Statement of Captain Alonso Varela to the Inquisition, 1626

Alonso de Benavides summoned Alonso Varela to corroborate what other witnesses had already divulged regarding the conduct of Governor Don Juan de Eulate. As Varela was a partisan of the governor, he refuted statements made by others or claimed he did not recall the incidents in question. The interview took place before Diego de Vera, Gerónimo Márquez, Juan López Olguín and Catalina de Villanueva all testified to Benavides regarding Varela’s attempt to elicit false testimony from Vera. Benavides added a note after Varela’s testimony (likely after those other interviews) indicating that he knew Varela had not been truthful in his declaration.

A paleographic transcription of Varela's testimony in Spanish is available in the Cibola Project’s “Cross vs. Crown in New Mexico, 1626.”

---

Statement of Captain Alonso Varela to Friar Alonso de Benavides

19 May 1626

Santa Fe

In the town of Santa Fe, on the 19th day of the month of May of the year 1626, in the afternoon, before Father Friar Alonso de Benavides, Commissary of the Holy Office of these provinces, there appeared, having been summoned, a man who said his name was Captain Alonso Varela, one of the first founders of this town, about sixty years of age, more or less. He swore under oath that he would tell the truth.

Asked whether he knew or presumed the reason for which he had been summoned, he said that he did not know it. He was told that in this Holy Office there is information that the said declarant, more than a year ago, heard it said by some person or persons that the cross of Christ Our Lord was not to be adored; and that, for the reverence of God, he is asked and ordered to search his memory and tell the entire truth; and likewise whether any person or persons have done or said anything that might appear to be against our holy Catholic faith and the evangelical law preached and taught by the holy mother Roman Catholic Church, or against the proper and free exercise of the Holy Office.

He said that, as far as he knows and remembers, it was more than a year ago that there was a disagreement between Don Juan de Eulate, who at that time was governor of these provinces, and Father Friar Andrés Suárez of the Order of Saint Francis, who came to this town to say Mass from his guardianship at Pecos, over the courtesies that should be shown to the said Don Juan de Eulate in the church. In regard to this matter, the said father had said that, while the priest was clothed (vested), he should not make a bow, not even to the Supreme Pontiff, and it is not in case of being vested in pontifical garments. And knowing that the said father had heard that the said Don Juan de Eulate had criticized this reasoning, he said: “What I said is correct and not what he says—that the cross of Christ Our Lord should not be adored.”

And this declarant says that at that time he had already heard it said that the said father and other friars had been told that the said Don Juan had made such a proposition. And after this, in those same days, it happened that this declarant, being in conversation with the said Don Juan de Eulate and other persons whom he does not remember, heard the said Don Juan say that they were slandering him by saying that he had said that the cross should not be adored, and that it was a lie, because apart from Our Lord Christ, that which ought most to be adored is the cross, even more than the Virgin Our Lady. And if he does not remember incorrectly, those who heard it were the Maese de Campo Pedro Durán de Chávez, Captain Juan Gómez, Captain Álvaro García, and Captain Juan de Victoria Carvajal.

He was told that in this Holy Office there is information that, about a year ago, a little more or less, while this declarant was in the plaza of this town in conversation with other persons, there came to them a certain person on horseback with a book in his hands, who was going to look for a certain person to tell him how the book said that the cross should not be adored, and that those present replied that indeed it should be adored, to which he answered a second time that it should not be, for the book said so. And for the reverence of God he was asked to say what he knew of this matter.

He said that in no way does he remember this, and that it seems to him that if he had been present he would remember it, and that this is the truth under the oath he has sworn, and that he does not fail to say it out of any respect, but only because he does not remember. His statement was read to him, and he said it was well written. He promised secrecy and signed it with his name.

Friar Alonso de Benavides {rubric}                                        Alonso Varela {rubric}          

Commissary

Witnessed by,

                                                                                                     Friar Pedro de Ortega {rubric}

                                                                                                       Notary

This witness is known to be suspect and has not told the truth, for he is an accomplice, as I later learned.

Friar Alonso de Benavides {rubric}

Commissary  

---

Sources:

Viridiana Rivera Álvarez and Jerry R. Craddock, “Cross vs. Crown in New Mexico, 1626” UC Berkeley Research Center for Romance Studies, Cibola Project, 2019. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0xq1g5b3 

Archivo General de la Nación 

Inquisición, Volumen 356, Expediente 107, fol. 269r-269v, (Images 83397-98)

Available at: https://repositorio.agn.gob.mx/