the parable of the tares among the wheat (Matt. 13:29), and Christ’s rebuke of Peter for drawing
the sword (Matt. 26:52). The last argument he disposes of by making a distinction between private
vengeance and public punishment.
Beza also defended, with his usual ability, in a special treatise, the punishment of heretics,
chiefly as a measure of self-defense of the state which had a right to give laws and a duty to protect
religion. He derived the doctrine of toleration from scepticism and infidelity and called it a diabolical
dogma.^87
The burning of the body of Servetus did not destroy his soul. His blood was the fruitful seed
of the doctrine of toleration and the Unitarian heresy, which assumed an organized form in the
Socinian sect, and afterward spread in many orthodox churches, including Geneva.
Fortunately the tragedy of 1553 was the last spectacle of burning a heretic in Switzerland,
though several years later the Anti-trinitarian, Valentine Gentile, was beheaded in Berne (1566).
(c) In France the Reformed church, being in the minority, was violently and systematically
persecuted by the civil rulers in league with the Roman church, and it is well for her that she never
had a chance to retaliate. She is emphatically a church of martyrs.
(d) The Reformed church in Holland, after passing through terrible trials and persecutions
under Spanish rule, showed its intolerance toward the Protestant Arminians who were defeated by
the Synod of Dort (1619). Their pastors and teachers were deposed and banished. The Arminian
controversy was, however, mixed up with politics; the Calvinists were the national and popular
party under the military lead of Prince Maurice; while the political leaders of Arminianism, John
Van Olden Barneveldt and Hugo Grotius, were suspected of disloyalty for concluding a truce with
Spain (1609), and condemned, the one to death, the other to perpetual banishment. With a change
of administration the Arminians were allowed to return (1625), and disseminated, with a liberal
theology, principles of religious toleration.
§ 12. Religious Intolerance and Liberty in England and America.
The history of the Reformation in England and Scotland is even more disfigured by acts of
intolerance and persecution than that of the Continent, but resulted at last in greater gain for religious
freedom. The modern ideas of well regulated, constitutional liberty, both civil and religious, have
grown chiefly on English soil.
At first it was a battle between persecution and mere toleration, but toleration once legally
secured prepared the way for full religious liberty.
All parties when persecuted, advocated liberty of conscience, and all parties when in power,
exercised intolerance, but in different degrees. The Episcopalians before 1689 were less intolerant
than the Romanists under Queen Mary; the Presbyterians before 1660 were less intolerant than the
Episcopalians; the Independents less intolerant (in England) than the Presbyterians (but more
intolerant in New England); the Baptists, Quakers, Socinians and Unitarians consistently taught
freedom of conscience, and were never tempted to exercise intolerance. Finally all became tolerant
in consequence of a legal settlement in 1689, but even that was restricted by disabling clauses. The
(^87) De haeriticis a civili magistratu puniendis, adversus Martini Bellii (an unknown person) farraginem et novorum academicorum
sectam. Geneva (Oliva Rob. Stephani), 1554; second ed. 1592; French translation by Nic. Colladon, 1560. See Heppe’s Beza, p. 38 sq.