their security, but one another, and all within their power, who dissented from their own gloomy and peculiar theological delusions. They may have believed in the mercy of God, but they grimly preferred to see themselves as ministers of His wrath.
Nothing, more than the exercise of great power by a conscientious man, imbued with faith in himself as a chosen instrument for executing divine justice on his fellow men, is surer to produce a very Frankenstein of fanaticism, and all peoples and creeds have furnished the spectacle of men of professing godliness, who slew to save, and whose claim to a great mission was written in the blood of those who were described as God's enemies. There is even Scripture warranty for it. If invasion of an unoffending nation for the purpose of conquest be justifiable, either by moral or utilitarian arguments, then the sufferings which inevitable resistance must bring are covered by the same justifications.
The accusation of wanton cruelty, too lightly brought against Cortes has been diligently propagated by the interested, and complacently accepted by the indiscriminating, until dissent from it awakens incredulous surprise. Nevertheless, all that can be learned of his character proves that Cortes was not by nature cruel, nor did he take wanton pleasure in the sufferings of others. Conciliation and coercion were both amongst his weapons, his natural preference being for the former, as is seen by his never once failing in his dealings with the Indians to exhaust peaceful methods before resorting to force. The secret of carrying on a war of conquest mercifully has not yet been discovered, and recent reports from Africa and the Philippines do not show much advance on the policy of the Spaniards in Mexico four hundred years ago, though it cannot be pretended that our modern expeditions are attended by the perils, known, — and most of all the unknown, — which awaited the
