A Philosophical Commentary on These Words of the Gospel, Luke 14:23, “Compel Them to Come In, That My House May Be Full”. Pierre Bayle

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.