The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• Introduction
• A Note On the Present Translation
• A Philosophical Commentary On These Words of the Gospel According to St. Luke, Chap. XIV. Ver. 23: Advertisement of the English Publisher.;
• Part the First.
• Chapter I: That the Light of Nature, Or the First Principles of Reason Universally Receiv’d, Are the Genuin and Original Rule of All Interpretation of Scripture; Especially In Matters of Practice and Morality.
• Chapter II: First Argument Against the Literal Sense of the Words, Compel ’em to Come In, Drawn From Its Repugnancy to the Distinctest Ideas of Natural Light.
• Chapter III: Second Argument Against the Literal Sense, Drawn From Its Opposition to the Spirit of the Gospel.
• Chapter IV: The Third Argument Against the Literal Sense, Drawn From Its Cancelling the Differences of Justice and Injustice, and Its Confounding Vertue and Vice, to the Total Dissolution of Society.
• Chapter V: The Fourth Argument Against the Literal Sense, Drawn From Its Giving Infidels a Very Plausible and Very Reasonable Pretence For Not Admitting Christians Into Their Dominions, and For Dislodging ’em Wherever They Are Settl’d Among ’em.
• Chapter VI: The Fifth Argument Against the Literal Sense, Drawn From the Impossibility of Putting It In Execution Without Unavoidable Crimes. That It’s No Excuse to Say, Hereticks Are Punish’d Only Because They Disobey Edicts.
• Chapter VII: The Sixth Argument Against the Literal Sense, Drawn From Its Depriving the Christian Religion of a Main Objection Against the Truth of Mahometism.
• Chapter VIII: The Seventh Argument Against the Literal Sense, Drawn From Its Being Unknown to the Fathers of the Three First Centurys.
• Chapter IX: The Eighth Argument Against the Literal Sense, Drawn From Its Rendring the Complaints of the First Christians Against Their Pagan Persecutors All Vain.
• Chapter X: The Ninth and Last Argument Against the Literal Sense, Drawn From Its Tending to Expose True Christians to Continual Violences, Without a Possibility of Alledging Any Thing to Put a Stop to ’em, But That Which Was the Ground of the Contest Betw
• The Second Part.: Containing a Full Answer to All the Objections Which May Be Rais’d Against What Has Bin Before Demonstrated.the Second Part.: Containing a Full Answer to All the Objections Which May Be Rais’d Against What Has Bin Before Demonstrated.
• Chapter I: First Objection, That Violence Is Not Design’d to Force Conscience, But to Awaken Those Who Neglect to Examine the Truth. the Illusion of This Thought. an Inquiry Into the Nature of What They Callopiniatreté.58
• Chapter II: Second Objection, the Literal Sense Appears Odious, Only By Our Judging of the Ways of God From Those of Men. Tho the State That Men Are In, When They Act From Passion, Seems Likely to Lead ’em to Wrong Judgments, It Does Not Follow But God, B
• Chapter III: Third Objection: They Aggravate the Matter Maliciously, By Representing the Constraint Enjoin’d Byjesus Christ,under the Idea of Scaffolds, Wheel, and Gibbet; Whereas They Should Only Talk of Fines, Banishment, and Other Petty Grievances. the
• Chapter IV: The Fourth Objection: We Can’t Condemn the Literal Sense of the Words, Compel ’em to Come In, But We Must At the Same Time Condemn Those Laws Which God Gave the Jews, and the Conduct of the Prophets On Several Occasions. the Disparity, and Par
• Chapter V: The Fifth Objection: Protestants Can’t Reject the Literal Sense of the Parable, Without Condemning the Wisest Emperors and Fathers of the Church, and Without Condemning Themselves; Since They In Some Places Don’t Tolerate Other Religions, and H
• Chapter VI: Sixth Objection: the Doctrine of Toleration Can’t Chuse But Throw the State Into All Kinds of Confusion, and Produce a Horrid Medly of Sects, to the Scandal of Christianity. the Answer. In What Sense Princes Ought to Be Nursing Fathers to the
• Chapter VII: The Seventh Objection: Compulsion In the Literal Sense Cannot Be Rejected Without Admitting a General Toleration. the Answer to This, and the Consequence Allow’d to Be True But Not Absurd. the Restrictions of Your Men of Half-toleration Exami
• Chapter VIII: Eighth Objection: Compulsion In the Literal Sense Is Maliciously Misrepresented, By Supposing It Authorizes Violences Committed Against the Truth. the Answer to This; By Which It Is Prov’d, That the Literal Sense Does In Reality Authorize Th
• Chapter IX: An Answer to Some Objections Against What Has Bin Advanc’d In the Foregoing Chapter Concerning the Rights of an Erroneous Conscience. Some Examples Which Prove This Right.
• Chapter X: A Continuation of the Answer to the Difficultys Against the Rights of an Erroneous Conscience. an Examination of What They Say, That If Hereticks Retaliate On Those Who Persecute ’em, They Are Guilty of Injustice. Arguments to Prove, That a Fal
• Chapter XI: The Result From What Has Bin Prov’d In the Two Foregoing Chapters; and a Confutation of the Literal Sense, Let the Worst Come to the Worst.
• Part III.
• I.: St. Austin’s Words
• II.: St. Austin’s Words
• III.: St. Austin’s Words
• IV.: St. Austin’s Words
• V.: St. Austin’s Words
• VI.: St. Austin’s Words
• VII.: St. Austin’s Words
• VIII.: St. Austin’s Words
• IX.: St. Austin’s Words
• X.: St. Austin’s Words
• XI.: St. Austin’s Words
• XII.: St. Austin’s Words
• XIII.: St. Austin’s Words
• XIV.: St. Austin’s Words
• XV.: St. Austin’s Words
• XVI.: St. Austin’s Words
• XVII.: St. Austin’s Words
• XVIII.: St. Austin’s Words
• XIX.: St. Austin’s Words
• XX.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXI.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXII.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXIII.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXIV.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXV.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXVI.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXVII.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXVIII.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXIX.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXX.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXXI.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXXII.: St. Austin’s Words
• XXXIII.: St. Austin’s Words Letter 164,148 to Emeritus.
• XXXIV.: St. Austin’s Words Letter 166,152 to the Donatists.
• XXXV.: St. Austin’s Words Ibid.
• XXXVI.: St. Austin’s Words Letter 204,154 to Donatus.
• XXXVII.: St. Austin’s Wordsibid.
• XXXVIII.: St. Austin’s Words Ibid.
• XXXIX.: St. Austin’s Words Ibid.
• Xl.: St. Austin’s Words Letter 167,160 to Festus.
• The Fourth Part, Or a Supplement to the Philosophical Commentary On These Words of Jesus Christ,compel ’em to Come In.
• The Preface<503>
• Chapter I: General Considerations On St. Austin’s Argument In Defence of Persecution; Shewing, That He Offers Nothing Which May Not Be Retorted, With Equal Force, Upon the Persecuted Orthodox.
• Chapter II: A Confirmation of the Foregoing Chapter, Chiefly By a New Confutation of the Answer Alledg’d At Every Turn Against My Reasonings; to Wit, That the True Church Alone Has a Right to Dispense With the Natural Rule of Equity, In Her Proceedings Ag
• Chapter III: The New Confutation of the Fore-mention’d Answer Continu’d, and Supported By Two Considerable Examples.
• Chapter IV: Another Way of Considering This Second Example.
• Chapter V: An Answer to the First Disparity Which May Be Alledg’d Against My Examples; to Wit, That Hereticks, In Giving an Alms, Do Well, Because They Give It to Those to Whom God Intended It Shou’d Be Given; But Do Ill, In Compelling to Come In, Because
• Chapter VI: A Parallel Between a Judg Who Shou’d Punish the Innocent, and Acquit the Guilty, From an Error In Point of Fact, and a Heretick Judg Who Shou’d Condemn the Orthodox.
• Chapter VII: Whether Heretical Ecclesiasticks May Be Blam’d For Having a Hand In the Trials and Condemnation of the Orthodox.
• Chapter VIII: An Abstract of the Answer to the First Disparity.
• Chapter IX: That a Judg Who Condemns an Innocent Person, and Acquits a Malefactor, Sins Not, Provided He Act According to Law.
• Chapter X: An Answer to a Second Disparity; to Wit, That When a Judg Gives Sentence Against a Person Falsly Accus’d of Murder, It’s an Ignorance of Fact; Whereas If He Condemns As Heresy What Is Really Orthodox, It’s an Ignorance of Right. I Shew That It’
• Chapter XI: An Answer to a Third Disparity; Which Is, That In Criminal Trials, the Obscurity Arises From the Thing It Self; Whereas In Those of Heresy, It Proceeds From the Prepossession of the Judges. I Answer, That Even Disinterested Judges, As the Chin
• Chapter XII: A Particular Consideration of One of the Causes Which Renders the Controversys of These Times So Cross and Intricate; to Wit, That the Same Principles Which Are Favorable Against One Sort of Adversarys, Are Prejudicial In Our Disputes With Ot
• Chapter XIII: An Answer to the Fourth Disparity; Which Is, That When a Judg Is Deceiv’d In a Cause of Heresy, He Is Guilty In the Sight of God; Because the Error In This Case Proceeds From a Principle of Corruption, Which Perverts the Will: an Evil Not In
• Chapter XIV: Examples Shewing That Men Continue In Their Errors Against the Interests of Flesh and Blood, and Their Own Inclinations.
• Chapter XV: That the Persuasion of the Truth of a Religion, Which Education Inspires, Is Not Founded On a Corruption of Heart.
• Chapter XVI: That the Strong Belief of a Falshood, Attended Even With the Rejecting Those Suspicions Which Sometimes Arise In Our Minds, That We Are In an Error, Does Not Necessarily Proceed From a Principle of Corruption.
• Chapter XVII: An Answer to What Is Objected, That All Errors Are Acts of the Will, and Consequently Morally Evil. the Absurdity of This Consequence Shewn; and a Rule Offer’d For Distinguishing Errors, Which Are Morally Evil, From Those Which Are Not.
• Chapter XVIII: A Discussion of Three Other Difficultys.first Difficulty. Knowing the Obliquity of the Motive, Is Not Necessary Towards Denominating an Action Evil.
• Chapter XIX: The Conclusion of the Answer to the Fourth Disparity.
• Chapter XX: The Conclusion and Summary View of the General Consideration, Hinted At In the Title of the First Chapter.
• Chapter XXI: An Answer to a New Objection: It Follows From My Doctrine, That the Persecutions Rais’d Against the Truth Are Just; Which Is Worse Than What the Greatest Persecutors Ever Pretended.
• Chapter XXII: That What Has Bin Lately Prov’d, Helps Us to a Good Answer to the Bishop of Meaux Demanding a Text, In Which Heresys Are Excepted Out of the Number of Those Sins, For the Punishing of Which God Has Given Princes the Sword.
• Chapter XXIII: A Summary Answer to Those Who Fly to Grace For a Solution of These Difficultys.
• Chapter XXIV: Whether the Arguments For the Truth Are Always More Solid Than Those For Falshood.
• Chapter XXV: A New Confutation of That Particular Argument of St. Austin, Drawn From the Constraint Exercis’d By a Good Shepherd On His Sheep.
• Chapter XXVI: A Small Sketch, Representing the Enormitys Attending the Doctrine of Compulsion By Some New Views, As the Destroying the Rights of Hospitality, Consanguinity, and Plighted Faith.
• Chapter XXVII: That Sodomy Might Become a Pious Action, According to the Principles of Our Modern Persecutors.
• Chapter XXVIII: An Examination of What May Be Answer’d to the Foregoing Chapter.
• Chapter XXIX: The Surprizing Progress Which the Doctrine of Compulsion Has Made In the World Over Many Centuries, Tho So Impious and Detestable. Reflections On This.
• Chapter XXX: That the Spirit of Persecution Has Reign’d, Generally Speaking, More Among the Orthodox, Since Constantine’s Days, Than Among Hereticks. Proofs of This From the Conduct of the Arians.
• Chapter XXXI: That the First Reformers In the Last Age Retain’d the Doctrine of Compulsion.
• Appendixes
• The Language of the Translation
• Obsolete Or Unusual Words Or Meanings
• Bayle’s Use of Logic
• Religious and Philosophical Controversies
• Faith and Heresy
• Trinity and Incarnation
• Grace, Original Sin, Predestination
• The Eucharist
• Church and State
• The Rule of Faith
• Reason the Fundamental Rule
• The Bible
• Philosophical Controversies
• Alterations to the 1708 Translation

XXXIII.

ST. AUSTIN’S WORDS

Letter 164,148 to Emeritus.

If the Temporal Powers stretch forth their hand against Schismaticks, ’tis because they look on their Separation as an Evil, and that they are ordain’d by God for the Punishment of Evil-doers, according to that Saying of the Apostle, Whosoever therefore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God; and they that resist, shall receive to themselves Damnation: For Rulers are not a terror to Good-works, but to the Evil, &c. The whole Question then lies here, whether Schism be an Evil, and whether you have not made the Schism; for if so, you resist the Powers, not for any Good, but for Evil. But, say you, no one shou’d persecute even bad Christians. Allow they ought not; yet how can this secure ’em against the Powers ordain’d by God for the Punishment of Evil-doers? Can we cancel that Passage of St. Paul, which I have just now cited?

ANSWER

One can hardly imagine what St. Austin cou’d be thinking of, when he applies his Scripture so very wrong. Cou’d not he see, that he gave it a strain beyond what the Apostle ever dream’d of? For at his rate of quoting St. Paul, he makes him plainly affirm, that Subjects who conform not to the Prince’s Laws are wicked and worthy of Punishment, and Resisters of the Ordinance of God; the most impious Falshood that ever any one advanc’d! since it charges all the<480> Martyrs and Confessors with Rebellion against God, and a punishable Untowardness, and in general all the Christians of the primitive Church, and the Apostles in the first place, who obey’d not the Heathen Emperors forbidding by their Laws the Profession of Christianity. We must of necessity take up with this abominable Consequence, or own there are Limitations essentially understood in St. Paul’s words; such as except those Cases at least, wherein we can’t conform to the Prince’s Laws, without deeming it better to obey Man than to obey God. Now he who conforms to the Prince’s Laws, when persuaded in Conscience that God ordains the contrary, chuses to obey his Prince rather than God (there’s no cavilling against the Evidence of this Proposition, for those who weigh the Terms of it ever so little) consequently St. Paul must be understood to except all those Cases, wherein one is persuaded that God ordains the contrary of what Princes ordain. And so the Schismaticks, which St. Austin had to deal with, being within this case, the alledging this Passage of St. Paul cou’d be of no force against them, without proving, as it must if taken in this latitude, that one ought to be a Turk at Constantinople, an Arian under Constantius, a Pagan under Nero, a Protestant in Sweden, a Papist in Rome, &c.

If the temporal Powers stretch forth their hand against Schismaticks, ’tis because they look on their Separation as an Evil, and that they are ordain’d by God for the Punishment of Evil-doers. Let’s put this Argument of St. Austin’s in form.<481>

If it were* a Sin in Princes to stretch forth their hands against Schismaticks, ’twou’d be a Sin in ’em for this reason only; That they did not look upon Schism as an Evil, or that God had not ordain’d ’em for the Punishment of Evil-doers.

But they do look upon Schism as an Evil, and God has ordain’d ’em for the Punishment of Evil-doers.

Therefore it is not a Sin in ’em to stretch forth their hands against Schismaticks.

We now perceive how this formidable Syllogism shrinks to a wretched begging the Question; I persecute you justly, because I am Orthodox: and by the same rule I kill, I slander, I cheat, I betray you justly, because I am Orthodox.

Let’s suppose an Arian Bishop under Constantius reason the same way.

If it were an ill thing in the Emperor, to stretch forth his hand against those who hold the eternal Divinity of Jesus Christ, the reason must be, that he did not look on this Opinion as an Evil, and that God had not ordain’d him for the Punishment of Evil.

But he believes this Opinion Evil, and that God has ordain’d him for the Punishment of Evil.

Therefore it’s no ill thing in him to stretch forth his hand against the Patrons of this Opinion.

Suppose, I say, an Arian Bishop reason’d thus, what cou’d St. Austin say for himself? Nothing<482> but this, That Constantius look’d upon that as Evil which really was not so, and that God had not ordain’d him for the Punishment of that which is no Evil. Nor must he henceforward say a word more of the Passage from the Apostle, which he had cited as an invincible Argument. The whole Dispute for the future will turn upon the ground of the Separation: and if either convince t’other, well and good; if not, each must stand upon his own bottom, and serve God according to his own Principles. This Remark alone is sufficient to shew, that the Secular Power has no right to interpose in religious Differences, so far as to constrain any one to the Belief of this or that: The getting all contested Points stated and explain’d, is the most that Princes ought to do; or taking care, that the publick Peace is not disturb’d by the Differences in Opinion.

To return to the Arian Bishop’s Syllogism, I say that whoever wou’d effectually answer it, must deny that the Emperor, because he looks on a thing as evil, has a right to punish it, or to exercise that Authority which St. Paul speaks of, when he says, God has ordain’d the Powers which are, for the Punishment of Evil-doers. But the denying of this, puts St. Austin quite out of sorts, and lays him under a necessity of changing his first Proposition into this which follows; The Emperor stretches forth his hand against you, because your Separation is an Evil, and because God has ordain’d him for the Punishment of Evil. Now this is manifestly supposing the thing in question, because the Donatists maintain’d that their Separation was very just; and consequently St. Austin’s Argument amounts to no more than this,<483> You are wrong, and I am right; which the long Passage he has cited from St. Paul has undoubtedly nothing to do with, one way or other.

He well saw, that what he had bin all along urging amounted to no more, since he adds; The whole Question lies here, whether Schism ben’t an Evil, and whether you have not made the Schism. If this be all the Question, it ought to be decided by Reasoning; and if St. Austin offers Arguments of weight enough to convince the Donatists, there will be no more need of Fines or Prisons, they’l re-ingraft on the old Stock with all their heart. But if St. Austin’s Reasons convince ’em not, the Question and Contest will still subsist; and consequently ’twill be manifestly begging the Question, if St. Austin reasons at this rate:

You have committed an ill Action.

The Emperor is oblig’d to punish those who commit ill Actions.

Therefore the Emperor is oblig’d to punish you.

Now it’s absurd arguing upon a bare begging the Question,149 and much more absurd to inflict Punishments, banish, imprison, pill and pillage Folks on a bare begging the Question: consequently St. Austin’s Cause is stark naught in this part of it.

For since the whole Question, as he himself owns, amounts to this; Is Schism an Evil, and have the Donatists made the Schism? the Laws of good Order and right Reason require, that the Partys examine this Point, and dispute it fairly, before either condemns what either affirms or denies. What will be the issue of this Discussion or Dispute? Why one of these three things<484> must necessarily happen; either each Party will persist in its own Opinion; or one of ’em, convinc’d it’s in the wrong, will comply with what the other proposes; or, last of all, tho convinc’d of its Error, will yet obstinately refuse to change sides. If we suppose the Donatists, or any other Sect accus’d of Heresy, within the first Case, the Question and Ground of the Dispute is still on foot; and consequently St. Austin ought not to fly to the Prince’s Authority, because he can’t suppose the Right of his own side, but by manifestly begging the Question, and because there’s no common standing Rule between him and his Adversarys, by which he may justly pronounce ’em Evil-doers. If we suppose ’em under the second Circumstance, there’s no need of calling in the Secular Power against ’em. In the third Case we may very justly have recourse to the Authority of the Prince, provided we have a certain and undoubted knowledg of their persisting contrary to the Lights of their Conscience: but how shall we come by this Knowledg; we have not the Gift of searching the Heart, and we ought to suppose that a Man is not convinc’d of his Error as long as he protests he is not: and whatever Conjecture we may have to the contrary, we have no right to act by him according to our Conjectures, rather than according to his own Protestation. So that we can’t possibly imagine a Case, which, in pure Disputes about Religion, authorizes our arming the Secular Power against Schismaticks, and solliciting penal Laws.

But I can’t well comprehend what St. Austin means in this place, when he says, That allowing<485> no one ought to persecute even the worst Christians, yet this cou’d be no Protection to them against the Powers ordain’d by God for the Punishment of Evil-doers. To me it looks like a Contradiction: for if bad Christians shou’d not be persecuted, this is a strong Reason in their favor against those Princes who wou’d bring ’em to Punishments from which they are exempted; I mean such Punishments as the Powers ordain’d by God may inflict on Evil-doers. But to pass over this want of Consistency in our Author, I shall only observe, that Christians who are no otherwise bad than as they believe and mistake certain false Doctrines for Divine Revelation, are not to be reckon’d among those Evil-doers, for the Punishment of whom Princes have receiv’d the Sword from God. This Sword concerns only such as are guilty of Crimes, and of violating the politickal Laws of the State, Murderers, Robbers, False Witnesses, Adulterers, &c.

This Passage of St. Austin is, I suppose, the Fountain from whence the Bishop of Meaux has drawn his Query to one of his Diocesans; Tell me, says he, in what place of Scripture do you find Hereticks and Schismaticks excepted out of the number of those Evil-doers, against whom St. Paul tells us, God himself has armed the Princes?150 There was no need of an Exemption: for it’s plain to any one who consults the Genius of the Gospel, that this sort of Evil-doers ought not to be treated like the rest. What they do, they do with an intention of serving God more perfectly, and of avoiding what they think displeasing to him; they therefore ought only to be undeceiv’d and better inform’d: and none but Brutes and<486> Savage Natures, or stupidly blinded by senseless Prepossessions, can have the cruelty to punish Misdemeanors committed involuntarily, or from such an intention. Beside, that all the Arguments which I have urg’d at large in my Commentary on the words, Compel ’em to come in, are so many demonstrative Proofs, that God design’d not to arm Princes with the avenging Sword, Gladio Ultore, against Errors of Conscience.

And here I can’t but call to mind a Passage of St. Paul, which I have elsewhere151 made my use of; Do good unto all, but especially to those who are of the Houshold of Faith: and I maintain it’s a sufficient Answer to the Bishop of Meaux’s Query. For it’s plain, this Precept of the Apostle concerns all Christians, and consequently Sovereigns; and that by it Princes are oblig’d to do good unto others beside the Houshold of Faith, otherwise ’twere absurd to bid ’em do good especially to the Houshold of Faith: but if from the time that one ceases to be of the Houshold of Faith, he commences an Evil-doer of that kind which human Justice is oblig’d to pursue, and for the Punishment of whom Princes have receiv’d the Sword from God; it’s as plain, against the Precept of the Apostle, that they can do good to none but those of the Houshold of Faith. Whence we infer, that the Apostle design’d they shou’d make an essential difference between their Nonconformist Subjects; and Murderers, Robbers, False Witnesses, Adulterers, and all other Disturbers of the publick Tranquillity, on whom God won’t have Magistrates exercise any other good than that of punishing their Crimes. So that this single Passage of St. Paul is demonstration that<487> God exempts Hereticks and Schismaticks, demeaning themselves civilly otherwise, and living according to the Laws of the Land, out of the number of those Evil-doers, whose Punishment is enjoin’d on Princes upon their receiving the Sword from God.

[148. ]In the modern numbering, Letter 87.

[* ]That no one may suspect this Argument is not put into due form, the Reader is desir’d to consult the Logick of Port-Royal, Part 3, Chap. 12. [Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole, Art de penser, ou logique (The art of thinking, or Logic), 1659.]

[149. ]See Appendixes, “Bayle’s Use of Logic,” p. 580 (“petitio principii”).

[150. ]See above, p. 334, note 129.

[151. ]See above, p. 254.