<v> THE CONTENTS OF THE WHOLE WORK [1708 Translation].
The Preliminary Discourse.
Occasion of this Work.
What is a Convertist.
How he is painted on a Sign at Augsberg.
Why the best Books are answer’d.
A ridiculous Complaint of the English Catholicks.
The general Politeness of the Age has had no Power over the Fierceness of Popery.
The present Persecution equal to those that are past.
A Refutation of those who say, that the Persecutions against Protestants do not give ’em a Right of equally persecuting the Catholicks.
Allowing the Pretensions of both Partys, the Protestants wou’d have the greatest Reason to persecute.
What the Church of England might say to the Papists.
Truth does not suffer Prescription, like a Kingdom.
A Judgment upon the Laws of England against Papists.
Exception for Crown’d Heads.
A Project, the Execution of which wou’d be very useful against Popery.
The Reasons of Missions.
Scioppius’s Reproach to the Jesuits.
Perplexity of the Apologists for Persecution.
Citation from Maimbourg.
Passage of Monsieur Diroys against forc’d Professions.
The Advantage he gives to Infidols against the Missionarys.
<vi> Reflection on the Edicts, for punishing those in France that refus’d the Communion, and those who exercis’d the Protestant Religion.
Of the Advice given to Augustus to suffer no Innovations in Religion.
Paganism proves that Toleration is not hurtful to Societys.
The Primitive Christians yielded to the Force of Torments, yet are in the Martyrology.
A Confutation of those who affirm, that to ruin the Protestants of France, was a Work which cou’d not be affected, but by the greatest King in the World.
The Primitive Church was not persecuted without Respite.
Reflection on the Duke of Guise’s pardoning a Hugonot that wou’d have assassinated him. The ridiculousness of the Sentence he is said to have pronounc’d on that occasion.
All the moral Truths of the Gospel are Farce in the Mouth of a Convertist.
Contents of the First Part.
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.
All Divines pay Homage to Philosophy.
Why all particular Truths ought to be examin’d by right Reason.
By what Light Adam knew that he ought to abstain from the forbidden Fruit.
After the Fall ’twas more indispensable to have recourse to the Light of Nature.
<vii> Reflection on the Laws of Moses.
The Importance and Necessity of consulting the Light of Nature.
That the Roman Catholicks are led into it again after all their wide Circuits.
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.
Acts of Religion purely external can’t please God.
In what consists Religion.
Violence is incapable of inspiring Religion.
Chapter III. Second Argument against the Literal Sense, drawn from its Opposition to the Spirit of the Gospel.
The Gospel has bin vouch’d by natural Light.
The Excellency of the Gospel above the Law of Moses.
Mildness was the principal Character of Jesus Christ.
Injurious Consequence to Jesus Christ, from the Sense of Constraint put upon his Words.
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.
Confutation of those who say, a King may quarter his Soldiers on whom he pleases.
And of those who say, that the Hugonots have disobey’d Edicts.
A Right to constrain is the total Subversion of the Decalogue.
The reciprocal Ravage of different Partys, and the continual Source of Civil Wars.
Chapter V. The Fourth Argument against the Literal Sense, drawn from its giving Infidels a very plausible and very reasonable Pretence for not admitting <viii> Christians into their Dominions, and for dislodging ’em wherever they are settled among ’em.
All People are oblig’d to give those a hearing who promise to discover to ’em the true Religion.
A Supposition of the Demand which the Emperor of China ought to make from the Pope’s Missionarys.
And of their Answer.
A Confutation of those who might say, there wou’d be no necessity of letting the Emperor of China know, that Jesus Christ had commanded Restraint.
The infamous Reflection on Christianity, in case this Order were conceal’d till the proper time for its Execution.
Chapter VI. The fifth Argument against the Literal Sense, drawn from the Impossiblity of putting it in execution without unavoidable Crimes. That it’s no Excuse to say, Hereticks are punish’d only because they disobey Edicts.
A general Draught of the Crimes complicated in the last Persecution.
A Case of Conscience to propose to the Confessors of those who dragoon the Protestants.
Sins of the Churchmen in this Persecution.
Confutation of those who might say, they cou’d not foresee these Disorders; and that tho Jesus Christ foresaw them, he commanded this Doctrine to be preach’d.
And of those who say, that the Success of Dragooning is a Reparation for the Mischief of it.
And of those who say, they have only put the Laws in execution against the Disobedient.
Necessary Conditions of a Law.
An essential Defect of Power in Sovereigns, to make Laws in Matters of Religion.
An Instance against the Opponents, taken from some Laws of the Great Duke of Muscovy, &c.
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.
<ix> Mr. Diroys’s Reasoning against the Mahometans, turn’d upon the Papists.
Chapter VIII. The seventh Argument against the Literal Sense, drawn from its being unknown to the Fathers of the three first Centurys.
Doctrine of the Fathers upon Persecution.
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.
A Supposition of a Conference between Deputys of the Primitive Church, and some Ministers of the Emperors.
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 between the Persecutors and the Persecuted: And this, as ’tis but a wretched begging the Question, cou’d not prevent the World’s being a continual Scene of Blood.
Consideration of what wou’d happen between Sect and Sect among Christians.
The ridiculous Answer to this, That they have Truth on their side.
The Second Part.
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, and Inquiry into the Nature of what they call Opiniatrete.
<x> How the Passions are Obstacles in a Search after Truth.
That Persecutors, forcing People to examine, put ’em into a condition which makes ’em incapable of chusing well.
What might be objected to the Wisdom of Jesus Christ, if he had ordain’d Persecution as a Preparatory to Examination.
That Persecutions wou’d be fruitless, if not intended to force Conscience.
Examination of what is call’d Obstinacy, and the Impossibility of distinguishing it from Constancy.
To persist in one’s Religion, after having bin silenc’d by a Controvertist, is no mark of Obstinacy.
Evidence, a relative Quality.
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, by the wonderful Issues of his Providence, may accomplish his own Work. The Fallacy of this Thought, and what are the ordinary Effects of Persecution.
Confutation of those who may have recourse to the Maxim, That the ways of God are not as our ways.
Difference between the Clay us’d to cure bodily Blindness, and Persecution to cure spiritual.
Proof drawn from its being unlawful to do wrong to a Man in order to correct his Vices.
Experience proves, that Persecutions are not an occasional Cause establish’d by God for Illumination.
A general Review of the Effects of Persecution.
Opposition between the Maxims of the Papists of France, and those of England.
Reflection of Montagne upon the Punishment of the Rack.
Observation of Mezeray on the Martyrdom of Anne du Bourg.
<xi> Chapter III. Third Objection: They aggravate the matter maliciously, by representing the Constraint enjoin’d by Jesus Christ, under the Idea of Scaffolds, Wheel, and Gibbet; whereas they shou’d only talk of Fines, Banishment, and other petty Grievances. The Absurdity of this Excuse; and supposing the literal Sense, That capital Punishments are much more reasonable than the Law-Quirks, Pillorys, and Captivitys made use of in France.
First Proof: That supposing the Sense of Constraint, Fire and Faggot wou’d be lawful against the Erroneous.
Second Proof, drawn from the Usefulness of Punishments for increasing the number of that Communion on which side they are imploy’d.
The French Authors are in no condition to reproach the Spaniards upon the Inquisition.
A new Apology for the bloodiest Persecutions, particularly that of the Duke d’ Alva, supposing the Sense of Constraint.
Remarks against Alexander a French Monk.
Absurditys of Justus Lipsius, in his Treatise de una Religione.
A Dilemma of Tertullian against moderate Persecutors.
Martyrdom of the Emperor of Trebizond.
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 particular Reasons for giving the Old Law, which don’t take place under the Gospel.
Objection drawn from the Example of Moses, answer’d.
’Tis not irregular for a Legislator to make two Laws, one of which shall obstruct the Execution of the other.
<xii> Idolatry was not punish’d by the Laws of Moses, otherwise than as Sedition against the State.
Reflection on the Conduct of Elias.
Four Differences between the Laws of Moses, and those of the Gospel.
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 have sometimes punish’d Hereticks with Death: Servetus for example. The Illusion they are under who make this Objection. Particular Reasons against tolerating Papists.
A Confutation of what is objected from the Example of the antient Emperors.
The Weakness of the Emperor Theodosius, and his Prostitution to the Clergy.
Considerations on the Conduct of those Protestant Princes who tolerate but one Religion.
Sovereigns may prohibit the teaching of any thing contrary to the Civil Constitution.
Upon this foot it may be permitted to make Laws against Popery.
Comparison of a Non-Toleration of Papists and of Protestants.
Reflection on a Passage of the Edict revoking that of Nants.
Several Degrees of Non-Toleration consider’d.
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 Church.
Obscurity of our Knowledg.
<xiii> If Diversity of Religions causes Evil to the State, it’s intirely owing to Non-Toleration.
Duty of a Sovereign with respect to Innovators.
How he ought to be a Nursing-Father to the Church.
In what sense he does not bear the Sword in vain.
Two Differences between a Robber or Murderer, and a Heretick who poisons Souls.
Comparison between those who declaim against Hereticks, and those who shou’d make War upon a Prince, for having writ to their King in a Stile very respectful according to his own Notions, but affronting according to theirs.
A Medly of Sects, a less Evil than the Butchery of Hereticks.
Medly in the Church of Rome.
Toleration of Sects consistent with the Publick Quiet under wise Princes.
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 examin’d.
Proofs that Toleration ought to be general.
1. In regard to Jews.
2. In regard to Mahometans. The Advantage which wou’d accrue to the Gospel, by the Exchange of Missionarys betwixt the Turks and Christians.
3. In regard to Pagans.
4. In regard to Socinians.
Remarks upon what is call’d Blasphemy.
If those Hereticks call’d Blasphemers are punishable, there’s scarce any Sect which wou’d not be punishable by other Sects.
Confutation of those who say, that such Heresys as destroy Fundamentals ought not to be tolerated.
And of those who distinguish between Sects beginning, and Sects establish’d.
<xiv> 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 the stirring up Persecutions against the Cause of Truth, and that an erroneous Conscience has the same Rights as an enlighten’d Conscience.
’Tis sometimes a less Disadvantage to dispute with Men of great Understandings than with those of small.
Whatever is acted against Conscience is a Sin, and the greatest in its kind.
Comparison between an ill Action done out of Conscience, and a good one against it.
There is no Charity in Alms-giving against Conscience.
That there is Charity in refusing Alms out of Conscience.
What makes Reviling a Sin.
An erroneous Conscience challenges the same Prerogatives for an Error, as an Orthodox one for Truth.
If Jesus Christ had commanded Persecution, ’twou’d be a Sin to tolerate the true Religion, when one is persuaded ’tis false.
Illustration of this Doctrine by considering the Condition of a Heretick, who knowing this Command shou’d forbear Persecution.
If the Right of persecuting may be common to Truth and Heresy, all other Rights are common to ’em.
Answer to those who say, that the only Obligation on a Heretick is to turn himself.
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.
Reflection on the Instances alledg’d by the Author of the Critique Generale on the History of Calvinism.
<xv> The Morality of Actions determin’d by objective, not physical Qualitys.
Comparison between a Jew pillaging the Temple of Jerusalem, and a Heathen that of Apollo.
Examination, 1. of the Distinction of Fact and Right.
2. Whether it follows from our Principles, that a Man, persuaded of the Sense of Constraint, is oblig’d to persecute.
3. Whether a Magistrate might not punish those who out of Conscience commit Robbery.
4. Whether ’twou’d be impossible to suppress the Blasphemys of an Atheist.
5. Whether one wou’d be oblig’d to suffer Men to preach up Immorality.
6. Whether a Man, who shou’d commit Murder out of Conscience, wou’d act better than if he declin’d it.
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 false Conscience may sometimes excuse those who follow it, tho not in all Cases.
Some Expressions clear’d concerning the Rights of an erroneous Conscience.
Reasons to prove, that allowing the Doctrine of Persecutors wou’d justify Hereticks in persecuting the Truth.
First Reason: These words, Constrain ’em, &c. contain a general Order. The absurd Gloss of some on these words, Do good to all, especially the Houshold of Faith.
2. That the Right of an Orthodox Conscience is founded on a general Law of God. Instances of this.
3. That the general Law in which the Right of an Orthodox Conscience is founded, regards only declar’d Truths.
<xvi> 4th Reason, from the condition of Creatures to whom God manifests his Laws.
Observations on what may be objected from the Sin of Adam.
Impossible to distinguish what is really Truth when we believe it, from what is really not so when we believe it is.
Reflection on the Difficultys propos’d by the Church of Rome against Examination.
These Principles don’t exclude the Operations of Grace, nor suppose the Salvation of more Souls than other Hypotheses.
Whether all Error arises from Corruption of Heart.
Man is form’d to distinguish by Sensation what is hurtful ’or useful to Life.
5th Reason: The contrary Opinion reduces Man to the most stupid Pyrrhonism.
Remedy of this, by supposing an Expedient for the Soul like that which God has given for the Sustenance of the Body.
6th Reason: The contrary Opinion makes the Choice of Christianity impossible to Heathens,
7th Reason, drawn from Examples of innocent Error.
A Thought upon invincible Ignorance.
This Doctrine destroys not the use of the Scripture.
The Scripture may equally preserve its Honor and Authority in opposite Sects.
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.
<xvii> The Third Part.
St. Austin once thought that Constraint ought not to be us’d in Religion, and chang’d not his Opinion till he saw the Success of the Imperial Laws in bringing in Hereticks. The Absurdity of the Reasoning.
St. Austin was easily persuaded of any thing which seem’d to support his Prejudices.
No body has made a juster Judgment of St. Austin than Father Adam, a Jesuit.
I. St. Austin’s Words.
I am even much more a Lover of Peace now than when you knew me in my younger days at Carthage; but the Donatists being so very restless as they are, I can’t but persuade my self, that it’s fit to restrain ’em by the Authority of the Powers ordain’d by God.
It hence follows that Princes ought not to be incited against Hereticks who are not factious. Yet St. Austin does not mean this.
Princes ought to repress those of the Orthodox who are factious as well as Hereticks.
The Imperial Laws are directly against the Donatists.
There wou’d be no need to establish new Laws, if ’twere only to repress the turbulent.
Those who by Accident cause great Combustions and Revolutions, ought not to be reckon’d publick Disturbers.
What meant by a publick Disturber.
’Tis unfair to traduce a Doctrine one believes false, by such Particulars as it has in common with Doctrines we believe true.
II. St. Austin’s Words.
Accordingly we have the satisfaction of seeing several oblig’d by this means to return to the Catholick Unity.
<xviii> The ill Connexion of St. Austin’s Words, and his Subterfuges like those of modern Convertists.
III. St. Austin’s Words.
The Power of Custom was a Chain never to be broken by ’em, if they had not bin struck with a Terror of the Secular Arm, and if this salutary Terror had not apply’d their Minds to a Consideration of the Truth, &c.
This sufficiently answer’d in the Second Part of the Commentary, Chap. 1, 2.
Persecution has the same Advantage and Success against the Orthodox as against Hereticks and Infidels.
IV. St. Austin’s Words.
If a Man saw his Enemy ready to throw himself down a Precipice in the Paroxisms of a raging Fever, wou’d it not be rendring him evil for evil to let him take his own way, rather than with-hold and bind him hand and foot? Yet this frantick Person wou’d look on such an Act of Goodness and Charity only as an Outrage, and the Effect of Hatred for him: But shou’d he recover his Health and Senses, he must be sensible that the more Violence this mistaken Enemy exercis’d on him, the more he was oblig’d to him. How many have we even of the Circoncellions, who are now become zealous Catholicks, and who had never come to themselves, if we had not procur’d the Laws of our Emperors to bind ’em hand and foot, as we do Madmen?
St. Austin’s great Strength consists only in popular Commonplaces.
Absurdity of the Comparison between a Heretick one wou’d convert, and a Madman one prevents from breaking his Neck.
In what Sense God can’t save us by Force.
V. St. Austin’s Words.
You’l tell me, there are those on whom we don’t gain an inch of ground by these Methods; I believe it: but must we forgo the Medicine, because there are some incurable Patients?
<xix> Success of the Pagan Persecutions against Christians in the first Ages.
Remedys shou’d be adapted to the Nature of Diseases.
St. Austin’s Receit leads to all sorts of Crimes.
VI. St. Austin’s Words.
Did we only lift the Rod over ’em, and not take the pains to instruct ’em, our Conduct might justly appear tyrannical; but on the other hand, did we content our selves with instructing ’em, without working on their Fears, they’d ne’er be able to surmount a kind of Listlessness in ’em, contracted by Use and Custom.
Persecution hinders a fair Examination.
VII. St. Austin’s Words.
All those who sooth and spare us are not therefore our Friends, nor all who chastize us our Enemys: Faithful are the Wounds of a Friend, but the Kisses of an Enemy are deceitful. The Severitys of those who love us are wholesomer than the soft Addresses of those who deceive us; and there’s more Charity in taking a man’s Bread from him, be he ever so hungry, if while he is full fed he neglects the Dutys of Righteousness, than in spreading his Table with the greatest Daintys to make him consent to a Sin.
Difference between a Flatterer and a Friend.
A Pastor has not the same Right upon Strangers as upon his own Flock.
’Tis not lawful to let any Man starve, however dissolute.
Princes have not the same Right over Opinions as over Actions.
VIII. St. Austin’s Words.
To bind one in a Phrensy, or awake one in a Lethargy, is vexatious indeed; yet it’s friendly at the same time. God loves us with a truer Love than any Man can do; yet he joins the salutary Terrors of his Threats to the Lenity of his Counsels, and we find that he thought fit to exercise the most religious Patriarchs by a Famine.
<xx> The Question is not, whether we may love those we chastise, but whether ’tis just to deprive a Man of his Goods and Liberty because of his Belief.
God’s chastising his Servants includes nothing in favor of St. Austin.
The sad Consequences to the Clergy of France, if their King shou’d exercise ’em in the same manner as God did the Patriarchs.
IX. St. Austin’s Words.
You are of opinion, that no one shou’d be compel’d to do well; but have you never read, that the Father of the Family commanded his Servants to compel all they met with to come in to the Feast? Han’t you seen with what Violence Saul was forc’d by Jesus Christ to acknowledg and embrace the Truth? … Don’t you know, that Shepherds sometimes make use of the Rod to force their Sheep into the Fold? Don’t you know that Sarah, according to the Power committed to her, subdu’d the stubborn Spirit of her Servant by the harshest Treatment, not from any hatred she bore to Agar, since she lov’d her so far as to wish that Abraham wou’d make her a Mother, but purely to humble the Pride of her Heart? Now you can’t be ignorant, that Sarah and her Son Isaac are Figures of spiritual, and Agar and Ishmael of carnal things. Notwithstanding, tho the Scripture informs us that Sarah made Agar and Ishmael suffer a great deal; St. Paul does not stick to say, that ’twas Ishmael persecuted Isaac, to signify, that tho the Catholick Church endeavors to reclaim carnal Men by temporal Punishments, yet it is they persecute her, rather than she them.
God ought not nor cannot be imitated in the Conversion of Hereticks.
St. Austin’s Doctrine furnishes Expedients to justify the most criminal Actions.
Disparity of the Comparison between forcing Sheep into the Fold, and converting a Heretick by Violence.
<xxi> Comparison between a Man injoin’d the Penance of standing two Hours in the Rain, and a Heretick who follows his Conscience.
The Source of persecuting Maxims arises from this ridiculous Prejudice, That to please God ’tis sufficient to be enrolled in a certain Communion.
Absurdity of St. Austin’s Thought upon Sarah and Hagar.
X. St. Austin’s Words.
The Good and the Bad do and suffer very often the same things; nor ought we to judg of the nature of their Actions by what either does, or what either suffers, but from the Motives on which they act or suffer. Pharaoh oppress’d the People of God with excessive Labor: Moses, on the other hand, punish’d the Transgressions of the same People by the most severe Punishments. The Actions of each side were much alike, but their Ends very different: One was an errant Tyrant, bloated with Pride and Power; the other a Father fill’d with Charity. Jezabel put the Prophets to death, and Elias the false Prophets; but that which put Arms into the hands of one and t’other, was no less different than that which drew on the deaths of each. In the same Book, where we find St. Paul scourg’d by the Jews, we find the Jew Sosthenes scourg’d by the Greeks for St. Paul; there’s no difference between ’em if we only look at the Surface of the Action, but there’s a great deal if we look at the Occasion and Motive. St. Paul is deliver’d to the Jailor to be cast into Irons, and St. Paul himself delivers the incestuous Corinthian to Satan, whose Cruelty much exceeds that of the most barbarous Jailors; yet he delivers this Man to Satan, only that his Flesh being buffeted his Soul might be sav’d. When the same St. Paul deliver’d Philetus and Himeneus to Satan to teach ’em not to blaspheme, he did not intend to render Evil for Evil, but judg’d it an Act of Goodness to redress one Evil by another.
<xxii> St. Austin labors to prove what no body denys.
Reasons why Moses in punishing the Israelites did well, and Pharaoh ill.
St. Austin can infer nothing to his Advantage from the Greeks beating Sosthenes, that being a riotous Action.
Strange Consequences of St. Austin’s Reasoning, who is oblig’d to prove, that ’tis a good Action to treat one’s Neighbor ill out of a Principle of Charity.
St. Austin’s Illusion upon Actions of Duty and Actions of Choice.
God does not require us to labor for the Salvation of our Brethren, by disobeying his Orders.
A Case in which we may have a Dispensation from the Decalogue, in hopes of procuring spiritual Good to our Brethren; which justifies St. Paul, &c.
Trifling Distinction of St. Austin, between Violences done from a charitable Motive, and Violences without Charity.
XI. St. Austin’s Words.
If the being persecuted were always a sign of Merit, Jesus Christ wou’d only have said, Blessed are they who are persecuted, and not have added, for Righteousness sake. In like manner, if persecuting were always a Sin, David wou’d not have said, Psalm 101. 5. Whoso privily slandereth his Neighbor, him will I persecute.
St. Austin’s injurious Treatment of Texts of Scripture, to prove what is not in question.
XII. St. Austin’s Words.
The wicked have never left persecuting the Good, nor the Good the Wicked: but these act unjustly herein, and only to do mischief; those charitably, and so far as the necessity of correcting requires. … As the Wicked have slain the Prophets, so the Prophets have sometimes slain the Wicked; as the Jews were seen with Scourge in hand against Jesus Christ, so Jesus Christ was seen with Scourge in hand against the Jews. Men deliver’d the Apostles to the earthly Powers, and the Apostles deliver’d Men to the infer-<xxiii>nal Powers. What then ought we to consider in all these Examples? only this, which Side acts for the Truth and Righteousness, and which for Iniquity and a Lye; which acts only to destroy, and which to correct.
Horrid Consequences of this detestable Moral.
Conformity of St. Austin’s Distinction with loose Morals.
All the Dutys God has enjoin’d, may be eluded by it.
St. Austin’s Inaccuracy.
XIII. St. Austin’s Words.
But, say you, it no where appears from the Gospel, or from the Writings of the Apostles, that they ever had recourse to the Kings of the Earth against the Enemys of the Church. True; but the reason is because this Prophecy, Be wise now therefore, O ye Kings; be instructed, ye Judges of the Earth: Serve the Lord with Fear, and rejoice with Trembling; was not as yet accomplish’d.
This is in effect to say, that if the first Christians did not take up Arms against the Pagans, ’twas because they were too weak.
XIV. St. Austin’s Words.
As it is not impossible, but that even among those Christians, who have suffer’d themselves to be seduc’d, there may be some of the true Sheep of Jesus Christ, who soon or late shall come back to the Fold, tho ever so far gone astray; for this reason we mitigate the Severitys appointed against ’em, and use all possible Lenity and Moderation in the Confiscations and Banishments which we are oblig’d to ordain, in hopes of making ’em enter into themselves.
Allowing Persecution, the greatest Punishments are lawful against the erroneous.
XV. St. Austin’s Words.
There is not a Man among us, nor yet among you (Donatists) but approves the Laws of the Emperors against the Sacrifices of the Pagans; yet these Laws ordain much severer Punishments, and punish those <xxiv> with Death who are guilty of these Impietys: whereas in the Laws enacted against you, it’s visible they have study’d much more how to recover you from your Errors, than how to punish your Crimes.
St. Austin’s Contradictions.
There may have been predestin’d Souls among Pagans, as well as among Hereticks.
St. Austin not the most human nor best-natur’d Man.
Blunder of the Sieur Brueys.
Strange Idea which the Clergy form of Moderation.
XVI. St. Austin’s Words.
As to the solliciting the Emperors to make Laws against Schismaticks or Hereticks, or to enforce ’em, and enjoin their being put in Execution; you’l be pleas’d to remember the Violence with which the other Donatists egg’d on, not only the Maximinists, &c. but above all, you won’t forget how in the Petition, by which they implor’d the Authority of the Emperor Julian against us, they tell this Prince, whom they knew to be an Apostate and Idolater, That he was wholly mov’d by Justice, and that nothing else had any Power over him.
St. Austin’s Sophistrys give occasion to call in question his Sincerity.
XVII. St. Austin’s Words.
By this time you must, I’m sure, be sensible, that we ought not so much to consider, whether People are forc’d, as what they are forc’d to; that is, whether to Good or to Evil. Not that any one becomes a better Man by mere Force; but the dread of what People are loth to suffer, makes ’em open their Eyes to the Truth.
Constraint is always a wicked Action, and opposite to the Genius of the Gospel.
St. Austin begs Principles.
Every Sect may challenge the Right of using Violence.
XVIII. St. Austin’s Words.
I cou’d instance you not only in private Persons, but intire Citys, which of Donatists, as they formerly <xxv> were, are become good Catholicks, and detest the diabolical Sin of their old Separation; who yet wou’d never have bin Catholicks, but for the Laws which you are so displeas’d with.
If Success be a Rule to judg by, Mahomet’s Constraints were just.
XIX. St. Austin’s Words.
Ought I to prevent the confiscating what you call your Goods, while you with impunity proscribe Jesus Christ? The barring you the liberty of disposing ’em by your last Testament, according to the Roman Law, while you by your slanderous Accusations tread under foot the Testament which God himself has made in favor of our Fathers, &c?
These Antitheses arm all Sects perpetually against each other.
XX. St. Austin’s Words.
If there be any among us who abuse the Laws which the Emperors have enacted against you (Donatists) and who make ’em a handle for exercising their private Spite, instead of employing ’em as an Instrument and Means of Charity to rescue you from Error; we disapprove their Proceedings, and think of ’em with Grief. Not that any Man can call this or that thing his Property, at least unless intitled to it by a divine Right, by the which all belongs to the Just; or by a Right founded on human Laws, and which depends on the Pleasure of the temporal Powers: so that you, for your parts, can call nothing your own, because not entitled to it, as being of the number of the Just, and because the Laws of the Emperors deprive you of all: consequently you can’t properly say, This thing is ours, and we have got it by our Industry; since it is written, Prov. 13.22. The Wealth of the Sinner is laid up for the Just. Notwithstanding, when under color of these Laws Men invade your Possessions, we disapprove the Practice, and it troubles us exceedingly. In like manner, we condemn all those who are mov’d more <xxvi> by Avarice than Zeal, to take from you, either the Funds for your Poor, or the Places of your Assemblys; tho you enjoy neither one nor t’other but under the Notion of the Church, and tho only the true Church of Jesus Christ has an unalienable Right to these things.
Strange Consequences of this abominable Doctrine, That all belongs to the Godly by Divine Right.
Every Prince who destroys the Partition establish’d in the World, is a Tyrant.
As he is who punishes Disobedience to unjust Laws.
Usurpation of a Tyrant prov’d by the Example of Ahab.
In what sense we ought to understand the Passage of Solomon alledg’d by St. Austin.
Confutation of what he affirms, That only the true Church of Christ has a Right to Temporal Possessions.
XXI. St. Austin’s Words.
But tho you will always be complaining of this kind of Treatment, you find it a hard matter to prove it upon any one; and tho you shou’d, it is not always in our Power to correct or punish those you complain of, and we are sometimes oblig’d to tolerate ’em.
Why the Violences of Persecutors can’t be prov’d from the Tenor of the Edicts.
XXII. St. Austin’s Words.
When Nebuchodonosor ordain’d, That whoever blasphem’d the Name of the God of the Hebrews, shou’d be destroy’d with his whole House; had any of his Subjects incur’d the Punishment, by the violating this Law, cou’d they have said, as these (Donatists) do now, that they were righteous, and alledg’d the Persecution by the King’s Authority, as a Proof of their Innocence?
The Example of Nebuchodonosor not to be follow’d.
Tho the persecuted Party be not always just, the Persecutors are always wicked.
<xxvii> XXIII. St. Austin’s Words.
Was not Hagar persecuted by Sarah? Yet she that persecuted was holy, and she who suffer’d Persecution was wicked.
Difference between Sarah’s Persecution of Hagar, and that for Religious Opinions.
XXIV. St. Austin’s Words.
If the Good may not persecute, and if they are only to suffer Persecution, he was neither a good Man nor a Saint, who speaks thus in the 17th Psalm, I will persecute mine Enemys, I will pursue them and attack them and will give them no Rest &c.
Misapplication of this Passage of David.
Sophism in exaggerating the Fury of the Donatists, and the moderate Chastisements of the Catholicks.
XXV. St. Austin’s Words.
The Service which Kings perform to God as they are Men, is one thing; and that which they perform as Kings, is another. As Men they serve him, by leading Lives as becomes the truly Faithful: but as Kings they serve him, only by enacting righteous Laws, which tend to the promoting Good, and punishing Evil; and by maintaining these Laws with Firmness and Vigor.
Definition of Just Laws, and of Good and Evil, being laid down, St. Austin’s Thought becomes favorable to Toleration.
XXVI. St. Austin’s Words.
One must be void of common Sense, to tell Princes, Take no thought whether People trample upon, or whether they revere, within your Dominions, the Church of him whom you adore. What, they shall take care to make their Subjects live according to the Rules of Vertue and Sobriety, without any one’s presuming to say, that this concerns ’em not; and yet they shall presume to tell ’em, that it is not their business to take cognizance within their Dominions, whether Men observe the Rules of the true Religion, <xxviii> or whether they give themselves over to Profaneness and Irreligion? For if from hence, that God has given Man a Free-will, Profaneness were to be permitted, why shou’d Adultery be punish’d? The Soul which violates that Faith which it has plighted to its God, is it therefore less criminal than the Wife which violates the Faith she owes her Husband? And tho Sins, which Men thro Ignorance commit against Religion, are punish’d with less Severity; must they therefore be suffer’d to subvert it with Impunity?
In what manner Princes ought to concern themselves, if one attacks or reveres the Religion they profess.
Each Sect commits Impietys and Sacrileges in respect to the rest.
Blasphemys and Sacrileges ought to be defin’d upon common Principles.
All the World agrees that the Laws establish’d in behalf of Honesty and Modesty are just.
Why one ought to punish Adultery, and not Profaneness, according to St. Austin’s Sense.
A Woman, who shou’d mistake another Man for her Husband, wou’d not be guilty of Adultery, in admitting him to her Bed.
XXVII. St. Austin’s Words.
We must own, that Children who are drawn by Gentleness and Love, are much the best; but these don’t make the greatest number: there are incomparably more of another sort, whom nothing will work upon but Fear. Accordingly we read in Scripture, Prov. 29. 19. That a Servant will not be corrected by words; for tho he understand he will not answer: which supposes a Necessity of employing some more powerful Means. It informs us in another place, that we must employ the Rod, not only against evil Servants, but untoward Children. It is true, the Scripture says again, Prov. 23. 14. Thou shalt beat him with a Rod, and shalt deliver his Soul from Hell: and elsewhere, Prov. 13. 24. He that spareth his Rod, hateth his Son; <xxix> but he that loveth him, chasteneth him betimes.
The Reason why Threatnings and Chastisements are necessary to Children and Servants, different from the Case of converting Hereticks.
XXVIII. St. Austin’s Words.
Jesus Christ himself exercis’d Violence on St. Paul, and forc’d him to believe: let these Men then never say more, as the custom is, Every one is at liberty to believe or not to believe.
Princes have not Grace to bestow like Jesus Christ, to give Success to their Chastisements.
Their Authority the least in the World to disabuse Hereticks.
XXIX. St. Austin’s Words.
Why shou’d not the Church have the Privilege of employing Constraint for recovering her lost Children, and bringing ’em home into her bosom; when these wretched Children make use of the same means for bringing others into Perdition?
Examples don’t authorize Sin.
XXX. St. Austin’s Words.
Shou’d we, for example, see two Men in a House that we knew was ready to fall down about their Ears, and that whatever pains we take to warn ’em out, they shou’d obstinately resolve to abide in it; wou’d it not be a degree of Cruelty, not to drag ’em out by main force?
Their Preservation depends not on their Consent, as in the Case of Conversion.
XXXI. St. Austin’s Words.
As to what they say, that we have a design upon their Estates, and wou’d fain have the fingering of ’em; let ’em turn Catholicks, and we assure ’em they shall not only enjoy what they call their own Estates, but also come in for a share of ours. Passion has blinded ’em to such a degree, that they don’t perceive how they contradict themselves. They reproach us with exerting the Authority of the Laws for constraining ’em into our Communion, as if it <xxx> were the most odious Action: And shou’d we take this pains, if we had a design upon their Estates?
Those who put Kings upon confiscating the Goods of Sectarys, are acted by Avarice.
XXXII. St. Austin’s Words.
The Canaanite shall ne’er rise in judgment against the People of Israel, tho these drove them out of their Country, and took away the Fruit of their Labor; but Naboth shall rise up against Ahab, because Ahab took away the Fruit of Naboth’s Labor. And why one, and not the others? Because Naboth was a just Man, and the Canaanites Idolaters.
That Hereticks seizing the Goods of Catholicks commit a Sin, and Catholicks seizing the Goods of Hereticks perform a good Work, is Jesuitical Morality.
The more Orthodox a Man is, the more he is oblig’d to be equitable to all Men.
XXXIII. St. Austin’s Words. Letter 164. 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?
St. Austin’s Explication of this Passage leads to an impious Falshood, in charging all the Martyrs, Confessors <xxxi> and Apostles with Rebellion against God.
In what sense ’tis to be understood.
This Passage, Do good to all, but especially to the Houshold of Faith, is a sufficient Answer to St. Austin and the Bishop of Meaux; since it excludes Hereticks and Schismaticks from the number of Evil-doers.
XXXIV. St. Austin’s Words. Letter 166. to the Donatists.
Must not he be abandon’d to all shame, who won’t submit to what Truth ordains by the Voice of the Sovereign?
This can’t be apply’d but to a Man, who being persuaded ’tis Truth, refuses to submit to it.
XXXV. St. Austin’s Words. Ibid.
If the care we take to rescue you from Error and Perdition be what inflames your Hatred so much against us, you must lay the blame upon God, who has given this terrible Reproof to the slothful Pastors, Ye have not brought back the Stray or looked for what was lost.
In what sense this Passage is to be understood.
According to St. Austin’s sense, those Pastors of the Roman Church who have bin the most violent Persecutors, wou’d yet be culpable before God of Connivance and criminal Laxity.
XXXVI. St. Austin’s Words. Letter 204. to Donatus.
If you think it unlawful to constrain Men to do good, pray consider that a Bishoprick is a good Office, since the Apostle has said as much; yet there are a great many on whom Violence is actually exercis’d to oblige ’em to accept of it. They are seiz’d, they are hurry’d away by main force, they are shut up and confin’d till they are forc’d to desire this good thing.
From what Opinion they acted who refus’d Bishopricks.
Essential Differences between a Man, made Bishop as ’twere by force, and another constrain’d to abjure his Religion.
<xxxii> XXXVII. St. Austin’s Words. Ibid.
We well know, that as nothing can damn Men but an evil Disposition of Will; so nothing but their good Will can save ’em: But how can the Love, which we are oblig’d to bear our Neighbor, permit our abandoning such numbers to their own wicked Will? Is it not cruel to throw, as I may say, the Reins loose on their Necks; and ought we not, to the utmost of our Power, prevent their doing Evil, and force ’em to do Good?
’Tis a Contradiction to force any one to do Good.
XXXVIII. St. Austin’s Words. Ibid.
If we must always leave an evil Will to its natural Liberty, why so many Scourges and piercing Goads to force the Children of Israel, in spite of all their Murmurings and Stiffneckedness, to move forward toward the Land of Promise? &c.
Difference between Actions to which a good Will is requir’d, and those to which it is not; between Actions which we know will displease God, and those by which we think to please him.
Solomon’s advising Fathers to correct their Children, is not for Opinions in Religion.
Difference between the Violence in hindring a Man who wou’d kill himself out of Conscience, and that done to make him abjure his Religion.
XXXIX. St. Austin’s Words. Ibid.
While Jesus Christ was upon Earth, and before the Princes of the World worship’d him, the Church made use only of Exhortation; but ever since those days she has not thought it enough to invite Men to Happiness, she also forces ’em. These two Seasons are prefigur’d in the Parable of the Feast: The Master of the Family was content, for the first time, to order his Servants to bid the Guests to his Dinner; but the next time he commanded ’em to compel ’em <xxxiii> to come in.
Confutation of this contain’d in the two first Parts of this Commentary.
XL. St. Austin’s Words. Letter 167. to Festus.
If any one will compare, what they suffer thro our charitable Severity, with the Excesses to which their Fury transports ’em against us; he’l easily judg which are the Persecutors, they or we. Nay they might justly be denominated such with regard to us, without all this; for be the Severitys which Parents exercise over their Children, to bring ’em to a sense of their Duty, ever so great, yet they can never properly be call’d Persecution: whereas Children, by following evil Courses, become Persecutors of Father and Mother, tho possibly they mayn’t be guilty of any personal Violence against ’em.
We ought not to punish the Innocent with the Guilty.
Parents, in many Instances, wou’d deserve the name of Persecutors, with respect to their Children.
The Fourth Part, or Supplement.
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 against Hereticks.
Chapter III. The new Confutation of the fore-mention’d Answer continu’d, and supported by two con-<xxxiv>siderable 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 this Command relates only to those who are in Error. I here shew, by just Examples, that Heretick Judges wou’d obey God in punishing the Orthodox, if the Principle of Persecutors hold good.
Chapter VI. A Parallel between a Judg who shou’d mistakenly 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.
Whether Judges that do not discover the Truth are possess’d with any criminal Passion.
Whether a Man, who is sensible he has not profound Knowledg and a sharp Wit, is oblig’d to renounce the Judicature.
Confirmation of these Particulars by a Parallel between Judges and Physicians.
<xxxv> 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’s as hard to discover the Truth in Charges of Heresy, as in those for Murder.
The Dispute of Jansenism consider’d as to Fact.
The same as to Right.
Whether discussing the Fathers may be dispens’d with.
Whether ’tis easy to give the Definition of Heresy.
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 Chinese Philosophers for example, wou’d find our Controversys more intricate, and harder to be decided, than Civil or Criminal Causes.
Supposition of a Conference between Ministers and Missionarys before Chinese Philosophers.
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 others.
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 incident to a Judg, who is deceiv’d in Trials for Murder or Adultery. I shew, that were this the Case, each Sect wou’d be oblig’d to believe, that those of other opposite Sects never pray’d for the Assistance of God’s <xxxvi> Spirit to direct ’em in reading his Holy Word.
A Preliminary Observation to be remember’d in due time and place.
Chapter XIV. Examples shewing that Men continue in their Errors against the Interest 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.
What Judgment ought to be made of those who will not enter into Dispute.
Of what Importance ’tis to avoid confounding in our Minds the Moral with the Physical.
Chapter XVIII. A Discussion of three other Difficultys.
First Difficulty. Knowing the Obliquity of the Motive, is not necessary towards denominating an Action evil.
Second Difficulty. If we were not Sinners, we shou’d not mistake Truth for Falshood, and contrariwise.
Third Difficulty. St. Paul in the fifth Chapter to the Galatians, reckons Heresys among the Works of the Flesh, which damn those who commit ’em.
<xxxvii> That the Love of that which seems true, tho it is false, is not a Love of Falshood.
Chapter XIX. 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.
St. Austin’s Apology how weak and wretched.
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.
A new turn to the Examination of the Objection founded on the Clearness of Controversys.
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.
From whence it happens that Falshood proves it self by good Reasons.
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.
First Defect of this Comparison, That the Evil from which they wou’d preserve the Heretick by constraining him, enters with him into the Church; whereas the Wolf does not enter the Fold with the Sheep that’s thrust in by main Force.
<xxxviii> Confutation of those who say, that a Heretick must be damn’d if not constrain’d, therefore ’tis good to constrain him.
Second Defect of the foresaid Comparison, That it proves invincibly, either the Pretensions of the Court of Rome over the Temporal Rights of Princes, or that the Church may depose Princes who persecute her.
Chapter XXVI. A short Sketch, representing the Enormitys attending the Doctrine of Compulsion by some new Views, as the destroying the Rights of Hospitality, Consanguinity, and plighted Faith.
Instance in the last Persecution of France.
Reflection on what was done to the Mareschal Schomberg.
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.
First Answer. This way of compelling wou’d scandalize the Publick.
Second Answer. Sodomy is essentially sinful, whereas Murder is sometimes warrantable.
Third Answer. Kings have not the same power over Pudicity, as over Life.
Fourth Answer. They who executed this Command, wou’d commit a great Sin on account of the Pleasure they might take in it.
Chapter XXIX. The surprizing Progress which the Doctrine of Compulsion has made in the World, 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 Here-<xxxix>ticks. Proofs of this from the Conduct of the Arians.
Conversion of the Arians in Spain.
Another Comparison between Catholick and Arian Princes.
Solution of some Difficultys.
Chapter XXXI. That the first Reformers in the last Age retain’d the Doctrine of Compulsion.
Politick Reason not to tolerate Papists.
