Pierre Bayle’s stance on religious toleration was likely formed out of his experience facing persecution as a Huguenot leading up to and in the aftermath of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. He most clearly lays his framework for religious tolerance out in A Philosophical Commentary on These Words of the Gospel by addressing common pragmatic and scriptural arguments for intolerance of heresy. His argumentation relies on using reason to extrapolate from principles laid out in scripture, which is curious given his denial of reason, but that is what makes reading Bayle and trying to decipher his enigma so interesting.
Justification for religious intolerance, from any Christian sect claiming to be the orthodox, relies on Luke 14:23 in which Jesus says “Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled”. Many have used this to justify forcible conversion for heretics and non-Christians, which seems plausible given that it is an order of the Savior. Bayle, however, disagrees with the literal interpretation of compel as something akin to force, proposing an alternative model built on education. He structures his argument by first attacking the consequences of the literal interpretation and then responds to criticism.
Bayle first contends that only acts of the mind, which can overcome the unimportant temporary physical world, are worthy of God’s consideration. In essence, God judges based on intention (76). A literal interpretation of compel, including threats and direct violence, can force somebody to externally act in a Godly way but not internally act in a Godly way, making literal compulsion pointless (78). He next brings evidence from John 10:27 in which Christ calls out “My sheep hear my voice…and they follow me” (83). Bayle contrasts this against common perception of shepherds leading with a cane or dog, claiming that Jesus intentionally drew the mental comparison to show that his followers ought to be guided by knowledge rather than compulsion (84). He further states that this interpretation, allowing for what would otherwise be sin to be an obligatory pious act, blurs the distinction between virtue and vice. By allowing a vice to be virtuous just because it is in the pursuit of justice, the literal definition of compel runs contrary to Christian thought (89). Moving in a more pragmatic direction, Bayle offers the threat of Christian missionaries being removed from infidel territory. He claims that a leader would be immediately incentivized to remove missionaries from his country after learning the literal doctrine of compulsion. This shuts down all dialogue, removing the missionaries from the country and leaving many would-be converts worshipping false idols (98). Finally, Bayle offers a doomsday argument; if every Christian were to follow this principle, infinite war and suffering between Christians would ensue. Every sect believes that it is the orthodox, so it follows that every sect, following a literal interpretation of compel, would be required to use violence all other sects. This ultimately escalates to intrareligious violence on a massive scale that can only end with the end of Christianity (133).
The second part of Bayle’s argument builds up and defends his core argument and a potential world in which the word ‘compel’ is not interpreted literally. The first argument he considers is that most people are opiniatre, meaning that they hold strongly onto convictions with little though. Thus, they need violent compulsion to force them to seriously consider the Orthodox. Bayle contends that to make an accurate judgement, one must not be clouded by passions like fear that cloud the light of reason. Therefore, even if violence makes more people consider the true sect more than non-violent compulsion, the consideration it generates will be fruitless (140). Bayle reasons that his critics may claim that his view of a literal interpretation of ‘compel’ is overexaggerated. When implemented, it looks like a ruler using tactics like threats, tax benefits, and quartering before implementing harsher punishments like torture and killing (161-162). In perhaps one of his most radical lines of argumentation, Bayle takes on the criticism that accepting the loose definition of ‘compel’ is a condemnation of revered emperors, kings, and religious leaders like Constantine who waged violent campaigns in the name of the true faith. This may seem tame now, as historians and philosophers tend to be critical in their analyses of historical figures, but A Philosophical Commentary came at a time in which these figures were viewed as superhuman. Bayle claims that the judgements of these men are viewed as infallible because their contemporary biographers were often admirers supported by or under the oppression of their subjects. As a result, Bayle reasons, these leaders possessed no greater reasoning ability than any other man. He goes short of claiming that their actions were evil or sacrilegious, but states that their reasoning and actions ought not be the end-all be-all of right and wrong (185-187).
Bayle’s argument for religious toleration in A Philosophical Commentary was truly brave and groundbreaking. In his home of France, the Catholics used persecution to forcibly convert the Huguenots. The Huguenots themselves, according to their leaders, also would have used similar tactics if they held the same position of power. Thus, Bayle entered uncharted territory with his argumentation, developing a case against the literal interpretation of ‘compel’ in Luke 14:23. He also wrestled with potential arguments from those who may oppose his worldview. Although the debate remains open among Christian theologians and philosophers, Bayle’s work serves as the foundation for modern tolerationists.
Glossary
- Heretic: While a heretic is often considered a Christian who goes against the dogma of the Catholic Church, it is used more broadly here to represent anyone who goes against the dogma of a reader’s perceived orthodox.
- Infidel: One who is not Christian.
- Orthodox: The most true or pure form of Christianity.