Freedom by Coercion: Augustine’s Limitation of Coercion by the State †
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. A Brief History of Donatism in Africa
3. Religious Coercion in the Roman Empire
Christian emperors seem to have maintained the title of pontifex maximus and its associated—though increasingly limited—patronage of the Roman cults until Gratian resigned the title in the 370s.17 No longer holding the title associated with the traditional Roman cults, Theodosius was able to make Christianity the official religion of Rome and accordingly saw it as his responsibility to codify as law the canons of the Council of Constantinople (381). For pagan and Christian emperors alike, religious unity was a necessary part of maintaining the unity of the empire.Emperors had always been expected to have a firm religious policy in order to be sure of the support of the gods. From 250 onwards, and especially during the Great Persecution initiated by Diocletian, the authorities had shown no hesitation in fostering the traditional religiones of the empire by ‘taking out’ the Christian Church—by forbidding its meetings and destroying its property and sacred books. Constantine and his Christian successors did the same in reverse.
4. Augustine on Freedom and Coercion
As evidence of this mindset, Augustine points out that he refused to receive a woman back into unity despite the petitions of her Catholic father, “unless she were willing and desired by free choice what is better”.32 Thus, state intervention could be employed to suppress the violence of the Donatists, but no force could be used to make one accept the faith.God knows that this attitude of my mind is directed toward peace and that I am not trying to force anyone involuntarily into the Catholic communion, but to reveal the plain truth to all who are in error. Then, once our ministry has made it evident with God’s help, the very truth may be enough to persuade them to embrace and follow her.31
Indeed, no one ought to be forced against his will to faith, but unfaithfulness is usually—through God’s severity, or rather through his mercy—chastened by the scourges of tribulation. Because the best morals are chosen by freedom of will, is it therefore the case that the worst morals are not punished by the fullness of the law? But discipline, the avenger of an evil life, is entirely inappropriate except when previous training in a good life is scorned. If, then, there are laws that have been enacted against you, you are not being forced by them to do what is good, but you are being prevented by them from acting badly. For no one can do what is good unless he chooses and unless in his free will he loves [what is good]. On the other hand, fear of punishment, although not possessing the pleasure of a good conscience, at least sequesters evil desire within the confines of thought. Yet those who enacted the laws against you by which your recklessness is held in check—are they not the ones of whom the Apostle says that they do not bear the sword without cause, for they are God’s ministers, punishers in anger towards him who acts wickedly?34
Augustine explains that legal restraint does not eliminate liberum arbitrium, but suffering provokes the subject to consider why she suffers and, if she finds that she suffers for the sake of righteousness, she may better endure it or, if she finds that she suffers on account of her wickedness, she may use her liberum arbitrium to choose what is better.38 In a letter to the tribune Dulcitius in 418, Augustine puts it more practically:If I were to ask you how God the Father draws to his Son men whom he has left with free choice [libero arbitrio], you would perhaps answer with great difficulty. For how does he draw a person if he leaves him in such a way that he may choose what he wishes? And yet both things are true, but few are able to fathom this intellectually.37
Sacrilege—which includes heresy and schism—is certainly a worse crime than adultery; so, it must also be punishable by law.We have also taught that human beings were given free choice [liberum arbitrium] in such a way that it is still entirely correct that penalties are established by divine and human laws for serious sins, that it is the task of the religious rulers of the earth to restrain by due severity not only adulteries, murders, and other such crimes or outrages but also sacrileges.39
In the case of the manic, external restraint is not an infringement on the liberum arbitrium of the patient, but a necessary act of love meant to preserve the patient and protect those around him, though he may not recognise it in the moment. The same can be said for a rebellious child whose father disciplines her, lest she grow up to care only for herself and the gratification of her passions.44 In the same way does the state wield the sword on behalf of God the Father as a disciplinary force toward His unruly children, while also serving to protect the innocent from being harmed at their hands.What, then, does the medicine of the Church do here, as she seeks the salvation of all out of her motherly love, caught up as it were among those who are manic and those who are lethargic? Ought she or can she scorn them or leave them? She is necessarily bothersome to both, because she is an enemy to neither. For the manic cases do not want to be restrained, and the lethargic do not want to be stirred up. But loving concern continues to chastise the manic and stimulate the lethargic, but to love them both. Both are offended, but both are loved; both are bothered. As long as they are ill, they are angry, but once healed, both are grateful.43
Augustine’s motivation is ultimately for the salvation of souls, both those of Catholics and those of the Donatists, an end that justifies the right use of force. Thus, force must be applied for correction and not out of vengeance; it must be employed with moderation and in love. Augustine therefore makes clear further along in the same letter that any who use force against the Donatists out of opportunism, hatred, or greed do not have his approval.46Not everyone who is merciful is a friend, nor is everyone who scourges an enemy. Better are the wounds from a friend than the spontaneous kisses of an enemy (Prv 27:6). It is better to love with severity than to deceive with leniency. It is more beneficial to take bread away from a hungry man if, when sure of food, he would neglect his salvation, than to break bread with a hungry man in order that he might be led astray and consent to injustice. And someone who ties down a crazy person and who rouses a lazy person loves them both, though he is a bother to both.45
This was true even in the case of a party guilty of murdering one cleric and mutilating another, wherein Augustine applied all his authority to ensure that those guilty were not executed but allowed time for repentance.48 This was particularly the case since the crime was an ecclesial offence and not merely a civil offence. Augustine points out to the proconsul Apringius that “a matter of interest for a province is not the same thing as a matter of interest for the Church. The governance of the former should be carried out with severity; the forbearance of the latter should be shown with mercy”.49 Instead, correction requires that they be instructed in the truth, “for to force human beings without teaching them, even though one does this in order that they may give up a great evil and embrace a great good, is a task more burdensome than beneficial”.50 By harkening back to his early emphasis on leniency and proclaiming the truth, Augustine makes clear that the purpose of using state force is “that the error itself may be destroyed, not the human beings in whom it is found, that human beings not be punished, but corrected”.51 Thus, even after admitting his “conversion to coercion”, Augustine continued to require the freedom of Donatists to choose truth and return to unity.we desire that, by making use of judges and laws that cause fear, they be corrected, not killed, so that they do not fall into the punishments of eternal condemnation. We do not want discipline to be neglected in their regard or the punishment they deserve to be applied. Repress their sins, therefore, in such a way that those who repent having sinned may still exist.47
by the mercy of Christ these laws, which seem to be against them, are rather in their favor since many Donatists have been corrected by them and are being corrected each day, and they give thanks that they have been corrected and set free from that mad destruction. And those who hated the laws now love them, and the more they hated the laws in their insanity, the more they are thankful, once they have recovered their health, that the laws so very conducive to their salvation were harsh toward them. And they are aroused by a similar love along with us for the others with whom they had been perishing. Hence, they strive equally with us in order that the others may not perish.53
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
1 | An example of this is found in Gratian, Decretum II, 23, 5 (Friedberg 1:928–947), on the question of whether all killing is wrong. Of the 49 passages compiled in question 5, 22 are drawn from Augustine. Gratian’s conclusion is that not all killing is wrong, but it is permissible if it is carried out by the lawful authority, such as in war or by the order of a judge. The same is applied to the lawful execution of heretics by the state if they have been excommunicated by the Church. This position is upheld by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae II-II.39.4, which cites Decretum II, 23, 5. It can also be noted that Catholics and Protestants alike from the sixteenth century into the twentieth appealed to the Donatist schism in order to condemn their opponents’ positions. |
2 | Dignitatis Humanae 10, in Tanner (1990, p. 1007). The document specifically cites Augustine’s C. litt. Pet. II.83, and Epp. 23, 34, and 35. Perhaps the greatest irony here is that Gratian and Dignitatis Humanae both cite C. litt. Pet. II.83 in support of their contrasting positions; this is developed further below. |
3 | While opinions abound as to how one should refer to the respective African parties, we adopt here the traditional title of “Donatists” for those Christians who broke from communion with the universal Church in protest against Caecilian’s episcopal ordination, simply in order to maintain ease of recognition. “Catholics” is used here to denote those who remained in communion with the universal or “catholic” Church—the ecclesia catholica. For the classic study of the causes, the intrigue, and the drama surrounding the Donatist schism, see Frend (1971). A more recent and alternate view is Shaw (2011). The dating of the schism to c. 311 is the more generally accepted view; however, Shaw (2011, p. 74) dates it to 307. |
4 | The military seems to have been to some extent under the leadership of Caecilian himself, serving as his bodyguard. Frend suggests that it was the blood shed under Caecilian’s leadership and the cooperation of Catholics with pagans that confirmed the schism and the Donatist notion that the Catholics were effectively apostates. Frend (1971, pp. 159–60). |
5 | Congar (1963, p. 17). Congar notes that the persecution probably did not extend further than the city of Carthage. For a more detailed account of the legal actions taken by the emperors against the Donatists, see Lenski (2016), esp. pp. 171–86. |
6 | This seems to have been followed by an edict of unity issued by Constans. See Lenski (2016, p. 176). |
7 | Frend (1971, pp. 171–75) suggests that the Circumcellions were originally Numidian peasants violently revolting against landlords and creditors, beginning around 340, sometimes with and sometimes without official Donatist support. They were devoted to martyrdom—even to the extent of suicide—living a sort of asceticism in the shrines of the martyrs, and they made regular raids against Catholics and pagans alike. Optatus (Contra Donatistas III.4,3) testifies that prior to the coming of Paul and Macarius, the Circumcellions were attacking creditors under the leadership of Axido and Fasir, the “sanctorum duces”, the leaders of the saints. Shaw (2011, pp. 169 and 630–74) rejects Frend’s position, arguing instead that they were hired gangs of harvesters who would regularly be found in the marketplaces seeking work. He also argues that one cannot be sure Axido and Fasir were even Christian, though their leadership was certainly based on some religious authority. |
8 | Congar (1963, pp. 18–19). For some of these tales of martyrdom, see Tilley (1996). The ideal of martyrdom remained among the Donatists “at white heat” at least into Augustine’s day, according to which they referred to themselves as the “Church of the Martyrs” (Evans 1972, p. 67). Nevertheless, the Circumcellions continued making raids against the Catholics and resisting imperial edicts even into Augustine’s tenure as bishop. |
9 | Optatus (Contra Donatistas II.17–19) points out the violence which accompanied the return of the Donatist bishops in Julian’s reign, though Shaw (2011, pp. 152–59) argues it was simply the legal use of force in reclaiming the basilicas that had been taken from them under Constans. |
10 | Frend (1971, pp. 198–99). It is disputed whether Firmus favoured the Donatists, but he seems to have suppressed the Rogatists at their behest. |
11 | Frend (1971, pp. 224–25). The dominant narrative is that Firmus and Gildo were both rebels allied with the Donatists and leading an African independence movement. Shaw (2011, pp. 38–60) suggests that they were both Catholics with no need for Circumcellion support since they both were in charge of several legions, Firmus as rex maurorum and Gildo as the comes africae who was loyal to Rome during the conflict with Firmus. It is likely that they were both framed by their superiors as they grew too powerful. Peter Brown (1972, p. 250) is likewise sceptical of the “nationalism” narrative, noting that “to look for ‘nationalism’ of any sort in the Later Roman Empire would seem an anachronism. It involves a judgement on the thought-world of the Late Roman Christians which, however necessary and desirable it is to recover this world, is far from certain”. |
12 | In 403, the Catholic Council of Carthage called the Donatists to a conference to settle things once and for all, though the Donatists refused to join. Increased violence led to the Council of Carthage in 404 calling for “a policy of open persecution” (Frend 1971, p. 262). Augustine (1990–) testifies that the bishops had agreed to petition the emperor for a penalty of ten pounds of gold for those Donatist bishops “in whose territories the Catholic Church suffered some acts of violence from [their] people”. Ep. 88.7 (WSA II/1:355). Yet, before the bishops arrived in Ravenna, Honorius had already witnessed the atrocity of Circumcellion violence and decided to issue the Edict of Unity with its accompanying penalties of fines, seizure of property, exile, and flogging. “The death penalty was not to be enforced” (Frend 1971, p. 263). For a fuller narrative of the events from Augustine, see Ep. 185.7,25–27. Noel Lenski (2016, p. 182) suggests that Aurelius of Carthage arranged for Maximian of Bagai to arrive in Ravenna before the Council’s envoys. Though he identifies Augustine as a dominant force in moving the bishops toward the use of state force, such a view stands contrary to Augustine’s own testimony in Epp. 93 and 185. |
13 | Most notable for Africa were the Severan Persecution (202–211), the Decian Persecution (249–50), and the Valerian Persecution (257–60). |
14 | Following the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70, Jews were required to pay to Rome the tax of two drachmas that had previously gone to the Temple. See Josephus (1997, VII.218). The Bacchist cult was suppressed by the Roman senate in 186 BC, perhaps because it represented “a movement in some sense in opposition to the traditions of state religious life, generated by the personal commitment of individuals”. Beard et al. (1998, p. 95). The same description could be applied to the new Christian religion in the first three centuries. The traditional druidic religion of the Gauls was also suppressed in the first century AD when it was reclassified as magic, which was forbidden in the empire. Beard et al. (1998, p. 234). |
15 | Peter Brown (1972, p. 324) notes that execution was the penalty prescribed for those who practised magic and was eventually extended to cover sacrilege. |
16 | Drake (2007, p. 405). For this reason, later popes denied that Christian emperors had ever claimed the title. See Cameron (2007, p. 362). |
17 | Beard et al. (1998, p. 374). Instead, the title was replaced by “pontifex inclitus”, which continued to be used by Theodosius and later emperors into the sixth century. See Cameron (2007, pp. 363–64). |
18 | Eusebius, “In Praise of Constantine” (2.3–2.4), in Drake (1976, p. 86). |
19 | |
20 | See for example Gaddis (2005, p. 133). Augustine’s apparent change of mind creates a serious tension for Markus, who sees him fundamentally as a proto-liberal. See Markus (1970, p. 134). |
21 | |
22 | |
23 | Augustine admits that kings have a unique part to play in the service of God and the Church precisely as kings. “For no private individual could command that idols should be removed from the earth, which was predicted was going to happen long before. That is why there are kings, then, who are set apart from human society; they are kings for the very reason that they may serve the Lord in a way that those who are not kings cannot”. C. litt. Pet. II.92,210 (WSA I/21:177). See also C. Cresc. III.51,56 and Civ. Dei V.24, which were both written after Augustine’s supposed repudiation of the Theodosian tempora christiana. |
24 | Brown (1972, p. 266). He thus concludes, “We have seen how much of the attitude to coercion which Augustine finally took up after 405 can be traced back for a decade, at least; and so we can conclude that this harsh policy was grafted on to a living and mature organism, so that its application was subjected to a whole series of inner checks and balances which more hurried or less experienced men might not have been able to take into account” (Brown 1972, p. 276). |
25 | This is the commonly accepted date; however, Éric Rebillard (2016, pp. 304–5) argues based on internal evidence that it was not written until 403/4. |
26 | Augustine, Ep. 23.7 (WSA II/1:67). |
27 | Augustine, Ep. 23.7 (WSA II/1:67). He makes the point in Letter 22 to Aurelius of Carthage (391–93) that error should be corrected “in a spirit of gentleness and kindness”, though “severity should be applied to the sins of the few”. Ep. 22.5 (WSA II/1:60). |
28 | Augustine points out that the young man went to Donatism from the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church forbade him from harming his mother. Thus, the son abandoned his spiritual mother by being rebaptised by the Donatists. “A mother according to the flesh is struck in the members by which she bore and nourished her ungrateful child; our spiritual mother, the Church, forbids this, and she is struck in the sacraments by which she bore and nourished her ungrateful child”. Ep. 34.3 (WSA II/1:118–19). |
29 | Augustine, Ep. 35.2 (WSA II/1:122). Augustine would later acknowledge that this worked both ways, with Donatist clerics kicked out for malpractice being taken in by Catholics as clerics. See C. Litt. Pet. III.32,37. Shaw (2011, pp. 94–95) shows this to be a regular practice on both sides based on the proceedings of the conference with the Donatists in 411. |
30 | Augustine, Ep. 35.4 (WSA II/1:123). Throughout his writings, Augustine provides numerous examples of the violence and unruliness of the Donatists and especially their clergy, even to the extent of murdering and mutilating Catholics. |
31 | Augustine, Ep. 34.1 (WSA II/1:118). |
32 | Augustine, Ep. 35.4 (WSA II/1:123). |
33 | See notes 1 and 2 above. |
34 | Augustine, C. litt. Pet. II.83,184 (WSA I/21:155). |
35 | Augustine, Ep. 93.2,6 (WSA II/1:380); see also Ep. 204.4. |
36 | Augustine, C. litt. Pet. II.84,185 (WSA I/21:158). |
37 | Augustine, C. litt. Pet. II.84,186 (WSA I/21:158). |
38 | While not explicit in his response to Petilian, Augustine sees these very laws of force and restraint as temporal means by which God draws us to the Son. |
39 | Augustine, Ep. 204.4 (WSA II/3:374). |
40 | Augustine, Serm. 112.8 (WSA III/4:152). |
41 | Augustine, Io. Ev. Tr. 5.12 (WSA III/12:111). |
42 | In response to some objections by a Donatist priest, Augustine explains, “If, then, we said anything harsh, let him realize it is not intended to provoke bitterness in disagreement, but correction in love”. Ep. 53.7 (WSA II/1:208). |
43 | Augustine, Ep. 89.6 (WSA II/1:362); see also Ep. 93.2,6 (WSA II/1:380). |
44 | See also Augustine, Ep. 185.2,7 (WSA II/3:183). |
45 | Augustine, Ep. 93.4 (WSA II/1:379). |
46 | Augustine, Ep. 93.50 (WSA II/1:406). See also Epp. 47.5 and 86. |
47 | Augustine, Ep. 100.1 (WSA II/2:15). See also Ep. 134.4. |
48 | Augustine, Ep. 133. |
49 | Augustine, Ep. 134.3 (WSA II/2:206). |
50 | Augustine, Ep. 100.2 (WSA II/2:16). |
51 | Augustine, Ep. 88.10 (WSA II/1:357); recall Ep. 22.5. |
52 | Augustine, Ep. 93.5,17 (WSA II/1:387). Markus (1970, p. 138) suggests the city Augustine describes is Hippo. Cf. Crespin (1965, p. 140), who maintains that the city was Thagaste, though it was converted in an earlier period of persecution, perhaps under Constantine or Paul and Macarius, for which reason Augustine takes no notice of the Donatists before being ordained in Hippo. The standard interpretation of Ep. 93 is that Thagaste was converted en masse, probably in the time of Macarius. See Rebillard (2016, pp. 298–99). |
53 | Augustine, Ep. 185.2,7 (WSA II/3:183). |
54 | Augustine, Ep. 185.7,30 (WSA II/3:196). |
55 | Augustine, Ep. 93.5,17 (WSA II/1:387–88). See also Ep. 185.7,29. |
References
- Augustine. 1990–. The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press. [Google Scholar]
- Beard, Mary, John North, and Simon Price. 1998. Religions of Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, Peter. 1972. Religion and Society in the Age of Saint Augustine. London: Faber and Faber. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, Peter. 2000. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography, rev. ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, Peter. 2013. The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity, A. D. 200–1000, rev. ed. Chichister: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Cameron, Alan. 2007. The Imperial Pontifex. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 103: 341–84. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30032227 (accessed on 25 July 2024).
- Congar, Yves M.-J. 1963. Introduction générale. In Bibliothèque Augustinienne. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, vol. 28, pp. 7–133. [Google Scholar]
- Crespin, Rémi. 1965. Ministère et Sainteté: Pastorale du clergé et solution de la crise donatiste dans la vie et la doctrine de saint Augustin. Paris: Études Augustiniennes. [Google Scholar]
- Drake, Harold Allen. 1976. In Praise of Constantine: A Historical Study and New Translation of Eusebius’ Trecennial Orations. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Drake, Harold Allen. 2007. The Church, Society and Political Power. In The Cambridge History of Christianity. Edited by Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, pp. 403–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, Robert F. 1972. One and Holy: The Church in Latin Patristic Thought. London: SPCK. [Google Scholar]
- Frend, William Hugh Clifford. 1971. The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. [Google Scholar]
- Gaddis, Michael. 2005. There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hannan, Sean. 2021. The Enforcement of Violence and the Force of Love in Augustine: Epistle 93 and Its Aftermath. Studia Patristica 118: 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Josephus. 1997. The Jewish War. Edited by Jeffrey Henderson. Translated by Henry St. John Thackeray. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, vol. 210. [Google Scholar]
- Lenski, Noel. 2016. Imperial Legislation and the Donatist Controversy: From Constantine to Honorius. In The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Contexts. Edited by Richard Miles. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, pp. 166–219. [Google Scholar]
- Markus, Robert A. 1970. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Markus, Robert A. 1983. Saint Augustine’s Views on the ‘Just War’. Studies in Church History 20: 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rebillard, Éric. 2016. Augustine in Controversy with the Donatists before 411. In The Donatist Schism: Controversy and Contexts. Edited by Richard Miles. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, pp. 297–316. [Google Scholar]
- Schaff, Philip. 1884. History of the Christian Church, rev. ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, vol. 3. [Google Scholar]
- Shaw, Brent D. 2011. Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Tanner, Norman. 1990. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. London: Sheed & Ward, vol. 2. [Google Scholar]
- Tilley, Maureen A. 1996. Donatist Martyr Stories: The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Van Dam, Raymond. 2007. Bishops and Society. In The Cambridge History of Christianity. Edited by Augustine Casiday and Frederick W. Norris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 2, pp. 343–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldstein, Edmund. 2021. Spiritual Ends and Temporal Power: An Integralist Reading of City of God. In Augustine in a Time of Crisis: Politics and Religion Contested. Edited by Boleslaw Z. Kabala, Ashleen Menchaca-Bagnulo and Nathan Pinkoski. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 149–66. [Google Scholar]
- Willis, Geoffrey Grimshaw. 1950. Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy. London: S.P.C.K. [Google Scholar]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Debusschere, A.P. Freedom by Coercion: Augustine’s Limitation of Coercion by the State. Religions 2024, 15, 1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091049
Debusschere AP. Freedom by Coercion: Augustine’s Limitation of Coercion by the State. Religions. 2024; 15(9):1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091049
Chicago/Turabian StyleDebusschere, Aaron P. 2024. "Freedom by Coercion: Augustine’s Limitation of Coercion by the State" Religions 15, no. 9: 1049. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091049