We do not deny that the zeal of the Inquisitors was at times excessive, especially in the use of torture. But some of their cruelty may be explained by their sincere desire for the salvation of the heretic. They regarded the confession of the suspects as the beginning of their conversion. They therefore believed any means used for that purpose justified. They thought that an Inquisitor had done something praiseworthy, when, even at the cost of cruel torments, he freed a heretic from his heresy. He was sorry indeed to be obliged to use force; but that was not altogether his fault, but the fault of the laws which he had to enforce. Most men regard the _auto-da-fé_ as the worst horror of the Inquisition. It is hardly ever pictured without burning flames and ferocious looking executioners. But an _auto-da-fé_ did not necessarily call for either stake or executioner. It was simply a solemn "Sermon," which the heretics about to be condemned had to attend.[1] The death penalty was not always inflicted at these solemnities, which were intended to impress the imagination of the people. Seven out of eighteen _autos-da-fé_ presided over by the famous Inquisitor, Bernard Gui, decreed no severer penalty than imprisonment. [1] On these "Sermons," cf. Tanon, op. cit., pp. 425-431. We have seen, moreover, that in many places, even in Spain, at a certain period, the number of heretics condemned to death was rather small. Even Lea, whom no one can accuse of any great partiality for the Church is forced to state: "The stake consumed comparatively few victims."[1] [1] Op. cit., vol. i, p. 480. In fact, imprisonment and confiscation were as a rule the severest penalties inflicted. CHAPTER X A CRITICISM OF THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE INQUISITION SUCH was the development for over one thousand years (200-1300) of the theory of Catholic writers on the coercive power of the Church in the treatment of heresy. It began with the principle of absolute toleration; it ended with the stake.