its being unknown to the Fathers of the three first Centurys.
This Argument might be binding upon those of the Church of Rome, were they Men of fixt Principles: But alas, they are not, they are Proteus’s, who get loose by a thousand slippery tricks, and under all kind of Forms, when one thinks he has ’em fastest. They’l teach us in all other Instances, that where a Dispute arises concerning the Sense of any Scripture-Passage, we must consult Tradition, and hold by the Sense of the Fathers: So that let any Exposition of Scripture be ever so reasonable, yet if it be new, they’l tell us it’s not worth a straw, it comes too late, and there’s Prescription against it. To reason upon this Principle, all Arguments for Persecution drawn from the Gospel, in the days of Theodosius and St. Augustin, ought to be rejected; because ’twas giving the Gospel a Sense intirely new, which came too late, and which there was Prescription against. But our Adversarys are not to be stun’d with such Trifles; they’l say, the Authority of the Fathers is valid, not where themselves happen to differ about any point of Doctrine, but where they unanimously agree: And for this Reason, the great <127> Lights of the fourth Century not falling in with some former Opinions concerning Persecution, the more antient Fathers are not a sufficient Authority for the Doctrine I maintain. When we press ’em by saying, that all the Fathers are not agreed in any one point, they wriggle themselves out by some other Loop-hole, and are not asham’d to maintain the literal Sense; tho by their own Confession, the unanimous Consent of the Fathers, that indispensable mark of Truth, be wanting. However, this shall not hinder my going on with my Argument in the following manner.
It is not probable, had JESUS CHRIST ordain’d the making Christians by force, that the Fathers of the three first Centurys had constantly reason’d, as Men verily persuaded, that all Constraint is inconsistent with the Nature of Religion: for with regard to all points of Gospel-Morality, or as to any Precept, or Counsel (call it so) of JESUS CHRIST, none were fitter to know the Sense of the Scriptures than they; and shou’d God have conceal’d from ’em the meaning of a Precept of this importance, so far as to let ’em run on in false Reasonings, and in a Supposition of its being impious, there’s no Christian but might justly be shock’d and scandaliz’d at their Ignorance. Once more then, I say, it’s manifestly against Reason, against all the Appearances of Truth, that JESUS CHRIST shou’d enjoin compelling the Jews and the Gentiles to Baptism; and yet the Apostles either not comprehend him, or if they did, not caution their chief Disciples to be reserv’d in condemning Violences, lest by condemning ’em in general, they shou’d advance <128> an Heterodoxy, and directly contradict JESUS CHRIST, at least put Arms into the hands of those whom the Christians might one day use violence to, and give ’em a handle for crying out upon the shameful difference between the Christianity of the first, and that of the latter days. This was the least cou’d be expected from the Apostles and their first Disciples, the trustiest Depositarys of Tradition: If it was not seasonable or prudent to execute the Order of JESUS CHRIST in those earlier days, by compelling to come in; at least they shou’d have hinted, that a Day wou’d come, when this might be very piously practis’d, and in the mean time beware branding this Doctrine with the Character of Falshood. Yet this the Fathers have done in the strongest terms, and even in the fourth Century, when the Arians first began to persecute. This alone, says St. Athanasius, is a plain Argument, that they have neither Piety nor the Fear of God before their Eyes. ’Tis the Nature of Piety not to constrain, but to persuade; after the Example of J. CHRIST, WHO CONSTRAINING NONE, left it to every one’s Discretion, whether they wou’d follow him or no. For the Devil’s part, as he has not the force of Truth on his side, he comes about with Sledges and Iron Crows to burst open the Doors of those who are to receive him: but so meek is our Lord and Saviour, that tho he teaches in such a Stile as this, If any one will come after me; He that will be my Disciple; yet he compels none; knocking only at the Door, and saying, My Sister, my Spouse, open unto me; and entring when it’s open’d, and departing if they tarry and are unwilling to receive him: for it is not (mark well these words, ye Gentlemen of the Council of Conscience to Lewis XIV most Chris-<129>tian King of France and Navarre) WITH SWORD AND SPEAR, NOR WITH SOLDIERS AND ARM’D FORCE, THAT TRUTH IS TO BE PROPAGATED, BUT BY COUNSEL AND SWEET PERSUASION.56 Isn’t this the plainest Proof, that the Apostles knew nothing of this pretended Mystery of Persecution, contain’d in the Parable; and that JESUS CHRIST intended, not only that it shou’d be unknown to the first Ages of Christianity, but condemn’d also and stigmatiz’d as a cruel and diabolical Impiety? which wou’d look very absurd, if at the same time he had enjoin’d Persecution. For how can we conceive, that he shou’d suffer a Point of Morality of such Consequence to be traduc’d and anathematiz’d by the holiest and purest part of Christianity for some Ages together; and these Anathema’s intended to refute the Enemys of Truth, by showing, that JESUS CHRIST taught his Disciples to constrain no one? They said so much not only before the Christian Emperors made use of Violence, but for a long time after. Our venerable* Bede speaking of King Ethelred, in whose Reign St. Gregory Pope of Rome mission’d the Monk Augustin, with some others, to convert our Island, mentions expresly, that this King being converted to the Christian Faith, constrain’d none of his Subjects to follow his Example, and only distinguish’d those by his Favors, who <130> became Christians; having learn’d, says he, from his Doctors and Instruments of his Salvation, that the Service of JESUS CHRIST ought to be voluntary, and not constrain’d. This Notion, to wit, that JESUS CHRIST has ordain’d only Instruction, Persuasion, a voluntary Service, and by no means Violence, is so deeply engrav’d in our Minds, that we vend it as indubitable, whenever there is not an actual design of flattering, or not provoking Princes who persecute, or when the justifying Persecutions is not the present Subject of one’s Book. In France there are Treatises daily printed, in which this Notion is plainly exprest, which renders the Popish Writers of that Kingdom extremely ridiculous; because sometimes in the very Books where they say it’s lawful to compel, having in view the Dragoonerys for forcing the Protestants, they drop unawares, that the Gospel is a Law of Meekness and Gentleness, which accepts no Offerings but what are voluntary: the Reason is, that they forget for that moment their principal Theme of palliating and flattering, and so long the Notions of the Heart and Understanding take place. Add to this, that they deny their King has made use of Violence, which is in some measure acknowledging the Falsity of the literal Sense.
I don’t cite those Passages of the Fathers, which condemn in the general all manner of Persecution and Violence on the score of Religion: they are notorious to all the World. Grotius has collected a good many; and even the mercenary French Apologists for Persecution can’t dissemble these Authoritys of the Fathers, as may be seen in a Book written by one Ferrand, a Barister at Law among ’em. <131>
The Argument in the foregoing Chapter does not seem to me near so convincing as some of the rest, tho consider’d ad hominem,57 it might well silence those who talk only of Tradition, and the Rule of Prescription. However it has a close Connection with what I’m next to offer, and therefore I shall not be so long upon the principal Matter of this Argument as upon the Accessorys. Here goes then:
That literal Sense which renders the Complaints of the first Christians against their Pagan Persecutors vain, is false.
Now such is the literal Sense of the words, Compel ’em to come in.
It’s therefore false.
The Minor I prove in this manner. I’l suppose
