ns not pleasing to the
government, or even because of things unknown." But Christians burn
not only infidels but even each other, for the heretic calls on the
name of Christ as he perishes in agony.

Who would not think that Christ were Moloch, or some
such god, if he wished that men be immolated to him and
burnt alive? . . . Imagine that Christ, the judge of all,
were present and himself pronounced sentence and lit
the fire,--who would not take Christ for Satan? For
what else would Satan do than burn those who call on
the name of Christ? O Christ, creator of the world, dost
thou see such things? And hast thou become so totally
different from what thou wast, so cruel and contrary to
thyself? When thou wast on earth, there was no one
gentler or more compassionate or more patient of injuries.

Calvin called upon his henchmen Beza to answer this "blasphemy" of one
that must surely be "the chosen vessel of Satan." Beza replied to
Castellio that God had given the sword to the magistrate not to be
borne in vain and that it was better to have even a cruel tyrant than
to allow everyone to do as he pleased. Those who forbid the punishment
of heresy are, in Beza's opinion, despisers of God's Word and might as
well say that even parricides should not be chastized.

Two authors quoted in favor of tolerance more than {648} they deserve
to be are Sir Thomas More [Sidenote: More] and Montaigne. In Utopia,
indeed, there was no persecution, save of the fanatic who wished to
persecute others. But even in Utopia censure of the government by a
private individual was punishable by death. And, twelve years after
the publication of the _Utopia_, More came to argue "that the burning
of heretics is lawful and well done," and he did it himself
accordingly. The reason he gave, in his _Dialogue_, was that heretics
also persecute, and that it would put the Catholics at an unfair
disadvantage to allow heresy to wax unhindered until it grew great
enough to crush them. There is something in this argument. It is like
that today used against disarmament, that any nation which started it
would put itself at the mercy of its rivals.

[Sidenote: Montaigne]

The spirit of Montaigne was thoroughly tolerant, because he was always
able to see both sides of everything; one might even say that he was
negatively suggestible, and always saw the "other" side of an opinion
better than he saw his own side of it. He never ca