letter of Philip II of May 8, 1584. Salazar, the Bishop of Manila, probably shortly after the Synod of 1582, had written the King a letter, now unfortunately lost, in which [15] he spoke of a decision to standardize linguistic works. In answer to the Bishop, the following letter in the form of a royal cedula was sent:

“To the President and Judges of my Royal Audiencia situated in the city of Manila in the Philippine Islands.—It has been told me on behalf of Don Fray Domingo de Salazar, Bishop of that place, that it was agreed that no priest might make a grammar or vocabulary, and that if it were made it might not be published before being examined and approved by the said Bishop, because otherwise there would result great differences and disagreements in the doctrine; and this having been seen by my Council of the Indies, it was agreed that I should order this my cedula which decrees that when any grammar or vocabulary be made it shall not be published or used unless it has first been examined by the said Bishop and seen by this Audencia.”40

Here again the word publicado is brought forth to prove that the letter referred to printed works, but here again the term is equally applicable to manuscript works in common use and generally available.

Further evidence that there was no printing as early as 1581 is to be found in a letter41 from Juan de Plasencia, a Tagalist of great renown, to the King, dated from Manila, June 18, 1585, in which he reported on the state of missionary work in China and Japan, and added that he had written a grammar and a declaration of the whole Doctrina in the most common language of the Philippines, and that he was then making a dictionary, concluding by asking the King to send decrees ordering those works to be printed in Mexico at the expense of the Exchequer. Is it likely that Plasencia would have so written if an Arte y Vocabulario had been printed four years earlier? Furthermore, San Antonio, recording the book on the customs and rites of the Indians written by Plasencia at the request of the Governor Santiago de Vera, and dated October 24, 1589, said that it was not printed “because printing houses had not yet come to this country.”42

We then conclude with regard to Beristain’s entry, that although there existed in manuscript an Arte y Vocabuldrio Tagalo by Juan de Quiñones, there is no evidence of the existence of any book printed for [16] him from wood-blocks or in type. Santiago de Vela43 suggests the possibility that there might have been a xylographic Arte of 1581, but Schilling44 questions this in the face of the complete lack of reference to such a printed work by any 17th or 18th century writer, and the tenuous notices of Bello and Beristain; yet to say categorically that no such work was printed would be foolhardy in the face of the scanty early records and the appearance of this Doctrina, a single copy of which has just been discovered.

The first important work devoted solely to the early history of the Philippine press was by T.H. Pardo de Tavera, who in 1893 published his study of printing and engraving in the Philippines. He there recorded a 1593 Doctrina, but adamantly refused to accept it on the hearsay evidence of others. His account is valuable because it shows that there may have been a copy of the Doctrina in Java in 1885, and so we quote from it at some length:

“A learned Dutch orientalist, Dr. J. Brandes, wrote me in 1885 from Bali-Boeleleng (Java) telling me that in 1593 at Manila there was printed a Doctrina Christiana in Spanish-Tagalog, with the proper characters for the latter language. Other orientalists, at the last Congress in London in 1891, gave me the same information. Nonetheless, no one told me where he had read such a thing, nor much less that he had managed to see such a book, although inspecting a rare book which I acquired in Paris (Alter, Ueber die tagalische sprache, Vienna, 1803), I saw that the author cited such a Doctrina Christiana and said that he knew of its existence through Abbé Hervas. This is an error, and without doubt such a Doctrina was in manuscript, because in 1591 [he should have said 1593] there was no press in Manila nor in any part of the archipelago, and today we know for certain and positively that the first book issued there appeared in 1610.”45

Pardo de Tavera was the first to call attention to Alter, and through him to Hervas, and in all probability the orientalists at the London Congress had seen the Doctrina cited by one of these or Adelung. But he rejects that evidence in no uncertain terms. Mitigating somewhat his assurance, he speaks following the above-quoted passage of printing in China, and [17] differentiates between xylographic and typographic printing, and since he was obviously thinking in terms of printing on a press with movable type his conclusions are not too extreme.

In 1896 appeared José Toribio Medina’s La Imprenta en Manila, which was up to then the best, most complete and most scholarly work on early Philippine printing, and is today with its subsequent additions and corrections the standard bibliography of the subject. There Medina cited most of the authorities we have already quoted, the letter of Dasmariñas, Fernández’ Historia eclesiastica, Aduarte, Adelung, Beristain and Pardo de Tavera. Then, basing his conclusions strongly on the Dasmariñas letter and the note of Adelung, he listed46 as number one in his bibliography the Doctrina of 1593 in Spanish and Tagalog, and as number two the Doctrina in Spanish and Chinese of the same year. This is a verdict which has stood the test of time, and one that is just now confirmed by the discovery of the book itself. Two points, however, in his survey should be noted. In his discussion of the printing and the authorship Medina does not emphasize the Dominican origin of the book, although he does say that “it does not appear bold to us to suppose that the imprint of these Doctrinas ought to be the Hospital of San Gabriel in this village [Binondo],”47 and faithfully copies Adelung’s imprint notice, “in the Dominican printing-house,” in his listing of the book. The other point is that he says in his introduction and repeats in his entry that the Doctrina had a Latin as well as Spanish and Tagalog texts, an erroneous translation of Adelung’s “mit lateinische und tagalische Schrift.” He was hesitant as are all bibliographers, who must perforce record the probable existence of a book a copy of which they have never seen, in committing himself as to whether it was printed from blocks or from type or by a combination of the two methods.

More positive and more succinct than Medina was T.E. Retana whose earlier researches48 into the history of the Philippines Medina [18] acknowledgedly made use of, and who in 1897 published his La Imprenta en Filipinas, Adiciones y Observaciones a La Imprenta en Manila. He took the material of Medina, added the evidence of Chirino and Plasencia, and resummarized the problem. The letter of Dasmariñas showed conclusively that a Doctrina was printed in 1593. Chirino said that the first two whose works were printed were Juan de Villanueva and Blancas de San José. Fernández stated positively that the first book printed in the Philippines was the book of Our Lady of the Rosary by Blancas de San José printed at Bataan in 1602. Aduarte supported this without mentioning a title, place or date of printing. If we are to accept all these statements as incontrovertible, how can the apparent contradictions be reconciled? The answer had already been hinted at, but Retana solved the problem with amazing acumen, and arrived at four conclusions, which are here printed in his own words:

“A—That the Doctrinas of 1593, though printed at Manila, were not executed in type, but by the so-called xylographic method;

B—That the initiative for the establishment of typography is owed to P. Fr. Francisco Blancas de San José;

C—That the first typographer was the Chinese Christian Juan de Vera at the instigation of the said Father San José;

D—That the first typographical printing of this Dominican author is of the year 1602.”49

It is not difficult to say with the book itself in front of us, that it is an example of xylographic printing, but it was a great feat on the part of Retana, who had never seen a copy, to resolve apparently irreconcilable differences of opinion on the part of several unquestioned authorities by deducing that it was all a matter of semantics—what did printing mean? As for the sprite of 1581 introduced by Beristain, Retana dismissed it on the grounds of insufficient evidence. In a word, he concluded that the first book issued in the Philippines was a Doctrina printed from wood-blocks in 1593. [19]

All subsequent writers on the subject have derived their information from the sources we have already mentioned, and to a great degree have been influenced by the findings of Medina and Retana. The Rev. Thomas Cooke Middleton50 in 1900 confessed that he did not know what the first book printed was. Pardo de Tavera maintained his old intransigence, when in the introduction to his bibliography for the Library of Congress in 1903 he wrote that Medina’s affirmation that printing took place in 1593 “loses all validity in the face of the categorical statement of F. Alonso Fernández.”51 Medina did not comment further in his Adiciones y Ampliaciones 52 of 1904, yet when the same year Pérez and Güemes53 published their additions to and continuation of Medina, bringing his bibliography down to 1850, they resurrected the 1581 Arte, but added no new evidence to prove their case. Blair and Robertson, in their tremendous, collective history of the Philippines, did not include a list of Philippine imprints in their bibliography,54 but referred readers to Medina and Retana with whom they agreed. To celebrate the three hundredth anniversary of typographical printing in the Philippines Artigas y Cuerva55 wrote a study which emphasized the part played by Blancas de San José, but did not deny the existence of the 1593 Doctrina. Retana56 in 1911 brought his work on the subject up to date, but retained all his major conclusions. In Palau’s standard bibliography of Spanish books we find the Doctrinas called “the two earliest books known to have been printed in Manila.”57 Finally, the most thorough recent work on the subject is to be found in Schilling’s58 survey of the early history of the Philippine press published in 1937. There is little that can be added to the evidence uncovered by these modern writers, but the appearance of the book itself enables us to say with certainty some things which they were able only to surmise. However, as regards the authorship and the circumstances and place of printing we are able, from the information given on the title, to carry the investigation somewhat further. [20]

## The Authorship of the Text

The title tells us that the book was “corrected” by the priests of more than one order, and since it was printed by the Dominicans, we can assume that the ultimate responsibility for the preparation of the text in consultation with friars of other orders also lay in their hands. Our problem then is to discover what texts were available to them in 1593 and who were the priests who formed the editorial board. We have included in this study also the origins of the Chinese text, for the two Doctrinas appeared at the same time, and as we shall see the same Dominicans were probably responsible for the production and preparation of both the Tagalog and the Chinese texts. During the period under discussion there were priests of four orders active in the islands, and so we shall speak in turn of the Augustinian, Franciscan, Jesuit and Dominican fathers who might have written or worked on the Doctrinas printed in 1593.

## The Augustinians

The first priests to come to the Philippines were six Augustinians who accompanied Legazpi on the expedition which in 1565 established the first permanent European settlement in the islands. Among them was Martin de Rada, who was one of the most important and influential priests during the early days of the Spanish colony, and who was the first linguist of note to work in the Philippines. The first language he learned was Visayan,59 native to the island of Cebú where the Spaniards first landed, but he also learned Chinese. In May 1572 he was elected provincial of his order, and in June 1575 he went with Jerónimo Marín, as ambassador to China, being “the first Spaniard who entered into that said kingdom.”60 In preparation for the voyage, we are told by González de Mendoza, whose famous and popular history of China first printed in 1585 derives in a great measure from information brought back by Rada, that Rada [21] “began with great care & studie to learne that language [Chinese], the which he learned in few daies: & did make thereof a dictionarie.”61 Rada was then not only the first to write in Visayan, but also the first to compile a Chinese dictionary, and more important still brought back with him to Manila from China many books of which Mendoza gives a list.62 These books, printed in the usual Chinese method from wood-blocks, could have provided models for the Spaniards in the Philippines who lacked European facilities for printing, and they may have given birth to the idea which resulted in the xylographic Doctrinas.

Within the first few years several more Augustinian fathers63 arrived whose linguistic accomplishments are briefly noted by the historians, but while these men were certainly pioneers in the speaking of Tagalog and Chinese, they are not recorded as having written in the language. According to Cano,64 the first Tagalog grammar was written by Agustin de Alburquerque, and Retana65 considered him one of the possible authors of the present Doctrina. This friar reached the Philippines in 1571, accompanied Rada on his second expedition to China in 1576, was elected provincial in 1578, and died in 1580. However, there is no early record saying that Alburquerque wrote any linguistic work. The statement was not made until the 19th century, and in contradiction Juan de Medina, who wrote in 1630, said that Juan de Quiñones “made a grammar and lexicon of the Tagal language, which was the first to make a start in the rules of its mode of speech.”66 Furthermore, in the official acts67 of the Augustinian province we find that on August 20, 1578 Alburquerque as provincial of the order commissioned Quiñones to write a grammar, dictionary and confessionary in the Tagalog language. The conclusions of Santiago de Vela68 are that it is doubtful that Alburquerque wrote any linguistic works, and if he did they were liable to have been rough preliminary studies69 upon which the texts of Quiñones were based. In view of the lack of positive contemporary evidence70 we believe that Alburquerque [22] may be eliminated except as the instigator of such works, and we return again to Juan de Quiñones.

In so far as Quiñones71 was the author of a grammar and dictionary claimed to have been printed at Manila in 1581, we have shown what various writers have said, and though we must conclude that the work was probably not printed, it is certain that he wrote in the Tagalog language. Agustin Maria de Castro72 said, although no earlier writers support it, that Quiñones actually presented a grammar, dictionary and Doctrina in Tagalog at the Synod of 1582 for its approval. Our total information about this Augustinian linguist boils down to these essentials: that he did write a grammar and dictionary of Tagalog about 1578–81, which may have been the earliest written in the Philippines; that he may have presented these and a Doctrina at the Synod of 1582 which approved Juan de Plasencia’s works; that there is no concrete evidence that any of these works were printed; and that Quiñones’ works which were extant in manuscript in 1593 might have been consulted in the preparation of the present Doctrina.

Another member of the Order of St. Augustine who might have been able to participate in the editing of the 1593 Doctrinas was Diego Muñoz. Muñoz came to the islands in 1578, and died in 1594. Of him San Agustin writes:

“Moreover in this year [1581] the ministry for the Sangleys was founded in the convent of Tondo, and P. Fr. Diego Muñoz was named as its special minister. He devoted particular zeal to the study of the Chinese language, and preached in it with much elegance. And all the Sangleys who were going to be baptized, and there were many, had recourse to this ministry, and the teaching was continued with much vigilance and care. And there never lacked a religious of our order to apply himself to such holy work, from the time we came to this land, as our original records of the province prove.”73

To him is also attributed74 a volume of manuscript panegyric sermons in Tagalog, and because of this and his work at Tondo he may [23] have been consulted by the Dominicans. We also mention Lorenzo de León,75 who arrived in 1582, spent twelve years in the provinces, wrote a book called the Estrella del mar in Tagalog, and died in 1623, and might also have helped.

## The Franciscans

Although the first Franciscans did not arrive in the Philippines until June 24, 1577, the writings of the linguists of that order are more fully recorded. Among the earliest was Juan de Plasencia who, the Franciscans claim, wrote the first Tagalog grammar. He was fortunate in meeting soon after his arrival Miguel de Talavera,76 who had come with his parents on the expedition of Legazpi. Miguel, then quite young, became in a manner of speaking the disciple of Plasencia, and while the father taught him Latin, he in turn taught Plasencia the elements of Tagalog which he had picked up. For two years Plasencia ministered in the provinces of Tayabas, Laguna, and Bulacan where he used and perfected his knowledge of the native language. On May 20, 1579, when the provincial Pedro de Alfaro left for China, he named Plasencia acting provincial during his absence. A reference to the earliest linguistic writings of the Franciscans occurs in an account by Santa Inés of the chapter meeting held in the Convent of Los Angeles in July 1580, which was presided over by Plasencia:

“The third and last thing that was determined in this chapter was that a grammar and dictionary of the Tagalog language should be made and a translation of the Doctrina Christiana completed. And since Fr. Juan de Plasencia, the president of this same chapter, excelled all in the language, he was given this responsibility, and he accepted it, and immediately set to work. And then after great study, much lack of sleep and care, together with fervent prayers and other spiritual duties, of not little importance in the good profit of such work, he reduced the language to a grammar, made a catechism, a very full dictionary, and various translations.”77

But the most important record of his writings is contained in the description of the Synod called by Bishop Salazar in 1582. In March, 1581, [24] Domingo de Salazar, the first Bishop of Manila and the Philippines, had arrived. The problems which faced him were manifold, particularly those of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the treatment of the natives by government administrators, and the means by which the gospel could best be spread. A synod was called to resolve these points. One matter of the utmost importance was the approval of standard Tagalog texts, and Juan de la Concepcion gives the following account of what transpired in this connection:

“His excellency presided at the meetings. At them the most learned topics were discussed and the most learned persons were present—the Dominican father Salvatierra, the most outstanding scholars among the Augustinians and Franciscans, the Jesuit fathers Sedeño and Sanchez, and the Licentiate Don Diego Vasquez de Mercado as dean of the new cathedral. At this convention or diocesan synod it was discussed whether the Indians were to be ministered to in their native language, or if they would be obliged to learn Spanish, and it was decided to instruct them in their native tongue. The divine office, the Doctrina Christiana, which Father Fr. Juan de Plasencia had translated into the Tagalog language, was approved. His work, the Arte y Vocabuldrio Tagalo, was judged most useful because of the ease by which it permitted an understanding and thorough knowledge of so foreign a language.”78

The already quoted account of Santa Inés continues with a similar description of the Synod, and says that when the problem of teaching the natives was brought up only Plasencia could resolve it.

“Since, having seen his catechism and the translation which he had made in Tagalog of the grammar and dictionary, those who were at the Synod and understood anything of the language could do nothing but admire the fitness of the terms, their efficacy and strength. And they said that, without the particular help of heaven, it seemed impossible that in so short a time and with so few years in the country he could have done such excellent work. And then, having approved them, they ordered that various copies be made, particularly of the translation of the Doctrina, so that with them and with no other would the ministers teach the Indians, and so it was approved, in order that there might be uniformity in all parts of the Tagalog country. This translation is that which has come down to this day, except that it is more polished.”79

It must have been shortly after the handbooks of Plasencia received the seal of ecclesiastical approval that Salazar wrote the King speaking of the [25] action taken, and got back in answer the cedula, quoted before, giving the Bishop and Audiencia the right of censorship over such works. The question of chronological precedence80 between Quiñones and Plasencia is not important, for the specific approval of Plasencia’s texts by the Synod, attended by Quiñones himself, shows that Plasencia’s books were accepted, and in conformity with the ruling of the Synod would have been the only texts allowed to be used generally in the Philippines.

Another reference to writers in the native tongues in an anonymous manuscript of 1649 introduces the names of other linguists:

“The first missionaries left many writings in the Tagalog and Bicol languages, the best of which are those left by Fathers Fray Juan de Oliver, Fray Juan de Plasencia, Fray Miguel de Talavera, Fray Diego de la Asuncion, and Fray Gerónimo Monte. Mention is here made of the above fathers because they were the first masters of the Tagalog language, and since their writings are so common and so well received by all the orders. They have not been printed, because they are voluminous, and there are no arrangements in this kingdom for printing so much.”81

Miguel de Talavera we have spoken of before. That he helped Plasencia in the compilation of his earliest works in Tagalog is clear, and to him in part must be attributed the miracle of the production by Plasencia of the texts “in so short a time and with so few years in the country.” Martínez says specifically that Talavera “was the first interpreter among our priests, and greatly helped Fr. Juan de Plasencia in the composition of the Arte y Vocabulario.”82 Juan de Oliver was in somewhat the same relationship to Plasencia, but instead of helping with the initial attempts, he carried on from where Plasencia left off. Oliver came to the Philippines on the same expedition which brought Bishop Salazar in 1581. According to Huerta83 he worked in various Tagalog villages, and mastered the Tagalog and Bicol languages, in which he wrote twenty-two works, which Huerta lists. Of these three are of particular interest to us. The first entry says that he “corrected the Tagalog grammar written by Fr. Juan de Plasencia, and added the adverbs and particles;”84 the second that “he [26] perfected and augmented the Spanish-Tagalog dictionary, written by the said Fr. Juan de Plasencia;” and the sixteenth lists a Catecismo de doctrina Cristiana esplicado.

Several authors, attempting to establish the priority of Quiñones’ dictionary, question the existence of one by Plasencia at the Synod of 1582 in the face of his own statement in 1585 that he “was then making a dictionary.”85 To us there seems to be no inconsistency, if Plasencia in 1585 was referring to a revision, unquestionably made with his knowledge and help, by Juan de Oliver. In short, it is reasonable to assume that Plasencia, burdened with administrative duties from 1583 to 1586, during which time he was custodian of his order, secured the aid of Oliver in reediting and continuing his linguistic studies. Plasencia died in 1590.

The other two Franciscans listed by the anonymous historian of 1649 are elsewhere recorded as having written various works in Tagalog. To both Diego de la Asuncion86 and Gerónimo Montes y Escamillo87 were attributed grammars and dictionaries, and the latter also wrote a Devotional tagalog, said to have been printed at Manila in 1610. In speaking of these early linguistic texts, it is not necessary to believe that each was a completely original work, but rather that they were based upon a recognized model, which was at first the Talavera-Plasencia-Oliver text, and that the individual missionaries used their experience in the field to produce, as it were, new editions. That this was the case is borne out by the notes of Pablo Rojo to his bibliography of Plasencia where speaking of the grammar and dictionary he says that “perfected by other missionaries, they have been the base for such grammars and dictionaries of Tagalog as have been written, but in the form in which they came from the hands of their author, they have not come down to us.”88 More important still is Rojo’s statement89 that he found a portion of Plasencia’s Doctrina which had been believed lost, and from which he quotes the Pater Noster. Since he does not say where the manuscript was or how it was known to be [27] Plasencia’s text, we cannot put too much reliance on the statement, but the text as there printed, while similar to that of the present Doctrina, is not identical.

## The Jesuits

Before passing on to the Dominicans we shall mention briefly the linguists of the Society of Jesus. In the early days there were not many Jesuits in the Philippines. However, there were some linguists among them, chiefly of the Visayan tongue, in which they are said to have printed a Doctrina90 as early as 1610. Limiting ourselves to a note of those who knew Chinese and Tagalog, we find that the first mentioned by Chirino as an outstanding master of one of these was Francisco Almerique, who arrived with Santiago de Vera in 1583. Shortly thereafter he “began the study of the Chinese language in his zeal to aid in the conversion of the many Chinese who came to Manila and whom we in the Philippines call Sangleys.”91 And Colin says “his principal occupation was with the Tagalog Indians, being the first of the Company to learn their language.”92 Nothing further is said of his accomplishments in these languages, but his knowledge would have been available in 1593, for he was then still active in the islands.

Chirino himself landed at Manila in 1590 shortly after Dasmariñas, and went almost immediately to Taytay where he learned Tagalog and was joined in 1592 by Martin Henriquez. At the time Juan de Oliver was preaching in that district, and it is exceedingly probable that he helped the newcomers with the language, for Chirino speaks of him in terms of highest praise. Henriquez “learned the language in three months and in six wrote a catechism in it, a confessionary, and a book of sermons for all the gospels of the year in the said idiom,”93 but he died on February 3, 1593 at Taytay. How thoroughly Chirino himself had grasped the fundamentals of Tagalog is evident from his three chapters94 on the language and letters [28] of the natives in which he prints the Ave Maria in Tagalog and reproduces the Tagalog alphabet—its first appearance in a European publication. But Chirino, who remained in the provinces until 1595, would have mentioned his participation and that of Henriquez in the Doctrina of 1593, so we record them as possible but not probable consultants.

## The Dominicans

Had Aduarte written that the first books printed at Manila were two Doctrinas issued by the Dominicans at San Gabriel in 1593, and given some details of their production, we could conclude our study with a quotation from him, but nowhere does he mention them. In fact, his inference was that the first book was that printed for Blancas de San José, and yet we know that this Doctrina preceded anything that Blancas de San José could have written, since he did not come to the Philippines until 1595. We can assume, as Retana did, that by printing Aduarte meant printing from movable type, but this does not explain away the fact that Aduarte, who recorded in detail events of far less significance, did not speak of the Doctrinas at all. The best—and it is a most unsatisfactory best—that we can do is ascribe the omission to the frailty of man, and record that there is no notice of the Dominican Doctrina of 1593 in the most complete contemporary Dominican history of the Philippines.

The first members of the Order of St. Dominic95 to land in the Philippines were Bishop Salazar and his assistant, Christoval de Salvatierra. But they were fully occupied with the administration of the bishopric and could not devote themselves to regular missionary work. It was not until July 25, 1587 that working Dominican missionaries came. Then fifteen96 under the leadership of Juan de Castro arrived, and established the first Dominican province97 of the Philippines and China, thus consummating the hope expressed as early as 1579.98 [29]

In consultation with the other orders it was decided that the Dominicans should be given the ministry of the territories of Pangasinan and Bataan, which had theretofore been spiritually exploited by few priests. Almost immediately, on September 15, 1587, the vicariate of Bataan was founded and settled. In speaking of it, Aduarte stressed the importance of a knowledge of the language of the natives, which there would have been Tagalog, to the success of the mission. Domingo de Nieva, one of the four members of the mission, learned it rapidly and well, and soon began to preach to the Indians in their own tongue. His aptitude for languages and its usefulness to the Dominicans must have been very great, for Aduarte in listing the priests who originally volunteered in Spain makes few comments about individuals, but of Nieva he remarks that he “was afterwards of great importance because of the great ease and skill with which he learned languages, whether Indian or Chinese.”99 Unfortunately Nieva was only a deacon, and so could not hear confession, a fact which was greatly deplored, because during that first year no other priest mastered the language sufficiently well to do it, but in September 1588 he reached the requisite age and was ordained. About that time the friars in Bataan—one had died and another was ailing—were joined by Juan de la Cruz, “who, being young, succeeded very well with the language,”100 and also succeeded in surviving the climate.

Early in 1588 Juan Cobo101 arrived from Mexico. Shortly thereafter, on June 12, 1588, the Dominican chapter held its first convocation. It elected Juan de Castro the first provincial, adopted the general ordinances102 already made in Mexico, gave the convent at Manila the title of priory, and designated as parts of the province four vicariates. Of primary importance was the appointment then of Juan Cobo to the mission for the Chinese.

From the very earliest days of the Spanish occupation of Manila, the governors had had trouble with the Chinese and Sangleys.103 These people [30] had long conducted a profitable trade between China and the Philippines, and many had settled permanently near Manila, while others stayed there regularly between trading voyages. The Chinese merchants were in full control of the shops of the city, and so monopolized retail trade that the early governors legislated104 against them to give the Spaniards a chance to establish themselves in business. In 1588 there were as many as seven thousand of them in and around Manila.

No one had objected to the Pangasinan and Bataan assignments, but when it was suggested that the Dominicans also assume the responsibility for the ministry over the Chinese and Sangleys in the suburbs of Manila, the Augustinians vehemently resented what they considered an invasion of their prior rights. Aduarte omits any account of a disagreement, merely saying that since the Chinese had had no one to minister to them the Dominicans assumed that responsibility, but in a letter105 from the Licentiate Gaspar de Ayala to Philip II, dated from Manila, July 15, 1589, full details of the squabble are given. From this source we learn that the Augustinians had a convent in the village of Tondo in the Chinese district. There they had ministered to the natives in their own language, but had rather neglected their Chinese-speaking parishioners. Consequently after the arrival of the Dominicans the Audiencia passed an ordinance requiring that the Bishop appoint ministers of one order to administer to the Chinese in their own language within thirty days. To meet the deadline the Augustinians began to study Chinese at breakneck speed, but when the Bishop came to Tondo to hear one of the friars, who was supposed to know the language, preach in it, there was some trouble as a result of which the Augustinian would not, or indeed could not, preach. Naturally, when it was decided to award the territory to the Dominicans, the Augustinians accused the Bishop of favoritism towards his own order.

The whole situation is best described in the report on the Chinese made by Salazar to the King on June 24, 1590: [31]

“When I arrived in this land, I found that in a village called Tondo—which is not far from this city, there being a river between—lived many Sangleys, of whom some were Christians, but the larger part infidels. In this city were also some shops kept by Sangleys, who lived here in order to sell the goods which they kept here year by year. These Sangleys were scattered among the Spaniards, with no specific place assigned to them, until Don Gonzalo Ronquillo allotted them a place to live in, and to be used as a silk-market (which is here called Parián), of four large buildings. Here, many shops were opened, commerce increased, and more Sangleys came to this city.... When I came, all the Sangleys were almost forgotten, and relegated to a corner. No thought was taken for their conversion, because no one knew their language or undertook to learn it on account of its great difficulty; and because the religious who lived here were too busy with the natives of these islands. Although the Augustinian religious had charge of the Sangleys of Tondo, they did not minister to or instruct them in their own language, but in that of the natives or this land; thus the Sangley Christians living here, were Christians only in name, knowing no more of Christianity than if they had never accepted it.... Then I appealed to all religious orders to appoint some one of their religious to learn the language and take charge of the Sangleys. Although all of them showed a desire to do so, and some even began to learn it, yet no one succeeded; and the Sangleys found themselves with no one to instruct them and take up their conversion with the necessary earnestness, until, in the year eighty-seven, God brought to these islands the religious of St. Dominic.”106

So we find, as the Dominicans undertook their mission, a large settlement of Chinese, including both a settled and a floating population, concentrated in the Parián, across the Pasig river from the main city of Manila.

The dominating figure of the Chinese mission from the time of his arrival in the Philippines was Juan Cobo. In a letter, written by him from the Parián of Manila, July 13, 1589, probably to ecclesiastical authorities in Mexico, he gives an account of the early days of the mission:

“The Order took a site next to this Parián, since there was not a single house between Santo Domingo and the Parián. And because of this opportunity the Order presently charged itself with the Chinese, both Christians and infidels. And upon P. Fr. Miguel de Benavides and P. Fr. Juan Maldonado was imposed the responsibility for the care of the Chinese and for learning their language. P. Fr. Miguel was less occupied with other matters than Fr. Juan Maldonado, so that he progressed in the language enough to begin to catechize in it. This was the first year the Order was in Manila. [32]

“Presently in the second year when I came, the Order moved P. Fr. Miguel and myself into another separate house at the other edge of the Parián. So that there stood between Santo Domingo and San Gabriel, which is the name of this church of the Chinese, the whole of the Parián of the Sangleys. And there a poor little church was built under the protection of San Gabriel, to whom it fell by lot, and a poor house where we two lived. We entered into it at the beginning of September 1588. This was the first church for the Chinese built, and we believe that there is today not another parish church [for the Chinese] but that.... And P. Fr. Miguel catechized them and preached to them in their Chinese language, and taught the doctrine in it. I myself did not yet know the language, but the Lord has been served, so that in a short time I progressed in it.”107

The account of Aduarte is not so accurate in some details, but it supplies others not mentioned by Cobo. The first mission which Benavides and Maldonado (or de San Pedro Martyr as he was later known) built was near the village of Tondo, in a new settlement specially founded for Christian Chinese, called Baybay, and it was named for Our Lady of the Purification. The second mission which was established by Benavides and Cobo was at first a palm-leaf hut. The name of San Gabriel was decided upon by making lots with the names of various saints on them and then drawing. San Gabriel came out three times in a row, and “all were persuaded that the Lord was pleased to have the patronage belong to this holy archangel.” Soon, because of the good works of the fathers who established a hospital there for the care of the sick and poor, the demands upon the hut became so great that a larger building was planned. At first it was to have been erected on the site of the hut, but the inhabitants protested that a stone building so near native houses might do them great damage in the event of an earthquake, so the friars went to the other side of the river, and there built a temporary building of wood which was later completed in stone. It was here then that the Doctrina was printed, in the Church of San Gabriel, near the Parián of Manila, at the edge of the Chinese settlement.

Under the care of Benavides and Cobo the mission flourished, and the two fathers became increasingly proficient in the Chinese language. When [33] the provincial Juan de Castro began making preparations for an inspection tour of his Chinese vicariate in 1590, he chose as his companion Miguel de Benavides. The account of the events leading up to this expedition is given in the already quoted letter of Salazar on the Chinese:

“Of the Dominican religious who came to these islands, four are engaged in ministering to the Sangleys. Two of these four officiate in the Church of San Gabriel, which, together with the house where the religious live, stands close to the Parián. Another church with its house is on the promontory of Baybay, near Tondo—which a river divides, separating it from Manila. Two of the four have learned the language of the Sangleys so well, and one of these two how to write also (which is the most difficult part of the language), that the Sangleys wonder at their knowledge.... After due consideration of the matter, the Dominican fathers and myself decided that it was necessary to go to China.... Thus we decided upon the departure, sending at present no more than two religious: Fray Miguel de Benavides, who was the first to learn the language of the Sangleys; and Father Juan de Castro, who came as vicar of the religious and who was made provincial here. We preferred these two, as one is well acquainted with the language, and the other is much loved and esteemed by the Sangleys on account of his venerable gray locks and blessed old age; and we know that in that land old people are much respected and revered.”108

They sailed on May 22, 1590, but Juan de Castro before he left appointed Cobo acting superior of the province with full authority during his absence, and in the latter’s place as head of the Chinese mission sent Juan de San Pedro Martyr.

There is no doubt but that at this time Benavides and Cobo were the two outstanding Chinese linguists among the Spaniards in the Philippines. To Benavides has been attributed109 a Chinese dictionary, and Schilling110 uses the already quoted letter of Cobo to prove that he also wrote a Doctrina in Chinese, but, granting that such works were written by him, there is no evidence that they were written in Chinese characters, and not in Chinese transliterated into roman letters. The available evidence points to the fact that Cobo was the only one who could then write in Chinese characters. Salazar in his above quoted letter had said that “one of these two [have learned] how to write also,” and in the same letter he continued, [34] “Fray Juan Cobo, the Dominican religious—who, as I have said before, knows the language of the Sangleys and their writing, and who is most esteemed by them—is sending to Your Majesty a book, one of a number brought to him from China.”111 Further witness to Cobo’s amazing knowledge of Chinese writing is given by Aduarte:

“He knew three thousand Chinese characters, each different from all the rest, for the Chinese have no definite number of letters nor alphabet.... He translated a number [of Chinese books]; for like those of Seneca, though they are the work of heathens, they contain many profound sayings like ours. He taught astrology to some of them whom he found capable of learning; and to bring them by all means to their salvation also taught them some trades that are necessary among Spaniards, but which, not being used by the Chinese, they did not know—such as painting images, binding books, cutting and sewing clothes, and such things—doing all to win men to God.”112

Finally, as a more definite proof that Cobo could have been the author of the Chinese Doctrina of 1593, we have the record113 of a Catecismo de la Doctrina Cristiana en Lengua China written by him, as well as many other works in Chinese.

In May 1590, then, the most accomplished Sinologist yet to work in the Philippines was in charge of the Dominican province. “His first act,” wrote Aduarte, “was to strengthen the ministry to the Chinese by appointing to it Father Domingo de Nieva, a priest of great virtue and very able—which was tremendously important there—and one who best mastered that language, as well as that of the Indians in which he had had experience; and he worked in both of them, and wrote much to the great advantage of those who came after him.”114 It is surprising that no previous writer has emphasized the presence of Domingo de Nieva, whose proficiency in Tagalog we have already noted, at San Gabriel during the years when the printing of the Doctrinas must have been planned and executed. His works are cited by Fernández,115 and after giving a summary of his career, Aduarte added: [35]

“He wrote much in the language of the Indians and other things in the language of the Chinese for whom he had printed in their language and characters a memorial upon the Christian life, with other brief tracts of prayer and meditation, in preparation for the holy sacraments, of confession and the sacred communion. He was an enemy of sloth, and so worked much in Chinese, in which he wrote a practically new grammar of the Chinese language, a vocabulary, a manual of confession and many sermons, in order that those who had to learn this language might find it less difficult.”116

Medina117 records these various works as Manila imprints of unknown date, and to this indefinite information about them we can add nothing positive. However, it is apparent that some time before 1606, when Nieva died on his way to Mexico, he had had books printed, and since they were in Chinese they must have been printed from wood-blocks, for at that early date it would have been impossible to have cast the number of characters necessary to print in Chinese with movable type.

With Nieva was Maldonado, or San Pedro Martyr. He had been one of the first associates of Benavides in the first Chinese mission at Baybay, but after the arrival of Cobo he had been sent by order of the first chapter to Pangasinan. When Cobo was appointed acting provincial San Pedro Martyr was again assigned to the Chinese ministry. He had learned Tagalog, and after his return to the Parián “he learned more words of the Chinese language than any other member of the order, though he was not successful with the pronunciation.”118

On May 31, 1592, the Governor received a letter from the Emperor of Japan demanding that an ambassador be sent to offer him the fealty of the Philippines. Juan Cobo, as the best speaker of Chinese, was chosen to represent the Spaniards, and he left Manila on July 29, 1592. After successfully convincing the Japanese Emperor of the amity of the Spaniards, he left to come back to Manila, but his ship was wrecked in November on the coast of Formosa, and there Cobo was killed by hostile natives. Meanwhile Benavides had gone back to Spain with Bishop Salazar in [36] 1591, and did not return to the Philippines until after his appointment as Bishop of Nueva Segovia in 1595.

That left as the only two remaining experts in the Chinese language, Domingo de Nieva and Juan de San Pedro Martyr, both of whom were at San Gabriel in 1592. Moreover, both of them knew Chinese and Tagalog. A text in Tagalog was available, based on the Talavera-Plasencia-Oliver model, which had circulated freely, and this, we believe, was further edited—hence the “corrected by the religious of the orders”—by these two Dominicans. In their editorial work they may have been helped by Juan de la Cruz, who, we have noted, was sent to Bataan in 1588, there learned Tagalog, and “succeeded so perfectly with it that Father Fr. Francisco San Joseph, who was afterwards the best linguist there, profited by the papers and labors of P. Fr. Juan de la Cruz.”119 Juan de Oliver, the pioneer Franciscan Tagalist was still living and available for consultation, and the polylingual Jesuit, Francisco Almerique, also was in Manila at the time. A Chinese text had been written by Juan Cobo, and both Nieva and San Pedro Martyr were capable of preparing this for publication, again possibly aided by Almerique, and also Diego Muñoz, if as an Augustinian he had been willing to cooperate with the Dominicans. Nothing remained to be done but have the blocks cut and the impressions pulled.

## The Printing of the Books

The stage was set for the production of the Doctrinas. That there were Chinese xylographic models upon which the books could be based is evidenced by the account of Mendoza of the considerable number of Chinese books brought to Manila by Martin de Rada as early as 1575. A more likely model was a bilingual text in Spanish and Chinese which Cobo describes in his letter of July 13, 1589, where speaking of the Jesuits in China he says: [37]

“Moreover the Father of the Company who was in China wrote and printed in Chinese letters a whole book of the unity of God, the creation of the world, and the commandments explained; and in this book has gotten as far as the incarnation of the Son of God. Concerning this I am not speaking of things heard, for I have it, and am thus certain of it, as of all the things that happened. How far I have progressed with the Chinese letters I shall say later. This book was printed in China in 1584. It circulates freely in China whence we have our copy, and because of the writing, contrary to what others have misleadingly said about the Chinese, they have done him no ill: from which it may be inferred that the lion is not so wild as they paint him.”120

There is no direct evidence to support our belief that it was during the brief period after Castro returned, probably late in 1590, and relieved Cobo of his executive responsibilities, and June 1592 when he left for Japan, that Cobo began intensive plans for the production of bilingual texts. His recorded interest in such books, his influence with the Chinese, his energy and his own linguistic aptitude would naturally have stimulated him to undertake the task. Whether he actually began work on the blocks from which the books were printed, or merely suggested the feasibility of the idea, we do not know, but we feel sure that Juan Cobo was the father of the production of books in the Philippines.

There is no need here to go into the history of printing in China; the method used there and its antiquity have been fully described by others.121 That there were Chinese in Manila who understood this age-old process would seem obvious from the reports of skilled craftsmen whose presence was noted by all the writers of the period. We have already quoted a reference to Juan Cobo’s teaching them European trades, and Salazar in his already cited letter speaks of them further:

“They are so skillful and clever, that, as soon as they see any object made by a Spanish workman, they reproduce it with exactness. What arouses my wonder most is, that when I arrived no Sangley knew how to paint anything; but now they have so perfected themselves in this art that they have produced marvelous works with both the brush and the chisel.... What has pleased all of us here has been the arrival of a bookbinder from Mexico. He brought books with him, set up a bindery, and hired a Sangley who had offered his services to him. The Sangley secretly, and [38] without his master noticing it, watched how the latter bound books, and lo, in less than [lacuna in MS.] he left the house, saying that he wished to serve him no longer, and set up a similar shop.”122

To turn over a manuscript copy of a book to a Chinaman who had already some familiarity with the production of books in China, or who with a given text could carve the blocks according to tradition, was then not a matter of great difficulty. There were Chinese books which showed what the result would be; there were Spanish books, definitely some from Mexico, which provided samples of European characters and format.

Who cut the blocks—that is exactly what Chinaman—we do not know, nor do we know who handled the presswork, but it is logical to assume that the whole process took place under the supervision of the fathers of San Gabriel, Juan Cobo if work had begun before 1592, and certainly Nieva and San Pedro Martyr. One further aide may have been the lay brother, Pedro Rodriguez, who had been sent to San Gabriel with Nieva, and who was a handyman or skilled mechanic, for Aduarte credits him with rebuilding and restoring the hospital.

In speaking of the book printed for Blancas de San José, Aduarte said that the printing had been done by “a Chinaman, a good Christian,”123 but in this particular account he does not give the Chinaman’s name. Yet, where he describes the founding of a second church of San Gabriel in Binondo, sometime after March 28, 1594124 and before June 15, 1596 when it was admitted to the chapter, he tells in some detail of printing done by Juan de Vera.125

“There have been in this town [Binondo, then called Minondoc] many Chinese of very exemplary lives. Juan de Vera was not only a very devout man, and one much given to prayer, but a man who caused all his household to be the same. He always heard mass, and was very regular in his attendance at church. He adorned the church most handsomely with hangings and paintings, because he understood this art. He also, thinking only of the great results to be attained by means of holy and devout books, gave himself to the great labor necessary to establish printing in this country, where there was no journeyman who could show him the way, or give him an [39] account of the manner of printing in Europe, which is very different from the manner of printing followed in his own country of China. The Lord aided his pious intentions, and he gave to this undertaking not only continued and excessive labor, but all the forces of his mind, which were great. In spite of the difficulties, he attained that which he desired, and was the first printer in these islands; and this not from avarice—for he gained much more in his business as a merchant, and readily gave up his profit—but merely to do service to the Lord and this good to the souls of the natives.”126

It is interesting to note that this narrative, which is in substance similar to that about the books of Blancas de San José, nowhere mentions the name of the priest in connection with Vera. It is probable that Juan de Vera was, as Retana believed, the first typographer, and it may be that he also printed the Doctrinas of 1593. It is impossible to say with certainty, but it is not too fanciful to suppose that Juan de Vera tried xylographic printing under the supervision of Nieva and San Pedro Martyr, and after some experimenting achieved typography in the time of Blancas de San José.

Since we have here dealt with a volume printed entirely from wood-blocks it does not seem necessary to discuss in detail the subsequent typographical books. However, just as this goes to press, a copy of the Ordinationes Generales prouintiae Sanctissimi Rosarij Philippinarum,127 printed at Binondo by Juan de Vera in 1604, has been discovered, and also presented by Mr. Rosenwald to the Library of Congress. This is the volume described by Remesal128 as being printed “in as fine characters and as correctly as if in Rome or Lyon.” No copy of the book had been described since his day, although Medina129 and Retana130 both listed it from references which probably derived from Remesal. Its discovery—almost unbelievable coming so close on the heels of that of the Doctrina—helps to close the gap between the latter and the two Bataan imprints131 of 1610, the Arte y Reglas de la Lengva Tagala and the Librong Pagaaralan nang manga Tagalog nang uicang Castilla. [40]

The full story of the early typographical products of the Philippines must wait upon another occasion, for the questions posed by the scanty records and the handful of surviving books are extremely knotty. Where did the type come from? Medina suggested it was imported from Macao; Retana believed it to have been cut in the Philippines. Fernández said that the first works of Blancas de San José were printed at Bataan and the two 1610 books have that place of printing, yet in 1604 the Ordinationes issued from Binondo. Remesal wrote that this book was printed by Francisco de Vera, and the book itself bears the name of Juan. Indeed, the history of the early typographers and the output of their presses, as it has so far been written, presents many problems, but they are problems which we feel are outside the scope of this study.

To summarize what we have learned of the earliest printing in the Philippines: we have the possibility, but not a likely one, that an Arte by Juan de Quiñones was printed xylographically in 1581; we know that in the first half of the year 1593 two Doctrinas were printed xylographically—although we have no way of telling which came first—one in Tagalog from the Talavera-Plasencia-Oliver text, and one in Chinese written by Juan Cobo, both edited and printed under the supervision of Domingo de Nieva and Juan de San Pedro Martyr; we surmise that between 1593 and 1602 other works were also printed xylographically, such as the small tracts of Juan de Villanueva and some of the books of Blancas de San José, Nieva and others; and in 1602 was printed by Juan de Vera, in all likelihood from movable type, the book of Our Lady of the Rosary by Blancas de San José. The known facts are not many, and we can only hope that time and further research will discover new ones to make the history of the earliest Philippine imprints more complete and more satisfactory.

Philadelphia, January 20, 1947 Edwin Wolf 2nd.

1 Tagalog characters are said to be similar to old Javanese, Ignacio Villamot, La Antigua Escritura Filipina, Manila, 1922, p. 30. They were replaced under the Spanish occupation by roman letters, and are not now used. The best definitive grammar is Frank R. Blake’s A Grammar of the Tagalog Language, New Haven, 1925, where, p. 1, he defines the language as follows: “Tagálog is the principal language of Luzon, the largest island of the Philippine Archipelago. It is spoken in Manila and in the middle region of Luzon. Tagálog, like all the Philippine languages about which anything is known, belongs to the Malayo-Polynesian family of speech, which embraces the idioms spoken on the islands of Polynesia, Melanesia, and Malaysia, on the Malay peninsula, and on the island of Madagascar.”

2 The woodcut, showing St. Dominic beneath a star holding a lily and a book, the usual symbols of this saint, and clad in the white habit and black cloak of his order, seems to be of oriental workmanship, differing vastly from contemporary Spanish and Mexican cuts of the same type. The clouds, for instance, are characteristically Chinese, and the buildings in the background more reminiscent of eastern temples than European churches.

3 T.H. Pardo de Tavera, Noticias sobre La Imprenta y el Grabado en Filipinas, Madrid, 1893, pp. 9–10. Dard Hunter in Papermaking through Eighteen Centuries, New York, 1930, pp. 109–16, describes papermaking in China, and mentions the use of “makaso” or “takaso,” both species of the paper mulberry, as material for the making of paper. The paper mulberry’s scientific name is Broussonetia papyrifera. Later, on p. 141, he speaks of the use by the Chinese of gypsum, lichen, starch, rice flour and animal glue for sizing.

4 The best short summaries in English of the beginnings of printing in Mexico are Henry R. Wagner’s introduction to the exhibition catalogue of Mexican Imprints 1544–1600 In the Huntington Library, San Marino, 1939, pp. 3–10; and Lawrence C. Wroth, Some Reflections on the Book Arts in Early Mexico, Cambridge (Mass.), 1945.

5 J.B. Primrose, The First Press in India and Its Printers, The Library, 4th Series, 1939, XX, pp. 244–5.

6 José Toribio Medina, La Imprenta en Lima, Santiago de Chile, 1904–17, no. 1, p. 3.

7 A contemporary copy of this letter—the original is not known—lay forgotten and unnoticed in the Archives of the Indies (1–1–3/25, no. 52), Torres, III, no. 4151, p. 83, until discovered there by Pascual de Gayangos, who called it to the attention of W.E. Retana, who first printed it in La Politica de Espana en Filipinas, no. 97, Oct. 23, 1894. It was later rediscovered independently by Medina who also printed it in his La Imprenta en Manila, p. xix. Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas, formerly corregidor of Murcia and Cartagena in Spain, was appointed governor of the Philippines in 1589, landed at Manila in May 1590, and remained in office until his death in October 1593.

8 Relacion de lo que se ha escrito y escribe en las Filipinas fecho este año de 1593, an apparently inedited MS. in the A. of I., Index 9, no. 81, from which the passage was quoted by Retana in his edition of Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, Madrid, 1909, p. 425, and Manuel Artigas y Cuerva, La Primera Imprenta en Filipinas, Manila, 1910, p. xi. This may be the MS. listed by Torres, III, no. 4229, p. 91, as Breve sumario y memorial de apuntamientos de lo que se ha escrito y escribe en las Islas Filipinas, undated but probably 1593.

9 Recopilacion de las Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias, Madrid, 1681, I, ff. 123v–124r, where they are Laws 1 and 3, Title XXIV, Book I.

10 Medina, p. xxviii, from. Libro de provisiones reales, Madrid, 1596, I, p. 231.

11 Inflation in the Philippines was discussed in a report sent by Bishop Salazar to the King in 1583, B. & R., V, pp. 210–11, translated from Retana, Archivo del bibliófilo filipino, Madrid, 1895–97, III. no 1.

12 Henry R. Wagner, The House of Cromberger, in To Doctor R[osenbach], Philadelphia, 1946, pp. 234 & 238, where he gives some interesting comparative figures: in 1542 the Casa de Cromberger could charge 17 maravedís a sheet; in Spain in 1552 Lopez de Gómara’s Historia de las Indias was appraised at 2 maravedís a sheet; and in Mexico Vasco de Puga’s Provisiones of 1563 was permitted to sell at the tremendous figure of one real or 34 maravedís a sheet.

13 Juan de Cuellar was mentioned in the Letter of Instruction given by Philip II to Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas on August 9, 1589, as among those “who are men of worth and account” in the Philippines and who should be provided for and rewarded accordingly, B. & R., VII, p. 151, translated from the original MS. in the A. of I. (105–2–11), Torres, III, no. 3567, p. 17. Cuellar received a commission from Dasmariñas and signed various documents during his administration as secretary and notary. Antonio de Morga, Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, Mexico, 1609, f. 13v, reports that Cuellar was one of two survivors of the ship on which Dasmariñas sailed in October 1593 as part of an expedition to conquer the fort of Terrenate in Maluco. On the second day out, while the ship was weather-bound at Punta del Acufre, the Chinese rowers mutinied, and only Cuellar, there described as the governor’s secretary, and the Franciscan father, Francisco de Montilla, survived the ensuing massacre. They were set ashore on the coast of Ylocos, and made their way back to Manila. A similar account appears in Chapter XVI of Leonardo de Argensola’s, Conqvista delas Islas Malvcas, Madrid, 1609. We have been able to find no subsequent record of Cuellar.

14 Colín, I, pp. 501, 507–14, 561–6.

15 Pedro Chirino, Primera parte de la Historia de la provincia de Philipinas de la Compañia de Ihs, unpublished MS. of 1610, from which the present passage was quoted by Retana, col. 25. For an account of the MS. see Santiago Vela, VI, p. 435n. Schilling, p. 214, demonstrates that according to the original punctuation the meaning is that the first printers were Villanueva and Blancas de San José, but with the shifting of a semi-colon it could be read to mean that the first printers were of the Order of St. Augustine. We can see no reason to shift the semi-colon, and have retained it in its original place.

16 Retana, col. 26, said that he was able to find no information regarding Villanueva except for the listing of his name by Cano, p. 43, as having arrived in the Philippines at an unknown date. The destruction of the early records of the Augustinians when the English sacked Manila in 1762 accounts for the paucity of information, but there are a few references which throw some little light on the two Villanuevas. San Agustin, p. 212, says that when Herrara sailed for Mexico in 1569 he left in Cebú only “P. Fr. Martin de Rada and two virtuous clerics, the one named Juan de Vivero, and the other Juan de Villanueva, who had come with Felipe de Salcedo.” Salcedo had come back to Cebú in 1566. Francisco Moreno, Historia de la Santa Iglesia Metropolitana de Filipinas hasta 1650, Manila, 1877, p. 226, states that Villanueva came in 1566, and died shortly after 1569. San Antonio, I, p. 173, writes, “Another cleric was the Licentiate Don Juan de Villanueva, of whom the only thing known is that he was a churchman and lived but a short time—and that after the erection of the church.” This refers to the foundation of the church in Manila in 1571. Of the other Villanueva our information comes from Perez, p. 63.

17 Alonso Fernández, Historia Eclesiastica de Nvestros Tiempos, Toledo, 1611, pp. 303–4. The book referred to here is called De los mysterios del Rosario de nuestra Señora by Jacques Quétif and Jacques Echard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, Paris, 1719, II, p. 390; and Devotion del Santisimo Rosario de la Bienaventurada Virgen by Vicente Maria Fontana, Monvmenta Dominicana, Rome, 1675, p. 586.

18 Fernández, Historia de los insignes Milagros qve la Magestad Diuina ha obrado por el Rosario santissimo de la Virgen soberana, su Madre, Madrid, 1613, f. 216. I have been unable to locate a copy of this book in the United States, but the passage is printed in Retana, Aparato Bibliográfico de la Historia General de Filipinas, Madrid, 1906, I, pp. 64–5. It was first cited in modern times by Pedro Vindel, Catálogo, Madrid, 1903, III, no. 2631.

19 A sketch of the life of Aduarte was added to his history by Gonçalez, II, pp. 376–81, and a notice also appears in Ramon Martínez-Vigil, La Orden de Predicadores ... seguidas del Ensayo de una Bibliotheca de Dominicos Españoles, Madrid, 1884, p. 229.

20 Aduarte, II, pp. 15–18.

21 Artigas, op. cit., pp. 3–22, stresses the part played by him in establishing printing and gives much information regarding this father. There, referring to the Acta Capitulorum Provincialium provinciae Sanctissimi Rosarii Philippinarum, Manila, 1874–77, Artigas traces the career of Blancas de San José as follows: in Abucay from May 24, 1598 until April 27, 1602; at San Gabriel in Binondo from April 27, 1602 until May 4, 1604; as Preacher-General of the order at the Convent of Santo Domingo in Manila from 1604 to 1608; back at Abucay from April 26, 1608 until May 8, 1610; and at San Gabriel again from May 8, 1610 until May 4, 1614.

22 Medina, no. 8, p. 7. A copy of this book and an unique copy of the recently discovered Ordinationes of 1604, see note 127, are in the Library of Congress. Both books are entirely typographical, and the Tagalog in the 1610 volume has been transliterated. These two and the present Doctrina are, so far as I have been able to find out, the only Philippine imprints before 1613 in the United States.

23 Medina, no. 14, p. 11. The text was written by Thomas Pinpin, who appears as the printer of the former book, and a confessionary by Blancas de San José, who probably edited the volume, is included.

24 Juan Lopez, Quinta Parte de la Historia de San Domingo, Valladolid, 1621, ff. 246–51.

25 Quétif and Echard, op. cit., II, p. 390. This same statement was made in Antonio de León Pinelo, Epitome de la Biblioteca Oriental y Occidental, Nautica, y Geografica (ed. Antonio González de Barcia), Madrid, 1737–38, col. 737, and was reprinted almost word for word by José Mariano Beristain y Sousa, Bibliotheca Hispano-Americana Septentrional, Mexico, 1883–97, I, p. 177.

26 A fairly complete biography is given by Viñaza, pp. 112–7, where he points out that several of the major Jesuit biographers have erroneously stated that Hervas went to America some time before 1767.

27 Lorenzo Hervas y Panduro, Origine, formazione, meccanismo, ed armonia degli’ idiomi, Cesena, 1785, p. 88.

28 Hervas, Saggio Pratico delle lingue, Con prolegomeni, e una raccolta di orazioni Dominicali in più di trecento lingue, e dialetti, Cesena, 1787, pp. 128–9. Although Schilling, p. 208, says that Hervas had a copy of the 1593 Doctrina before him, which “had been lent or given” by Bernardo de la Fuente, Hervas merely says that he took his information “from the best documents, which showed the grammar; and the Tagalog and Visayan dictionary were given me by Messrs. D. Antonio Tornos and D. Bernardo de la Fuente.” There is no doubt, however, but that Hervas had a copy of the Doctrina, or accurate and extensive transcripts from a copy known to one of his friends.

29 Franz Carl Alter, Ueber die Tagalische Sprache, Vienna, 1803, p. vii. Alter speaks of having had extensive correspondence with Hervas.

30 Johann Christoph Adelung, Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit dem Vater Unser als Sprach probe in beynahe fünfhundert Sprachen und Mundarten, Berlin, 1806, I, pp. 608–9.

31 Beristain, op. cit., II, p. 464. The first edition was published in 1819–21, but we have used the second for our quotations.

32 Juan de Grijalva, Cronica de la orden de N.P.S. Augustin de Nueva Espana, Mexico, 1624, f. 199v.

33 Nicolás Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana Nova, Madrid, 1783, I, p. 764. The first edition was Rome, 1672, but I could locate no copy in this country.

34 San Agustin, p. 352. On pp. 443–4 referring to Grijalva and Herrera, he says merely that Quiñones “was very learned in the Tagalog language, and wrote a grammar and dictionary of it.”

35 “He succeeded in learning that language with such perfection that he composed a treatise, as a light and guide for the new missionaries, and a vocabulary, with which in a short time they could instruct those islanders in the mysteries of the faith,” Medina, p. xxvii, assumed that this referred to José Sicardo, La Cristiandad del Japon, Madrid, 1698, where he could find nothing about Quiñones, but Beristain cited specifically his Historias de Filipinas y Japon, which Santiago Vela, VI, p. 441, thinks must be his additions to Grijalva, including a life of Quiñones, which San Agustin used and quoted from. The quotation here is from San Agustin, p. 442, where Sicardo is given as the source.

36 Tomas de Herrera, Alphabetvm Avgvstinianvm, Madrid, 1644, I, p. 406, according to P. & G., p. xxiv.

37 Schilling, p. 204.

38 Pedro Bello, Noticia de los escritores y sus obras impresas y manuscritas en diferentes idiomas por los religiosos agustinos calzados hasta 1801, unpublished MS., from which the citation is given by Santiago Vela, VI, p. 441.

39 P. & G., pp. xxv–xxvi.

40 Medina, p. xxviii, who gives as source the A. of I. and Libro de provisiones reales, Madrid, 1596, I, p. 231. In his note Medina says that this cedula was not in the Recopilacion, but referring back to the note on p. xxiv, we find that he there prints a law of the same content and date, cited as Law 3, Title XXIV, Book 1 of the Recopilacion, where we have seen it, with the extremely significant addition, “it shall not be published, or printed, or used.” If this phrase was not included in the original cedula sent to Manila, but added when printed as applying to all the Indies, it is important evidence that the King felt an admonition against printing unnecessary where no facilities for printing existed.

41 Retana, col. 10, cited from the original MS. in the A. of I. (68–1–42), Torres, II, no. 3211, p. 150.

42 San Antonio, II, p. 297. This work, treated at length by San Antonio, is proof of the high esteem in which Plasencia was held as a Tagalist. It was incorporated in a document of Governor Francisco Tello, dated July 13, 1599, now in the A. of I. (67–6–18), and first printed in the appendix to Santa Inés, II, pp. 592–603, and translated in B. & R., VII, pp. 173–96.

43 Santiago Vela, VI, pp. 442–3. His study of the questionable Arte of 1581 is the most thorough and detailed yet written.

44 Schilling, p. 205.

45 Pardo de Tavera, op. cit., pp. 8–9. After quoting the latter part of this passage, Medina, p. xviii, adds a quizzical note, “I want to cite the opinion of so distinguished a student of the Philippines because it shows how tangled and confused is the information concerning the primitive Philippine press, even among men best informed on the subject.”

46 Medina, nos. 1 and 2, p. [3].

47 Medina, p. xix.

48 Retana had published many of his findings in La Politico de España en Filipinas, Madrid, 1891–98; in his edition of Joaquín Martínez de Zuñiga, Estadismo de las Islas Filipinas, Madrid, 1893; and in the Archivo del Bibliófilo Filipino, Madrid, 1895–97.

49 Retana, cols. 7–8. We shall speak of Juan de Vera later.

50 Thomas Cooke Middleton, Some Notes on the Bibliography of the Philippines, Philadelphia, 1900, pp. 32–33.

51 Pardo de Tavera, Biblioteca Filipina, Washington, 1903, pp. 9–10.

52 Medina, La Imprenta en Manila desde sus Orígenes hasta 1810 Adiciones y Ampliacones, Santiago de Chile, 1904.

53 P. & G., pp. xxi–xxvi.

54 B. & R., LIII, p. 11.

55 Artigas, op. cit. He admitted that the celebration should have been held in 1902.

56 Retana, Orígenes de la Imprenta Filipina, Madrid, 1911. Retana had also published between 1897 and 1911 several other books which contained some information about the early Philippine press, the Aparato Bibliográfico in 1906 and his edition of Morga in 1909, both of which have already been cited.

57 Antonio Palau y Dulcet, Manuel del Librero Hispano-Americano, Barcelona, 1923–37, III, p. 72.

58 Schilling, op. cit.

59 Chirino, p. 3, writes that he was “the first who made converts to Christianity in the Philippines, preaching to them of Jesus Christ in their own tongue—of which he made the first vocabulary, which I have seen and studied;” and Juan de Medina (who originally wrote his history in 1630), p. 54, says that in visiting Cebú in 1612 he “saw a lexicon there, compiled by Father Fray Martin de Rada, which contained a great number of words.” Grijalva, op. cit., f. 124V, writes that Rada “by the force of his imaginative and excellent ability learned the Visayan language, as he had learned the Otomi in this land [Mexico], so that he could preach in it in five months.”

60 Pérez, p. 5.

61 Juan González de Mendoza, The Historie of the great and mightie kingdom of China ... Translated out of Spanish by R. Parke, London, 1588, p. 138. The original edition of 1585 said he made an “arte y vocabulario.” We must take the phrase “in few daies” in a comparative sense, but that an Augustinian, probably Rada, knew some Chinese as early as July 30, 1574 is shown by a letter from Governor Lavezaris to the King from Manila, sending him “a map of the whole land of China, with an explanation which I had some Chinese interpreters make through the aid of an Augustinian religious who is acquainted with the elements of the Chinese language,” B. & R., III, p. 284, from the original MS. in the A. of I. (67–6–6), Torres, II, no. 1868, p. 10–11. Antonio de León Pinelo, Epitome de la Biblioteca Oriental i Occidental, Nautica i Geographica, Madrid, 1629, p. 31, also records Rada’s Chinese grammar and dictionary. Santiago Vela, VI, pp. 444–60, gives a full history of Rada and his writings. He went to China a second time in May 1576, and in 1578 accompanied La Sande on his expedition to Borneo, dying on the way back to Manila in June of that year.

62 González de Mendoza, op. cit., pp. 103–5.

63 Diego Ordoñez Vivar came to the Philippines in 1570, filled various ministries there, and according to Agustin Maria de Castro was in Japan in 1597, where he witnessed the martyrdom of the Franciscans; he died in 1603, Pérez, p. 10. Juan de Medina, p. 74, says, “Father Diego de Ordoñez learned this language [Tagalog] very quickly.” Alonso Alvatado had been on the unsuccessful 1542 expedition of Villalobos, and returned to the Philippines in 1571. Pérez, p. 11, records that he became familiar with the Tagalog language, was the first prior of Tondo, ministered to the Chinese there, and was the first Spaniard to learn the Mandarin dialect. He was elected provincial in 1575, and died at Manila the following year. Jéronimo Marín came to the islands with Alvarado, acquired skill in the Visayan, Tagalog and Chinese languages, accompanied Rada on his first expedition to China, was in Tondo in 1578, and later returned to Spain to recruit new missionaries for the province, dying in Mexico in 1606, Pérez, pp. 11–12.

64 Cano, p. 12. Santiago Vela, I, p. 85, expresses the opinion that Cano’s statement was an overenthusiasm, and is not valid.

65 Retana, col. 9.

66 Juan de Medina, p. 156.

67 Santiago Vela, I, p. 85, where he cites the first book of the Gobierno of the Augustinian province.

68 Santiago Vela, I, pp. 84–6 treats of the whole question in detail.

69 A Doctrina in Tagalog, attributed to Alburquerque by Agustin Maria de Castro in his unpublished Osario, is said by Santiago Vela, I, p. 85, to have been arranged and perfected by Quiñones, and was probably that presented by him to the Synod of 1582, if indeed he did present such a work then. For an account of the MS. Osario, see Schilling, p. 205n.

70 Pérez, p. 20n, quotes Vicente Barrantes, El teatro tagalo, Madrid, 1890, p. 170, as saying that “according to the Augustinian writers” Alburquerque compiled an Arte de la Lengua Tagala between 1570 and 1580, the manuscript of which disappeared when the English sacked Manila in 1762. It may be that Barrantes referred to Cano or possibly Castro, but it must be emphasized that no contemporary historian, as far as has been discovered up to this time, has made such a statement.

71 Quiñones came to the Philippines in 1577 and spent his time in missions in and about Manila. He was named prior of Manila in 1586, and provincial vicar in 1587 in which year he died, Pérez, p. 19, and Santiago Vela, VI, pp. 433–4.

72 Again Castro, as cited by Santiago Vela, VI, p. 435, is the only authority for this, although San Agustin, p. 391, lists Quiñones’ name among those present at the Synod.

73 San Agustin, p. 381. It should be noted that this statement is in direct contradiction to those we shall cite later in connection with the controversy between the Augustinians and Dominicans over the Chinese ministry. The convent at Tondo had been founded in 1571, so San Agustin here must refer specifically to the Chinese mission.

74 Pérez, p. 22.

75 Pérez, p. 29.

76 Huerta, pp. 443 & 500–01. In 1580, under the influence of Plasencia, Talavera took the habit of the Franciscan order and preached throughout the Philippines until his death in 1616. Huerta lists six works in Tagalog by him, all of them devotionary tracts, the last of which he notes was printed at Manila in 1617, and is listed by Medina, no. 20, pp. 14–5. His works are also recorded by Leon Pinelo, op. cit., 1737–38, II, f. 919r.

77 Santa Inés (written originally in 1676), p. 211. Virtually the same information is given by San Antonio, I, pp. 532–3 & 563.

78 Juan de la Concepcion, Historia general de Philipinas, Manila, 1788–92, II, pp. 45–6. Schilling, p. 203n, maintains that the early writers were mistaken in believing that the Synod was held in 1581. On October 16, 1581 the Bishop called a meeting of ten priests at the Convent of Tondo to discuss the execution of the decree about slaves, Torres, II, pp. cxliv–v. No laymen were present and no other topic was discussed. The decisions of this meeting were sent in a letter from Salazar to the King, dated from Tondo, October 17, 1581, translated in B. & R., XXXIV, pp. 325–31, from the original MS. in the A. of I. (68–1–42), Torres, II, no. 2686, p. 95. The following year a real Synod was held, this time including lay government officials as well as priests, at which was discussed a variety of subjects. Robert Streit, Bibliotheca Missionum, Aachen, 1928, IV, pp. 327–31, cites a MS. account of it by the Jesuit father Sanchez who was present; and Valentín Marín, Ensayo de una Síntesis de los trabajos realizados por las Corporaciones Religiosas Españoles de Filipinas, Manila, 1901, I, pp. 192 et seqq., cites another MS., then in the Archives of the Archiepiscopal Palace of Manila, Memoria de una junta que se hizo a manera de concilio el año de 1582, para dar asiento a las cosas tocantes al aumento de la fe, y justificacíon de las conquistas hechas y que adelante se hicieron por los espanoles, from which he quotes extensively. With reference to the Synod see further Lorenzo Pérez, Origen de las Misiones Franciscanas en el extremo oriente, in Archivo Ibero-Americano, 1915, III, pp. 386–400.

79 Santa Inés, p. 212. Again similar accounts are to be found in San Antonio, I, pp. 563–6, in far more detail and phrased in even more laudatory terms, and the fullest early biography of Plasencia is given by San Antonio, II, pp. 512–79. Modern surveys appear in Marín, op. cit., II, pp. 573–82, and Lorenzo Pérez, op. cit., pp. 378 et seqq.

80 Chirino, Primera parte, quoted by Retana, col. 24, implied that Quiñones and Plasencia wrote at about the same time: “The first who wrote in these languages were, in Visayan, P. Fr. Martin de Rada, and in Tagalog, Fr. Juan de Quiñones, both of the Order of St. Augustine, and at the same time Fr. Juan de Oliver and Fr. Juan de Plasencia of the Order of St. Francis, of whom the latter began first, but the former [wrote] many more things and very useful ones.” However, San Antonio, I, p. 532, wrote perhaps with bias in favor of his own order, “Although the Augustinian fathers had come earlier and did not lack priests fluent in the idiom, the language had not yet been reduced to a grammar, so that it could be learned by common grammatical rules, nor was there a general vocabulary of speech; except that each one had his own notes, to make himself understood, and everything was unsystematized.”

81 Entrada de la seraphica Religion de nuestro P. S. Francisco en las Islas Philipinas, MS. of 1649, first published in Retana, Archivo, I, no. III, translated in B. & R., XXXV, p. 311.

82 Medina, p. 15, quoting from Martínez whom we are unable to trace.

83 Huerta, pp. 492–3. Oliver died in 1599. San Antonio, II, p. 531, says that Plasencia was the first to write a catechism (called in Tagalog “Tocsohan”), and Oliver was the first to translate the explanation of the Doctrina. Oliver’s works are noted by León Pinelo, op. cit., 1737–38, II, col. 730, and Barrantes, op. cit., p. 187.

84 Sebastian de Totanes, Arte de la Lengua Tagala, Manila, 1850, p. v, (first edition printed in 1745) says of Oliver that “up to the present day our province reveres him as the first master of this idiom.”

85 See note 42.

86 Huerta, p. 517. Nothing is known of Diego de la Asuncion except that he wrote five works in Tagalog including an Arte and Diccionario. Huerta was unable to find any record of him in the mission lists, the capitularies or the death records, but that he was in the Philippines before 1649 we can be sure of from the notice of him in the manuscript of that date.

87 Huerta, p. 495. Montes y Escamilla came to the islands in 1583 and remained there until his death in 1610. Five works in Tagalog are attributed to him, an Arte, Diccionario, Confesionario, Devocional tagalog, and a Guia de Pecadores. The Devocional is listed by Medina, no. 16, p. 12.

88 Pablo Rojo, Fr. Juan de Plasencia, Escritor, Appendix 3 of Santa Inés, II, p. 590. An early reference by Fernández, Historia Eclesiastica, p. 300, speaking of the Franciscan missionary successes among the natives, says, “They learned the Doctrina Christiana which the priests translated into Tagalog.”

89 Rojo, in Santa Inés, II, pp. 590–1, says that the Doctrina then being used among the Tagalogs was the same as that written by Plasencia except for modernization in accordance with the changes which had taken place in the language since his time.

90 Medina, no. 15, p. 11.

91 Chirino, p. 14.

92 Colin, II, p. 325.

93 Chirino, p. 27.

94 Chirino, chaps. XV–XVII, pp. 34–41.

95 On May 13, 1579, Philip II wrote to the Governor of the Philippines, “Fray Domingo de Salazar, of the Dominican order, and bishop of the said islands, has reported to us that he is going to reside in these islands; and that he will take with him religious of his order to found monasteries, and to take charge of the conversion and instruction of the natives,” B. & R., IV, p. 141, translated from the original MS. in the Archivo-Historico Nacional, Cedulario indico, t. 31, f. 132V, no. 135. Twelve of the twenty who set out from Europe with Salazar died before reaching Mexico, and the others were so sick that all but one remained there, so when Salazar landed at Manila in March 1581 he was accompanied by twenty Augustinians, eight Franciscans, and only one Dominican, Christoval de Salvatierra.

96 For these and other general facts I have used Aduarte and Remesal where they are supported by the other historians, Juan de la Concepcion, San Antonio, San Agustin, Juan de Medina and Santa Inés. It should be noted that Remesal acknowledged as his source for much of the material on the Philippines the unpublished MS. history of the Franciscan, Francisco de Montilla. The fifteen Dominicans were Juan de Castro, Alonso Ximenez, Miguel de Benavides, Pedro Bolaños, Bernardo Navarro, Diego de Soria, Juan de Castro the younger, Marcos Soria de San Antonio, Juan de San Pedro Martyr (or Maldonado), Juan Ormaza de Santo Tomás, Pedro de Soto, Juan de la Cruz, Gregorio de Ochoa, Domingo de Nieva, and Pedro Rodriguez.

97 By a bull of October 20, 1582 Pope Gregory XIII confirmed the appointment already obtained from Pablo Constable de Ferrara, General of the Dominican Order, making Juan Chrisóstomo vicar-general of the Philippine Islands and China, and giving him authority to establish a province there, B. & R., V, pp. 199—200, translated from Hernaez, Coleccion de bulas, Brussels, 1879, I, p. 527, where it is printed from the original MS. in the Vatican, Bular. Dom., t. 15, p. 412.

98 In 1580 the Dominicans of Mexico had begun plans for the establishment of a province in the Orient, and sent Juan Chrisóstomo to Europe to obtain the necessary permission from lay and ecclesiastical authorities. The Jesuit Alonso Sanchez, who had been sent to Spain to explain the situation in the Philippines, was at court, and told the King and Council of the Indies—quite subverting his mission—that there was no need for more priests and particularly no need for a new order there. Chrisóstomo was discouraged, but the scheme was revivified by Juan de Castro who finally secured a letter from Philip II on September 20, 1585 endorsing the plan. Twenty-two volunteers sailed from Spain on July 17, 1586. In Mexico the Dominicans again found Sanchez propagandizing against the mission and also encountered the efforts of the Viceroy to persuade the friars to remain there. Notwithstanding, twenty friars subscribed to a set of ordinances at the Convent of Santo Domingo in Mexico on December 17, 1586. Of the twenty, fifteen went to the Philippines, three went directly to China, and Juan Chrisóstomo, who was ill and weak, and Juan Cobo, who had business there, stayed behind in Mexico.

99 Aduarte, I, p. 9.

100 Aduarte, I, p. 70.

101 Juan Cobo had stayed behind in Mexico on business, and during his stay had been so moved by the scandals of the government there that he preached publicly against them, as a result of which he was banished by the Viceroy. He brought with him from Mexico a fellow-reformer and exile, Luis Gandullo, and four other recruits for the Philippine mission.

102 These are printed in the Ordinationes of 1604, see note 127, and by Remesal, pp. 677—8, who says that “these ordinances were printed in as fine characters and as correctly as if in Rome or Lyon, by Francisco de Vera, a Chinese Christian, in the town of Binondo in the year 1604 through the diligence of Fr. Miguel Martin.”

103 Sangley, a term used by the natives to designate Chinese, was derived from the Cantonese hiang (or xiang) and ley meaning a “travelling merchant.” It was adopted by the Spaniards and in most instances used interchangeably with Chinese. If any distinction existed it was that a Sangley was a permanent resident of the Philippines—quite contrary to the derivation of the word—or a Chinese of partially native blood. See San Agustin, p. 253.

104 Particularly the Memorial to the Council of the Indies sent with Sanchez, April 20, 1586, translated in B. & R., VI, pp. 167–8, from the original MS. in the A. of I. (1–1–2/24), Torres, II, no. 3289, p. 159.

105 B. & R., VII, pp. 130–1, translated from the original MS. in the A. of I. (67–6–18), Torres, III, no. 3556, pp. 15–6. See the statement of San Agustin quoted on p. 22, which gives the irreconciled Augustinian view. Most of the contemporary witnesses, however, seem to agree with the Dominicans.

106 B. & R., VII, pp. 220–3, translated from Retana, Archivo, III, pp. 47–80, and there printed from the original MS. in the A. of I. (68–1–32), Torres, III, no. 3698, p. 32.

107 Remesal, pp. 681–2.

108 B. & R., VII, pp. 223–5, as in note 106.

109 Martínez-Vigil, op. cit., p. 246, lists as written by Benavides a Vocabularium sinense facillimum, and Vinaza, p. 17, cites his entry.

110 Schilling, p. 210, says that in his letter Cobo himself recorded that “Benavides wrote the first Chinese catechism in the Philippines.” He does not however differentiate between writing in Chinese characters and writing transliterated Chinese, and moreover “hizo doctrina” may only mean that he taught the doctrine, not necessarily that he wrote one.

111 B. & R., VII, p. 238, as in note 106.

112 Aduarte, I, p. 140.

113 Aduarte, I, p. 140, says, before the previously quoted passage, that Cobo “put the Doctrina Christiana in the Chinese language,” and Viñaza, pp. 17–23, lists seven books by him, including the famous translation of the Chinese classic, Beng-Sim-Po-Cam, the original MS. of which, with an introductory epistle by Benavides, dated from Madrid, December 23, 1595, is in the Biblioteca Nacional at Madrid; an Arte de las letras chinas; Vocabulario chino; Catecismo o doctrina christiana en chino; (cited from León Pinelo, op. cit., 1737–38, I, col. 142); Tratado de astronomia en chino; Linguae sinica ad certam revocata methodum (called by Martinez-Vigil, op. cit., p. 263, “the first works or work on the Chinese language”); and Sententiae plures, excerpted from various Chinese books. See also Beristain, op. cit., I, p. 316, and Quétif and Echard, op. cit., II, pp. 306–7.

114 Aduarte, I, p. 122.

115 Fernandez, Historia Eclesiastica, p. 304, “In the Chinese language and letters, P. Fr. Domingo de Nieva, of San Pablo of Valladolid, printed a memorial of the Christian life; and P. Fray Tomas Mayor, of the province of Aragon, from the Convent and College of Orihuela, the Symbol of Faith.” In his Historia de los Insignes Milagros, f. 217, Fernández states that both these works were printed at Bataan. Since Mayor did not arrive in the islands until 1602 his work is not pertinent to the present discussion. Mayor’s book was seen but inadequately described by Jose Rodriguez, Biblioteca Valentina, 1747, p. 406, from a copy then in the Library of the Dominican Convent at Valencia, but now lost. Medina records it under the year 1607, no. 6, p. 6. See also León Pinelo, op. cit., 1737—38, II, f. 919r, and Antonio, op. cit., I, p. 330.

116 Aduarte, I, p. 342.

117 Medina, nos. 399–402, pp. 261–2.

118 Aduarte, I, pp. 255–8. San Pedro Martyr moved back and forth a good deal. The first year in the Philippines he was with Benavides at Baybay; the second year he was in Pangasinan. In 1590 he was ordered to the Chinese mission in Cobo’s place by Castro before he left for China. When Castro got back and Cobo could resume his old station, San Pedro Martyr went to the vicariate of Bataan “the language of which he learned very well,” and when Cobo left for Japan in 1592, San Pedro Martyr went back to San Gabriel.

119 Aduarte, I, p. 323.

120 Remesal, p. 683.

121 See Hermann Hülle, Über den alten chinesischen Typendruck und seine Entzvicklung in den Ländern des Fernen Ostens, N.P., 1923; Thomas Francis Carter, The Invention of Printing in China and its Spread Westward, New York, 1925; and Cyrus H. Peake, The origin and development of printing in China in the light of recent research, in the Gutenberg-Jahrbuch 1935, X, pp. 9–17.

122 B. & R., VII, pp. 226, as in note 106.

123 Aduarte, II, pp. 15–18.

124 Medina, p. xix, supposed that the Doctrina was printed in the Hospital of San Gabriel in Minondoc, but Aduarte, I, p. 107, says that when the village of Baybay became overcrowded, it became necessary to spread the Chinese Christian settlement to a new site directly across the river, where land was given them by Don Luis Pérez Dasmariñas, the son and successor of Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas, and there a second church of San Gabriel was built. According to an inscription on a painting of Don Luis, exhibited at the St. Louis Fair of 1904 and illustrated in B. & R., XXX, p. 228, he bought the land from Don Antonio Velada on March 28, 1594, so that San Gabriel of Minondoc could not have been the place where the 1593 volumes were printed. Marin, op. cit., II, p. 617, says that San Gabriel was moved several years after its foundation to Binondo at the request of the city, and was rebuilt twice. It is apparent that San Gabriel in the Parian was abandoned after the church in Binondo was built.

125 Juan de Vera was probably a comparatively common name at this time, because upon baptism the natives and Chinese assumed any Spanish name they pleased, and since Santiago de Vera was governor from 1584 to 1590, his last name would have been very popular. Aduarte, I, p. 86, mentions an Indian chief, Don Juan de Vera, who helped the Dominicans in Pangasinan, and Retana, col. 23, quotes from a document sent by the Audiencia of the Philippines to the King, August 11, 1620, the appointments as official interpreters of one Juan de Vera on June 15, 1598, and the same or another Juan de Vera on October 9, 1613.

126 Aduarte, I, p. 108.

127 The title-page of this unique book is as follows: [row of type ornaments] / Ordinationes Generales / prouinciæ Sanctissimi Rosarij / [type ornament] Philippinarum. [type ornament] / Factæ per admodum Reuerendum patrem fratrem / Ioānem de Castro, primum vicarium generalem e- / iusdem prouintiæ. De consilio, & vnanimi con / sensu omnium frattū, qui primit9 in pro / uintiam illam se contulerunt, euan / gelizandi gratia./ Sunt que semper vsque in hodiernum diem in om- / nibus eiusdem prouintiæ capitulis infalibiliter / acceptatæ, inuiolabiliter ab omnibus / fratribus obseruandæ. / Binondoc, per Ioannem de Vera chinā / Christianum. Cum licentia. 1604. / [row of type ornaments]. The volume, an octavo bound in maroon levant morocco by Sangorski and Sutcliffe, consists of eight leaves, as follows: title-page as above, on the verso the permission signed at Manila, June 24, 1604, by Fr. Miguel Martin de San Jacinto, prior provincial of the Dominican Province of the Philippines; the text of the ordinances in Latin on eleven pages, with the device of the Dominican order on the verso of the last page; blank.

128 See note 102.

129 Medina, Adiciones y Ampliacixones, p. [5].

130 Retana, cols. 77–8, where he gives as his source Hilario Ocio, Reseña biográfica de los religiosos de la provincia del Santisimo Rosario de Filipinas, Manila, 1891, I, p. 63. Ocio did not cite Remesal as his source, but the information, including the printer’s name as Francisco de Vera, is the same.

131 Both title-pages are reproduced in Francisco Vindel, Manual Gráphico-Descriptivo del Bibliófilo Hispano-Americano, Madrid, 1930—34, IX, p. 22, and VII, p. 181 respectively.

[41]

The most frequently cited authorities will be referred to as follows:

ADUARTE—Diego Aduarte, Historia de la Provincia del Sancto Rosario de la Orden de Predicadores en Philippinas, Iapon, y China, Manila, 1640.

B. & R.—Emma Helen Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands 1493–1898, Cleveland, 1903–09.

CANO—Gaspar Cano, Catalogo de los Religiosos de N.P.S. Agustin de la Provincia del Smo. Nombre de Jesus de Filipinas, Manila, 1864.

CHIRINO—Pedro Chirino, Relacion de las Islas Filipinas, Rome, 1604.

COLÍN—Francisco Colín, Labor Evangélica, Ministerios Apostólicos de los Obreros de la Compañia de Jesus, Fundacion, y Progressos de su Provincia en las Islas Filipinas (ed. Pablo Pastells), Barcelona, 1900–02.

HUERTA—Felix de Huerta, Estado Geográfico, Topográfico, Estadístico, Histórico-Religioso, de la Santa y Apostólica Provincia de S. Gregorio Magno ... de N.S.P.S. Francisco, en las Islas Filipinas, Binondo, 1865.

MEDINA—José Toribio Medina, La Imprenta en Manila desde sus Orígenes hasta 1810, Santiago de Chile, 1896.

MEDINA (Juan de)—Juan de Medina, Historia de los Sucesos de la Orden de N. Gran P. S. Agustin de estas Islas Filipinas, Manila, 1893.

P. & G.—Angel Pérez and Cecilio Güemes, Adiciones y Continuacion de “La Imprenta en Manila” de D.J.T. Medina, Manila, 1904.

PÉREZ—Elviro Jorde Pérez, Catálogo Biobibliográfico de los Religiosos Agustinos de la Provincia del Santísimo Nombre de Jesús de las Islas Filipinas, Manila, 1901.

REMESAL—Antonio de Remesal, Historia de la provincia de S. Vincente de Chyapa y Guatemala de la orden de nro glorioso padre Sancto Domingo, Madrid, 1619.

RETANA—Wenceslao Emilio Retana y Gamboa, La Imprenta en Filipinas Adiciones y Observaciones á La Imprenta en Manila de D.J.T. Medina, Madrid, 1897.

SAN AGUSTIN—Gaspar de San Agustin, Conquistas de las Islas Philipinas, Madrid, 1698.

SAN ANTONIO—Juan Francisco de San Antonio, Chronicas de la Apostolica Provincia de S. Gregorio de Religiosos Descalzos de N.S.P. Francisco en las Islas Philipinas, Manila, 1738–44.

SANTA INÉS—Francisco de Santa Inés, Crónica de la Provincia de San Gregorio Magno de Religiosos descalzos de N.P. San Francisco en islas Filipinas, China, Japón, etc. escrita ... en 1676, Manila, 1892.

SANTIAGO VELA—Gregorio de Santiago Vela, Ensayo de una Biblioteca Ibero-Americana de la Orden de San Agustin, Madrid, 1913–31.

SCHILLING—Dorotheus Schilling, Vorgeschichte des Typendrucks auf den Philippen, Gutenberg-Jahrbuch, 1937, pp. 202–16.

TORRES—Pedro Torres y Lanza, Catálogo de los documentos relativos á las Islas Filipinas existentes en el Archivo de Indias de Seville, Barcelona, 1925–34.

VIÑAZA—Cipriano Muñoz y Manzano, Conde de la Viñaza, Escritos de los Portugueses y Castellanos referentes á las lenguas de China y el Japón, Lisbon, 1892.

This facsimile of the Doctrina Christiana printed at Manila in 1593 was printed by Edward Stern & Company, Inc., Philadelphia, in an edition of twenty-five hundred copies, and published by the Library of Congress, February 1947. The type used on the title page and for headings is Forum, and that in the text Italian Old Style. [1]

Doctrina Christiana, en
lengua española ytagala, cor
regida por los Religiosos de las
ordenes Impressa con licencia, en
S. gabriel. de la orden de. S. Domigo
En Manila. 1593 [2]

Tassada endos rreales
Juandecuellaz [3]

A. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. ij. l. m. n. o.
p. q. rr. s. s. t. u. v. x. y. z. z.
vocales. a. e. i. o. u.
Ba. be. bi bo bu. Ça çe çi. ço. çu.
Da. de di do du. Fa fe fi fo fu.
Gua gue gui guo gu. Ha he hi.
ho hu. Ja je ji jo ju. La le li.
lo lu. Ma me mi mo mu. Na.
ne ni no nu. Pa pe pi po pu.
Qua que qui quo qu. Ra re.
ri ro ru. Sa se si so su. Ta te ti.
to tu. Ua ue ui uo uu. Xa xe xi.
xo xu. Ya ye yi yo yu. Za ze zi.
zo zu. [4]

Ban ben bin bon bun. Çan çen
çin çon çun. Dan den din don.
dun. Fan fen fin fon fun. Guan
guen guin guon gun. Han hen
hin hon hun. Jan jen jin jon jun.
Lan len lin lon lun. Man mẽ
min mon mun. Nan nen nin non.
nun. Pan pen pin pon pun. Quã
quen quin quon qun. Ran ren
rin ron run. San sen sin son sũ.
Tan ten tin ton tun. Uan uen.
uin uon. uun. Xan xen xin xon
xun. Yan yen yin yon yun. Zan
zen zin zon zun. [5]

Bã bẽ bĩ bõ bũ. Çã çẽ çĩ çõ çũ.
Dã dẽ dĩ dõ dũ. Fã fẽ fĩ fõ fũ.
Guan guen guin guon gun. Hã.
hẽ hĩ hõ hũ. Jã jẽ jĩ jõ jũ. Lã lẽ.
lĩ lõ lũ. Mã mẽ mĩ mõ mũ. Nã.
nẽ nĩ nõ nũ. Pã pẽ pĩ põ pũ. Quã.
quẽ quĩ quõ qũ. Rã rẽ rĩ rõ rũ. Sã.
sẽ sĩ sõ sũ. Xã xẽ xĩ xõ xũ. Yã yẽ.
yĩ yõ yũ. Zã zẽ zĩ zõ zũ.

¶El abc. en lẽgua tagala.

ᜀ ᜂ ᜁ ᜑᜒᜓ ᜉᜒᜓ ᜃᜒᜓ ᜐᜒᜓ ᜎᜒᜓ ᜆᜒᜓ ᜈᜒᜓ ᜊᜒᜓ ᜋᜒᜓ ᜄᜒᜓ ᜇᜒᜓ ᜌᜒᜓ
ᜅᜒᜓ ᜏᜒᜓ᜶

¶El paternoster.
PADRE nuestro que estas en [6]

Los cielos, sanctificado sea el tu
nombre. Venga anos el tu reyno.
hagase tu voluntad, asi en la tierra
como en el cielo. El pan nuestro
de cada dia da noslo oy. Y per
donanos nuestras duedas. asi como
nosotros las perdonamos á
nuestros deudores. Y no nos de
xes caer en la tentacion. Das
libranos de mal. Amen.

Ang ama namin.
Ama namin nasa lang̃it ca
y pasamba mo ang ng̃alã
mo, mouisa amin ang pagcahari [7]

mo. Y pasonor mo ang loob mo.
dito sa lupa parã sa lang̃it, bigyã
mo cami ng̃aion nang amin caca
nin. para nang sa araoarao. at pa
caualin mo ang amin casalanã,
yaing uinaualan bahala namĩ
sa loob ang casalanan nang
nagcasasala sa amin. Houag
mo caming ceuan nang di cami
matalo nang tocso. Datapo
uat ya dia mo cami sa dilan ma
sama. Amen Jesus.

ᜀ ᜋ ᜈ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜈ ᜐ ᜎ ᜅᜒ ᜃ᜶ ᜁ ᜉ ᜐ ᜊ
ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜅ ᜎ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜋᜓ ᜏᜒ ᜐ ᜀ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜀ [8]

ᜉᜒ ᜃ ᜑ ᜇᜒ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜈᜓ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜎᜓ ᜂ ᜋᜓ᜶
ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜎᜓ ᜉ᜶ ᜉ ᜇ ᜐ ᜎ ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜊᜒ ᜌ ᜋᜓ ᜃ ᜋᜒ᜶
ᜅ ᜂ᜶ ᜈ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜃ ᜃ ᜈᜒ᜶ ᜉ ᜇ ᜈ ᜐ ᜀ ᜇ ᜀ ᜇ᜶
ᜀ ᜉ ᜃ ᜏ ᜁ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜌ ᜌ
ᜏᜒ ᜈ ᜏ ᜎ ᜊ ᜑ ᜎ ᜈ ᜋᜒ ᜐ ᜎᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶
ᜈ ᜈ ᜃ ᜐ ᜐ ᜎ ᜐ ᜀ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜋᜓ ᜃ ᜋᜒ ᜁ ᜏ᜶ ᜈ
ᜇᜒ ᜃ ᜋᜒ ᜋ ᜆ ᜎᜓ ᜈ ᜆᜓ ᜐᜓ᜶ ᜇ ᜆ ᜉᜓ ᜏ᜶ ᜁ ᜀ
ᜌ ᜋᜓ ᜃ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜎ ᜋ ᜐ ᜋ᜶ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶

El aue Maria.
Dios te salue Maria. lle
na degracia. El senõr es
contigo. bendita tu, estretodas
las mugeres. Y bendito el fructo.
deus vientre Jesus. Santa Ma [9]

ria uirgen y madre de Dios rue
ga por nosotros peccadores. aora
y en la ora denuestra muerte
amen. Jesus.

Ang aba guinoo Ma
Aba guinoo Maria ma
toua cana, napopono ca
nang graçia. ang pang̃inoon di
os, ce, nasayyo. Bucor cang pinag
pala sa babaying lahat. Pinag
pala naman ang yyong anac si
Jesus. Santa Maria yna nang,
dios, ypanalang̃in mo camima
çasalanan ng̃aion at cun mama [10]

tai cami. Amen Jesus.

ᜀ ᜊ ᜄᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜋ ᜇᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜋ ᜆᜓ ᜏ ᜃ ᜈ᜶ ᜈ ᜉᜓ
ᜉᜓ ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜈ ᜄ ᜇ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜇᜒ
ᜌᜓ ᜈ ᜐ ᜁ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜊᜓ ᜃᜓ ᜃ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜉ ᜎ᜶ ᜐ ᜊ ᜊ ᜌᜒ᜶
ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜉ ᜎ ᜈ ᜋ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜈ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶
ᜐ ᜆ ᜋ ᜇᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜁ ᜈ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜉ ᜈ ᜎ ᜅᜒ ᜋᜓ
ᜃ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜋ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜅ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜋ ᜆ ᜃ ᜋᜒ᜶
ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶

El credo en Romãce

Creo en dios padre, todo
poderoso. Criador del çie
lo y dela tierra. Y en Jesuchristo,
su unico hijo senõr nro. Que fue
conçebido del elpiritusancto. Y [11]

Y naçio de la uirgen sancta Ma
ria. Padesçio so el poder depõcio
Pilato. Fue crucificado, muer
to, y sepultado, descendio alos
infiernos, y alterçero dia resuscito,
dentre, los muertos. Subio a los cie
los, y esta asentado ala diestra de
dios padre todo poderoso, dende
uerna ajuzgar alos uiuos y alos
muertos. Creo en el espiritusãto.
y la sancta yglesia catholica, la
comuniõ de los sanctos. La remi
sion de los peccados. La refuree
çion de la carne. La uida perdu [12]

rable, que nunca seacaba. Amẽ.

Ang sumãgpalataia

Sumasangpalataia aco sa di
os ama, macagagaua sa lahat,
mangagaua nang lang̃it at nang lu,
pa. Sumasangpalataia aco naman
cai Jesuchristo yysang anac nang
dios pang̃inoon natin lahat. Nag
catauan tauo siya salang nang es
piritusancto. Ypinanganac ni Sã
cta Maria uirgen totoo. Nasactã
otos ni poncio Pilato. Ypinaco
sa cruz. Namatai, ybinaon, nana
og sa mang̃a infierno, nang ma [13]

ycatlong arao nabuhai na naguli.
naquiat sa lang̃it nalolocloc sa ca
nan nang dios ama, macagagaua
sa lahat. Sa caparito hohocom sa
nabubuhai, at sa nang̃a matai na
tauo. Sumasangpalataia aco na
man sa dios Espiritusancto. At
mei sancta yglesia catholica, at
mei casamahan ang mang̃a sãtos.
At mei ycauauala nang casala
nan. At mabubuhai na maguli
ang na ng̃a matai na tauo. At
mei buhai na di mauala mag pa
rating saan. Amen Jesus. [14]

ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜐ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ ᜀ ᜀᜃᜓ᜶ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜋ᜶
ᜋ ᜃ ᜄ ᜄ ᜏ ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜋ ᜄ ᜄ ᜏ ᜈ ᜎ ᜅᜒ᜶
ᜀ ᜈ ᜎᜓ ᜉ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜐ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜈ ᜋ᜶ ᜃ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶
ᜃᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜁ ᜐ ᜀ ᜈ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜈ ᜆᜒ
ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜈ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ ᜆ ᜏᜓ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜎ ᜎ ᜈ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶
ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜅ ᜈ᜶ ᜈᜒ ᜐ ᜆ ᜋ ᜇᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜊᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜈ ᜐ
ᜆ ᜂ ᜆᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜉᜓ ᜐᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜉᜒ ᜎ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜃᜓ ᜐ ᜃᜓ ᜇᜓ᜶
ᜈ ᜋ ᜆ᜶ ᜁ ᜊᜒ ᜈ ᜂ᜶ ᜈ ᜈ ᜂ ᜐ ᜋ ᜅ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ
ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜀ ᜇ᜶ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜑ ᜈ ᜈ ᜂ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜈ ᜌ ᜐ ᜎ ᜅᜒ᜶
ᜈ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜐ ᜃ ᜈ᜶ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜋ᜶ ᜋ ᜃ ᜄ ᜄ ᜏ ᜐ
ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜐ ᜃ ᜉ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜑᜓ ᜃᜓ᜶ ᜐ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ
ᜈ ᜅ ᜋ ᜆ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜐ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜈ
ᜋ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜐ ᜆ ᜁ ᜎᜒ ᜐᜒ
ᜌ ᜃ ᜆᜓ ᜎᜒ ᜃ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜃ ᜐ ᜋ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜅ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ [15]

ᜀ ᜋ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ ᜏ ᜎ᜶ ᜈ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ
ᜈ ᜋ ᜂ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜅ ᜋ ᜆ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜊᜓ ᜑ
ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜈ ᜋ ᜏ ᜎ᜶ ᜋ ᜉ ᜇ ᜆᜒ ᜐ ᜀ᜶ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶

La salue Regina

Salue te dios reyna y ma
dre demisericordia, uida
dulçura y esperança nra. Dios
te salue atillamamos los deste
ruados hijos de Gua. Atisuspi
ramos gimiendo yllorando en
aqueste ualle de lagrimas. Ga
pues abogada nuestra, buelue
anostros ellos tus misericor
diosos ojos. Y despues dea. [16]

queste destierro muestra nos aje
sus bendito fruto de tu ueintre. O
clemente. O piadosa. O dulce uir
gen Maria. Ruega por nos sãta
madre de dios quescamos dig
nos de las promisiones de Chris
to Amen.

Ang aba po.

Aba po sancta. Mariang ha
ri yna nang aua. Ycao ang
yquinabubuhai namin, at ang pi
nananaligan. Aba ycao ng̃a ang
tinatauag namin pinapapanao
na tauo anac ni Gua. ycao din [17]

ang ypinagbubuntun hining̃a na
min nang amin pagtang̃is dini sa
lupã baian cahapishapis. Ay
aba pintacasi namin, yling̃o mo
sa amin ang mata mong maauaĩ.
At saca cun matapos yering pag
papanao sa amin. ypaquita mo
sa amin ang yyong anac si Jesus.
Ay Sancta Maria maauain, ma
alam, uirgen naman totoo, yna
nang Dios. Cami ypanalang̃in
mo, nang mapatoloi sa amin
ang pang̃a ng̃aco ni Jesuchristo.
Amen Jesus. [18]

ᜀ ᜊ ᜉᜓ ᜐ ᜆ ᜋ ᜇᜒ ᜌ ᜑ ᜇᜒ᜶ ᜁ ᜈ ᜈ ᜀ ᜏ
ᜁ ᜃ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃᜒ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ ᜈ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜉᜒ
ᜈ ᜈ ᜈ ᜎᜒ ᜄ᜶ ᜀ ᜊ ᜁ ᜃ ᜅ᜶ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏ ᜈ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜉᜒ
ᜈ ᜉ ᜉ ᜈ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜈᜒ ᜁ ᜊ᜶ ᜁ ᜃ ᜇᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜉᜒ
ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜑᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜅ ᜈ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜈ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜉ ᜆ ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜈᜒ
ᜐ ᜎᜓ ᜉ᜶ ᜊ ᜌ ᜃ ᜑ ᜉᜒ ᜑ ᜉᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜊ᜶ ᜉᜒ ᜆ ᜃ
ᜐᜒ ᜈ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜁ ᜎᜒ ᜅᜓ ᜋᜓ ᜐ ᜀ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜆ ᜋᜓ ᜋ ᜀ ᜏ
ᜁ᜶ ᜐ ᜃ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜆ ᜉᜓ᜶ ᜌ ᜇᜒ ᜉ ᜉ ᜉ ᜈ ᜐ ᜀ ᜋᜒ᜶
ᜁ ᜉ ᜃᜒ ᜆ ᜋᜓ ᜐ ᜀ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜈ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶ ᜐ ᜆ
ᜋ ᜇᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜋ ᜀ ᜏ ᜁ᜶ ᜋ ᜀ ᜎ᜶ ᜊᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜈ ᜋ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶
ᜁ ᜈ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜃ ᜋᜒ ᜁ ᜉ ᜈ ᜎ ᜅᜒ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜉ
ᜆᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜐ ᜀ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜅ ᜅ ᜃᜓ᜶ ᜈᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶
ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶

Los Articulos dela fee, [19]

son catorze. Los siete pertenesçẽ
ata diuinidad, ylos otros siete
a la humanidad denrõ senõr Je
suchristo Dios y hombre uerda
dero. ylos siete que pertenesçen
ala diuinidad son estos.

El primero, creer en un so
lo dios todo poderoso.
El segundo creer que es dios pa
dre. El tercero, creer q̃es dios hi
jo. El quarto, creer que es Dios
Espiritusancto. El quinto, creer
que es criador. El sexto, creer
q̃es satuador. El septimo, creer [20]

que es glorificador.

Los que pertenesçenatasa
ta humanidad. Son estos.

El Primero, creer que nues
tro senõr Jesuchristo, en quãto
hombre fue conçebido del sptri
tu sancto. El segundo, que nasçro
del uientre uirginal de la uirgen
sancta Maria, siendo ella uirgẽ
antes del parto, yenelparto, y des
pues del parto. El terçero, que
rescibio muerte y pasion porsal
uar anosotros peccadores. El quar
to: que desçendio alos infiernos, [21]

ysacolas animas de los sanctos
padres que asta estauan esperan
do su sancto aduenimiento. El
quinto, que resuscito alterçero
dia. El sexto, creer que subio
alos cielos, yseassento ala dies
tra de dios padre todo poderoso.
El septimo, que uerna ajuzgar
alos uinos y alos muertos. Con
uiene asaber, alos buenos paradar
la gloria, porq̃ guardaron susmã
damientos: yalos malos pena
percurable porque nolos guar
daron. Amen: [22]

Ang pono nang sinasangpa
lataianan nang mang̃a chris
tiano labin apat na bagai. Ang
pitong naona ang sabi ang Dios
ang pagcadios niya. Ang pitõg
naholi ang sabi,a, ang atin pang̃i
noon Jesuchristo ang pagcatauo
niya. Ang pitong naona ang sa
bi, ce ang Dios ang pagca dios ni
ya ay yceri.

Ang naona sumangpalataia
sa ysang Dios totoo. Ang ycalua,
sumangpalataia, ycering dios si
yang ama. Ang ycatlo, Sumãpalataia. [23]

ycering dios siyang anac. Ang
ycapat sumangpalataia, ycering
dios siyang spiritusancto. Ang
ycalima, sumangpalataia, ycerĩg
dios siyang mangagaua nang la
hat. Ang ycanim, sumangpala
taia ycering dios siyang naca
uauala nang casalanan. Ang
ycapito sumangpalataia ycering
dios siyang nacalulualhati.

Ang pitong naholi ang
sabi ce ang ating pãgninoon
Jesuchristo ang pagcatauo ni
ya ay yari. [24]

Ang naona sumangpala
taia ang atin pag̃ninoon
Jesuchristo, ypinaglehe ni San
cta Maria lalang nang spiritu
sancto. Ang ycalua sumang
palataia, ang atin pagninoon
Jesuchristo y pinang̃anac ni
sancta maria uirgen totoo, nã
dipa nang̃anac, nang macapa
ng̃anac na uirgen din totoo.
Ang ycatlo sumangpalataia,
ang atin pang̃inoon Jesuchris
to nasactan, ypinaco sa cruz.
namatai sacop nang atin casa [25]

lanan. Ang ycapat sumang
palataia, ang atin pang̃inoon Je
suchristo nanaog sa mang̃a in
fierno, at hinang̃o doon ang ca
loloua nang mang̃a sanctos nag
hihintai nang pagdating niya.
Ang ycalima sumangpalataia
ang atin pang̃inoon Jesuchristo,
nang magycatlong arao nabu
hai nanaguli. Ang ycanim su
mangpalataia ang atin pang̃ino
on Jesuchristo nacyat sa lang̃it
nalolocloc sa canan nang dios
ama macagagaua sa lahat. Ang [26]

ycapito sumangpalataia ang a
tin pang̃inoon Jesuchristo saca
parito hohocom sa nabubuhai at
sa nang̃amatai na tauo. Ang ba
nal na tauo gagantihin niya nãg
caloualhatian nang lang̃it, ang
nacasonor silla nang caniyang
otos. Ang di banal pacasasamin
sa infierno ang di silla sumonor
nang otos niya. Amẽ. Jesus.

ᜀ ᜉᜓ ᜈᜓ ᜈ ᜐᜒ ᜈ ᜐ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ ᜈ᜶ ᜈ
ᜋ ᜅ ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜎ ᜊᜒ ᜀ ᜉ ᜈ
ᜊ ᜄ᜶ ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜊᜒ ᜁ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ
ᜉ ᜃ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜑᜓ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜊᜒ ᜁ᜶ [27]

ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜃ ᜆ ᜏᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶
ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜆ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜊᜒ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜃ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ
ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜇᜒ᜶

ᜀ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ ᜐ ᜁ ᜐ ᜇᜒ
ᜌᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜌ ᜇᜒ ᜇᜒ
ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜀ ᜋ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶
ᜌ ᜇᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜀ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ
ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜌ ᜇᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜐᜌ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜆᜓ ᜀ ᜁ
ᜃ ᜎᜒ ᜋ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜌ ᜇᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜋ ᜄ
ᜄ ᜏ ᜈ ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜈᜒ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜌ ᜇᜒ
ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜈ ᜃ ᜏ ᜏ ᜎ ᜈ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉᜒ
ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜌ ᜇᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜈ ᜃ ᜎᜓ
ᜎᜓ ᜏ ᜑ ᜆᜒ᜶

ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜑᜓ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜊᜒ ᜁ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ [28]

ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜃ ᜆ ᜏ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜌ ᜇᜒ᜶
ᜀ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ
ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜎᜒ ᜑᜒ᜶ ᜈᜒ ᜐ ᜆ ᜋ ᜇᜒ
ᜌ᜶ ᜎ ᜎ ᜈ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ
ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜉᜒ
ᜈ ᜅ ᜈ᜶ ᜈᜒ ᜐ ᜆᜓ ᜋ ᜇᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜊᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜉ
ᜈ ᜅ ᜈ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜃ ᜉ ᜅ ᜈ ᜈ᜶ ᜊᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶
ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ
ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜐ ᜆ᜶ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜃᜓ ᜐ ᜃᜓ ᜇᜓ᜶ ᜐ
ᜃᜓ ᜈ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶
ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜈ ᜂ᜶ ᜐ ᜋ ᜅᜓ
ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜑᜒ ᜈ ᜅᜓ ᜇᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜏ ᜈ ᜋ
ᜅ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜑᜒ ᜑᜒ ᜆ᜶ ᜈ ᜉ ᜇ ᜆᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ
ᜎᜒ ᜋ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ [29]

ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜀ ᜇ᜶ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜑ ᜈ ᜈ ᜂ ᜎᜒ᜶
ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜈᜒ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜐ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ
ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜌ ᜐ ᜎ ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜈ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜐ ᜃ
ᜈ᜶ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜋ᜶ ᜋ ᜃ ᜄ ᜄ ᜏ ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶
ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶
ᜐ ᜃ ᜉ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜑᜓ ᜃᜓ᜶ ᜐ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜈ ᜅ
ᜋ ᜆ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜊ ᜈ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜄ ᜄ ᜆᜒ ᜑᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶
ᜈ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜏ ᜑ ᜆᜒ ᜀ ᜈ ᜎ ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜃ ᜐᜓ ᜈᜓ ᜐᜒ ᜎ
ᜈ ᜃ ᜈᜒ ᜌ ᜂ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜊ ᜈ ᜉ ᜃ ᜐ ᜐ ᜁ᜶ ᜐ ᜁ
ᜉᜒ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜎ ᜐᜓ ᜋᜓ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜂ ᜆᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜋᜒ᜶
ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶

Los mandamientos de la
lei de dios son diez. Los tres
pertenesçen alhonor de Dios. [30]

ylos otros siete al prouecho del
proximo.

El primero, amarasa dios
sobre todas las cosas. El
segundo, no jurarasu sancto nom
bre en uano. El terçero, sanctisi
caras las siestas. El quarto, hon
rraras atu padre y madre. El
quinto, no mataras. El sexto
nofornicaras. El septimo, no hur
taras. El octauo, noscuantarafal*
so testimonio. El noueno, no
dessearas la muger de suproxi
mo. El dezeno, nocobdiçiaras, [31]

los bienes agenos. Estos diez
mandamientos se ençierran ẽ
dos, amarasa dios sobre todas
las cosas. y atu proximo como
ati mesmo.

Ang otos nang Dios,ce,
sangpouo.

Ang naona, ybigin mo ang
dios lalo sa lahat. Ang y
calua, houag mo sacsihin ang
dios cundi totoo. Ang ycatlo
mang̃ilin ca cun domingo at cũ
siesta. Ang ycapat, ygalang mo
ang yyong ama, at ang yyong [32]

yna. Ang ycalima houag mõg
patayin ãg capoua mo tauo. ãg yca
nim, houag cãg maquiapir sa di mo
asaua. Ang ycapito houag cang mag
nacao, ãg ycaualo houag mõg paga
uãgauã nanguica ang capoua mo
tauo houag ca naman magsonõ
galing. Ang ycasiam houag cang
mag nasa sa di mo asaua. Ang y
capolo, houag mong pagnasa
ang di mo ari. Ytong sang
pouong Otos nang Dios da
laua ang inouian. Ang ysa
ybigin mo Ang Dios lalo [33]

lalo sa lahat. Ang ycalua ybig
in mo naman ang capoua mo tauo
parang ang catauan mo. Amen.
Jesus.

ᜀ ᜂ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜐ ᜉᜓ ᜏᜓ
ᜀ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜁ ᜊᜒ ᜁ ᜋᜓ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜎ ᜎᜓ ᜐ ᜎ
ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜋᜓ ᜐ ᜐᜒ ᜑᜒ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ
ᜃᜓ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜋ ᜅᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜃ᜶ ᜃᜓ ᜇᜓ ᜋᜒ ᜄᜓ᜶
ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜉᜒ ᜆ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉ᜶ ᜁ ᜄ ᜎ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜋ᜶
ᜀ ᜀ ᜁ ᜌᜓ ᜁ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜒ ᜋ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜋᜓ ᜉ ᜆ
ᜌᜒ ᜀ ᜃ ᜉᜓ ᜏ ᜋᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜈᜒ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜃ ᜋ ᜃᜒ
ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜋᜓ ᜀ ᜐ ᜏ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜃ
ᜋ ᜈ ᜃ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜋᜓ ᜉ ᜄ ᜀ ᜄ ᜀ ᜈ
ᜏᜒ ᜃ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜉᜓ ᜏ ᜋᜓ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜃ ᜈ ᜋ ᜋ ᜐᜓ᜶ [34]

ᜈᜓ ᜅ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜃ ᜋ ᜈ ᜐ᜶ ᜐ
ᜇᜒ ᜋᜓ ᜀ ᜐ ᜏ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉᜓ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜋᜓ ᜉ ᜈ ᜐ ᜑᜒ
ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜋᜓ ᜀ ᜇᜒ᜶ ᜁ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜉᜓ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜂ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜇ ᜏ
ᜀ ᜁ ᜈᜓ ᜏᜒ ᜀ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜐ᜶ ᜁ ᜊᜒ ᜁ ᜋᜓ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜎ
ᜎᜓ ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ᜶ ᜁ ᜊᜒ ᜁ ᜋᜓ ᜈ ᜋ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ
ᜉᜓ ᜏ ᜋᜓ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜉ ᜇ ᜈ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶

Los mandamientos de las sã
cta madre yglesia, son cinco.

El primero. ourmissa ente
ra los domingos y siestas
de guardar. El segundo, con
fesar alomenos una vez en el
anõ. El tercero, comulgar de
necessidad por pascua florida. [35]

El quarto, ayunar quando lo
manda la sancta madre ygtiã.
El quinto, pagar diezmos y
primiçias.

Ang otos nang sancta y
gtiã yna natin ceylima.

Ang naona, maqui~nig nãg
missa houag meilisan
cun domingo at sa siesta, pina
ng̃ingilinan. Ang ycalua, mag
confesar miminsan man taon
taon, at cun mey hirap na yca
mamatai. Ang ycatlo, mag
comulgar cun pascua na yqui [36]

nabuhai na naguli nang atin pa
ng̃inoon Jesuchristo. Ang ycapat,
magayunar cun magotos ang sa
cta yglesia yna natin. Ang y
calima papamagohin ang Dios
nang dilan pananim, at ang scey
capoua yhayin sa dios. Amen.

ᜀ ᜂ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜐ ᜆ ᜁ ᜎᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜁ ᜈ ᜈ ᜆᜒ ᜀ
ᜀ ᜎᜒ ᜋ᜶
ᜀ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜋ ᜃᜒ ᜌᜒ ᜈ ᜋᜒ ᜐ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜋ ᜎᜒ ᜐ᜶
ᜃᜓ ᜇᜓ ᜋᜒ ᜄᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜉᜒ ᜆ᜶ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜅᜒ
ᜅᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ᜶ ᜋ ᜃᜓ ᜉᜒ ᜐ᜶ ᜋᜒ ᜋᜒ ᜐ ᜋ᜶
ᜆ ᜂ ᜆ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜑᜒ ᜇ ᜈ ᜁ ᜃ ᜋ ᜋ ᜆ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ
ᜃ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜋ ᜃᜓ ᜋᜓ ᜄ᜶ ᜃᜓ ᜉ ᜃᜓ ᜏ᜶ ᜈ ᜁ ᜃᜒ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜑ [37]

ᜈ ᜈ ᜂ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜈ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶
ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉ᜶ ᜋ ᜀ ᜌᜓ ᜈ᜶ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜂ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜆ
ᜁ ᜎᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜁ ᜈ ᜈ ᜆᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜒ ᜋ᜶ ᜉ ᜉ
ᜋ ᜄᜓ ᜑᜒ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜎ ᜉ ᜈ ᜈᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ
ᜐ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉᜓ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜑ ᜌᜒ ᜋᜓ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜋᜒ᜶

Los sacramentos de la san
cta madre ygtiã son siete.

El primero baptismo. El segũ
do confirmacion. El tercero Pe
nitencia. El quarto, comuniõ.
El quinto extrema uncion. El
septimo, orden de matrimonio.

Pito ang mahal natanda [38]

ycauauala nang casalanan ang
ng̃alan sacramentos.

Ang naona ang baptismo. Ag̃
ycalua ang confirmar. Ang y
catlo ang confesar. Ang yca
pat ang comulgar. Ang ycali
ma ang extrema uncion. Ang
ycanim ang orden nang saçerdo
te. Ang ycapito ang pagcasal.
Itong daluan holi pinatotoobã
nang dios ang tauo piliin ang
balan ybig. Amen.

ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜀ ᜋ ᜑ ᜈ ᜆ ᜇ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜏ ᜏ ᜎ ᜈ ᜃ ᜐ
ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜅ ᜎ ᜐ ᜃ ᜇ ᜋᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ [39]

ᜀ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜊ ᜆᜒ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜉᜒ ᜋ᜶
ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜉᜒ ᜐ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜋᜓ ᜄ᜶
ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜒ ᜋ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜆᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜋ᜶ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ
ᜃ ᜈᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜂ ᜇᜒ ᜈ ᜐ ᜐᜒ ᜇᜓ ᜆᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶
ᜀ ᜉ ᜃ ᜐ᜶ ᜁ ᜆᜓ ᜇ ᜏ ᜑᜓ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜂ ᜊ᜶
ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜉᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜁ᜶ ᜀ ᜊ ᜎ ᜁ ᜊᜒ᜶

Los peccados mortales
son siete.

El primero soberuia. El se
gundo Euaricia. El tercero,
Luxuria. El quarto yra. El
quinto, Gula*. El sexto Embi
dia. El septimo Accidia.

Ang ponong casalanan, y [40]

capapacasama nang caloloua
cey pito.

Ang capalaloan. Ang caramo
tan. Ang calibogan. Ang ca
galitan. Ang caiamoan sapag
caen at sapag inum. Ang capa
naghilian. Ang catamarã.

ᜀ ᜉᜓ ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉ ᜉ ᜃ ᜐ
ᜋ ᜈ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜏ᜶ ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶
ᜀ ᜃ ᜉ ᜎ ᜎᜓ ᜀ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜇ ᜋᜓ ᜆ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜎᜒ
ᜊᜓ ᜄ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜄ ᜎᜒ ᜆ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜌ ᜋᜓ ᜀ᜶ ᜐ ᜉ ᜃ
ᜁ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜉ ᜁ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜉ ᜈ ᜑᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜀ᜶
ᜀ ᜃ ᜆ ᜋ ᜇ᜶

Las obras demisericordia, [41]

que qualquier chistiano deue
cumplirson catorze. Las siete
spirituales, y las otras siete cor
porales. las siete corporales son
estas.

Ujsitar los enfermos. Dar de
comer al que hahãbre. Dar de
beuer al que hased. Recte
mir al que esta captiuo. Deltir
al desnudo, que lo hamenester.
Dar posada a los peregrinos.
Enterrar los muertos.

Las otras siete obras de
misericordia spirituales, son [42]

estas. Ensenãs alos sim
ples queno saben. Dar consejo
al quelo hamenester. Castigar
al que hamenester castigo. Per
donar al que erro contrati. Su
friutas injurias de tu proximo
conpaciencia, al doliente, yatsa
nüdo. Consolar los tristes, y
desconsolados, Rogardios
por los uiuos y por los muertos.
Amen.

Ang cauaan gaua labin apat ãg
pitong naona paquinabang nãg
catauan, ang pitong naholi pa [43]

quinabang nang caloloua. Ang
pitong naona paquinabang nã
catauan ay yari.

Dalauin ang mei hirap. Paca
nin ang nagogotom. Painumĩ
ang nauuhao. Paramtan ang ua
lan damit. Tubsin ang nabihag.
Patoloyin ang ualan totoloyã.
Ybaon ang namatai.

Ang pitong naholi paquina
bang nang caloloua
ay yari.

Aralan ang di nacaaalam. A
ralan ang napaaaral. Ang ta [44]

bõ sala, ce, papagdalitain. Ual
in bahala sa loob ang casalanã
nang naccasasala sa iyo. Houag
ypalaman sa loob ang pagmo
mora nang tauo sa iyo. Aliuin
ang nalulumbai. Ipanalang̃in
sa dios ang nabubuhai at ang
nang̃a matai na christiano.
Amen Jesus.

ᜀ ᜃ ᜀ ᜏ ᜀ ᜄ ᜏ᜶ ᜎ ᜊᜒ ᜀ ᜉ᜶ ᜀ ᜉᜒ
ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜉ ᜃᜒ ᜈ ᜊ ᜈ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ᜶
ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜑᜓ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜉ ᜃᜒ ᜈ ᜊ᜶ ᜈ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ
ᜏ᜶ ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜉ ᜃᜒ ᜈ ᜊ ᜈ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ᜶
ᜀ ᜌ ᜇᜒ᜶ ᜇ ᜎ ᜏᜒ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜑᜒ ᜇ᜶ ᜉ ᜃ ᜈ᜶ [45]

ᜀ ᜈ ᜄᜓ ᜄᜓ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜉ ᜁ ᜈᜓ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜂ ᜂ ᜑ᜶ ᜉ
ᜇ ᜆ᜶ ᜀ ᜏ ᜎ ᜇ ᜋᜒ᜶ ᜆᜓ ᜐᜒ ᜀ ᜈ ᜊᜒ ᜑ᜶ ᜉ
ᜆᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜌᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜏ ᜎ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜌ᜶ ᜁ ᜊ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ
ᜈ ᜋ ᜆ᜶ ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜀ ᜑᜓ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜉ ᜃᜒ ᜈ
ᜊ ᜈ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜏ᜶ ᜀ ᜌ ᜇᜒ᜶
ᜀ ᜇ ᜎ᜶ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜈ ᜃ ᜀ ᜀ ᜎ᜶ ᜀ ᜇ ᜎ᜶
ᜀ ᜈ ᜉ ᜀ ᜀ ᜇ᜶ ᜀ ᜆ ᜏᜓ ᜐ ᜎ᜶ ᜉ ᜉ ᜇ
ᜎᜒ ᜆ ᜁ᜶ ᜏ ᜁ ᜊ ᜑ ᜎ ᜐ ᜎᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ
ᜈ᜶ ᜈ ᜈ ᜃ ᜐ ᜐ ᜎ᜶ ᜐ ᜁ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜑᜓ ᜏ ᜁ ᜉ
ᜎ ᜋ ᜐ ᜎᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜋᜓ ᜋᜓ ᜇ᜶ ᜀ ᜆ ᜏᜓ ᜐ
ᜁ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜎᜒ ᜏᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜊ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜈ ᜎ
ᜅᜒ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜈ
ᜅ ᜋ ᜆ ᜈ ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶

La confesion en Romançe [46]

Jopeccador mucho herrado me
confieso adios yasancta Maria,
ya san Pedro ya san Pablo,
ya los bien aueuturados, san
Miguel harchangel, ya san
Juan baptista; ya todos los sanc
tos, yauos padre que peque mu
cho con el pensamientoi conla
palabra, y conta obra, por mi cul
pa por mi culpa, por mi guan cul
pa, por en de ruego a la bien auẽ
turada uirgen sancta Maria,
y alos bien auenturados apos
toles san Pedro y san Pablo, [47]

y asanct Juan baptista, ya todos
los sanctos y sanctas querue
quen por mi anuestro senõr. Je
suchristo. Amen.

Acoy macasalanan nagcocõ
pesal aco sa atin pang̃inoon di
os macagagaua sa lahat at cai
sancta Maria uirgen totoo
at cai sanct Miguel archangel,
cai sanct Juan baptista sa san
ctos apostoles cai sanct Pedro,
at cai sanct Pablo at sa lahat
na sanctos at sa iyo padre,
ang naccasala aco sa panĩdim, [48]

sa pag uica at sa paggaua aco ng̃a
ce, sala aco,i, mei casalanan, aco,
i, salan lubha siyang ypmagsisi
sico caiang̃aiata nananalan
ng̃in aco cai sancta Maria
uirgen totoo at cai, S. Miguel archã
gel, at cai, S.Juan baptista, at sa san
ctos apostoles, cai S. Pedro at cai, S.
Pablo at sa lahat na sanctos, nãg aco
ã. ypanalang̃in nila sa atin pang̃i
noõ dios ycao namã padre aco,i.
ypanalang̃in mo at haman caha
lili canang dios dito aco,i, ca
lagan mo sa casalanan co, at [49]

parusahan mo aco. Amen, Jesu.

ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜈ ᜃᜓ ᜃᜓ ᜉᜒ ᜐ
ᜐ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜋ ᜃ ᜄ ᜄ
ᜏ ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜐ ᜆ ᜋ ᜇᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜊᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶
ᜃ ᜐ ᜋᜒ ᜄᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜐᜒ᜶ ᜃ ᜐ ᜐᜓ ᜏ ᜊ ᜆᜒ ᜆ᜶ ᜐ ᜐ
ᜆᜓ ᜀ ᜉᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜃ ᜐ ᜉᜒ ᜇᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜐ ᜉ ᜎᜓ᜶
ᜀ ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ ᜈ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜁ ᜌᜓ ᜉ ᜇᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ
ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜀ ᜃᜓ᜶ ᜐ ᜉ ᜈᜒ ᜇᜒ᜶ ᜐ ᜉ ᜏᜒ ᜃ᜶ ᜀ
ᜐ ᜉ ᜄ ᜏ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜅ ᜀ ᜐ ᜎ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜃ
ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜐ ᜎ ᜎᜓ ᜑ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜒ
ᜐᜒ ᜃᜓ᜶ ᜃ ᜌ ᜅ ᜌ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜈ ᜈ ᜎ ᜅᜒ ᜀ ᜃᜓ
ᜃ ᜐ ᜆ ᜋ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜊᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜃ ᜐ ᜋᜒ ᜄᜓ᜶
ᜀ ᜃ ᜐᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜐᜓ ᜏ ᜊ ᜆᜒ ᜆ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜐ ᜆᜓ ᜀ
ᜉᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜃ ᜐ ᜉᜒ ᜇᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜐ ᜉᜒ ᜎ᜶ [50]

ᜀ ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ ᜈ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜁ ᜉ ᜈ ᜎ
ᜅᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜎ᜶ ᜐ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜃ
ᜈ ᜋ ᜉ ᜇᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜁ ᜉ ᜈ ᜎ ᜅᜒ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜑ
ᜋ ᜃ ᜑ ᜎᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜃ᜶ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜃᜓ ᜃ ᜎ
ᜄ ᜋᜓ᜶ ᜐ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ ᜃᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜇᜓ ᜐ ᜑ ᜋᜓ
ᜀ ᜃᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜋᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ᜶

Las preguntas en Romãce
P. Eres christiano? R. si porlami
sericordia de Dios. P.que cosa es
christiano? R. El hombre bapti
zado que cree lo que ensenã di
os, yla sancta yglesia madre nrã.
P. qua les la senãl del christiano
R. la sancta cruz. P. Aquien [51]

adoran los christianos? R. a nrõ
senõr Dios. P. que cosa es dios?
R. la primera causa, el princi
pio de todas las cosas, El que hi
ço todas las cosas, y el no tiene
principio nifin. P. quantos dio
ses ay? R. un solo dios. P. quã
tas personas. R. tres P. como
se llama la primera? R. Dios
padre. P. como se llama la seũ
da? R. Dios hijo. P. como se lla
ma la tercera? R. Dios spiritu
sancto. P. son por uenturatres
Dioses. R. no sontres dioses. [52]

las personas son tres, ysolo ai
un dios. P. qual de las tres per
sonas se hizo hombre? R. la se
gunda persona que es el hijo.
P. como se hizo hombre? R. por
obra del spiritu sancto, en las
entranãs de sancta Maria uirgẽ
antes del parto, ydespues del
parto. P. para q̃ se hizo hombre?
R. para podermorir en rescate
de los peccados de todos los
hombres. P. qual es erantos
peccados de los hombres? R.
el peccado de nuestros prime [53]

ros padres. Adan y Eva, del
qual todos participamos, y fue
ra de esto, los peccados actua
les conque ofenden a dios ca
da dia. P. como rescato a los hõ
bres? R. murio en la cruz y to
mo asucargo los peccados de
todos los hombres. P. despues
de muerto nrõ senõr Jesuchris
to que hizo su alma? R. baxo
a los infiernos junta con la diui
nidad, ysaco las animas de los
sanctos padres que estauan a
guardando su sancto adueni. [54]

miento. P. El cuerpo de nuestro
senõr Jesuchristo fue sepultado?
R. si P. resuscito. R. si P.quã
do? R. al terçero dia, de su muer
te. P. que dose aca en la tierra nu
estro senõr Jesuchristo? R. no,
sino subro a los çielos, despues
de quarenta dias de su. R. esurreç
cion y esta asentado ala diestra
de dios padre todo poderoso.
P. que asiento tiene alla en el
cielo? R. El mas abentaxado
de todos. P. ay dia enque uẽdra
ajuzgar uinos y muertos. R. si, [55]

P. quando? R. no se sabe. P.
El alma del hombre aca base
quando muere el hombre? R.
no muere con el cuerpo como
en los otros animales, si no so
to el cuerpo muere y el alma
uiue para siempre. P. ande uol
uer adinir todos los que muerẽ
buenos y malos? R. ande uol
uer adinir y juntar se el cuerpo
con el alma para ser juzgados
de chirsto nuestro senõr. P.
despues de. R. esuscitados los
cuerpos de los hombres ande [56]

uoluer amorir? R. no P.que
dara dios en premio a los bue
nos. R. la gloria del cielo al
la ueran adios y se alegraran
y regozi jaran para siempre ja
mas. P. que castigo dara dios
a los malos? R. echar los a en
el infierno allatendran tormẽ
los y dolores para simpre ja
mas. P. que esta sancta ygle
sia. R. todos los hombres
christianos que creen en di
os, juntamente consu cabe
ça, Jesuschristo que esta en [57]

el cielo, ysuuicauio en la tierra
que es el papa del Roma. P. En es
ta sancta yglesia y cosas que
quiten peccados? R. si P. que
cosas son? R. el baptisimo a
los no christianos, y la confe
sion a los ya christianos que
peccaron si searrepienten de
suspeccados de ueras ytienẽ
uoluntad de nunca mas boluer
apeccar. P. En esta sancta yglia
ay comunion de los sanctos? R.
si. P. que esta comunion de los
sanctos? R. la partiçipaçion [58]

de los buenos christianos en las
buenas obras y sacramentos.
P. quando leuanta la ostia el pa
dre en la missa para quela ado
rentos christianos quien esta
asti? R. Jesuchristo nrõ senõr
dios y hombre uerdadero como
esta en el cielo. P. En el caliz
quien esta? R. la sangre uer
dadera de nrõ senõr Jesuchris
to como aquella que deruamo
en la cruz. P. que esta el chris
tiano obligado a hazer, para
saluarse? R. hazer y cumplir. [59]

los diez mandamientos de dios
y los de la sancta madre yglesia.

Ang tanong̃an.

Tanong̃an. Christiano cana?
Sagot. Oo.t aua nang atin pã
ng̃inoon dios. T. ano caia ang
christiano? S. ang binãgan su
masangpalataia sa aral nang
dios at nang sancta yglesia
yna natin. T. alin caia ang tan
da nang christiano? S. ang sãcta
cruz. T. sino caia ang sinasam
ba nang mang̃a christiano? S.
ang atin pang̃inoon dios. T. [60]

ano caia ang dios? S. ang onãg
mola. ang caona onahan sa lahat,
ang mei gaua sa lahat, siya,e,
ualan pinagmolan ualan cahã
ganan. T. ylan ang dios? S. ysa
lamang. T. ylan ang personas?
S. tatlo. T. anong ng̃alang nang
naona? S. ang dios ama. T. anõg
ng̃alan nang ycalua? S. ang di
os anac. T. anong ng̃alan nãg
ycatlo? S. ang dios spiritusãcto.
T. tatlo caia ang dios? S. dile
tatlo ang dios, ang personas
siyang tatlo, ang dios ysa [61]

lamang. T. alin sa tatlong per
sonas ang nagcatauan tauo?
S. ang ycaluang persona nang
sanctissima trinidad ang dios a
nac. T. anong pagcatauan tauo
niya? S. pinaglalangan siya nãg
dios spiritusancto satian ni sãcta
Maria uirgen totoo nang dipa
nang̃anac siya. nang macapang̃a
nac na virgen din totoo. T. ayat
nagcatauan tauo siya? S, nang mã
yari mamatai siya tubus sacasa
lanan nang lahat na tauo. T. atin
caia ang casalanan nang tauo? [62]

S. ang casalanan nang atin magu
gulang si Adan at si Eva nagin
casalanan natin, naramai pala ta
yo sapagcacasala nila sa pang̃ino
on dios. bucor naman doon ang sa
diling casalanan nang balan nang
tauo nagcasasala sa dios arao
arao. T. Anong pagtubus niya
sa tauo? S. nagpacamatai siya
sa cruz, at sinacop niya ang san
libotan bayan. T. nang namatai
na ang atin pang̃inoon Jesuchris
to sa cruz, anong guinaua nang
caloloua niya? S, nanaog sama [63]

ng̃a infiernos pati nang pagca
dios niya, at hinang̃o doon ãg
caloloua nang mang̃a sanctos
padres naghihintai nãgpagda
ting niya. T. ang catauan ni
Jesuchristo ybinaon? S. oo. T.
nabuhai nanaguli? S. oo. T. ca
ylan? S. nang magycatlong
arao nangpagcamatai niya. T.
humabilin dito sa lupa ang atin
pang̃inoon Jesuchristo? S. di
le humabilin dito sa lupa, nac
yat sa lang̃it nang magycapat
napoung arao nang pagcabu [64]

hai niyang naguli, at nalolocloc
sa canan nang dios ama maca
gagaua sa lahat. T. anong pagca
locloc niya doon sa lang̃it? S.
pinalalo siya nang dios ama ni
ya sa lahat. T. mei arao na yhoho
com sa nangabubuhai, at sana
ngamatai natauo? S. oo T. cailã?
S. dile naaalaman. T. sino caia,
ang hocom? S. ang atin pang̃ino
on Jesuchristo. T. ang caloloua
natin mamatai caia cun mama
tai ang catauan natin? S. dile ma
matai ang caloloua natin para [65]

nang sa haiop, ang catauan la
mang mamatai, ang caloloua
mabubuhai magparating man
saan. T. mabubuhai caia mag
uli ang nang̃amatai natauo, ba
nal man, tampalasan man. S, oo
mabubuhai din maguli, at papa
soc na moli ang caloloua sa ca
tauan nang hocoman silang
dalua nang atin pang̃inoon Je
suchristo. T. cun mabuhai na
maguli ang catauan nang ma
nga tauo mamatai pa caiang mo
li? S. dile. T. ano ygaganti [66]

nang dios sa mang̃a banal na
tauo. S. ang caluualhatian
sa lang̃it doon maquiquita ni
la ang dios, at matotoua at ma
liligaia, at luluualhati magpa
rating man saan. T. ano ypa
rurusa niya sa mang̃a tauõ tan
palasan? S, yhoholog niya sa
ynfierno doon maghihirap sila
at maccacasaquet magparatĩg
man saan. T. ano caia ang san
cta yglesia? S. ang lahat nata
uo christiano sumasangpala
taia sa dios pati nang pononi [67]

la si Jesuchristo,e, nasa lang̃it
dito sa lupa ang cahalili niya
ang sancto Papa sa Roma?
T. dito sa sancta yglesia mei
ycauauala nang casalanan?
S, oo, T, ano caia ang ycauaua
la nang casalanan? S, ang
pinagbinãg sa dipa christianos
at ang pagcoconfesal nang ma
ng̃a christianos mei casalanã,
cun magsising masaquet at
mei loob na di moli maccasa
la sa dios magparating man
saan. T, dito sasancta yglesia [68]

mei casamahan ang mang̃a
sanctos? S, oo, T, ano caia
ang casamahan nang mang̃a
sanctos? S, ang pagpapaquina
bang nang mang̃a Christianos
banal na tauo, sa gauã maga
ling sangpon nang sasacra
mentos. T, Nang binubuhat
ang ostia nang padre sapagmi
misa sino caia ang naroon?
S, ang atin pang̃inoon Jesu
Christo Dios totoo, at tauõg
totoo, para doon sa lang̃it. T, sa
caliz sino caia ang naroon? S, [69]

Ang dugong totoo nang atin
pang̃inoon Jesuchristo, capara
niun nabohos sa cruz nang na
matai siya. T, ano caia ang ga
gauin nang mang̃a Christiano
nang macaparoon sa lang̃it? S,
Ang susundin nila ang sang
po, uong otos nang dios, pati
nang otos nang sancta yglesia
yna natin.

ᜆ ᜈᜓ ᜅ᜶

ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜈ᜶ ᜂ ᜂ ᜀ ᜏ ᜈ ᜀ
ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜌ
ᜀ ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜊᜒ ᜌ ᜄ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜐᜓ ᜋ [70]

ᜐ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ᜶ ᜐ ᜀ ᜇ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜐ
ᜆ ᜁ ᜎᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜁ ᜈ ᜈ ᜆᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜌ
ᜀ ᜆ ᜇ ᜈ ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜆ ᜃᜓ ᜇᜓ᜶
ᜐᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜐᜒ ᜈ ᜐ ᜊ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜅ ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ
ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ
ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜌ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜂ ᜈ ᜋᜓ ᜎ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜂ
ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ ᜑ ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜄ ᜏ ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ᜶
ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜏ ᜎ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜋᜓ ᜀ᜶ ᜏ ᜎ ᜃ ᜑ ᜄ ᜈ᜶
ᜁ ᜎ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜁ ᜁ ᜐ ᜎ ᜋ᜶ ᜁ ᜎ ᜀ
ᜉᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜈ᜶ ᜆ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ ᜅ ᜎ ᜈ ᜈ ᜂ ᜈ᜶ ᜇᜒ
ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜋ᜶ ᜀᜈᜓ ᜅ ᜎ ᜈ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜋ᜶
ᜀ ᜈᜓ ᜅ ᜎ ᜈ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ
ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜆ ᜎᜓ ᜃ ᜌ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜆ ᜎᜓ ᜀ ᜇᜒ
ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜉᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜈ ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜆ ᜎᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜁ ᜐ [71]

ᜎ ᜋ᜶ ᜀ ᜎᜒ ᜐ ᜆ ᜎᜓ ᜉᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ
ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ ᜉᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜈ᜶ ᜈ ᜐ ᜆᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜋ ᜆᜒ
ᜈᜒ ᜇ᜶ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ ᜉ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ ᜆ ᜏᜓ
ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜎ ᜎ ᜅ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜁ ᜉᜒ
ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜐ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜒ ᜐ ᜆᜓ ᜋ ᜇᜒ ᜌ᜶
ᜊᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜉ ᜈ ᜅ ᜈ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ
ᜃ ᜉ ᜅ ᜈ ᜈ᜶ ᜊᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜈ ᜃ
ᜆ ᜀ ᜆ ᜏᜓ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜌ ᜇᜒ ᜋ ᜋ ᜆ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶
ᜆᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜐ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜈ ᜎ ᜑ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜎᜒ ᜃ
ᜌ ᜀ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ ᜈᜒ ᜎ᜶ ᜀ ᜂ ᜈ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶
ᜈ ᜋ ᜄᜓ ᜄᜓ ᜎ ᜈ ᜆᜒ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜀ ᜇ᜶ ᜀ ᜐᜒ ᜁ ᜊ᜶
ᜈ ᜄᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ ᜈ ᜆᜒ ᜶ ᜈ ᜇ ᜋ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌᜓ᜶
ᜐ ᜉ ᜃ ᜃ ᜂ ᜎ ᜈᜒ ᜎ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜊᜓ ᜃᜓ ᜈ ᜋ ᜇᜓ
ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜀ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜈ ᜊ ᜎ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏ᜶ [72]

ᜈ ᜃ ᜐ ᜐ ᜎ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜇ ᜀ ᜇ᜶ ᜆᜒ ᜈᜓ
ᜊᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜎ ᜑ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜂ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ
ᜉ ᜆᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜌ ᜐ ᜋ ᜅ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜃ ᜋ ᜆ
ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜐ ᜃᜓ ᜇᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜐᜒ ᜈ ᜃᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜎᜒ ᜊᜓ
ᜆ ᜊ ᜌ᜶ ᜈ ᜈ ᜋ ᜆ ᜈ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ
ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜃᜓ ᜇᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ ᜄᜒ ᜈ ᜏ ᜈ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜏ
ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜈ ᜈ ᜂ ᜐ ᜋ ᜅ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜉ ᜆᜒ ᜈ
ᜉ ᜃ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜑᜒ ᜈ ᜅᜓ ᜇᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ
ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜏ ᜈ ᜋ ᜅ ᜐ ᜆᜓ ᜉ ᜇᜒ᜶ ᜈ ᜑᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆ
ᜀ ᜉ ᜇ ᜆᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ ᜈᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶
ᜁ ᜊᜒ ᜈ ᜂ᜶ ᜂ ᜂ᜶ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜑ ᜈ ᜈ ᜂ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜂ ᜂ᜶ ᜃ ᜁ
ᜎ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜁ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜀ ᜇ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜃ ᜋ ᜆ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶
ᜑᜓ ᜋ ᜊᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜎᜓ ᜉ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ
ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜑᜓ ᜋ ᜊᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜎᜓ ᜉ᜶ [73]

ᜈ ᜌ ᜐ ᜎ ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜁ ᜃ ᜉ ᜈ ᜉᜓ ᜏᜓ ᜀ
ᜇ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜃ ᜊᜓ ᜑ ᜈᜒ ᜌ ᜈ ᜂ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜎᜓ
ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜐ ᜃ ᜈ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜋ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜄ ᜄ ᜏ
ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ ᜉ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜇᜓ ᜂ ᜐ ᜎ
ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜉᜒ ᜈ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜐᜒ ᜌ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜀ ᜋ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶
ᜐ ᜎ ᜑ᜶ ᜋ ᜀ ᜇ ᜈ ᜁ ᜑᜓ ᜑᜓ᜶ ᜐ ᜋ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ
ᜀ ᜐ ᜈ ᜅ ᜋ ᜆ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜂ ᜂ᜶ ᜃ ᜁ ᜎ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜎᜒ
ᜈ ᜀ ᜀ ᜎ ᜋ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜌ ᜀ ᜑᜓ ᜃᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ
ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜏ ᜈ ᜆᜒ᜶
ᜋ ᜋ ᜆ ᜃ ᜌ᜶ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜋ ᜆ ᜀ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ ᜈ ᜆᜒ᜶
ᜇᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜋ ᜋ ᜆ ᜀ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜏ ᜈ ᜆᜒ᜶ ᜉ ᜇ ᜈ ᜐ ᜁ
ᜊ ᜑ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ ᜈ ᜎ ᜋ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜋ ᜆ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ
ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜏ ᜋ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ᜶ ᜋ ᜉ ᜇ ᜆᜒ ᜋ ᜐ ᜀ
ᜋ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ ᜃ ᜌ ᜋ ᜂ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜈ ᜅ ᜋ ᜆ ᜈ ᜆᜓ ᜏᜓ᜶ [74]

ᜊ ᜈ ᜋ᜶ ᜆ ᜉ ᜎ ᜐ ᜋ᜶ ᜂ ᜂ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ ᜇᜒ
ᜋ ᜂ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜉ ᜐᜓ ᜈ ᜋᜓ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ
ᜏ ᜐ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜈ ᜑᜓ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜐᜒ ᜎ ᜇ ᜏ᜶
ᜈ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜊᜓ ᜑ
ᜈ ᜋ ᜂ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜆ ᜀ ᜈ ᜋ ᜅ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜋ ᜋ ᜆ
ᜉ ᜃ ᜌ ᜋᜓ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜀᜈᜓ ᜁ ᜄ ᜄ ᜆᜒ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ
ᜐ ᜋ ᜅ ᜊ ᜈ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜎᜓ ᜏ ᜑ ᜆᜒ ᜀ ᜀ ᜐ ᜎ
ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜇᜓ ᜂ ᜋ ᜃᜒ ᜃᜒ ᜆ ᜈᜒ ᜎ ᜀ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜆᜓ
ᜆᜓ ᜏ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜎᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜄ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜎᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜏ ᜑ ᜆᜒ᜶ ᜋ ᜉ
ᜇ ᜆᜒ ᜋ ᜐ ᜀ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ ᜁ ᜉ ᜇᜓ ᜇᜓ ᜐ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ
ᜀ ᜋ ᜅ ᜆ ᜏᜓ ᜆ ᜉ ᜎ ᜐ᜶ ᜁ ᜑᜓ ᜑᜓ ᜎᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶
ᜐ ᜁ ᜉᜒ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜇᜓ ᜂ ᜋ ᜑᜒ ᜑᜒ ᜇ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜃ
ᜃ ᜐ ᜃᜒ᜶ ᜋ ᜉ ᜇ ᜆᜒ ᜋ ᜐ ᜀ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜌ ᜀ
ᜐ ᜆ ᜁ ᜎᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜎ ᜑ ᜈ ᜆ ᜏᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ [75]

ᜐᜓ ᜋ ᜐ ᜉ ᜎ ᜆ ᜌ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜉ ᜆᜒ ᜈ ᜉᜓ
ᜉᜓ ᜈᜒ ᜎ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜐ ᜎ ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜇᜒ
ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜎᜓ ᜉ᜶ ᜀ ᜃ ᜑ ᜎᜒ ᜎᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜆᜓ ᜉ
ᜉ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜐ ᜆ ᜁ ᜎᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜋ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ ᜏ ᜎ
ᜈ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜌ ᜀ ᜁ ᜃ ᜏ ᜏ ᜎ
ᜈ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜊᜒ ᜌ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜉ ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ
ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜉ ᜃᜓ ᜃᜓ ᜉᜒ ᜐ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜅ ᜃ
ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜋ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜈ᜶ ᜃᜓ ᜋ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜋ ᜐ ᜃᜒ᜶
ᜀ ᜋ ᜎᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜈ ᜇᜒ ᜋᜓ ᜎᜒ ᜋ ᜃ ᜐ ᜎ ᜐ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ
ᜋ ᜉ ᜇ ᜆᜒ ᜋ ᜐ ᜀ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜆᜓ ᜐ ᜐ ᜆ ᜁ ᜎᜒ ᜐᜒ
ᜌ᜶ ᜋ ᜃ ᜐ ᜋ ᜑ᜶ ᜀ ᜋ ᜅ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜂ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜈᜓ
ᜃ ᜌ ᜀ ᜃ ᜐ ᜋ ᜑ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜅ ᜐ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜀ ᜉ ᜉ
ᜉ ᜃᜒ ᜈ ᜊ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜅ ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜊ ᜈ ᜈ
ᜆ ᜏᜓ᜶ ᜐ ᜄ ᜏ ᜋ ᜄ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜐ ᜉᜓ ᜈ ᜐ ᜐ ᜃ ᜇ ᜋᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ [76]

ᜈ ᜊᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜊᜓ ᜑ ᜀ ᜂ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈ ᜉ ᜇᜒ᜶ ᜐ ᜉ ᜋᜒ
ᜋᜒ ᜐ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜌ ᜀ ᜈ ᜇᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ
ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜇᜒ ᜌᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜆ ᜏᜓ
ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜉ ᜇ ᜇᜓ ᜂ ᜐ ᜎ ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜐ ᜃ ᜎᜒ᜶ ᜐᜒ ᜈᜓ
ᜃ ᜌ ᜀ ᜈ ᜇᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜀ ᜇᜓ ᜄᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜆᜓ ᜂ᜶ ᜈ ᜀ ᜆᜒ ᜉ
ᜅᜒ ᜈᜓ ᜂ ᜐᜒ ᜐᜓ ᜃᜒ ᜆᜓ᜶ ᜃ ᜉ ᜇ ᜈᜒ ᜂ ᜈ ᜊᜓ ᜑᜓ ᜐ ᜃᜓ
ᜇᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜈ ᜋ ᜆ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀᜈᜓ ᜃ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜄ ᜄ ᜁ
ᜈ ᜋ ᜅ ᜃᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜆᜒ ᜌ ᜈᜓ᜶ ᜈ ᜋ ᜃ ᜉ ᜇᜓ ᜂ ᜐ
ᜎ ᜅᜒ᜶ ᜀ ᜐᜓ ᜐᜓ ᜇᜒ ᜈᜒ ᜌ᜶ ᜀ ᜐ ᜉᜓ ᜏᜓ ᜂ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜇᜒ
ᜌᜓ᜶ ᜉ ᜆᜒ ᜈ ᜂ ᜆᜓ ᜈ ᜐ ᜆ ᜁ ᜎᜒ ᜐᜒ ᜌ᜶
ᜁ ᜈ ᜈ ᜆᜒ᜶

Laus Deo

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.