Relation for the Supreme Council of the Holy Office of the Inquisition of the case of Sebastián Duarte, relaxed to the secular arm by the Inquisition of Lima in the Auto of January 23, 1639.
Witness 1: Antonio de Acuña
Sebastián Duarte, a Portuguese merchant native to the village of Montemayor, in the new archbishopric of Évora, who married Doña Isabel Henrríquez—the sister of Manuel Bautista Pérez—in this city, was relaxed to the secular arm by the inquisition after a witness deposed him under oath on July 27th, 1635. The witness, Antonio de Acuña, who is 20 years old, was imprisoned for Judaizing and denied all charges, though he confessed under torture and continued to confess in all of his hearings until his sentencing, in which he was granted reconciliation in the Auto. The witness testified that one morning five months prior he had accompanied the accused, Sebastián Duarte, and Manuel Bautista in the merchant street of the city, discussing New Christians, their persecution in Portugal, and the Holy Office of the Inquisition. In the conversation the aforementioned Manuel Bautista said that this city, Lima, would be the best city in the world to live in if it were not for the Inquisition and the rigor with which its ministers punished its citizens, regardless of whether or not they were guilty, and for the cruelty with which they treated the followers of the Law of Moses. And it seemed to the witness that the accused, who was present at the time, shared the same opinion as his brother-in-law, given that they live together.
In another hearing, on the twentieth of the aforementioned month and year, the witness Antonio de Acuña said that, ten or eleven months ago, he had overheard a conversation in the aforementioned merchant street, between Manuel Bautista and Antonio Gómez de Acosta, who was imprisoned for Judaizing, about New Christians. In this conversation Manuel Bautista revealed himself as a New Christian, and, every time the witness and Manuel Bautista met thereafter, Manuel Bautista would both openly praise the Law of Moses, claiming it was the true Law, and ridicule the Law of Jesus Christ. And the witness was present when Manuel Bautista spoke like this in the presence of Sebastián Duarte, whom the witness believed to be a Judaizer because, although he never spoke in these conversations, he showed signs that he agreed. The witness had known the accused since Cartagena, where he had visited him in his home in the year 1633 or 1634, in which he saw a replica of Mount Calvary made of pearls, pebbles, and certain precious stones—which he estimated was worth three or four thousand pesos—but which did not have a figure of Christ or the cross. The witness now believes that the accused is a Judaizer and that he owned this replica not because of his devotion to the cross, but because he wished to conceal his Judaizing. And during the season of Lent in the aforementioned year of 1635, in the merchant street, the witness, the accused, and the brother-in-law of the accused, Manuel Bautista, spoke of the recent marriage of Francisco de Vergara, a Navarrese, to the daughter of Diego de Oballe, a Portuguese, both of whom are imprisoned in this inquisition for Judaizing. And the witness asked, “How could Diego de Oballe, a New Christian, have married his daughter to a Navarrese, who would not understand her (that is to say, he would not Judaize as she does)?” To which the accused and his brother-in-law responded that it made perfect sense, and that Diego de Oballe was intelligent and well-read in history, and knew more than 7 men, and the witness understood took this to mean that both Diego de Oballe and he observed the same Law of Moses.
Imprisonment
After receiving this information in a hearing on July 18th, 1635, in the presence of three Ordinary Inquisitors and two Consultants, the order was given, with unanimous agreement, to take the accused Sebastián Duarte and seize his property. The order was carried out, and Sebastián Duarte was imprisoned on August 11th of the aforementioned year.
First Hearing
On August 20th of the aforementioned year of 1635, the inquisitor Andrés Juan Gartan oversaw the accused’s first hearing. The accused gave his name and stated that he was a native of the village of Montemayor, in Portugal, a merchant, 44 years old, and married to Doña Isabel Henrríquez, a native of Seville, where the two married. And the accused also said that he did not have children, that his parents were Duarte Rodríguez, a cheese vendor, and Esperanza López—both natives of Montemayor—and that he had many more uncles, brothers, and sisters. He claimed that all of his relatives were Christians but did not know if they were New Christians or Old Christians, nor did he know if any of his relatives had ever been sentenced by the Inquisition. And, among some letters that the accused received after his imprisonment, the Inquisition discovered certain information that the accused later revealed to the Lieutenant General of Seville on April 9th, 1636. In this letter Doña Giomar de Brito, a widow and the accused’s older sister, intended to prove, with the help of six witnesses, that their parents and ancestors were Old Christians, without any traces of Moorish or Jewish blood, and without any ties to recent converts punished by the Holy Office. And it appears that the parents and grandparents of Doña Giomar were people of high character, having been nominated for various political offices and other noble titles in the aforementioned village of Montemayor. This information was corroborated by the testimony of Juan Rodríguez Duarte. Pablo Rodríguez, brother of the accused and reconciled in this Auto, claimed that his father, Duarte Rodríguez, was burned in effigy in the Inquisition of Évora, and that his sister, Ana López, was also reconciled by the Inquisition, as well as her husband, and two children of Doña Giomar Brito, at whose request this testimony was given before the Lieutenant General of the Inquisition in Seville. And the accused said that he was a baptized and confirmed Christian, who went to confession, attended mass on the Holy Days of Obligation, and took communion. Sebastián Duarte claimed he did not know the cause of his imprisonment, and he denied all charges during the first, second, and third hearings. He said that he was afraid that other prisoners had wrongly accused him, among them Antonio de Acuña Henrríque Núñez, and Ricardo Vaez Poreira, claiming that they were enemies of his.
Witness 1, Continued
Antonio de Acuña, the first witness in the case, continued his testimony on January 3rd, 1636, in which he said that in February or March of 1635, he met with Manuel Bautista, as well as Sebastián Duarte and Luis de Vega, his brothers-in-law, in the merchant street, where they talked about many New Christians; some were fugitives, others had received penance from the Inquisition. And they spoke of the fear that they had, assuring themselves that the danger of prison would not affect them, though meanwhile all were vulnerable to it. Afterwards, all four of them discussed how they observed the Law of Moses.
Witness 2
Jorge Rodríguez Taberez, 35 years old, sworn in and ratified as a witness, a merchant born in Seville to Portuguese parents, imprisoned for Judaizing in the Complicity, and a reliable witness and confessor, always consistent in his confessions, for which he was admitted to reconciliation in the Auto, testified against the accused Sebastián Duarte in a hearing on September 11, 1635. The witness said that the accused obeyed the Law of Moses because he believed himself to be poor and was convinced to obey it in the house of Manuel Bautista Pérez, who, with his friend Francisco López Feo, spent much time there with the accused in March or April of 1633, after which Sebastián Duarte (OR THE WITNESS?) became determined to obey the Law of Moses. The witness told the Inquisition of the aforementioned Manuel Bautista and the accused Sebastián Duarte, his brother-in-law—the two were somewhat solitary—that the witness was also “one of us,” and ”that we should all be one,” urging the witness not to distress, that he was there to help him in any way possible. And after the witness’s bankruptcy the witness went to the house of the aforementioned Manuel Bautista, where he found Sebastián Duarte, Diego de Oballe, and Francisco Feo discussing the Law of Moses without hesitation because they knew the witness also observed the Law.
Witness 4
Bartholome de León, merchant, 19 years old, native of Badajoz, born to Portuguese parents, and imprisoned for Judaizing, was given a guardian for the trial who continued with the hearing until the witness was sentenced to torture for denial. And in the canonical admonition he confessed to being a Jew, and gave the names of his accomplices. He ratified his testimony after 24 hours, though later he revoked everything in a plenary session. In a subsequent hearing the witness revoked again and returned to affirm his original confession before the Honorable Persons. After his case was concluded he was admitted to reconciliation and condemned to lashes and the galleys, forfeiture of property, wearing of the habit, life in prison, and exile from the Indies. In a hearing on December 10, 1635, in which he was submitted to torture, confessed his crimes and the crimes of others, saying that he knew many people who observed the Law of Moses in the city, among them Manuel Bautista and his brothers in law, Sebastián Duarte and Luis de Vega. And in a hearing on the 4th of the aforementioned month the witness spoke of how he had heard that Jorge de Siva, Antonio Gómez de Acosta, and Amaro Diones feared him. Sebastián Duarte, Manuel Bautista, and others of his house did not know that Diego López de Fonseca and Antonio de Acuña were imprisoned by the Inquisition; all that they knew of them was that they observed the Law of Moses.
Witness 5
Jorge de Silva, native of the village of Estremoz, in the archbishopric of Évora, Portugal, more than 33 years old, slave trader, and imprisoned in the Complicity with seizure of property, had denied everything until his accusation. Afterwards he confessed that he and his accomplices had committed crimes, ratified his confession, and was later submitted to torture. At his first turn at the rack he said that he and his accomplices, among them the accused Sebastián Duarte, referring to his first confession. The witness ratified his testimonies and admitted to giving false testimony against certain individuals—though not against the accused Sebastián Duarte—and his case concluded with him being admitted to reconciliation in the Auto, seizure of property, wearing of the habit, life imprisonment, 200 lashes, rowing in the galleys, and exile from the Indies. In a hearing on January 8th, 1636, the witness said that the accused Sebastián Duarte and his brother-in-law, Manuel Bautista, were Jews and observed the Law of Moses, and that the three of them had met one afternoon at the end of November, 1634, when in a conversation they revealed to each other that they were New Christians and observed the Law of Moses, which they believed was superior to Christian Law and would lead them to salvation, and they discussed how they observed the Law, celebrating the Sabbath by putting clean clothes on their person, table, and beds, as well as many other ceremonies and fasts that they observed. Since that conversation they had become known as Jews and observers of the Law of Moses. After the imprisonment of Diego López de Fonseca and Antonio de Acuña in this Inquisition, Manuel Bautista, his brothe-in-law, Sebastián Duarte, and others said to the witness, Antonio Gómez de Acosta, and Amaro Dionis that they were afraid that the aforementioned prisoners would reveal that they observed the Law of Moses because Manuel Bautista and Sebastián Duarte had shared with them how they practiced Jewish rites and ceremonies. In a hearing on January 9th, 1638, in which the witness was tortured and ratified after 24 hours, the witness confessed that he had discussed the Law of Moses with the accused, with the brother-in-law of the accused, Manuel Bautista, with Juan Rodríguez Duarte, the nephew of the accused, and with others. He mentioned in particular one time that he had gone to the slave house in the neighborhood of San Lázaro in April of 1635, where he had not gone once but four or five times, and during two or three of those visits he had met Diego de Oballe there and discussed the Law of Moses with him. All of those present there discussed how they observed the Law of Moses, by which the witness refers to the particular ceremonies and fasts that they claimed to observe, over a period of 15 or 20 days.
Witness 6
Luis de Vega, a Portuguese merchant and native of Lisbon, more than 40 years old, who stayed in the house of Manuel Bautista, where the accused Sebastián Duarte also stayed, was imprisoned by the Inquisition on December 10, 1635 for Judaizing and had his property seized. The witness was later sentenced to reconciliation by Auto, wearing of the habit, life imprisonment, and exile form the Indies. In the prosecution of his case, the witness denied charges until his case was concluded and he was sentenced to torture. And, when the torture was administered in April of 1636, during his first turn at the rack the witness said that, finding himself sick in Panamá because of the armada of 1633, the accused Sebastián Duarte had come to visit him. In consolation the accused urged him to feel better and cheer up because he was traveling to good land (by which he meant Lima), and that when he arrived Manuel Bautista, their brother-in-law, would help him, as he had helped the accused, because they were all one and God helped those who observed the Law of Moses, as Manuel Bautista and Sebastián Duarte did. And upon arriving in Lima the witness and accused stayed in the house of Manuel Bautista, their brother-in-law, and the three revealed themselves as Jews to one another. One day in the year 1635 the accused, the witness, and Manuel Bautista, along with Jorge de Silva, Antonio de Acuña or Bartholome de León (the witness was not certain which of the last three was present) met at the bridge of this city and discussed the Law of Moses and how they observed it. The accused said that the aforementioned Law of Moses was superior to the law of Jesus Christ, and that those who observed the Law of Moses would receive good fortune in their business. And those present agreed with the accused and discussed how they fasted and observed the Sabbath out of reverence for the Law of Moses. And thus, since the witness knew the accused and Manuel Bautista were observers of the aforementioned Law of Moses, he testified that he had always been suspicious of certain people who, night and day, would come to the house of the accused and his brother-in-law. The witness ratified these statements within 24 hours. And in the audience of April 7, 1636, which the witness requested voluntarily, he said that, being in the city’s plaza a little more than a year ago, he met the accused, his brother-in-law, Manuel Bautista, Jorge de Silva (who testifies in this trial), and Gonzalo Barrasa [licenciado cuaresma??]. And the aforementioned Gonzalo Barrasa said that he was afraid of the imprisoned Antonio de Acuña and Diego López de Fonseca, and all those involved in the case. And all those present raised their eyebrows and agreed and expressed their fear that some wrong would come of them because the prisoners were merely servants. And, in a meeting that took place between the city’s plaza and the merchant’s street in February of 1635, in which the accused, the witness, Bartholomé de León, and either Jorge de Silva or Antonio de Acuña were present, the accused and Antonio de Acuña spoke of how those who observed the Law of Moses received good fortune, and the others present, proud to be Jewish, praised the Law of Moses. And in another audience, in April of the same year, the witness said that one afternoon at the end of March, 1635, he met Jorge de Silva, the accused, and a nephew of the accused, Juan Rodríguez Duarte in the plaza, near the merchant’s street. Silva said that he was a very devote follower of the Law of Moses, and that because of this God had bestowed many favors on him, and because of God’s favor he had earned twenty or thirty thousand pesos in a year. The accused and his nephew also spoke of how they had received good fortune for being Jews, and the witness responded that, while they were very fortunate, he had not received a single peso. In hearings on January 25th and 26th of the same year the witness claimed that in February of 1635 he had heard the accused discuss the Law of Moses on the patio of Manuel Bautista’s house, with Juan Rodríguez Duarte present, and that the accused had said that he observed the aforementioned Law, but the witness did not know if anyone else was present.
And the witness said that not long before the armada of 1635 left, when Antonio de Acuña was already imprisoned in this inquisition, one afternoon Antonio Gómez de Acosta went to the office of Manuel Bautista and found Manuel Bautista, the accused, his brother-in-law, and Juan Rodríguez Duarte, there, discussing the imprisonment of the aforementioned Acuña. One of those present began to discuss the Law of Moses, and the rest of the men admitted that they observed it. And the accused began to argue obstinately with the aforementioned Antonio Gómez de Acosta, who told Antonio Gómez to drop the subject because the accused always had to have his way. Then both Manuel Bautista and Antonio Gómez went to a separate room to speak and, after talking for a while, they came out. And the aforementioned Antonio Gómez dismissed himself, and after he left Manuel Bautista told the accused Sebastián Duarte how much he cared for Antonio Gómez, who had gone to investigate the state of the imprisonment and trial of Antonio de Acuña, given his friendship with the prison warden Bartholome de Padeda, and which was beneficial for all those present.
And the witness said that on some occasions he spoke with Manuel Bautista, the accused, his brother-in-law, and the accused’s nephew, Juan Rodríguez Duarte about the Law of Moses in Manuel Bautista’s office. And on these occasions they discussed the many ceremonies of the Law of Moses, such as observing the Sabbath and fasting on Friday, and that they did not observe many ceremonies because they did not want their wives t o know that the practiced them. And the witness said more: that, not long before the armada of 1635 left for firm ground, a Portuguese named Amaro Dionis came to Manuel Bautista’s office for some boxes of peach preserves so that he could send them to Cartagena. And Amaro Dionis said, in the presence of Juan Rodríguez Duarte, Manuel Bautista, and the witness, that he knew many things about the Law of Moses, and he proceeded to discuss them in front of those present. Later, Amaro Dionis asked for his boxes and, taking one out because it was already open, they ate it amongst themselves so as not to ship it in that state. Both Amaro Dionis and Juan Rodríguez Duarte have spoken of this box, and even Manuel Bautista admits it as well, though he denies that they spoke of the Law of Moses. And in a hearing on June 16, 1638, the accused responded, saying that he’d be lying if he said he saw the peaches; he didn’t eat them, nor had he ever known of them, and he said that what ______ said was false and a lie.
Witness 9
Francisco Núñez Duarte, a Portuguese merchant, single and more than 44 years old, native to the city of La Guarda, and imprisoned in this inquisition for Judaizing on August 11, 1635 with seizure of property, said that he was the descendent of New Christians. He denied all charges until he was given the testimonies of the other witnesses, at which point he confessed to being a Jew and an observer of the Law of Moses, after which he was sentenced to torture, in which he confessed the same information. And he was admitted to reconciliation in the Auto and condemned to wear the habit, life imprisonment, confiscation of property, lashes, and the galleys. In a hearing on May 29, 1636, he said that, standing next to the cross in the merchant’s street, near the plaza, on the day of the fast of the Great Day in September of 1634, a little before the oration, he saw there the accused, Sebastián Duarte, Antonio de Sosa, now a prisoner of the inquisition, and Antonio Gómez de Acosta, now reconciled in the inquisition, who opened his mouth to yawn. And the accused told him that he who had created the stars was a man, to which the aforementioned Antonio Gómez responded that in the last few days he had not paid attention to his hunger, from which the witness inferred tat the three of them were New Christians, and that they were observing the Fast of the Great day, as was the witness and others. The witness ratified these statements in plenary.
Witness 10:
Manuel de Espinosa, a 32 year old merchant, native to the village of Almagro, the son of Portuguese parents, was imprisoned by the Inquisition with seizure of property on August 11, 1635. for Judaizing, and he denied all charges until his case was concluded. Until then he had said that he was an Old Christian and was sentenced to be relaxed to the secular arm and tortured by the counsel, after which he begged for mercy and confessed to being a descendent of New Christians and to having been a Judaizer. And he deposed many accomplices, among them Sebastián Duarte. And he ratified his statements in plenary before the Honorable Persons. And in a hearing on January 9th, 1637, he retracted everything he had said about himself and about his accomplices. On October 21 of the same year he was subjected to torture and denied everything until he was given seven turns at the rack and two at the garret. In a hearing on September 10, 1638, that he requested of his own will, he again confessed that he was a Jew and that his first confessions were true; and he ratified this in plenary. And in a hearing on the sixth of November of the same year he again took back everything he had said and, for this, was sentenced to be relaxed to the secular arm, with confiscation of property. And he tearfully begged for mercy the night before the Auto, between 10 and 11, confessing his crimes and the crimes of others, among them the accused, and revealed that he had given false testimony against many Castilians after which, in a hearing at four in the morning, he was admitted to reconciliation in the Auto and condemned to 400 lashes and everything else contained in his sentencing, which was carried out. In a hearing that he willfully requested on January 26th and 28th, he testified against more accomplices and ratified his testimonies. He had said the following about the accused Sebastián Duarte:
In the audience on June 4, 1636, the witness said that, being in the city of Cartagena at the end of November, he met with the accused on the city’s bridge. And, having struck up a conversation relating to finance, they revealed to one another that they observed the Law of Moses, which they considered superior to Christian laws, and the Sabbath, and that they wore clean clothes on their person, table, and bed and that they fasted the fast of the Great Day in the month of September without eating anything until starlight, and all with the intention of Jews for the salvation of their souls. The accused confessed to this witnesses’ testimony in a hearing on June 17th, 1636, and only differed in when this occurred, claiming that it was in September, more or less, of 1628, when he was in Cartagena.
Witness 12
Antonio Gómez de Acosta, a 38 year-old slave trader, native of the city of Berganza in Portugal, imprisoned for Judaizing with seizure of property on August 11th, 1635, having denied charges until the conclusion of his case, and later having voluntarily confessed of his crimes and of those of his accomplices, having been consistent in his confessions, and admitted to reconciliation in the Autho with confiscation of property and other punishments listed in his sentencing, testified the following against Sebastián Duarte:
In a hearing on June 20th, 1636, he said that, having discussed the ceremonies of the Law of Moses with the accused in May of 1633, and having argued with the accused, Manuel Bautista Pérez tried to reconcile the two friends, and, in the city’s plaza eight or ten days after the armada of 1634 left, he brought them together, forcing them to talk to one another as they once did. And the aforementioned Manuel Bautista said to the witness that his brother-in-law, Sebastián Duarte, observed the Law of Moses, and that they could discuss the Law without any need for modesty; and so the three of them discussed the Law of Moses. And they did the same on many other occasions in 1634 and 1635, referring to the ceremonies and fasts that they observed. The witness is unique in this confession because the other two, Manuel Bautista and the accused, denied the charges until their deaths, although the accused confessed to this conversation and others about the Law of Moses between himself, Manuel Bautista, and the witness, both before and after the witness claims this one took place. However, he revoked this statement, as will appear later in his case.
In addition, the witness testified that in December of 1634 or January of 1635 he went to the house of Manuel Bautista in the company of Amaro Dionis (who testifies as a witness later in this case), where Manuel Bautista’s brother-in-law Luis de Vega, who appeared to have recently arrived from Panama, was staying, in the presence of Manuel Bautista and the accused Sebastián Duarte. And later the aforementioned Amaro Dionis said to Manuel Bautista, with whom he had already discussed the Law of Moses, that all they knew more about the Law than other Jews from the city because he had never met someone here who knew more than simply to fast on Tuesdays and Fridays, to observe the Sabbath, not to eat bacon or fish without scales, and other things that the Christians knew of, like how God gave the Law to Moses, and the favors he had bestowed upon the sons of Israel, and that everything else was vulgar, and that only those that lived where the Law was observed knew it perfectly, and that, given the great danger involved in bringing the ceremonies of the Law of Moses to Span, no one there who knew it. And Manuel Bautista, Sebastián Duarte, Luis de Vega, and the witness, and Juan Rodríguez Duarte, the nephew of the accused, all agreed, and, according to Amaro Dionis’s testimony, he was present for this conversation.
Witness 14
Amaro Dionis Coronel, a Portuguese merchant, native of the village of Tomar, who was more tan 24 years old, was imprisoned for Judaizing, with seizure of property, on December 10th, 1635. He was sentenced by the counsel to torture, but before he was subjected to it he confessed that he was a Jew and an observer of the Law of Moses in a hearing that he requested voluntarily. He also revealed many of his accomplices and was always consistent in his confessions. He ratified his testimonies and was admitted to reconciliation and all that is listed in his sentencing.
In a hearing on July 30th, 1636, which the witness requested, he claimed that in early November, 1634, he went to the slave house of San Lázaro, where he found Sebastián Duarte, who was taking care of his slaves. And, having struck up a conversation, they came to know one another as observers of the Law of Moses, which they began to discuss, sharing the ceremonies and fasts they observed with the intention of saving their souls. And he asked the accused whether his brother-in-law, Manuel Bautista, observed the aforementioned Law, and, although he responded that he did not, it was in such a manner that the witness understood that Manuel Bautista shared their faith. And the witness said more, that going to the house of Manuel Bautista in January of 1635, in the company of Antonio Gómez de Acosta, he found Manuel Bautista in his office with his brothers-in-law, Luis de Vega and Sebastián Duarte. The witness and Antonio Gómez joined them, and the four discussed the Law of Moses, which Antonio Gómez also confessed to in his hearing, to which he added that in March of the same year he met again with Manuel Bautista and Sebastián Duarte to discuss the Law of Moses, in the city plaza and while travelling on horseback throughout the city’s streets. And the witness discussed the Law of Moses again in the slave house. And the witness gave a second statement in a hearing on February 4th, 1638 in which he responded to Antonio Gómez de Acosta’s deposition against him. He gave his response formally, stating that here no one knew the ceremonies of the Law of Moses well. And he added that aside from Manuel Bautista, his two brothers-in-law, Sebastián Duarte and Luis de Vega, and Antonio Gómez, Juan Rodríguez Duarte, the nephew of the accused, was also present. And though Luis de Vega did not give en explicit reply, he said that on various occasions he, Manuel Bautista, Sebastián Duarte, and Juan Rodríguez Duarte all met on various occasions in the office of Manuel Bautista to discuss the Law of Moses.
In a hearing on February 5th, 1638, the witness Amaro Dionis spoke of the matter regarding the boxes of peaches, which Luis de Vega and Juan Rodríguez Duarte mention, and he said that on that occasion the accused and the others present spoke of the Law of Moses. And it should be noted that Manuel Bautista confessed to the peaches but denied discussing the Law of Moses. And the accused, Sebastián Duarte, as was stated in the last lines of Luis de Vega’s testimony, said that he would be lying if he said that he saw or ate the aforementioned peaches. The witness ratified his testimony in plenary.
Witness 24
Juan Rodríguez Duarte, the nephew of the accused, slaver, native of Montemayor, Portugal, and 33 years old, was imprisoned on February 25th, 1636, for Judaizing, with seizure of property. In his first hearing he said that he and his relatives were New Christians, and he denied the charges until the conclusion of his case, and he was sentenced to be relaxed to the secular arm to be tortured in caput alienum by the counsel. And at the first turn at the rack he confessed of his crimes and named his accomplices, among them Sebastián Duarte, and, having presented his case to the counsel, he was sentenced to reconciliation in the Auto, and everything else listed in his sentencing. And in a hearing on November 7th, 1637, the witness said that when he came from Ginca to Cartagena in June of 1633, he stayed with his uncle, Sebastián Duarte, who was there. And together, with three others from that city, whom he named, he discussed the Law of Moses, and later came to Lima at the beginning of 1635, where he stayed in the house of Manuel Bautista, along with the accused. And there he discussed the Law of Moses many times, with Manuel Bautista, the accused, Luis de Vega, and another brother of the accused, Pablo Rodríguez. And the accused said that, although he observed the Law of Moses in private, he could not do so publically because he would be imprisoned. And the witness went to callao with the accused two or three times before the armada of 1635 left, in order to fast as the Law of Moses prescribed, abstaining from food the entire day, until the returned home at night. And in a hearing on August 27th the witness testified against the accused, Manuel Bautista, Luis de Vega, and Amaro Dionis, confessing to conversations they had about the Law of Moses, and confessing that Luis de Vega and Amaro Dionis were responsible for the box of peaches in Manuel Bautista’s office. And the witness spoke of other conversations he shared with the accused, Manuel Bautista, and Luis de Vega, about the Law of Moses since February, 1635, until their imprisonment on August 11th of the same year. And he referred to the ceremonies that the others had said they observed, a testimony to which Luis de Vega later responded in some of his hearings. And the witness said more, that one day, after the armada of 1635 had left for firm ground, Enrique de Paz came to the office of Manuel Bautista where he, his brother-in-law, and Sebastián Duarte were. They commented on how elegantly he was dressed that day, which was Saturday, because he had worn a clean shirt, and they proceeded to discuss the Law of Moses. And Manuel Bautista spoke of how, in Flanders, those who observed the Law of Moses celebrated much better ceremonies.
And in a hearing on January 26th, 1638, the witness responded to the testimony of Luis de Vega, in which he had said that one evening, not long before the armada of 1635 left, Antonio Gómez de Acosta had gone to the office of Manuel Bautista, where the witness, the aforementioned Manuel Bautista, Sebastián Duarte, and Luis de Vega were present. Antonio Gómez said that he wanted to exchange a few words with Manuel Bautista in private, and the two went to a different room and talked for half an hour, after which they emerged and, after saying goodbye to Antonio Gómez, Manuel Bautista said that what Antonio Gómez wanted was to pay the bail of Antonio de Acuña, of whose state he was aware because he knew the prison’s warden, and he had come to them because his friend Fonseca had told him that he did not want to get involved [y que pues ____ postaba ____]. And in a hearing on December 14th, 1638, he said that ____________________
And the witness ratified all of these statements in plenary, including what he said about the burning of the effigy and the sambenitos. Pablo Rodríguez, witness 26, brother of the accused and uncle of the witness Juan Rodríguez Duarte, whose father also wore the sambenito in the Inquisition of Évora, corroborated these testimonies in plenary.
Witness 27
García Vaez Henrríquez, a 37 year-old merchant born in Seville to Portuguese parents, brother of Manuel Bautista and the accused’s wife, and imprisoned by the Inquisition on October 15th, 1638, for Judaizing, denied the charges against him until his sentencing. And the counsel sentenced him to torture, under which he confessed to having Judaized under the teachings of Francisco López Feo, a good friend of Manuel Bautista. The witness revealed other accomplices, and was admitted to reconciliation in the Auto by the counsel, and given to the rest of the penalties listed in his sentencing.
In a hearing on October 30th, 1638, the witness said that, since the year 1632, he had been discussing the Law of Moses with the accused Sebastián Duarte, and that, when he fasted with his brother-in-law, they had done wrong by not eating on Tuesdays, which was the day they always fasted. At the hearing in which the witness García Vaez was to ratify his statements after 24 hours, he claimed that he had testified under the pain of torture, and that he was repeating whatever one of the Inquisitors was reading to him, though he had been warned to tell the truth and not to give false testimony. He ratified everything he said under torture, and later testified in plenary against the accused.
Witness 22, Witness 23
Two testimonies incriminating the accused Sebastián Duarte were sent from the Inquisition of Cartagena, dated ______, one given by Juan Rodríguez, _____ who was later reconciled, and who deposes the other testimony, given by Francisco Piñero, who having confessed that he observed the Law of Moses, retracted his confession. This witness was sentenced to torture, under which he confessed and revealed his accomplices, saying that Sebastián Duarte went to the house of Blas de Paz, his neighbor in Lima, when he was on his way to Cartagena, and that _______ he revealed that he was a Jew and an observer of the Law of Moses. This witness ratified his statements on June 21, 1636, after 24 hours, and later ad perpetuam rei memoriam before the Honorable Persons.
Witness 25
Fernando de Espinoza, a 35-year old merchant native to Torre de Moncorvo, Portugal, was imprisoned on April 16th, 1636, for Judaizing with seizure of property and was admitted to reconciliation in the Auto for being a reliable confessor. In a hearing on November 22, 1637, which he requested voluntarily, he said that he had met the accused Sebastián Duarte thirteen years ago, more or less, in the city of Cartagena where they had been friends, and that the witness’s uncle, Julian Henrríquez, had told him that the accused was an observer of the Law of Moses. Afterwards, they continued their friendship in this city and, seven years ago, when the witness had a box of [macadurias]
Witness 13
Diego de Oballo, a Portuguese merchant, more than 50 years old and imprisoned by the Inquisition, was sentenced by the counsel to be relaxed to the secular arm and denied the charge that he had observed the Law of Moses. In a hearing on November 28th, 1635, that he had requested voluntarily, he said that one day Manuel Bautista invited him to eat at his farm, where he met Francisco de Vergara, the witness’s son-in-law who is imprisoned for Judaizing, Diego López de Lisboa, a Portuguese cleric who testified that he was a Judaizer, Honzalo Barra, a Portuguese who was ordered to be arrested, Sebastián Duarte, and others. And Manuel Bautista served lamb for the first course, and later hen and other dishes. The witness did not say if there was any intention behind the organization of the meal, and ratified his statements in plenary. And, having given this testimony, the witness said that he does not remember _____, although they questioned him at length.
Of all the witnesses that testified against Sebastián Duarte, Juan de Acebedo, Jorge de Espinosa, and Enrique Lorenzo retracted their testimonies after having ratified them, claiming that they had given false testimony, and they persisted in their retractions.
In prison, the accused sent encoded messages to Manuel Bautista Pérez, indicating who he would testify against, accusing them of Judaizing, because others, including Manuel Bautista himself, the prison warden Diego de Vargas and his assistants, Benito Rodríguez Liaño, Juan de Iturguyen, and Francisco de Vergara had testified against him.
Enrique de Paz
The last witness to testify against the accused Sebastián Duarte and Manuel Bautista, his brother-in-law, was Enrique de Paz, a Portuguese, who is one of the most distinguished men of this city, who until the night before the Auto, denied the charges against him and was sentenced to be relaxed to the secular arm. And, because he begged for mercy, he was admitted to reconciliation and sentenced to 200 lashes and the remainder of the punishments contained in his sentencing. And having participated in the Auto, the following day, February 24th, 1639, he received his 200 lashes. On the 26th of the same month he requested a hearing in which he continued the testimony he gave the night of the Auto, accusing others of practicing Judaism, among them Sebastián Duarte and Manuel Bautista. And he said that, before the armada of 1631 left, he had discussed the Law of Moses with them in the city’s plaza, between some crates and a pillar. A few days later he spoke of the Law of Moses in Manuel Bautista’s house along with Manuel Bautisa’s brothers-in-law, the accused and García Vaez. On a third occasion he spoke in the plaza, again between the crates and a pillar, with the accused, Manuel Bautista and ____________, two days after their second conversation. In a hearing he requested on February 27th of the same year, he spoke of a conversation he had in the office of Manuel Bautista in June of 1635 in which the accused, Manuel Bautista, Juan Rodríguez Duarte, Diego de Oballe, Francisco de Vergara, his son-in-law, Antonio Gómez de Acosta, and Amaro Dionis were present, among others. And all of those present spoke of how they observed the Law of Moses, and they said that the witness was dressed elegantly because it was the Sabbath, and that, without a doubt, he had worn a clean shirt. They commented on how in this kingdom the only ceremonies of the Law of Moses that they could observe were to wear clean clothes on the Sabbath and to fast from time to time, which was not like in Flanders, where one could perform all the ceremonies without an of the fear that accompanied them here. And the witness ratified his statements before the Honorable Persons, although they did not give the testimony to the accused because he was relaxed to the secular arm in the Auto.
Charges
On December 19th, 1635, Sebastián Duarte was charged with the crimes heretofore described in the testimonies against him. Responding to the 15 chapters of charges against him, the accused denied all of them under oath, in particular he denounced the eleventh chapter, which describes how his father had been burned by the Portuguese Inquisition. And he said that, although he had received letters from his sisters, Ana López and Giomar Brito, that notified him of his father’s death, they did not say how or where he had died. And _______
Witness Statement
On January 12th, 1636, five witnesses testified against the accused. In response, he disputed all of the testimonies, particularly the third, which claimed that the father of the accused had been burned. Sebastán Duarte claimed this was a lie, and that his father had died at home in his bed, over 80 years old, and if anyone had said otherwise he would be damned.
On June 13th, 1636, six other witnesses testified against the accused, making the total number of testimonies 11, and it was found that he had in his possession a slip of paper with an encoded message, as Manuel Bautista, his brother-in-law, mentioned in his testimony, _______ and in response he denied everything, both what the witnesses had said, as well as the encoded slip of paper.
Confession
In a hearing that the accused requested on June 14th, 1636, he threw himself at the feet of the inquisitor Licentiate Andrés Juan Garian and begged for mercy. Tearful, he said that his honorable wife had convinced him to confess because, upon leaving the Inquisition she did not want to receive the accused. And the accused confessed that, being in Guinea in 1615, when he was 18 years old, selling some goods that belonged to his uncle, Phelipe Rodríguez, a man named Diego de Albuquerque, who was staying with his uncle, taught him the Law of Moses. He explained the ceremonies that he should observe, and the accused believed every word Diego de Albuquerque said. And he abandoned the Law of Jesus Christ for the aforementioned Law of Moses. Together with Diego de Albuquerque he observed the Sabbath five or six times, fasted, and observed the Law of Moses for the salvation of his soul, knowing that his actions violated the Law of Jesus Christ. And, having arrived in this city in the 1617, he first discussed the Law of Moses with Garci Méndez de Dueñas, who was burned in effigy by the inquisition in the Auto of 1625, and who taught the accused many ceremonies. Later, the two discussed the Law of Moses with Manuel Bautista Pérez, before he was the brother-in-law of the accused, and the aforementioned Garci Méndez also taught him the same ceremonies. And in eleven hearings that the Inquisition held with the accused from the 14th of June, 1636, to the 21st of August of the same year, all of them requested by the accused, more than sixty witnesses, with whom the accused claimed to have discussed the Law of Moses, testified against him. And he mentioned at length all the ceremonies of the aforementioned Law that he discussed with them.