and after that commands ’em to depart. He likens himself to a Shepherd who goes before his Sheep; And they follow him, for they know his Voice. These words are very emphatical: He does not say that he drives the Flock before him with Rod or Whip, as forcing ’em into grounds against their will; no, he goes before ’em, and they follow him, because they know his Voice: which signifies his leaving ’em at full liberty to follow, if they know him, or go astray, if they know him not; and his accepting no other than a voluntary Obedience, preceded by and founded upon Knowledg.
He opposes his own Mission to that of Thieves and Robbers, who break into the Fold, to carry off the Sheep by force which don’t belong to ’em, and which know not their Voice. When he sees himself forsaken by the Multitude, he does not arm those Legions of Angels, which were always as it were in his pay, nor send ’em in pursuit of the Deserters, to bring ’em back <71> by force: far from it, he asks his very Apostles, who had not yet forsaken him, whether they had not a mind to do like the rest; And will ye also go away? to let ’em, as ’twere, understand that he was not for keeping any of ’em in his service against their inclination. When he ascends into Heaven, he commands his Apostles to go and convert all Nations; but then ’tis only by Teaching and by Baptizing: his Apostles follow’d the example of his Meekness, and they exhort us to be Followers of them and of their Master. One must transcribe almost the whole New Testament, to collect all the Proofs it affords us of that Gentleness and Long-suffering, which constitute the distinguishing and essential Character of the Gospel.
Let’s now sum up the Argument thus: The literal Sense of this Gospel-Text, Compel ’em to come in, is not only contrary to the Lights of natural Religion, which are the primary and original Rule of Equity, but also to the reigning and essential Spirit of the Gospel it self, and of its Author; for nothing can be more opposite to this Spirit, than Dungeons, Dragoons, Banishment, Pillage, Gallys, Inflictions, and Torture. Therefore this literal Sense is false.
I don’t think it possible to imagine any thing more impious, or more injurious to JESUS CHRIST, or more fatal in its Consequences, than his having given Christians a general Precept to make Conversions by Constraint. For besides that a Maxim so opposite to good Sense, to Reason, to the common Principles of Morality, might induce one to believe, that he who vents it speaks not on the part of the same God, <72> who has given another antecedent Revelation, quite different from this, by the Oracles of natural Light; on the part of God, I say, who is incapable of contradicting himself so grosly: Besides all this, what Notion must we form of the Gospel, if we find in it on one hand so many Precepts of Gentleness and Clemency, and on the other a general Order authorizing all the ways of Violence, all the Craft and Cruelty which Hell can inspire? Who cou’d forbear thinking it a very odd medly of contradictory Conceits, and that the Author had not got his Lesson by heart, or did not know his own mind? Or rather, who wou’d not suspect that he knew his Lesson but too well, and that the grand Enemy of Mankind seducing him, had borrow’d his Organs to introduce into the World the fearfullest Deluge of Misery and Desolation; and the better to succeed, had made him play his game under a counterfeit beguiling Moderation, on a sudden to let fly the terrible Sentence of compelling all Nations to profess Christianity? Into such Abysses do the infamous Patrons of the literal Sense plunge themselves; who better deserve the Title of Directors-General of the Slaughter-House and Shambles, than that of Interpreters of Scripture. A certain Father of the Oratory, by name Amelote, writing about the Differences of the Jansenists, has this Saying,* That were there in the Question of Fact concerning Jansenius, such an Evidence as there is by Sense, or by the first Principles of Reason, they whose Eyes were so far <73> enlighten’d might reasonably take umbrage at the Diligence and Faithfulness of the Pope and Bishops, and justly demand an express Revelation from those who wou’d oblige ’em to sacrifice their Opinion, and submit against Knowledg. And that Evidence which is founded on Sense, or on the first Principles, he calls an impregnable Post. From this Principle of his, I make bold to conclude, that the least a Man shou’d do to convince us of the literal Sense of the words, Compel ’em to come in, so opposite to the Lights of Reason and of the Gospel, wou’d be to prove, by a new and most evident Revelation, that he interprets this Passage aright. And yet I’m of opinion, that except in some special cases, in which God may dispense with his own Laws, we ought not to give heed to a Revelation of this kind, tho ever so evident and express. My meaning is, that shou’d a Prophet, working Miracles in confirmation of the literal Sense of the Text, draw it into a general Precept, no way limited by any particular Circumstance, as in the Case of Phineas; this very thing wou’d be ground enough to take him, with all his Miracles, for an Impostor. <74>
But it’s amusing the Court, to dwell so long upon Proofs, which are only passably good, when compar’d with what we have to offer: Let’s strike home then, and henceforward cut at the very root of the literal Sense of the Parable.
That literal Sense of Scripture is necessarily false, which overturns all Morality, whether Human or Divine; which confounds Vertue and Vice, and thereby opens a door to all kind of Confusion.
Now this is what the literal Sense of the words, Compel ’em to come in, must do.
It’s therefore necessarily false.
The Major is so evident, that ’twere ridiculous to go about to prove it: let’s proceed then to the proof of the Minor, which at first sight looks like a Paradox.
I’m so fair as to allow the Convertists of France, that by supposing JESUS CHRIST to have enjoin’d the converting Men by force, they only obey’d the Will of God, in compelling the Reform’d, by quartering of Soldiers, by Prisons, and by other ways of Violence, to turn Catholicks; and consequently, that these Violences <75> were by no means criminal in them, but that they were very righteous doings. Yet I desire to ask ’em one Question, Whether the only Reason which renders these Actions good, is not their being perform’d for the Interest of the Church, and from a design of enlarging the Kingdom of JESUS CHRIST? I don’t think they’l deny me this: for shou’d they pretend, that a King so absolute as that of France may quarter Soldiers on whom he pleases, allow ’em such and such Libertys, take ’em off where the Party merits this distinction by signing a Formulary; and therefore that the reason why these Violences are not criminal, is their being lawful for a King in his own Dominions: Shou’d they, I say, pretend to give me this Answer, I think it were no hard matter to weather it.
For I shou’d ask ’em again, Whether, on a supposition that what the King of France now does, he did without any other reason, or from any other Motive or View, than just to divert himself by a capricious Exercise of his Power, it had not bin very unjust; and whether God might not most justly have punish’d him for it? I can’t conceive there’s a Man alive, either Flatterer or stupid enough to tell me, No: It follows then, that a King who vexes a Party of his Subjects at this rate, by giving their Goods to the Spoil, by forcing Children from their Parents, and Wives from their Husbands, by imprisoning some, and cloistering others; by demolishing their Houses, cutting down their Inclosures, and permitting the very Soldiers to abuse and buffet their Hosts; ought to have some other reason for his so doing, besides that of his <76> sovereign Will and good Pleasure: else all the World will condemn it, as an unjust and tyrannical Abuse of the Regal Power.
They’l tell me perhaps, that these Vexations are founded on one Party’s refusing to conform to the King’s Edicts: Now a King can justly punish
