Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow XXXVIII.: ST. AUSTIN'S WORDS Ibid. - A Philosophical Commentary on These Words of the Gospel, Luke 14.23, 'Compel Them to Come In, That My House May Be Full'

Return to Title Page for A Philosophical Commentary on These Words of the Gospel, Luke 14.23, ‘Compel Them to Come In, That My House May Be Full’

Search this Title:

XXXVIII.: ST. AUSTIN’S WORDS Ibid. - Pierre Bayle, A Philosophical Commentary on These Words of the Gospel, Luke 14.23, ‘Compel Them to Come In, That My House May Be Full’ [1686]

Edition used:

A Philosophical Commentary on These Words of the Gospel, Luke 14.23, ‘Compel Them to Come In, That My House May Be Full’, edited, with an Introduction by John Kilcullen and Chandran Kukathas (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005).

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


XXXVIII.

ST. AUSTIN’S WORDS

Ibid.

If we must always leave an evil Will to its natural Liberty, why so many Scourges and pier-<494>cing Goads to force the Children of Israel, in spite of all their Murmurings and Stiffneckedness, to move forward toward the Land of Promise, &c?

ANSWER

St. Austin here resumes the formerly-confuted Examples of St. Paul flung to the Ground,156 of a Father whipping his Children,157 of a Shepherd running after the lost Sheep, and bringing it home by fair or by foul means;158 on the neglect whereof God reproaches him with Sloth and Unfaithfulness. I have confuted all this so often, that I am e’en tir’d of it. Will Men never comprehend the essential Difference between Acts where the Good-will and Consent is indispensably necessary, and those where it is not; between Acts committed under a sense of their being displeasing to God, and those perform’d from an Opinion of their being agreeable to his Will? The Israelites who murmur’d, and refus’d to proceed towards the Land of Canaan, were not so brutish as to think their Behavior approv’d by God, or that their Conscience and Religion exacted this Refusal and these Murmurings; therefore they justly deserv’d to be punish’d: and the Punishments God inflicted on ’em were a proper means of reclaiming ’em from their Sin, because they were persuaded, that ’twas God who punish’d ’em for this very Sin. But a Schismatick or Heretick, whom the Convertists load with Chains and Dragoons, is far from believing, that ’tis God afflicts him on the score of his Opinions. On the contrary, he imagines, that God punishes him for his former want of Zeal for those very Opinions; and<495> therefore Dungeons, Dragoons, and Galleys can never redress that Evil, which the Convertists wou’d propose by ’em; as the Punishments inflicted on the Israelites might quell their Murmurings and Impatience.

Besides, with regard to the Conquest of the Land of Canaan, ’twas all one, whether the Israelites mov’d freely to it, or whether they mov’d from a Fear of Punishment. And therefore all lay in their marching on, and moving towards it. The Case of the General of an Army will illustrate this: He is not displeas’d, that his Men move to the Assault cheerfully, and with a sense of Honor; but cou’d he be assur’d, that the Fear of Punishment wou’d make ’em braver than their Love and Affection for him, he cou’d easily comfort himself upon their conquering with an Ill-will. If it hinders not their marching up to the Enemys Fire with equal Briskness and Ardor, it’s all that he desires. To consider then only the journying towards the Land of Canaan, and the attacking the Canaanites; ’twas equal to God, whether the People acted freely or from Fear: and therefore ’twas reasonable to punish ’em when they refus’d to march. But the Case is different, with regard to Religion and the Worship of God: here the Persuasion, the Affections and Good-will are essentially requisite; and St. Austin will find no example to the contrary.

I cant see his Reason for bringing St. Paul’s Conversion so often upon the Stage: Perhaps he imagines (which were a very poor Illusion) that if it were not for the Violence, which Jesus Christ exercis’d on his Body, his Mind had not<496> bin enlighten’d with the Knowledg of the Gospel. An Error! Jesus Christ cou’d have converted him without the least Bustle, and, as I may say, in his very Sleep. If he thought fit to do it in so remarkable and so signal a manner, ’twas that the Fame of it might have a good Effect and Influence on many others. But what’s all this to the Laws of Honorius, and the Dragoons of Lewis XIV?

If Solomon advises Fathers to chastise their Children, ’tis not with a Design of infusing into ’em such or such Opinions in Religion; (there’s no need of a Rod for this, Children believe all that’s told ’em) but to correct their naughty Humors, their Truancy, their over-eating themselves, their Love of Play; which if suffer’d to grow up to confirm’d Habits, might become incorrigible.

St. Austin writes this Letter to a Donatist, who had attempted to kill himself, but was prevented by some of the Myrmidons of the Convertists: and tells him, that since they had exercis’d a just Violence on him to save the Life of his Body, by a much stronger Reason they might do so, to save the Life of his Soul. To make way for my adding a word or two more in this matter, to what has bin said in another place;159 I shall consider this Donatist, as designing to kill himself from a Principle of Conscience. It’s plain, say they, on this Supposition, that there was a just Violence exercis’d on Conscience; therefore all constraining of Conscience is not unjust.

I answer, That Conscience may be forc’d two several ways; one way, as when a Catholick is hinder’d from falling on his Knees, as the Host<497> passes by, three or four Fellows seizing and holding him in a standing Posture by main force; or else seizing one of the Reform’d Religion, and bending his Knees to the Ground, as the Host passes: The other way, as when the Alternative is set before him of abjuring his Religion, or undergoing such and such Punishments. In the first Case, the Person constrain’d is not made to sin. In the second, he’s brought into a violent Temptation, and the Constraint is very often the occasion of his sinning. They who prevented the Donatist’s killing himself, exercis’d a Violence on his Conscience, in the first way only; and consequently laid him under no Temptation to Sin, so that they ought not to be blam’d for what they did: yet their Case is not to be put in comparison with the Case of those who constrain in the second way, as St. Austin, ever unhappy in his Comparisons, wou’d do. If any one wou’d know my Opinion concerning those, who in the way first represented, shou’d hinder a Catholick’s adoring what he believes his God; or who shou’d force a Protestant on his Knees as the Host passes by: I shou’d tell him, they’d do very ill, tho they did not constrain their Neighbor to the Commission of a Sin; for there’s no Sin in kneeling before an Idol, when this Genuflexion is not an Act of the Will.

[156. ]See above, p. 303.

[157. ]See above, p. 356.

[158. ]See above, p. 303.

[159. ]See above, pp. 294, 302.