at the end of a short time, the same Pope, in a bull of August 2, 1483, said that he had received new appeals, made by a great number of the Spaniards of Seville, who had not dared to address themselves to the judge of appeal for fear of being arrested.  Such was then the excitement of the public mind; such was at that time the necessity of preventing injustice or measures of undue severity.  The Pope added that some of those who had had recourse to his justice had already received the absolution of the apostolical penitentiary, and that others were about to receive it; he afterward complained that indulgences granted to divers accused persons had not been sufficiently respected at Seville; in fine, after several other admonitions, he observed to Ferdinand and Isabella that mercy toward the guilty was more pleasing to God than the severity which it was desired to use; and he gave the example of the good shepherd following the wandering sheep.  He ended by exhorting the sovereigns to treat with mildness those who voluntarily confessed their faults, desiring them to allow them to reside at Seville or in some other place they might choose; and to allow them the enjoyment of their property, as if they had not been guilty of the crime of heresy.

Moreover, it is not to be supposed that the appeals admitted at Rome, and by virtue of which the lot of the accused was improved, were founded on errors of form and injustice committed in the application of the law.  If the accused had recourse to Rome, it was not always to demand reparation for an injustice, but because they were sure of finding indulgence.  We have a proof of this in the considerable number of Spanish refugees convicted at Rome of having fallen into Judaism.  Two hundred fifty of them were found at one time, yet there was not one capital execution.  Some penances were imposed on them, and, when they were absolved, they were free to return home without the least mark of ignominy.  This took place at Rome in 1498.

It is a remarkable thing that the Roman Inquisition was never known to pronounce the execution of capital punishment, although the apostolic see was occupied during that time by popes of extreme rigor and severity in all that relates to the civil administration.  We find in all parts of Europe scaffolds prepared to punish crimes against religion; scenes which sadden the soul were everywhere witnessed.  Rome is an exception to the rule—­Rome, which it has been attempted to represent as a monster of intolerance and cruelty.  It is true that the popes have not preached, like Protestants, universal toleration; but facts show the difference between popes and Protestants.  The popes, armed with a tribunal of intolerance, have not spilled a drop of blood; Protestants and philosophers have shed torrents.  What advantage is it to the victim to hear his executioners proclaim toleration?  It is adding the bitterness of sarcasm to his punishment.