THE BULWARK OF CHRISTENDOM 155
neighbours as it was frightened by deviations among its co-religionists. Fierce
punishments for religious offences were generally thought to be right and
proper. Kings such as Zygmunt-August and Wladyslaw IV set clear examples of
tolerance. Yet the advocates of freedom of conscience were few, whilst the ranks
of the devotees were many. For every single reader of Crell or Lawrynowicz,
there were thousands who agreed with the Jesuit Skarga in blaming the ills of
the Republic on 'the abominable vice of tolerance'.
Lastly, it would seem that Toleration, as distinct from tolerance, did prevail.
In a state which possessed no strong central executive authority, and where the
ecclesiastical courts could not enforce their rulings, religious uniformity could
not be imposed. The nobility believed what they wished, and protected whom
they liked. The bourgeoisie and the Jews were secure within the framework of
their autonomous estates. No one could overturn the Catholic establishment,
and no one could realize its absolute pretensions. The Republic was indeed a
'land without bonfires'. There were no campaigns of forced conversion; no reli-
gious wars; no autos-da-fe; no St. Bartholomew's Eve; no Thomas or Oliver
Cromwell. The limitations which in time were applied to the Confederation of
Warsaw were trivial in comparison to the horrors which occurred in most other
European countries. The Polish 'Anarchy', and the 'Golden Freedom' of the
nobility, proved an obstruction to efficient government and to religious fanati-
cism alike.