{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_17607/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_17607","id":"gutenberg_17607","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17607","summary":null,"tags":["Atheism","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Gary Klein\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSUPERSTITION IN ALL AGES\n\nBy Jean Meslier\n\n1732\n\n\nA ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, WHO, AFTER A PASTORAL SERVICE OF THIRTY YEARS\nAT ETREPIGNY IN CHAMPAGNE, FRANCE, WHOLLY ABJURED RELIGIOUS DOGMAS, AND\nLEFT AS HIS LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT TO HIS PARISHIONERS, AND TO THE\nWORLD, TO BE PUBLISHED AFTER HIS DEATH, THE FOLLOWING PAGES, ENTITLED:\nCOMMON SENSE.\n\n\nTranslated from the French original by Miss Anna Knoop\n\n\n1878\n\n\n\n\nLIFE OF JEAN MESLIER BY VOLTAIRE.\n\nJean Meslier, born 1678, in the village of Mazerny, dependency of the\nduchy of Rethel, was the son of a serge weaver; brought up in the\ncountry, he nevertheless pursued his studies and succeeded to the\npriesthood. At the seminary, where he lived with much regularity, he\ndevoted himself to the system of Descartes.\n\nBecoming curate of Etrepigny in Champagne and vicar of a little annexed\nparish named Bue, he was remarkable for the austerity of his habits.\nDevoted in all his duties, every year he gave what remained of his salary\nto the poor of his parishes; enthusiastic, and of rigid virtue, he was\nvery temperate, as much in regard to his appetite as in relation to\nwomen.\n\nMM. Voiri and Delavaux, the one curate of Varq, the other curate of\nBoulzicourt, were his confessors, and the only ones with whom he\nassociated.\n\nThe curate Meslier was a rigid partisan of justice, and sometimes\ncarried his zeal a little too far. The lord of his village, M. de\nTouilly, having ill-treated some peasants, he refused to pray for him in\nhis service. M. de Mailly, Archbishop of Rheims, before whom the case\nwas brought, condemned him. But the Sunday which followed this decision,\nthe abbot Meslier stood in his pulpit and complained of the sentence of\nthe cardinal. \"This is,\" said he, \"the general fate of the poor country\npriest; the archbishops, who are great lords, scorn them and do not\nlisten to them. Therefore, let us pray for the lord of this place. We\nwill pray for Antoine de Touilly, that he may be converted and granted\nthe grace that he may not wrong the poor and despoil the orphans.\" His\nlordship, who was present at this mortifying supplication, brought new\ncomplaints before the same archbishop, who ordered the curate Meslier to\ncome to Donchery, where he ill-treated him with abusive language.\n\nThere have been scarcely any other events in his life, nor other\nbenefice, than that of Etrepigny. He died in the odor of sanctity in the\nyear 1733, fifty-five years old. It is believed that, disgusted with\nlife, he expressly refused necessary food, because during his sickness\nhe was not willing to take anything, not even a glass of wine.\n\nAt his death he gave all he possessed, which was inconsiderable, to his\nparishioners, and desired to be buried in his garden.\n\nThey were greatly surprised to find in his house three manuscripts, each\ncontaining three hundred and sixty-six pages, all written by his hand,\nsigned and entitled by him, \"My Testament.\" This work, which the author\naddressed to his parishioners and to M. Leroux, advocate and procurator\nfor the parliament of Meziers, is a simple refutation of all the\nreligious dogmas, without excepting one. The grand vicar of Rheims\nretained one of the three copies; another was sent to Monsieur\nChauvelin, guardian of the State's seal; the third remained at the\nclerk's office of the justiciary of St. Minehould. The Count de Caylus\nhad one of those three copies in his possession for some time, and soon\nafterward more than one hundred were at Paris, sold at ten Louis-d'or\napiece. A dying priest accusing himself of having professed and taught\nthe Christian religion, made a deeper impression upon the mind than the\n\"Thoughts of Pascal.\"\n\nThe curate Meslier had written upon a gray paper which enveloped the\ncopy destined for his parishioners these remarkable words: \"I have seen\nand recognized the errors, the abuses, the follies, and the wickedness\nof men. I have hated and despised them. I did not dare say it during my\nlife, but I will say it at least in dying, and after my death; and it is\nthat it may be known, that I write this present memorial in order that\nit may serve as a witness of truth to all those who may see and read it\nif they choose.\"\n\nAt the beginning of this work is found this document (a kind of\nhonorable amend, which in his letter to the Count of d'Argental of May\n31, 1762, Voltaire qualifies as a preface), addressed to his\nparishioners.\n\n\"You know,\" said he, \"my brethren, my disinterestedness; I do not\nsacrifice my belief to any vile interest. If I embraced a profession so\ndirectly opposed to my sentiments, it was not through cupidity. I obeyed\nmy parents. I would have preferred to enlighten you sooner if I could\nhave done it safely. You are witnesses to what I assert. I have not\ndisgraced my ministry by exacting the requitals, which are a part of it.\n\n\"I call heaven to witness that I also thoroughly despised those who\nlaughed at the simplicity of the blind people, those who furnished\npiously considerable sums of money to buy prayers. How horrible this\nmonopoly! I do not blame the disdain which those who grow rich by your\nsweat and your pains, show for their mysteries and their superstitions;\nbut I detest their insatiable cupidity and the signal pleasure such\nfellows take in railing at the ignorance of those whom they carefully\nkeep in this state of blindness. Let them content themselves with\nlaughing at their own ease, but at least let them not multiply their\nerrors by abusing the blind piety of those who, by their simplicity,\nprocured them such an easy life. You render unto me, my brethren, the\njustice that is due me. The sympathy which I manifested for your\ntroubles saves me from the least suspicion. How often have I performed\ngratuitously the functions of my ministry. How often also has my heart\nbeen grieved at not being able to assist you as often and as abundantly\nas I could have wished! Have I not always proved to you that I took more\npleasure in giving than in receiving? I carefully avoided exhorting you\nto bigotry, and I spoke to you as rarely as possible of our unfortunate\ndogmas. It was necessary that I should acquit myself as a priest of my\nministry, but how often have I not suffered within myself when I was\nforced to preach to you those pious lies which I despised in my heart.\nWhat a disdain I had for my ministry, and particularly for that\nsuperstitious Mass, and those ridiculous administrations of sacraments,\nespecially if I was compelled to perform them with the solemnity which\nawakened all your piety and all your good faith. What remorse I had for\nexciting your credulity! A thousand times upon the point of bursting\nforth publicly, I was going to open your eyes, but a fear superior to my\nstrength restrained me and forced me to silence until my death.\"\n\nThe abbot Meslier had written two letters to the curates of his\nneighborhood to inform them of his Testament; he told them that he had\nconsigned to the chancery of St. Minnehould a copy of his manuscript in\n366 leaves in octavo; but he feared it would be suppressed, according to\nthe bad custom established to prevent the poor from being instructed and\nknowing the truth.\n\nThe curate Meslier, the most singular phenomenon ever seen among all the\nmeteors fatal to the Christian religion, worked his whole life secretly\nin order to attack the opinions he believed false. To compose his\nmanuscript against God, against all religion, against the Bible and the\nChurch, he had no other assistance than the Bible itself, Moreri\nMontaigne, and a few fathers.\n\nWhile the abbot Meslier naively acknowledged that he did not wish to be\nburned till after his death, Thomas Woolston, a doctor of Cambridge,\npublished and sold publicly at London, in his own house, sixty thousand\ncopies of his \"Discourses\" against the miracles of Jesus Christ.\n\nIt was a very astonishing thing that two priests should at the same time\nwrite against the Christian religion. The curate Meslier has gone\nfurther yet than Woolston; he dares to treat the transport of our\nSaviour by the devil upon the mountain, the wedding of Cana, the bread\nand the fishes, as absurd fables, injurious to divinity, which were\nignored during three hundred years by the whole Roman Empire, and\nfinally passed from the lower class to the palace of the emperors, when\npolicy obliged them to adopt the follies of the people in order the more\neasily to subjugate them. The denunciations of the English priest do not\napproach those of the Champagne priest. Woolston is sometimes indulgent,\nMeslier never. He was a man profoundly embittered by the crimes he\nwitnessed, for which he holds the Christian religion responsible. There\nis no miracle which to him is not an object of contempt and horror; no\nprophecy that he does not compare to those of Nostredamus. He wrote thus\nagainst Jesus Christ when in the arms of death, at a time when the most\ndissimulating dare not lie, and when the most intrepid tremble. Struck\nwith the difficulties which he found in Scripture, he inveighed against\nit more bitterly than the Acosta and all the Jews, more than the famous\nPorphyre, Celse, Iamblique, Julian, Libanius, and all the partisans of\nhuman reason.\n\nThere were found among the books of the curate Meslier a printed\nmanuscript of the Treatise of Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, upon the\nexistence of God and His attributes, and the reflections of the Jesuit\nTournemine upon Atheism, to which treatise he added marginal notes\nsigned by his hand.\n\n\nDECREE\n\nof the NATIONAL CONVENTION upon the proposition to erect a statue to the\ncurate Jean Meslier, the 27 Brumaire, in the year II. (November 17,\n1793). The National Convention sends to the Committee of Public\nInstruction the proposition made by one of its members to erect a statue\nto Jean Meslier, curate at Etrepigny, in Champagne, the first priest who\nhad the courage and the honesty to abjure religious errors.\n\nPRESIDENT AND SECRETARIES.\n\nSIGNED--P. A. Laloy, President; Bazire, Charles Duval, Philippeaux,\nFrecine, and Merlin (de Thionville), Secretaries.\n\nCertified according to the original.\n\nMEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF DECREES AND PROCESS-VERBAL.\n\nSIGNED--Batellier, Echasseriaux, Monnel, Becker, Vernetey, P\u00e9rard, Vinet,\nBouillerot, Auger, Cordier, Delecloy, and Cosnard.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE OF THE AUTHOR.\n\nWhen we wish to examine in a cool, calm way the opinions of men, we are\nvery much surprised to find that in those which we consider the most\nessential, nothing is more rare than to find them using common sense;\nthat is to say, the portion of judgment sufficient to know the most\nsimple truths, to reject the most striking absurdities, and to be\nshocked by palpable contradictions. We have an example of this in\nTheology, a science revered in all times, in all countries, by the\ngreatest number of mortals; an object considered the most important, the\nmost useful, and the most indispensable to the happiness of society. If\nthey would but take the trouble to sound the principles upon which this\npretended science rests itself, they would be compelled to admit that\nthe principles which were considered incontestable, are but hazardous\nsuppositions, conceived in ignorance, propagated by enthusiasm or bad\nintention, adopted by timid credulity, preserved by habit, which never\nreasons, and revered solely because it is not comprehended. Some, says\nMontaigne, make the world believe that which they do not themselves\nbelieve; a greater number of others make themselves believe, not\ncomprehending what it is to believe. In a word, whoever will consult\ncommon sense upon religious opinions, and will carry into this\nexamination the attention given to objects of ordinary interest, will\neasily perceive that these opinions have no solid foundation; that all\nreligion is but a castle in the air; that Theology is but ignorance of\nnatural causes reduced to a system; that it is but a long tissue of\nchimeras and contradictions; that it presents to all the different\nnations of the earth only romances devoid of probability, of which the\nhero himself is made up of qualities impossible to reconcile, his name\nhaving the power to excite in all hearts respect and fear, is found to\nbe but a vague word, which men continually utter, being able to attach\nto it only such ideas or qualities as are belied by the facts, or which\nevidently contradict each other. The notion of this imaginary being, or\nrather the word by which we designate him, would be of no consequence\ndid it not cause ravages without number upon the earth. Born into the\nopinion that this phantom is for them a very interesting reality, men,\ninstead of wisely concluding from its incomprehensibility that they are\nexempt from thinking of it, on the contrary, conclude that they can not\noccupy themselves enough about it, that they must meditate upon it\nwithout ceasing, reason without end, and never lose sight of it. The\ninvincible ignorance in which they are kept in this respect, far from\ndiscouraging them, does but excite their curiosity; instead of putting\nthem on guard against their imagination, this ignorance makes them\npositive, dogmatic, imperious, and causes them to quarrel with all those\nwho oppose doubts to the reveries which their brains have brought forth.\nWhat perplexity, when we attempt to solve an unsolvable problem! Anxious\nmeditations upon an object impossible to grasp, and which, however, is\nsupposed to be very important to him, can but put a man into bad humor,\nand produce in his brain dangerous transports. When interest, vanity,\nand ambition are joined to such a morose disposition, society\nnecessarily becomes troubled. This is why so many nations have often\nbecome the theaters of extravagances caused by nonsensical visionists,\nwho, publishing their shallow speculations for the eternal truth, have\nkindled the enthusiasm of princes and of people, and have prepared them\nfor opinions which they represented as essential to the glory of\ndivinity and to the happiness of empires. We have seen, a thousand\ntimes, in all parts of our globe, infuriated fanatics slaughtering each\nother, lighting the funeral piles, committing without scruple, as a\nmatter of duty, the greatest crimes. Why? To maintain or to propagate\nthe impertinent conjectures of enthusiasts, or to sanction the knaveries\nof impostors on account of a being who exists only in their imagination,\nand who is known only by the ravages, the disputes, and the follies\nwhich he has caused upon the earth.\n\nOriginally, savage nations, ferocious, perpetually at war, adored, under\nvarious names, some God conformed to their ideas; that is to say, cruel,\ncarnivorous, selfish, greedy of blood. We find in all the religions of\nthe earth a God of armies, a jealous God, an avenging God, an\nexterminating God, a God who enjoys carnage and whose worshipers make it\na duty to serve him to his taste. Lambs, bulls, children, men, heretics,\ninfidels, kings, whole nations, are sacrificed to him. The zealous\nservants of this barbarous God go so far as to believe that they are\nobliged to offer themselves as a sacrifice to him. Everywhere we see\nzealots who, after having sadly meditated upon their terrible God,\nimagine that, in order to please him, they must do themselves all the\nharm possible, and inflict upon themselves, in his honor, all imaginable\ntorments. In a word, everywhere the baneful ideas of Divinity, far from\nconsoling men for misfortunes incident to their existence, have filled\nthe heart with trouble, and given birth to follies destructive to them.\nHow could the human mind, filled with frightful phantoms and guided by\nmen interested in perpetuating its ignorance and its fear, make\nprogress? Man was compelled to vegetate in his primitive stupidity; he\nwas preserved only by invisible powers, upon whom his fate was supposed\nto depend. Solely occupied with his alarms and his unintelligible\nreveries, he was always at the mercy of his priests, who reserved for\nthemselves the right of thinking for him and of regulating his conduct.\n\nThus man was, and always remained, a child without experience, a slave\nwithout courage, a loggerhead who feared to reason, and who could never\nescape from the labyrinth into which his ancestors had misled him; he\nfelt compelled to groan under the yoke of his Gods, of whom he knew\nnothing except the fabulous accounts of their ministers. These, after\nhaving fettered him by the ties of opinion, have remained his masters or\ndelivered him up defenseless to the absolute power of tyrants, no less\nterrible than the Gods, of whom they were the representatives upon the\nearth. Oppressed by the double yoke of spiritual and temporal power, it\nwas impossible for the people to instruct themselves and to work for\ntheir own welfare. Thus, religion, politics, and morals became\nsanctuaries, into which the profane were not permitted to enter. Men had\nno other morality than that which their legislators and their priests\nclaimed as descended from unknown empyrean regions. The human mind,\nperplexed by these theological opinions, misunderstood itself, doubted\nits own powers, mistrusted experience, feared truth, disdained its\nreason, and left it to blindly follow authority. Man was a pure machine\nin the hands of his tyrants and his priests, who alone had the right to\nregulate his movements. Always treated as a slave, he had at all times\nand in all places the vices and dispositions of a slave.\n\nThese are the true sources of the corruption of habits, to which\nreligion never opposes anything but ideal and ineffectual obstacles;\nignorance and servitude have a tendency to make men wicked and unhappy.\nScience, reason, liberty, alone can reform them and render them more\nhappy; but everything conspires to blind them and to confirm them in\ntheir blindness. The priests deceive them, tyrants corrupt them in order\nto subjugate them more easily. Tyranny has been, and will always be, the\nchief source of the depraved morals and habitual calamities of the\npeople. These, almost always fascinated by their religious notions or by\nmetaphysical fictions, instead of looking upon the natural and visible\ncauses of their miseries, attribute their vices to the imperfections of\ntheir nature, and their misfortunes to the anger of their Gods; they\noffer to Heaven vows, sacrifices, and presents, in order to put an end\nto their misfortunes, which are really due only to the negligence, the\nignorance, and to the perversity of their guides, to the folly of their\ninstitutions, to their foolish customs, to their false opinions, to\ntheir unreasonable laws, and especially to their want of enlightenment.\nLet the mind be filled early with true ideas; let man's reason be\ncultivated; let justice govern him; and there will be no need of\nopposing to his passions the powerless barrier of the fear of Gods. Men\nwill be good when they are well taught, well governed, chastised or\ncensured for the evil, and justly rewarded for the good which they have\ndone to their fellow-citizens. It is idle to pretend to cure mortals of\ntheir vices if we do not begin by curing them of their prejudices. It is\nonly by showing them the truth that they can know their best interests\nand the real motives which will lead them to happiness. Long enough have\nthe instructors of the people fixed their eyes on heaven; let them at\nlast bring them back to the earth. Tired of an incomprehensible\ntheology, of ridiculous fables, of impenetrable mysteries, of puerile\nceremonies, let the human mind occupy itself with natural things,\nintelligible objects, sensible truths, and useful knowledge. Let the\nvain chimeras which beset the people be dissipated, and very soon\nrational opinions will fill the minds of those who were believed fated\nto be always in error. To annihilate religious prejudices, it would be\nsufficient to show that what is inconceivable to man can not be of any\nuse to him. Does it need, then, anything but simple common sense to\nperceive that a being most clearly irreconcilable with the notions of\nmankind, that a cause continually opposed to the effects attributed to\nhim; that a being of whom not a word can be said without falling into\ncontradictions; that a being who, far from explaining the mysteries of\nthe universe, only renders them more inexplicable; that a being to whom\nfor so many centuries men addressed themselves so vainly to obtain their\nhappiness and deliverance from their sufferings; does it need, I say,\nmore than simple common sense to understand that the idea of such a\nbeing is an idea without model, and that he is himself evidently not a\nreasonable being? Does it require more than common sense to feel that\nthere is at least delirium and frenzy in hating and tormenting each\nother for unintelligible opinions of a being of this kind? Finally, does\nit not all prove that morality and virtue are totally incompatible with\nthe idea of a God, whose ministers and interpreters have painted him in\nall countries as the most fantastic, the most unjust, and the most cruel\nof tyrants, whose pretended wishes are to serve as rules and laws for\nthe inhabitants of the earth? To discover the true principles of\nmorality, men have no need of theology, of revelation, or of Gods; they\nneed but common sense; they have only to look within themselves, to\nreflect upon their own nature, to consult their obvious interests, to\nconsider the object of society and of each of the members who compose\nit, and they will easily understand that virtue is an advantage, and\nthat vice is an injury to beings of their species. Let us teach men to\nbe just, benevolent, moderate, and sociable, not because their Gods\nexact it, but to please men; let us tell them to abstain from vice and\nfrom crime, not because they will be punished in another world, but\nbecause they will suffer in the present world. There are, says\nMontesquieu, means to prevent crime, they are sufferings; to change the\nmanners, these are good examples. Truth is simple, error is complicated,\nuncertain in its gait, full of by-ways; the voice of nature is\nintelligible, that of falsehood is ambiguous, enigmatical, and\nmysterious; the road of truth is straight, that of imposture is oblique\nand dark; this truth, always necessary to man, is felt by all just\nminds; the lessons of reason are followed by all honest souls; men are\nunhappy only because they are ignorant; they are ignorant only because\neverything conspires to prevent them from being enlightened, and they\nare wicked only because their reason is not sufficiently developed.\n\n\n\n\nCOMMON SENSE.\n\nDetexit quo dolose Vaticinandi furore sacerdotes mysteria, illis spe\nignota, audactur publicant.--PETRON. SATYR.\n\n\n\n\nI.--APOLOGUE.\n\nThere is a vast empire governed by a monarch, whose conduct does but\nconfound the minds of his subjects. He desires to be known, loved,\nrespected, and obeyed, but he never shows himself; everything tends to\nmake uncertain the notions which we are able to form about him. The\npeople subjected to his power have only such ideas of the character and\nthe laws of their invisible sovereign as his ministers give them; these\nsuit, however, because they themselves have no idea of their master, for\nhis ways are impenetrable, and his views and his qualities are totally\nincomprehensible; moreover, his ministers disagree among themselves in\nregard to the orders which they pretend emanated from the sovereign\nwhose organs they claim to be; they announce them diversely in each\nprovince of the empire; they discredit and treat each other as impostors\nand liars; the decrees and ordinances which they promulgate are obscure;\nthey are enigmas, made not to be understood or divined by the subjects\nfor whose instruction they were intended. The laws of the invisible\nmonarch need interpreters, but those who explain them are always\nquarreling among themselves about the true way of understanding them;\nmore than this, they do not agree among themselves; all which they\nrelate of their hidden prince is but a tissue of contradictions,\nscarcely a single word that is not contradicted at once. He is called\nsupremely good, nevertheless not a person but complains of his decrees.\nHe is supposed to be infinitely wise, and in his administration\neverything seems contrary to reason and good sense. They boast of his\njustice, and the best of his subjects are generally the least favored.\nWe are assured that he sees everything, yet his presence remedies\nnothing. It is said that he is the friend of order, and everything in\nhis universe is in a state of confusion and disorder; all is created by\nhim, yet events rarely happen according to his projects. He foresees\neverything, but his foresight prevents nothing. He is impatient if any\noffend him; at the same time he puts every one in the way of offending\nhim. His knowledge is admired in the perfection of his works, but his\nworks are full of imperfections, and of little permanence. He is\ncontinually occupied in creating and destroying, then repairing what he\nhas done, never appearing to be satisfied with his work. In all his\nenterprises he seeks but his own glory, but he does not succeed in being\nglorified. He works but for the good of his subjects, and most of them\nlack the necessities of life. Those whom he seems to favor, are\ngenerally those who are the least satisfied with their fate; we see them\nall continually revolting against a master whose greatness they admire,\nwhose wisdom they extol, whose goodness they worship, and whose justice\nthey fear, revering orders which they never follow. This empire is the\nworld; its monarch is God; His ministers are the priests; their subjects\nare men.\n\n\n\n\nII.--WHAT IS THEOLOGY?\n\nThere is a science which has for its object only incomprehensible\nthings. Unlike all others, it occupies itself but with things unseen.\nHobbes calls it \"the kingdom of darkness.\" In this land all obey laws\nopposed to those which men acknowledge in the world they inhabit. In\nthis marvelous region light is but darkness, evidence becomes doubtful\nor false, the impossible becomes credible, reason is an unfaithful\nguide, and common sense changed into delirium. This science is named\nTheology, and this Theology is a continual insult to human reason.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nBy frequent repetition of if, but, and perhaps, we succeed in forming an\nimperfect and broken system which perplexes men's minds to the extent of\nmaking them forget the clearest notions, and to render uncertain the\nmost palpable truths. By the aid of this systematic nonsense, all nature\nhas become an inexplicable enigma for man; the visible world has\ndisappeared to give place to invisible regions; reason is obliged to\ngive place to imagination, which can lead us only to the land of\nchimeras which she herself has invented.\n\n\n\n\nIV.--MAN BORN NEITHER RELIGIOUS NOR DEISTICAL.\n\nAll religious principles are founded upon the idea of a God, but it is\nimpossible for men to have true ideas of a being who does not act upon\nany one of their senses. All our ideas are but pictures of objects which\nstrike us. What can the idea of God represent to us when it is evidently\nan idea without an object? Is not such an idea as impossible as an\neffect without a cause? An idea without a prototype, is it anything but\na chimera? Some theologians, however, assure us that the idea of God is\ninnate, or that men have this idea from the time of their birth. Every\nprinciple is a judgment; all judgment is the effect of experience;\nexperience is not acquired but by the exercise of the senses: from which\nit follows that religious principles are drawn from nothing, and are not\ninnate.\n\n\n\n\nV.--IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, AND THE MOST REASONABLE\nTHING IS NOT TO THINK OF HIM.\n\nNo religious system can be founded otherwise than upon the nature of God\nand of men, and upon the relations they bear to each other. But, in\norder to judge of the reality of these relations, we must have some idea\nof the Divine nature. But everybody tells us that the essence of God is\nincomprehensible to man; at the same time they do not hesitate to assign\nattributes to this incomprehensible God, and assure us that man can not\ndispense with a knowledge of this God so impossible to conceive of. The\nmost important thing for men is that which is the most impossible for\nthem to comprehend. If God is incomprehensible to man, it would seem\nrational never to think of Him at all; but religion concludes that man\nis criminal if he ceases for a moment to revere Him.\n\n\n\n\nVI.--RELIGION IS FOUNDED UPON CREDULITY.\n\nWe are told that Divine qualities are not of a nature to be grasped by\nlimited minds. The natural consequence of this principle ought to be\nthat the Divine qualities are not made to employ limited minds; but\nreligion assures us that limited minds should never lose sight of this\ninconceivable being, whose qualities can not be grasped by them: from\nwhich we see that religion is the art of occupying limited minds with\nthat which is impossible for them to comprehend.\n\n\n\n\nVII.--EVERY RELIGION IS AN ABSURDITY.\n\nReligion unites man with God or puts them in communication; but do you\nsay that God is infinite? If God is infinite, no finite being can have\ncommunication or any relation with Him. Where there are no relations,\nthere can be no union, no correspondence, no duties. If there are no\nduties between man and his God, there exists no religion for man. Thus\nby saying that God is infinite, you annihilate, from that moment, all\nreligion for man, who is a finite being. The idea of infinity is for us\nin idea without model, without prototype, without object.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.--THE NOTION OF GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE.\n\nIf God is an infinite being, there can be neither in the actual world or\nin another any proportion between man and his God; thus the idea of God\nwill never enter the human mind. In the supposition of a life where men\nwill be more enlightened than in this one, the infinity of God will\nalways place such a distance between his idea and the limited mind of\nman, that he will not be able to conceive of God any more in a future\nlife than in the present. Hence, it evidently follows that the idea of\nGod will not be better suited to man in the other life than in the\npresent. God is not made for man; it follows also that intelligences\nsuperior to man--such as angels, archangels, seraphims, and saints--can\nhave no more complete notions of God than has man, who does not\nunderstand anything about Him here below.\n\n\n\n\nIX.--ORIGIN OF SUPERSTITION.\n\nHow is it that we have succeeded in persuading reasonable beings that\nthe thing most impossible to understand was the most essential for them.\nIt is because they were greatly frightened; it is because when men are\nkept in fear they cease to reason; it is because they have been\nexpressly enjoined to distrust their reason. When the brain is troubled,\nwe believe everything and examine nothing.\n\n\n\n\nX.--ORIGIN OF ALL RELIGION.\n\nIgnorance and fear are the two pivots of all religion. The uncertainty\nattending man's relation to his God is precisely the motive which\nattaches him to his religion. Man is afraid when in darkness--physical or\nmoral. His fear is habitual to him and becomes a necessity; he would\nbelieve that he lacked something if he had nothing to fear.\n\n\n\n\nXI.--IN THE NAME OF RELIGION CHARLATANS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WEAKNESS\nOF MEN.\n\nHe who from his childhood has had a habit of trembling every time he\nheard certain words, needs these words, and needs to tremble. In this\nway he is more disposed to listen to the one who encourages his fears\nthan to the one who would dispel his fears. The superstitious man wants\nto be afraid; his imagination demands it. It seems that he fears nothing\nmore than having no object to fear. Men are imaginary patients, whom\ninterested charlatans take care to encourage in their weakness, in order\nto have a market for their remedies. Physicians who order a great number\nof remedies are more listened to than those who recommend a good\nregimen, and who leave nature to act.\n\n\n\n\nXII.--RELIGION ENTICES IGNORANCE BY THE AID OF THE MARVELOUS.\n\nIf religion was clear, it would have fewer attractions for the ignorant.\nThey need obscurity, mysteries, fables, miracles, incredible things,\nwhich keep their brains perpetually at work. Romances, idle stories,\ntales of ghosts and witches, have more charms for the vulgar than true\nnarrations.\n\n\n\n\nXIII.--CONTINUATION.\n\nIn the matter of religion, men are but overgrown children. The more\nabsurd a religion is, and the fuller of marvels, the more power it\nexerts; the devotee thinks himself obliged to place no limits to his\ncredulity; the more inconceivable things are, the more divine they\nappear to him; the more incredible they are, the more merit he gives\nhimself for believing them.\n\n\n\n\nXIV.--THERE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ANY RELIGION IF THERE HAD NEVER BEEN\nANY DARK AND BARBAROUS AGES.\n\nThe origin of religious opinions dates, as a general thing, from the\ntime when savage nations were yet in a state of infancy. It was to\ncoarse, ignorant, and stupid men that the founders of religion addressed\nthemselves in all ages, in order to present them with Gods, ceremonies,\nhistories of fabulous Divinities, marvelous and terrible fables. These\nchimeras, adopted without examination by the fathers, have been\ntransmitted with more or less changes to their polished children, who\noften do not reason more than their fathers.\n\n\n\n\nXV.--ALL RELIGION WAS BORN OF THE DESIRE TO DOMINATE.\n\nThe first legislators of nations had for their object to dominate, The\neasiest means of succeeding was to frighten the people and to prevent\nthem from reasoning; they led them by tortuous paths in order that they\nshould not perceive the designs of their guides; they compelled them to\nlook into the air, for fear they should look to their feet; they amused\nthem upon the road by stories; in a word, they treated them in the way\nof nurses, who employ songs and menaces to put the children to sleep, or\nto force them to be quiet.\n\n\n\n\nXVI.--THAT WHICH SERVES AS A BASIS FOR ALL RELIGION IS VERY UNCERTAIN.\n\nThe existence of a God is the basis of all religion. Few people seem to\ndoubt this existence, but this fundamental principle is precisely the\none which prevents every mind from reasoning. The first question of\nevery catechism was, and will always be, the most difficult one to\nanswer.\n\n\n\n\nXVII.--IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE CONVINCED OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.\n\nCan one honestly say that he is convinced of the existence of a being\nwhose nature is not known, who remains inaccessible to all our senses,\nand of whose qualities we are constantly assured that they are\nincomprehensible to us? In order to persuade me that a being exists, or\ncan exist, he must begin by telling me what this being is; in order to\nmake me believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, he\nmust tell me things about him which are not contradictory, and which do\nnot destroy one another; finally, in order to convince me fully of the\nexistence of this being, he must tell me things about him which I can\ncomprehend, and prove to me that it is impossible that the being to whom\nhe attributes these qualities does not exist.\n\n\n\n\nXVIII.--CONTINUATION.\n\nA thing is impossible when it is composed of two ideas so antagonistic,\nthat we can not think of them at the same time. Evidence can be relied\non only when confirmed by the constant testimony of our senses, which\nalone give birth to ideas, and enable us to judge of their conformity or\nof their incompatibility. That which exists necessarily, is that of\nwhich the non-existence would imply contradiction. These principles,\nuniversally recognized, are at fault when the question of the existence\nof God is considered; what has been said of Him is either unintelligible\nor perfectly contradictory; and for this reason must appear impossible\nto every man of common sense.\n\n\n\n\nXIX.--THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS NOT PROVED.\n\nAll human intelligences are more or less enlightened and cultivated. By\nwhat fatality is it that the science of God has never been explained?\nThe most civilized nations and the most profound thinkers are of the\nsame opinion in regard to the matter as the most barbarous nations and\nthe most ignorant and rustic people. As we examine the subject more\nclosely, we will find that the science of divinity by means of reveries\nand subtleties has but obscured it more and more. Thus far, all religion\nhas been founded on what is called in logic, a \"begging of the\nquestion;\" it supposes freely, and then proves, finally, by the\nsuppositions it has made.\n\n\n\n\nXX.--TO SAY THAT GOD IS A SPIRIT, IS TO SPEAK WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING AT\nALL.\n\nBy metaphysics, God is made a pure spirit, but has modern theology\nadvanced one step further than the theology of the barbarians? They\nrecognized a grand spirit as master of the world. The barbarians, like\nall ignorant men, attribute to spirits all the effects of which their\ninexperience prevents them from discovering the true causes. Ask a\nbarbarian what causes your watch to move, he will answer, \"a spirit!\"\nAsk our philosophers what moves the universe, they will tell you \"it is\na spirit.\"\n\n\n\n\nXXI.--SPIRITUALITY IS A CHIMERA.\n\nThe barbarian, when he speaks of a spirit, attaches at least some sense\nto this word; he understands by it an agent similar to the wind, to the\nagitated air, to the breath, which produces, invisibly, effects that we\nperceive. By subtilizing, the modern theologian becomes as little\nintelligible to himself as to others. Ask him what he means by a spirit?\nHe will answer, that it is an unknown substance, which is perfectly\nsimple, which has nothing tangible, nothing in common with matter. In\ngood faith, is there any mortal who can form the least idea of such a\nsubstance? A spirit in the language of modern theology is then but an\nabsence of ideas. The idea of spirituality is another idea without a\nmodel.\n\n\n\n\nXXII.--ALL WHICH EXISTS SPRINGS FROM THE BOSOM OF MATTER.\n\nIs it not more natural and more intelligible to deduce all which exists,\nfrom the bosom of matter, whose existence is demonstrated by all our\nsenses, whose effects we feel at every moment, which we see act, move,\ncommunicate, motion, and constantly bring living beings into existence,\nthan to attribute the formation of things to an unknown force, to a\nspiritual being, who can not draw from his ground that which he has not\nhimself, and who, by the spiritual essence claimed for him, is incapable\nof making anything, and of putting anything in motion? Nothing is\nplainer than that they would have us believe that an intangible spirit\ncan act upon matter.\n\n\n\n\nXXIII.--WHAT IS THE METAPHYSICAL GOD OF MODERN THEOLOGY?\n\nThe material Jupiter of the ancients could move, build up, destroy, and\npropagate beings similar to himself; but the God of modern theology is a\nsterile being. According to his supposed nature he can neither occupy\nany place, nor move matter, nor produce a visible world, nor propagate\neither men or Gods. The metaphysical God is a workman without hands; he\nis able but to produce clouds, suspicions, reveries, follies, and\nquarrels.\n\n\n\n\nXXIV.--IT WOULD BE MORE RATIONAL TO WORSHIP THE SUN THAN A SPIRITUAL GOD.\n\nSince it was necessary for men to have a God, why did they not have the\nsun, the visible God, adored by so many nations? What being had more\nright to the homage of mortals than the star of the day, which gives\nlight and heat; which invigorates all beings; whose presence reanimates\nand rejuvenates nature; whose absence seems to plunge her into sadness\nand languor? If some being bestowed upon men power, activity,\nbenevolence, strength, it was no doubt the sun, which should be\nrecognized as the father of nature, as the soul of the world, as\nDivinity. At least one could not without folly dispute his existence, or\nrefuse to recognize his influence and his benefits.\n\n\n\n\nXXV.--A SPIRITUAL GOD IS INCAPABLE OF WILLING AND OF ACTING.\n\nThe theologian tells us that God does not need hands or arms to act, and\nthat He acts by His will alone. But what is this God who has a will? And\nwhat can be the subject of this divine will? Is it more ridiculous or\nmore difficult to believe in fairies, in sylphs, in ghosts, in witches,\nin were-wolfs, than to believe in the magical or impossible action of\nthe spirit upon the body? As soon as we admit of such a God, there are\nno longer fables or visions which can not be believed. The theologians\ntreat men like children, who never cavil about the possibilities of the\ntales which they listen to.\n\n\n\n\nXXVI.--WHAT IS GOD?\n\nTo unsettle the existence of a God, it is only necessary to ask a\ntheologian to speak of Him; as soon as he utters one word about Him, the\nleast reflection makes us discover at once that what he says is\nincompatible with the essence which he attributes to his God. Therefore,\nwhat is God? It is an abstract word, coined to designate the hidden\nforces of nature; or, it is a mathematical point, which has neither\nlength, breadth, nor thickness. A philosopher [David Hume] has very\ningeniously said in speaking of theologians, that they have found the\nsolution to the famous problem of Archimedes; a point in the heavens\nfrom which they move the world.\n\n\n\n\nXXVII.--REMARKABLE CONTRADICTIONS OF THEOLOGY.\n\nReligion puts men on their knees before a being without extension, and\nwho, notwithstanding, is infinite, and fills all space with his\nimmensity; before an almighty being, who never executes that which he\ndesires; before a being supremely good, and who causes but displeasure;\nbefore a being, the friend of order, and in whose government everything\nis in disorder. After all this, let us conjecture what this God of\ntheology is.\n\n\n\n\nXXVIII.--TO ADORE GOD IS TO ADORE A FICTION.\n\nIn order to avoid all embarrassment, they tell us that it is not\nnecessary to know what God is; that we must adore without knowing; that\nit is not permitted us to turn an eye of temerity upon His attributes.\nBut if we must adore a God without knowing Him, should we not be assured\nthat He exists? Moreover, how be assured that He exists without having\nexamined whether it is possible that the diverse qualities claimed for\nHim, meet in Him? In truth, to adore God is to adore nothing but\nfictions of one's own brain, or rather, it is to adore nothing.\n\n\n\n\nXXIX.--THE INFINITY OF GOD AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF KNOWING THE DIVINE\nESSENCE, OCCASIONS AND JUSTIFIES ATHEISM.\n\nWithout doubt the more to perplex matters, theologians have chosen to\nsay nothing about what their God is; they tell us what He is not. By\nnegations and abstractions they imagine themselves composing a real and\nperfect being, while there can result from it but a being of human\nreason. A spirit has no body; an infinite being is a being which is not\nfinite; a perfect being is a being which is not imperfect. Can any one\nform any real notions of such a multitude of deficiencies or absence of\nideas? That which excludes all idea, can it be anything but nothingness?\nTo pretend that the divine attributes are beyond the understanding of\nthe human mind is to render God unfit for men. If we are assured that\nGod is infinite, we admit that there can be nothing in common between\nHim and His creatures. To say that God is infinite, is to destroy Him\nfor men, or at least render Him useless to them.\n\nGod, we are told, created men intelligent, but He did not create them\nomniscient: that is to say, capable of knowing all things. We conclude\nthat He was not able to endow him with intelligence sufficient to\nunderstand the divine essence. In this case it is demonstrated that God\nhas neither the power nor the wish to be known by men. By what right\ncould this God become angry with beings whose own essence makes it\nimpossible to have any idea of the divine essence? God would evidently\nbe the most unjust and the most unaccountable of tyrants if He should\npunish an atheist for not knowing that which his nature made it\nimpossible for him to know.\n\n\n\n\nXXX.--IT IS NEITHER LESS NOR MORE CRIMINAL TO BELIEVE IN GOD THAN NOT TO\nBELIEVE IN HIM.\n\nFor the generality of men nothing renders an argument more convincing\nthan fear. In consequence of this fact, theologians tell us that the\nsafest side must be taken; that nothing is more criminal than\nincredulity; that God will punish without mercy all those who have the\ntemerity to doubt His existence; that His severity is just; since it is\nonly madness or perversity which questions the existence of an angry\nmonarch who revenges himself cruelly upon atheists. If we examine these\nmenaces calmly, we shall find that they assume always the thing in\nquestion. They must commence by proving to our satisfaction the\nexistence of a God, before telling us that it is safer to believe, and\nthat it is horrible to doubt or to deny it. Then they must prove that it\nis possible for a just God to punish men cruelly for having been in a\nstate of madness, which prevented them from believing in the existence\nof a being whom their enlightened reason could not comprehend. In a\nword, they must prove that a God that is said to be full of equity,\ncould punish beyond measure the invincible and necessary ignorance of\nman, caused by his relation to the divine essence. Is not the\ntheologians' manner of reasoning very singular? They create phantoms,\nthey fill them with contradictions, and finally assure us that the\nsafest way is not to doubt the existence of those phantoms, which they\nhave themselves invented. By following out this method, there is no\nabsurdity which it would not be safer to believe than not to believe.\n\nAll children are atheists--they have no idea of God; are they, then,\ncriminal on account of this ignorance? At what age do they begin to be\nobliged to believe in God? It is, you say, at the age of reason. At what\ntime does this age begin? Besides, if the most profound theologians lose\nthemselves in the divine essence, which they boast of not comprehending,\nwhat ideas can common people have?--women, mechanics, and, in short,\nthose who compose the mass of the human race?\n\n\n\n\nXXXI.--THE BELIEF IN GOD IS NOTHING BUT A MECHANICAL HABITUDE OF\nCHILDHOOD.\n\nMen believe in God only upon the word of those who have no more idea of\nHim than they themselves. Our nurses are our first theologians; they\ntalk to children of God as they talk to them of were-wolfs; they teach\nthem from the most tender age to join the hands mechanically. Have the\nnurses clearer notions of God than the children, whom they compel to\npray to Him?\n\n\n\n\nXXXII.--IT IS A PREJUDICE WHICH HAS BEEN HANDED FROM FATHER TO CHILDREN.\n\nReligion is handed down from fathers to children as the property of a\nfamily with the burdens. Very few people in the world would have a God\nif care had not been taken to give them one. Each one receives from his\nparents and his instructors the God which they themselves have received\nfrom theirs; only, according to his own temperament, each one arranges,\nmodifies, and paints Him agreeably to his taste.\n\n\n\n\nXXXIII.--ORIGIN OF PREJUDICES.\n\nThe brain of man is, especially in infancy, like a soft wax, ready to\nreceive all the impressions we wish to make on it; education furnishes\nnearly all his opinions, at a period when he is incapable of judging for\nhimself. We believe that the ideas, true or false, which at a tender age\nwere forced into our heads, were received from nature at our birth; and\nthis persuasion is one of the greatest sources of our errors.\n\n\n\n\nXXXIV.--HOW THEY TAKE ROOT AND SPREAD.\n\nPrejudice tends to confirm in us the opinions of those who are charged\nwith our instruction. We believe them more skillful than we are; we\nsuppose them thoroughly convinced themselves of the things they teach\nus. We have the greatest confidence in them. After the care they have\ntaken of us when we were unable to assist ourselves, we judge them\nincapable of deceiving us. These are the motives which make us adopt a\nthousand errors without other foundation than the dangerous word of\nthose who have educated us; even the being forbidden to reason upon what\nthey tell us, does not diminish our confidence, but contributes often to\nincrease our respect for their opinions.\n\n\n\n\nXXXV.--MEN WOULD NEVER HAVE BELIEVED IN THE PRINCIPLES OF MODERN THEOLOGY\nIF THEY HAD NOT BEEN TAUGHT AT AN AGE WHEN THEY WERE INCAPABLE OF\nREASONING.\n\nThe instructors of the human race act very prudently in teaching men\ntheir religious principles before they are able to distinguish the true\nfrom the false, or the left hand from the right. It would be as\ndifficult to tame the spirit of a man forty years old with the\nextravagant notions which are given us of Divinity, as to banish these\nnotions from the head of a man who has imbibed them since his tenderest\ninfancy.\n\n\n\n\nXXXVI.--THE WONDERS OF NATURE DO NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.\n\nWe are assured that the wonders of nature are sufficient to a belief in\nthe existence of a God, and to convince us fully of this important\ntruth. But how many persons are there in this world who have the\nleisure, the capacity, the necessary taste, to contemplate nature and to\nmeditate upon its progress? The majority of men pay no attention to it.\nA peasant is not at all moved by the beauty of the sun, which he sees\nevery day. The sailor is not surprised by the regular movements of the\nocean; he will draw from them no theological inductions. The phenomena\nof nature do not prove the existence of a God, except to a few\nforewarned men, to whom has been shown in advance the finger of God in\nall the objects whose mechanism could embarrass them. The unprejudiced\nphilosopher sees nothing in the wonders of nature but permanent and\ninvariable law; nothing but the necessary effects of different\ncombinations of diversified substance.\n\n\n\n\nXXXVII.--THE WONDERS OF NATURE EXPLAIN THEMSELVES BY NATURAL CAUSES.\n\nIs there anything more surprising than the logic of so many profound\ndoctors, who, instead of acknowledging the little light they have upon\nnatural agencies, seek outside of nature--that is to say, in imaginary\nregions--an agent less understood than this nature, of which they can at\nleast form some idea? To say that God is the author of the phenomena\nthat we see, is it not attributing them to an occult cause? What is God?\nWhat is a spirit? They are causes of which we have no idea. Sages! study\nnature and her laws; and when you can from them unravel the action of\nnatural causes, do not go in search of supernatural causes, which, very\nfar from enlightening your ideas, will but entangle them more and more\nand make it impossible for you to understand yourselves.\n\n\n\n\nXXXVIII--CONTINUATION.\n\nNature, you say, is totally inexplicable without a God; that is to say,\nin order to explain what you understand so little, you need a cause\nwhich you do not understand at all. You pretend to make clear that which\nis obscure, by magnifying its obscurity. You think you have untied a\nknot by multiplying knots. Enthusiastic philosophers, in order to prove\nto us the existence of a God, you copy complete treatises on botany; you\nenter into minute details of the parts of the human body; you ascend\ninto the air to contemplate the revolutions of the stars; you return\nthen to earth to admire the course of the waters; you fly into ecstasies\nover butterflies, insects, polyps, organized atoms, in which you think\nto find the greatness of your God; all these things will not prove the\nexistence of this God; they will only prove that you have not the ideas\nwhich you should have of the immense variety of causes and effects that\ncan produce the infinitely diversified combinations, of which the\nuniverse is the assemblage. This will prove that you ignore nature, that\nyou have no idea of her resources when you judge her incapable of\nproducing a multitude of forms and beings, of which your eyes, even by\nthe aid of the microscope, see but the least part; finally, this will\nprove, that not being able to know the sensible and comprehensible\nagents, you find it easier to have recourse to a word, by which you\ndesignate an agent, of whom it will always be impossible for you to form\nany true idea.\n\n\n\n\nXXXIX.--THE WORLD HAS NOT BEEN CREATED, AND MATTER MOVES BY ITSELF.\n\nThey tell us gravely that there is no effect without a cause; they\nrepeat to us very often that the world did not create itself. But the\nuniverse is a cause, not an effect; it is not a work, has not been made,\nbecause it was impossible that it should be made. The world has always\nbeen, its existence is necessary. It is the cause of itself. Nature,\nwhose essence is visibly acting and producing, in order to fulfill her\nfunctions, as we see she does, needs no invisible motor far more unknown\nthan herself. Matter moves by its own energy, by the necessary result of\nits heterogeneity; the diversity of its movements or of its ways of\nacting, constitute only the diversity of substances; we distinguish one\nbeing from another but by the diversity of the impressions or movements\nwhich they communicate to our organs.\n\n\n\n\nXL.--CONTINUATION.\n\nYou see that everything in nature is in a state of activity, and you\npretend that nature of itself is dead and without energy! You believe\nthat all this, acting of itself, has need of a motor! Well! who is this\nmotor? It is a spirit, that is to say, an absolutely incomprehensible\nand contradictory being. Conclude then, I say to you, that matter acts\nof itself, and cease to reason about your spiritual motor, which has\nnothing that is necessary to put it into motion. Return from your\nuseless excursions; come down from an imaginary into a real world; take\nhold of second causes; leave to theologians their \"First Cause,\" of\nwhich nature has no need in order to produce all the effects which you\nsee.\n\n\n\n\nXLI.--OTHER PROOFS THAT MOTION IS IN THE ESSENCE OF MATTER, AND THAT IT\nIS NOT NECESSARY TO SUPPOSE A SPIRITUAL MOTOR.\n\nIt is but by the diversity of impressions or of effects which substances\nor bodies make upon us, that we feel them, that we have perceptions and\nideas of them, that we distinguish them one from another, that we assign\nto them peculiarities. Moreover, in order to perceive or to feel an\nobject, this object must act upon our organs; this object can not act\nupon us without exciting some motion in us; it can not produce any\nmotion in us if it is not itself in motion. As soon as I see an object,\nmy eyes must be struck by it; I can not conceive of light and of vision\nwithout a motion in the luminous, extended, and colored body which\ncommunicates itself to my eye, or which acts upon my retina. As soon as\nI smell a body, my olfactory nerve must be irritated or put into motion\nby the parts exhaled from an odorous body. As soon as I hear a sound,\nthe tympanum of my ear must be struck by the air put in motion by a\nsonorous body, which could not act if it was not moved of itself. From\nwhich it follows, evidently, that without motion I can neither feel,\nsee, distinguish, compare, nor judge the body, nor even occupy my\nthought with any matter whatever. It is said in the schools, that the\nessence of a being is that from which flow all the properties of that\nbeing. Now then, it is evident that all the properties of bodies or of\nsubstances of which we have ideas, are due to the motion which alone\ninforms us of their existence, and gives us the first conceptions of it.\nI can not be informed or assured of my own existence but by the motions\nwhich I experience within myself. I am compelled to conclude that motion\nis as essential to matter as its extension, and that it can not be\nconceived of without it. If one persists in caviling about the evidences\nwhich prove to us that motion is an essential property of matter, he\nmust at least acknowledge that substances which seemed dead or deprived\nof all energy, take motion of themselves as soon as they are brought\nwithin the proper distance to act upon each other. Pyrophorus, when\nenclosed in a bottle or deprived of contact with the air, can not take\nfire by itself, but it burns as soon as exposed to the air. Flour and\nwater cause fermentation as soon as they are mixed. Thus dead substances\nengender motion of themselves. Matter has then the power to move itself,\nand nature, in order to act, does not need a motor whose essence would\nhinder its activity.\n\n\n\n\nXLII.--THE EXISTENCE OF MAN DOES NOT PROVE THAT OF GOD.\n\nWhence comes man? What is his origin? Is he the result of the fortuitous\nmeeting of atoms? Was the first man formed of the dust of the earth? I\ndo not know! Man appears to me to be a production of nature like all\nothers she embraces. I should be just as much embarrassed to tell you\nwhence came the first stones, the first trees, the first elephants, the\nfirst ants, the first acorns, as to explain the origin of the human\nspecies. Recognize, we are told, the hand of God, of an infinitely\nintelligent and powerful workman, in a work so wonderful as the human\nmachine. I would admit without question that the human machine appears\nto me surprising; but since man exists in nature, I do not believe it\nright to say that his formation is beyond the forces of nature. I will\nadd, that I could conceive far less of the formation of the human\nmachine, when to explain it to me they tell me that a pure spirit, who\nhas neither eyes, nor feet, nor hands, nor head, nor lungs, nor mouth,\nnor breath, has made man by taking a little dust and blowing upon it.\nThe savage inhabitants of Paraguay pretend to be descended from the\nmoon, and appear to us as simpletons; the theologians of Europe pretend\nto be descended from a pure spirit. Is this pretension more sensible?\n\nMan is intelligent, hence it is concluded that he must be the work of an\nintelligent being, and not of a nature devoid of intelligence. Although\nnothing is more rare than to see man use this intelligence, of which he\nappears so proud, I will admit that he is intelligent, that his\nnecessities develop in him this faculty, that the society of other men\ncontributes especially to cultivate it. But in the human machine and in\nthe intelligence with which it is endowed, I see nothing that shows in a\nprecise manner the infinite intelligence of the workman who has the\nhonor of making it. I see that this admirable machine is subject to\nderangement; that at that time this wonderful intelligence is\ndisordered, and sometimes totally disappears; from this I conclude that\nhuman intelligence depends upon a certain disposition of the material\norgans of the body, and that, because man is an intelligent being, it is\nnot well to conclude that God must be an intelligent being, any more\nthan because man is material, we are compelled to conclude that God is\nmaterial. The intelligence of man no more proves the intelligence of God\nthan the malice of men proves the malice of this God, of whom they\npretend that man is the work. In whatever way theology is taken, God\nwill always be a cause contradicted by its effects, or of whom it is\nimpossible to judge by His works. We shall always see evil,\nimperfections, and follies resulting from a cause claimed to be full of\ngoodness, of perfections, and of wisdom.\n\n\n\n\nXLIII.--HOWEVER, NEITHER MAN NOR THE UNIVERSE IS THE EFFECT OF CHANCE.\n\nThen you will say that intelligent man and even the universe and all it\nencloses, are the effects of chance. No, I answer, the universe is not\nan effect; it is the cause of all effects; all the beings it embraces\nare the necessary effects of this cause which sometimes shows to us its\nmanner of acting, out which often hides from us its way. Men may use the\nword \"chance\" to cover their ignorance of the true causes; nevertheless,\nalthough they may ignore them, these causes act, but by certain laws.\nThere is no effect without a cause.\n\nNature is a word which we make use of to designate the immense\nassemblage of beings, diverse substances, infinite combinations, and all\nthe various motions which we see. All bodies, whether organized or not\norganized, are the necessary results of certain causes, made to produce\nnecessarily the effects which we see. Nothing in nature can be made by\nchance; all follow fixed laws; these laws are but the necessary union of\ncertain effects with their causes. An atom of matter does not meet\nanother atom by accident or by hazard; this rencounter is due to\npermanent laws, which cause each being to act by necessity as it does,\nand can not act otherwise under the same circumstances. To speak about\nthe accidental coming together of atoms, or to attribute any effects to\nchance, is to say nothing, if not to ignore the laws by which bodies\nact, meet, combine, or separate.\n\nEverything is made by chance for those who do not understand nature, the\nproperties of beings, and the effects which must necessarily result from\nthe concurrence of certain causes. It is not chance that has placed the\nsun in the center of our planetary system; it is by its very essence,\nthe substance of which it is composed, that it occupies this place, and\nfrom thence diffuses itself to invigorate the beings who live in these\nplanets.\n\n\n\n\nXLIV.--NEITHER DOES THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A\nGOD.\n\nThe worshipers of a God find, especially in the order of the universe,\nan invincible proof of the existence of an intelligent and wise being\nwho rules it. But this order is only a result of motions necessarily\nbrought on by causes or by circumstances which are sometimes favorable\nand sometimes injurious to ourselves; we approve the former and find\nfault with the latter.\n\nNature follows constantly the same progress; that is to say, the same\ncauses produce the same effects, as long as their action is not\ninterrupted by other causes which occasion the first ones to produce\ndifferent effects. When the causes, whose effects we feel, are\ninterrupted in their action by causes which, although unknown to us, are\nno less natural and necessary, we are stupefied, we cry out miracles:\nand we attribute them to a cause far less known than all those we see\noperating before us. The universe is always in order; there can be no\ndisorder for it. Our organization alone is suffering if we complain\nabout disorder. Bodies, causes, beings, which this world embraces, act\nnecessarily in the manner in which we see them act, whether we approve\nor disapprove their action. Earthquakes, volcanoes, inundations,\ncontagions, and famines are effects as necessary in the order of nature\nas the fall of heavy bodies, as the course of rivers, as the periodical\nmovements of the seas, the blowing of the winds, the abundant rains, and\nthe favorable effects for which we praise and thank Providence for its\nblessings.\n\nTo be astonished that a certain order reigns in the world, is to be\nsurprised to see the same causes constantly producing the same effects.\nTo be shocked at seeing disorder, is to forget that the causes being\nchanged or disturbed in their action, the effects can no longer be the\nsame. To be astonished to see order in nature, is to be astonished that\nanything can exist; it is to be surprised at one's own existence. What\nis order for one being, is disorder for another. All wicked beings find\nthat everything is in order when they can with impunity put everything\ninto disorder; they find, on the contrary, that everything is in\ndisorder when they are prevented from exercising their wickedness.\n\n\n\n\nXLV.--CONTINUATION.\n\nSupposing God to be the author and the motor of nature, there could be\nno disorder relating to Him; all causes which He would have made would\nnecessarily act according to their properties the essences and the\nimpulsions that He had endowed them with. If God should change the\nordinary course of things, He would not be immutable. If the order of\nthe universe--in which we believe we see the most convincing proof of His\nexistence, of His intelligence, His power, and His goodness--should be\ninconsistent, His existence might be doubted; or He might be accused at\nleast of inconstancy, of inability, of want of foresight, and of wisdom\nin the first arrangement of things; we would have a right to accuse Him\nof blundering in His choice of agents and instruments. Finally, if the\norder of nature proves the power and the intelligence, disorder ought to\nprove the weakness, inconstancy, and irrationality of Divinity. You say\nthat God is everywhere; that He fills all space; that nothing was made\nwithout Him; that matter could not act without Him as its motor. But in\nthis case you admit that your God is the author of disorder; that it is\nHe who deranges nature; that He is the Father of confusion; that He is\nin man; and that He moves man at the moment when he sins. If God is\neverywhere, He is in me; He acts with me; He is deceived when I am\ndeceived; He questions with me the existence of God; He offends God with\nme. Oh, theologians! you never understand yourselves when you speak of\nGod.\n\n\n\n\nXLVI.--A PURE SPIRIT CAN NOT BE INTELLIGENT, AND TO ADORE A DIVINE\nINTELLIGENCE IS A CHIMERA.\n\nTo be what we call intelligent, we must have ideas, thoughts, will; to\nhave ideas, thoughts, and will, we must have organs; to have organs, we\nmust have a body; to act upon bodies, we must have a body; to experience\ntrouble, we must be capable of suffering; from which it evidently\nfollows that a pure spirit can not be intelligent, and can not be\naffected by that which takes place in the universe.\n\nDivine intelligence, divine ideas, divine views, you say, have nothing\nin common with those of men. So much the better! But in this case, how\ncan men judge of these views--whether good or evil--reason about these\nideas, or admire this intelligence? It would be to judge, to admire, to\nadore that of which we can form no idea. To adore the profound views of\ndivine wisdom, is it not to worship that of which it is impossible for\nus to judge? To admire these same views, is it not admiring without\nknowing wry? Admiration is always the daughter of ignorance. Men admire\nand worship only what they do not understand.\n\n\n\n\nXLVII.--ALL THE QUALITIES WHICH THEOLOGY GIVES TO ITS GOD ARE CONTRARY TO\nTHE VERY ESSENCE WHICH IT SUPPOSES HIM TO HAVE.\n\nAll these qualities which are given to God are not suited to a being\nwho, by His own essence, is devoid of all similarity to human beings. It\nis true, they think to find this similarity by exaggerating the human\nqualities with which they have clothed Divinity; they thrust them upon\nthe infinite, and from that moment cease to understand themselves. What\nis the result of this combination of man with God, or of this\ntheanthropy? Its only result is a chimera, of which nothing can be\naffirmed without causing the phantom to vanish which they had taken so\nmuch trouble to conjure up.\n\nDante, in his poem of Paradise, relates that the Divinity appeared to\nhim under the figure of three circles, which formed an iris, whose\nbright colors arose from each other; but having wished to retain its\nbrilliant light, the poet saw only his own face. In worshiping God, man\nadores himself.\n\n\n\n\nXLVIII.--CONTINUATION.\n\nThe slightest reflection suffices to prove to us that God can not have\nany of the human qualities, virtues, or perfections. Our virtues and our\nperfections are the results of our temperament modified. Has God a\ntemperament like ours? Our good qualities are our habits relative to the\nbeings in whose society we live. God, according to you, is a solitary\nbeing. God has no one like Him; He does not live in society; He has no\nneed of any one; He enjoys a happiness which nothing can alter. Admit,\nthen, upon your own principles, that God can not possess what we call\nvirtues, and that man can not be virtuous in regard to Him.\n\n\n\n\nXLIX.--IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT THE HUMAN RACE IS THE OBJECT AND THE END\nOF CREATION.\n\nMan, charmed with his own merits, imagines that it is but his own kind\nthat God proposed as the object and the end in the formation of the\nuniverse. Upon what is this so flattering opinion based? It is, we are\ntold, upon this: that man is the only being endowed with an intelligence\nwhich enables him to know the Divine nature, and to render to it homage\nworthy of it. We are assured that God created the world for His own\nglory, and that the human race was included in His plan, in order that\nHe might have somebody to admire and glorify Him in His works. But by\nthese intentions has not God visibly missed His end?\n\n1. According to you, it would always be impossible for man to know his\nGod, and he would be kept in the most invincible ignorance of the Divine\nessence.\n\n2. A being who has no equals, can not be susceptible of glory. Glory can\nresult but from the comparison of his own excellence with that of\nothers.\n\n3. If God by Himself is infinitely happy and is sufficient unto Himself,\nwhy does He need the homage of His feeble creatures?\n\n4. In spite of all His works, God is not glorified; on the contrary, all\nthe religions of the world show Him to us as perpetually offended; their\ngreat object is to reconcile sinful, ungrateful, and rebellious man with\nhis wrathful God.\n\n\n\n\nL.--GOD IS NOT MADE FOR MAN, NOR MAN FOR GOD.\n\nIf God is infinite, He is created still less for man, than man is for\nthe ants. Would the ants of a garden reason pertinently with reference\nto the gardener, if they should attempt to occupy themselves with his\nintentions, his desires, and his projects? Would they reason correctly\nif they pretended that the park of Versailles was made but for them, and\nthat a fastidious monarch had had as his only object to lodge them\nsuperbly? But according to theology, man in his relation to God is far\nbeneath what the lowest insect is to man. Thus by the acknowledgment of\ntheology itself, theology, which does but occupy itself with the\nattributes and views of Divinity, is the most complete of follies.\n\n\n\n\nLI.--IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THE OBJECT OF THE FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE WAS\nTO RENDER MEN HAPPY.\n\nIt is pretended, that in forming the universe, God had no object but to\nrender man happy. But, in a world created expressly for him and governed\nby an all-mighty God, is man after all very happy? Are his enjoyments\ndurable? Are not his pleasures mingled with sufferings? Are there many\npeople who are contented with their fate? Is not mankind the continual\nvictim of physical and moral evils? This human machine, which is shown\nto us as the masterpiece of the Creator's industry, has it not a\nthousand ways of deranging itself? Would we admire the skill of a\nmechanic, who should show us a complicated machine, liable to be out of\norder at any moment, and which would after a while destroy itself?\n\n\n\n\nLII.--WHAT IS CALLED PROVIDENCE IS BUT A WORD VOID OF SENSE.\n\nWe call Providence the generous care which Divinity shows in providing\nfor our needs, and in watching over the happiness of its beloved\ncreatures. But, as soon as we look around, we find that God provides for\nnothing. Providence neglects the greatest part of the inhabitants of\nthis world. Against a very small number of men, who are supposed to be\nhappy, what a multitude of miserable ones are groaning beneath\noppression, and languishing in misery! Whole nations are compelled to\nstarve in order to indulge the extravagances of a few morose tyrants,\nwho are no happier than the slaves whom they oppress! At the same time\nthat our philosophers energetically parade the bounties of Providence,\nand exhort us to place confidence in it, do we not see them cry out at\nunforeseen catastrophes, by which Providence plays with the vain\nprojects of men; do we not see that it overthrows their designs, laughs\nat their efforts, and that its profound wisdom pleases itself in\nmisleading mortals? But how can we place confidence in a malicious\nProvidence which laughs at and sports with mankind? How can I admire the\nunknown course of a hidden wisdom whose manner of acting is inexplicable\nto me? Judge it by its effects! you will say; it is by these I do judge\nit, and I find that these effects are sometimes useful and sometimes\ninjurious to me.\n\nWe think to justify Providence by saying, that in this world there are\nmore blessings than evil for each individual man. Let us suppose that\nthe blessings which this Providence makes us enjoy are as one hundred,\nand that the evils are as ten per cent.; would it not always result that\nagainst these hundred degrees of goodness, Providence possesses a tenth\ndegree of malignity?--which is incompatible with the perfection we\nsuppose it to have.\n\nAll the books are filled with the most flattering praises of Providence,\nwhose attentive care is extolled; it would seem to us, as if in order to\nlive happy here below, man would have no need of exerting himself.\nHowever, without labor, man could scarcely live a day. In order to live,\nI see him obliged to sweat, work, hunt, fish, toil without relaxation;\nwithout these secondary causes, the First Cause (at least in the\nmajority of countries) could provide for none of his needs. If I examine\nall parts of this globe, I see the uncivilized as well as the civilized\nman in a perpetual struggle with Providence; he is compelled to ward off\nthe blows which it sends in the form of hurricanes, tempests, frost,\nhail, inundations, sterility, and the divers accidents which so often\nrender all their labors useless. In a word, I see the human race\ncontinually occupied in protecting itself from the wicked tricks of this\nProvidence, which is said to be busy with the care of their happiness. A\ndevotee admired Divine Providence for having wisely made rivers to flow\nthrough all the places where men had built large cities. Is not this\nman's way of reasoning as sensible as that of many learned men who do\nnot cease from telling us of Final Causes, or who pretend to perceive\nclearly the benevolent views of God in the formation of things?\n\n\n\n\nLIII.--THIS PRETENDED PROVIDENCE IS LESS OCCUPIED IN CONSERVING THAN IN\nDISTURBING THE WORLD--MORE AN ENEMY THAN A FRIEND OF MAN.\n\nDo we see, then, that Divine Providence manifests itself in a sensible\nmanner in the conservation of its admirable works, for which we honor\nit? If it is Divine Providence which governs the world, we find it as\nmuch occupied in destroying as in creating; in exterminating as in\nproducing. Does it not at every instant cause thousands of those same\nmen to perish, to whose preservation and well-being it is supposed to\ngive its continual attention? Every moment it loses sight of its beloved\ncreatures; sometimes it tears down their dwellings; sometimes it\ndestroys their harvests, inundates their fields, devastates by a\ndrought, arms all nature against man, sets man against man, and finishes\nby causing him to expire in pain. Is this what you call preserving a\nuniverse? If we attempted to consider without prejudice the equivocal\nconduct of Providence relative to mankind and to all sentient beings, we\nshould find that very far from resembling a tender and careful mother,\nit rather resembles those unnatural mothers who, forgetting the\nunfortunate fruits of their illicit amours, abandon their children as\nsoon as they are born; and who, pleased to have conceived them, expose\nthem without mercy to the caprices of fate.\n\nThe Hottentots--wiser in this particular than other nations, who treat\nthem as barbarians--refuse, it is said, to adore God, because if He\nsometimes does good, He as often does harm. Is not this reasoning more\njust and more conformed to experience than that of so many men who\npersist in seeing in their God but kindness, wisdom, and foresight; and\nwho refuse to see that the countless evils, of which the world is the\ntheater, must come from the same Hand which they kiss with transport?\n\n\n\n\nLIV.--NO! THE WORLD IS NOT GOVERNED BY AN INTELLIGENT BEING.\n\nThe logic of common sense teaches us that we should judge a cause but by\nits effects. A cause can not be reputed as constantly good, except when\nit constantly produces good, useful, and agreeable effects. A cause\nwhich produces good at one time, and evil at another, is a cause which\nis sometimes good and sometimes bad. But the logic of Theology destroys\nall this. According to it, the phenomena of nature, or the effects which\nwe see in this world, prove to us the existence of an infinitely good\nCause, and this Cause is God. Although this world is full of evils,\nalthough disorder reigns here very often, although men groan every\nmoment under the fate which oppresses them, we ought to be convinced\nthat these effects are due to a benevolent and immutable Cause; and many\npeople believe it, or pretend to believe it!\n\nEverything which takes place in the world proves to us in the clearest\nway that it is not governed by an intelligent being. We can judge of the\nintelligence of a being but by the means which he employs to accomplish\nhis proposed design. The aim of God, it is said, is the happiness of our\nrace; however, the same necessity regulates the fate of all sentient\nbeings--which are born to suffer much, to enjoy little, and to die. Man's\ncup is full of joy and of bitterness; everywhere good is side by side\nwith evil; order is replaced by disorder; generation is followed by\ndestruction. If you tell me that the designs of God are mysteries, and\nthat His views are impossible to understand, I will answer, that in this\ncase it is impossible for me to judge whether God is intelligent.\n\n\n\n\nLV.--GOD CAN NOT BE CALLED IMMUTABLE.\n\nYou pretend that God is immutable! But what is it that occasions the\ncontinual instability in this world, which you claim as His empire? Is\nany state subject to more frequent and cruel revolutions than that of\nthis unknown monarch? How can we attribute to an immutable God, powerful\nenough to give solidity to His works, the government of a world where\neverything is in a continual vicissitude? If I think to see a God\nunchanging in all the effects advantageous to my kind, what God can I\ndiscover in the continual misfortunes by which my kind is oppressed? You\ntell me that it is our sins that force Him to punish us. I will answer\nthat God, according to yourselves, is not immutable, because the sins of\nmen compel Him to change His conduct in regard to them. Can a being who\nis sometimes irritated, and sometimes appeased, be constantly the same?\n\n\n\n\nLVI.--EVIL AND GOOD ARE THE NECESSARY EFFECTS OF NATURAL CAUSES. WHAT IS\nA GOD WHO CAN CHANGE NOTHING?\n\nThe universe is but what it can be; all sentient beings enjoy and suffer\nhere: that is to say, they are moved sometimes in an agreeable, and at\nother times in a disagreeable way. These effects are necessary; they\nresult from causes that act according to their inherent tendencies.,\nThese effects necessarily please or displease me, according to my own\nnature. This same nature compels me to avoid, to remove, and to combat\nthe one, and to seek, to desire, and to procure the other. In a world\nwhere everything is from necessity, a God who remedies nothing, and\nallows things to follow their own course, is He anything else but\ndestiny or necessity personified? It is a deaf God who can effect no\nchange on the general laws to which He is subjected Himself. What do I\ncare for the infinite power of a being who can do but a very few things\nto please me? Where is the infinite kindness of a being who is\nindifferent to my happiness? What good to me is the favor of a being\nwho, able to bestow upon me infinite good, does not even give me a\nfinite one?\n\n\n\n\nLVII.--THE VANITY OF THEOLOGICAL CONSOLATIONS\nIN THE TROUBLES OF THIS LIFE. THE HOPE OF A HEAVEN, OF A FUTURE LIFE,\nIS BUT IMAGINARY.\n\nWhen we ask why, under a good God, so many are wretched, we are reminded\nthat the present world is but a pass-way, designed to conduct man to a\nhappier sphere; we are assured that our sojourn on the earth, where we\nlive, is for trial; they silence us by saying that God would not impart\nto His creatures either the indifference to the sufferings of others, or\nthe infinite happiness which He reserved for Himself alone. How can we\nbe satisfied with these answers?\n\n1. The existence of another life has no other guaranty than the\nimagination of men, who, in supposing it, have but manifested their\ndesire to live again, in order to enter upon a purer and more durable\nstate of happiness than that which they enjoy at present.\n\n2. How can we conceive of a God who, knowing all things, must know to\ntheir depths the nature of His creatures, and yet must have so many\nproofs in order to assure Himself of their proclivities?\n\n3. According to the calculations of our chronologists, the earth which\nwe inhabit has existed for six or seven thousand years; during this time\nthe nations have, under different forms, experienced many vicissitudes\nand calamities; history shows us that the human race in all ages has\nbeen tormented and devastated by tyrants, conquerors, heroes; by wars,\ninundations, famines, epidemics, etc. Is this long catalogue of proofs\nof such a nature as to inspire us with great confidence in the hidden\nviews of the Divinity? Do such constant evils give us an exalted idea of\nthe future fate which His kindness is preparing for us?\n\n4. If God is as well-disposed as they assure us He is, could He not at\nleast, without bestowing an infinite happiness upon men, communicate to\nthem that degree of happiness of which finite beings are susceptible? In\norder to be happy, do we need an Infinite or Divine happiness?\n\n5. If God has not been able to render men happier than they are here\nbelow, what will become of the hope of a Paradise, where it is pretended\nthat the elect or chosen few will rejoice forever in ineffable\nhappiness? If God could not or would not remove evil from the earth (the\nonly sojourning place we know of), what reason could we have to presume\nthat He can or will remove it from another world, of which we know\nnothing? More than two thousand years ago, according to Lactance, the\nwise epicure said: \"Either God wants to prevent evil, and can not, or He\ncan and will not; or He neither can nor will, or He will and can. If He\nwants to, without the power, He is impotent; if He can, and will not, He\nis guilty of malice which we can not attribute to Him; if He neither can\nnor will, He is both impotent and wicked, and consequently can not be\nGod; if He wishes to and can, whence then comes evil, or why does He not\nprevent it?\" For more than two thousand years honest minds have waited\nfor a rational solution of these difficulties; and our theologians teach\nus that they will not be revealed to us until the future life.\n\n\n\n\nLVIII.--ANOTHER IDLE FANCY.\n\nWe are told of a pretended scale for human beings; it is supposed that\nGod has divided His creatures into different classes, each one enjoying\nthe degree of happiness of which he is susceptible. According to this\nromantic arrangement, all beings, from the oyster to the angel, enjoy\nthe happiness which belongs to them. Experience contradicts this sublime\nrevery. In the world where we are, we see all sentient beings living and\nsuffering in the midst of dangers. Man can not step without wounding,\ntormenting, crushing a multitude of sentient beings which he finds in\nhis path, while he himself, at every step, is exposed to a throng of\nevils seen or unseen, which may lead to his destruction. Is not the very\nthought of death sufficient to mar his greatest enjoyment? During the\nwhole course of his life he is subject to sufferings; there is not a\nmoment when he feels sure of preserving his existence, to which he is so\nstrongly attached, and which he regards as the greatest gift of\nDivinity.\n\n\n\n\nLIX.--IN VAIN DOES THEOLOGY EXERT ITSELF TO ACQUIT GOD OF MAN'S DEFECTS.\nEITHER THIS GOD IS NOT FREE, OR HE IS MORE WICKED THAN GOOD.\n\nThe world, it will be said, has all the perfection of which it was\nsusceptible; by the very reason that the world was not the God who made\nit, it was necessary that it should have great qualities and great\ndefects. But we will answer, that the world necessarily having great\ndefects, it would have been better suited to the nature of a good God\nnot to create a world which He could not render completely happy. If\nGod, who was, according to you, supremely happy before the world was\ncreated, had continued to be supremely happy in the created world, why\ndid He not remain in peace? Why must man suffer? Why must man exist What\nis his existence to God? Nothing or something. If his existence is not\nuseful or necessary to God, why did He not leave him in nothingness? If\nman's existence is necessary to His glory, He then needed man, He lacked\nsomething before this man existed!\n\nWe can forgive an unskillful workman for doing imperfect work, because\nhe must work, well or ill, or starve; this workman is excusable; but\nyour God is not. According to you, He is self-sufficient; in this case,\nwhy does He create men? He has, according to you, all that is necessary\nto render man happy; why, then, does He not do it? You must conclude\nthat your God has more malice than goodness, or you must admit that God\nwas compelled to do what He has done, without being able to do\notherwise. However, you assure us that your God is free; you say also\nthat He is immutable, although beginning in time and ceasing in time to\nexercise His power, like all the inconstant beings of this world. Oh,\ntheologians! you have made vain efforts to acquit your God of all the\ndefects of man; there is always visible in this God so perfect, \"a tip\nof the [human] ear.\"\n\n\n\n\nLX.--WE CAN NOT BELIEVE IN A DIVINE PROVIDENCE, IN AN INFINITELY GOOD AND\nPOWERFUL GOD.\n\nIs not God the master of His favors? Has He not the right to dispense\nHis benefits? Can He not take them back again? His creature has no right\nto ask the reason of His conduct; He can dispose at will of the works of\nHis hands. Absolute sovereign of mortals, He distributes happiness or\nunhappiness, according to His pleasure. These are the solutions which\ntheologians give in order to console us for the evils which God inflicts\nupon us. We would tell them that a God who was infinitely good, would\nnot be the master of His favors, but would be by His own nature obliged\nto distribute them among His creatures; we would tell them that a truly\nbenevolent being would not believe he had the right to abstain from\ndoing good; we would tell them that a truly generous being does not take\nback what he has given, and any man who does it, forfeits gratitude, and\nhas no right to complain of ingratitude. How can the arbitrary and\nwhimsical conduct which theologians ascribe to God, be reconciled with\nthe religion which supposes a compact or mutual agreement between this\nGod and men? If God owes nothing to His creatures, they, on their part,\ncan not owe anything to their God. All religion is founded upon the\nhappiness which men believe they have a right to expect from the\nDivinity, who is supposed to tell them: \"Love, adore, obey me, and I\nwill render you happy!\" Men on their side say to Him: \"Make us happy, be\nfaithful to your promises, and we will love you, we will adore you, we\nwill obey your laws!\" In neglecting the happiness of His creatures, in\ndistributing His favors and His graces according to His caprice, and\ntaking back His gifts, does not God violate the contract which serves as\na base for all religion?\n\nCicero has said with reason that if God does not make Himself agreeable\nto man, He can not be his God. [Nisi Deus homini placuerit, Deus non\nerit.] Goodness constitutes Divinity; this Goodness can manifest itself\nto man only by the advantages he derives from it. As soon as he is\nunfortunate, this Goodness disappears and ceases to be Divinity. An\ninfinite Goodness can be neither partial nor exclusive. If God is\ninfinitely good, He owes happiness to all His creatures; one unfortunate\nbeing alone would be sufficient to annihilate an unlimited goodness.\nUnder an infinitely good and powerful God, is it possible to conceive\nthat a single man could suffer? An animal, a mite, which suffers,\nfurnishes invincible arguments against Divine Providence and its\ninfinite benefactions.\n\n\n\n\nLXI.--CONTINUATION.\n\nAccording to theologians, the afflictions and evils of this life are\nchastisements which culpable men receive from Divinity. But why are men\nculpable? If God is Almighty, does it cost Him any more to say, \"Let\neverything remain in order!\"--\"let all my subjects be good, innocent,\nfortunate!\"--than to say, \"Let everything exist?\" Was it more difficult\nfor this God to do His work well than to do it so badly? Was it any\nfarther from the nonexistence of beings to their wise and happy\nexistence, than from their non-existence to their insensate and\nmiserable existence? Religion speaks to us of a hell--that is, of a\nfearful place where, notwithstanding His goodness, God reserves eternal\ntorments for the majority of men. Thus, after having rendered mortals\nvery miserable in this world, religion teaches them that God can make\nthem much more wretched in another. They meet our objections by saying,\nthat otherwise the goodness of God would take the place of His justice.\nBut goodness which takes the place of the most terrible cruelty, is not\ninfinite kindness. Besides, a God who, after having been infinitely\ngood, becomes infinitely wicked, can He be regarded as an immutable\nbeing? A God filled with implacable fury, is He a God in whom we can\nfind a shadow of charity or goodness?\n\n\n\n\nLXII.--THEOLOGY MAKES OF ITS GOD A MONSTER OF NONSENSE, OF INJUSTICE, OF\nMALICE, AND ATROCITY--A BEING ABSOLUTELY HATEFUL.\n\nDivine justice, such as our theologians paint it, is, without doubt, a\nquality intended to make us love Divinity. According to the notions of\nmodern theology, it appears evident that God has created the majority of\nmen with the view only of punishing them eternally. Would it not have\nbeen more in conformity with kindness, with reason, with equity, to\ncreate but stones or plants, and not sentient beings, than to create men\nwhose conduct in this world would cause them eternal chastisements in\nanother? A God so perfidious and wicked as to create a single man and\nleave him exposed to the perils of damnation, can not be regarded as a\nperfect being, but as a monster of nonsense, injustice, malice, and\natrocity. Far from forming a perfect God, the theologians have made the\nmost imperfect of beings. According to theological ideas, God resembles\na tyrant who, having deprived the majority of his slaves of their\neyesight, would confine them in a cell where, in order to amuse himself\nhe could observe incognito their conduct through a trap-door, in order\nto have occasion to cruelly punish all those who in walking should hurt\neach other; but who would reward splendidly the small number of those to\nwhom the sight was spared, for having the skill to avoid an encounter\nwith their comrades. Such are the ideas which the dogma of gratuitous\npredestination gives of Divinity!\n\nAlthough men repeat to us that their God is infinitely good, it is\nevident that in the bottom of their hearts they can believe nothing of\nit. How can we love anything we do not know? How can we love a being,\nthe idea of whom is but liable to keep us in anxiety and trouble? How\ncan we love a being of whom all that is told conspires to render him\nsupremely hateful?\n\n\n\n\nLXIII.--ALL RELIGION INSPIRES BUT A COWARDLY AND INORDINATE FEAR OF THE\nDIVINITY.\n\nMany people make a subtle distinction between true religion and\nsuperstition; they tell us that the latter is but a cowardly and\ninordinate fear of Divinity, that the truly religious man has confidence\nin his God, and loves Him sincerely; while the superstitious man sees in\nHim but an enemy, has no confidence in Him, and represents Him as a\nsuspicious and cruel tyrant, avaricious of His benefactions and prodigal\nof His chastisements. But does not all religion in reality give us these\nsame ideas of God? While we are told that God is infinitely good, is it\nnot constantly repeated to us that He is very easily offended, that He\nbestows His favors but upon a few, that He chastises with fury those to\nwhom He has not been pleased to grant them?\n\n\n\n\nLXIV.--THERE IS IN REALITY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELIGION AND THE MOST\nSOMBRE AND SERVILE SUPERSTITION.\n\nIf we take our ideas of God from the nature of the things where we find\na mixture of good and evil, this God, according to the good and evil\nwhich we experience, does naturally appear to us capricious, inconstant,\nsometimes good, sometimes wicked, and in this way, instead of exciting\nour love, He must produce suspicion, fear, and uncertainty in our\nhearts. There is no real difference between natural religion and the\nmost sombre and servile superstition. If the Theist sees God but on the\nbeautiful side, the superstitious man looks upon Him from the most\nhideous side. The folly of the one is gay of the other is lugubrious;\nbut both are equally delirious.\n\n\n\n\nLXV.--ACCORDING TO THE IDEAS WHICH THEOLOGY GIVES OF DIVINITY, TO LOVE\nGOD IS IMPOSSIBLE.\n\nIf I take my ideas of God from theology, God shows Himself to me in such\na light as to repel love. The devotees who tell us that they love their\nGod sincerely, are either liars or fools who see their God but in\nprofile; it is impossible to love a being, the thought of whom tends to\nexcite terror, and whose judgments make us tremble. How can we face\nwithout fear, a God whom we suppose sufficiently barbarous to wish to\ndamn us forever? Let them not speak to us of a filial or respectful fear\nmingled with love, which men should have for their God. A son can not\nlove his father when he knows he is cruel enough to inflict exquisite\ntorments upon him; in short, to punish him for the least faults. No man\nupon earth can have the least spark of love for a God who holds in\nreserve eternal, hard, and violent chastisements for ninety-nine\nhundredths of His children.\n\n\n\n\nLXVI.--BY THE INVENTION OF THE DOGMA OF THE ETERNAL TORMENTS OF HELL,\nTHEOLOGIANS HAVE MADE OF THEIR GOD A DETESTABLE BEING, MORE WICKED THAN\nTHE MOST WICKED OF MEN, A PERVERSE AND CRUEL TYRANT WITHOUT AIM.\n\nThe inventors of the dogma of eternal torments in hell, have made of the\nGod whom they call so good, the most detestable of beings. Cruelty in\nman is the last term of corruption. There is no sensitive soul but is\nmoved and revolts at the recital alone of the torments which the\ngreatest criminal endures; but cruelty merits the greater indignation\nwhen we consider it gratuitous or without motive. The most sanguinary\ntyrants, Caligula, Nero, Domitian, had at least some motive in\ntormenting their victims and insulting their sufferings; these motives\nwere, either their own safety, the fury of revenge, the design to\nfrighten by terrible examples, or perhaps the vanity to make parade of\ntheir power, and the desire to satisfy a barbarous curiosity. Can a God\nhave any of these motives? In tormenting the victims of His wrath, He\nwould punish beings who could not really endanger His immovable power,\nnor trouble His felicity, which nothing can change. On the other hand,\nthe sufferings of the other life would be useless to the living, who can\nnot witness them; these torments would be useless to the damned, because\nin hell is no more conversion, and the hour of mercy is passed; from\nwhich it follows, that God, in the exercise of His eternal vengeance,\nwould have no other aim than to amuse Himself and insult the weakness of\nHis creatures. I appeal to the whole human race! Is there in nature a\nman so cruel as to wish in cold blood to torment, I do not say his\nfellow-beings, but any sentient being whatever, without fee, without\nprofit, without curiosity, without having anything to fear? Conclude,\nthen, O theologians! that according to your own principles, your God is\ninfinitely more wicked than the most wicked of men. You will tell me,\nperhaps, that infinite offenses deserve infinite chastisements, and I\nwill tell you that we can not offend a God whose happiness is infinite.\nI will tell you further, that offenses of finite beings can not be\ninfinite; that a God who does not want to be offended, can not consent\nto make His creatures' offenses last for eternity; I will tell you that\na God infinitely good, can not be infinitely cruel, nor grant His\ncreatures infinite existence solely for the pleasure of tormenting them\nforever.\n\nIt could have been but the most cruel barbarity, the most notorious\nimposition, but the blindest ambition which could have created the dogma\nof eternal damnation. If there exists a God who could be offended or\nblasphemed, there would not be upon earth any greater blasphemers than\nthose who dare to say that this God is perverse enough to take pleasure\nin dooming His feeble creatures to useless torments for all eternity.\n\n\n\n\nLXVII.--THEOLOGY IS BUT A SERIES OF PALPABLE CONTRADICTIONS.\n\nTo pretend that God can be offended with the actions of men, is to\nannihilate all the ideas that are given to us of this being. To say that\nman can disturb the order of the universe, that he can grasp the\nlightning from God's hand, that he can upset His projects, is to claim\nthat man is stronger than his God, that he is the arbiter of His will,\nthat it depends on him to change His goodness into cruelty. Theology\ndoes nothing but destroy with one hand that which it builds with the\nother. If all religion is founded upon a God who becomes angry, and who\nis appeased, all religion is founded upon a palpable contradiction.\n\nAll religions agree in exalting the wisdom and the infinite power of the\nDivinity; but as soon as they expose His conduct, we discover but\nimprudence, want of foresight, weakness, and folly. God, it is said,\ncreated the world for Himself; and so far He has not succeeded in making\nHimself properly respected! God has created men in order to have in His\ndominion subjects who would render Him homage; and we continually see\nmen revolt against Him!\n\n\n\n\nLXVIII.--THE PRETENDED WORKS OF GOD DO NOT PROVE AT ALL WHAT WE CALL\nDIVINE PERFECTION.\n\nWe are continually told of the Divine perfections; and as soon as we ask\nthe proofs of them, we are shown the works in which we are assured that\nthese perfections are written in ineffaceable characters. All these\nworks, however, are imperfect and perishable; man, who is regarded as\nthe masterpiece, as the most marvelous work of Divinity, is full of\nimperfections which render him disagreeable in the eyes of the Almighty\nworkman who has formed him; this surprising work becomes often so\nrevolting and so odious to its Author, that He feels Himself compelled\nto cast him into the fire. But if the choicest work of Divinity is\nimperfect, by what are we to judge of the Divine perfections? Can a work\nwith which the author himself is so little satisfied, cause us to admire\nhis skill? Physical man is subject to a thousand infirmities, to\ncountless evils, to death; the moral man is full of defects; and yet\nthey exhaust themselves by telling us that he is the most beautiful work\nof the most perfect of beings.\n\n\n\n\nLXIX.--THE PERFECTION OF GOD DOES NOT SHOW TO ANY MORE ADVANTAGE IN THE\nPRETENDED CREATION OF ANGELS AND PURE SPIRITS.\n\nIt appears that God, in creating more perfect beings than men, did not\nsucceed any better, or give stronger proofs of His perfection. Do we not\nsee in many religions that angels and pure spirits revolted against\ntheir Master, and even attempted to expel Him from His throne? God\nintended the happiness of angels and of men, and He has never succeeded\nin rendering happy either angels or men; pride, malice, sins, the\nimperfections of His creatures, have always been opposed to the wishes\nof the perfect Creator.\n\n\n\n\nLXX.--THEOLOGY PREACHES THE OMNIPOTENCE OF ITS GOD, AND CONTINUALLY SHOWS\nHIM IMPOTENT.\n\nAll religion is visibly founded upon the principle that \"God proposes\nand man disposes.\" All the theologies of the world show us an unequal\ncombat between Divinity on the one side, and His creatures on the other.\nGod never relies on His honor; in spite of His almighty power, He could\nnot succeed in making the works of His hands as He would like them to\nbe. To complete the absurdity, there is a religion which pretends that\nGod Himself died to redeem the human race; and, in spite of His death,\nmen are not in the least as this God would desire them to be!\n\n\n\n\nLXXI.--ACCORDING TO ALL THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS OF THE EARTH, GOD WOULD BE\nTHE MOST CAPRICIOUS AND THE MOST INSENSATE OF BEINGS.\n\nNothing could be more extravagant than the role which in every country\ntheology makes Divinity play. If the thing was real, we would be obliged\nto see in it the most capricious and the most insane of beings; one\nwould be obliged to believe that God made the world to be the theater of\ndishonoring wars with His creatures; that He created angels, men,\ndemons, wicked spirits, but as adversaries, against whom He could\nexercise His power. He gives them liberty to offend Him, makes them\nwicked enough to upset His projects, obstinate enough to never give up:\nall for the pleasure of getting angry, and being appeased, of\nreconciling Himself, and of repairing the confusion they have made. Had\nDivinity formed at once His creatures such as they ought to be in order\nto please Him, what trouble He might have spared Himself! or, at least,\nhow much embarrassment He might have saved to His theologians! According\nto all the religious systems of the earth, God seems to be occupied but\nin doing Himself injury; He does it as those charlatans do who wound\nthemselves, in order to have occasion to show the public the value of\ntheir ointments. We do not see, however, that so far Divinity has been\nable to radically cure itself of the evil which is caused by men.\n\n\n\n\nLXXII.--IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT EVIL DOES NOT COME FROM GOD.\n\nGod is the author of all; still we are assured that evil does not come\nfrom God. Whence, then, does it come? From men? But who has made men? It\nis God: then that evil comes from God. If He had not made men as they\nare, moral evil or sin would not exist in the world. We must blame God,\nthen, that man is so perverse. If man has the power to do wrong or to\noffend God, we must conclude that God wishes to be offended; that God,\nwho has created man, resolved that evil should be done by him: without\nthis, man would be an effect contrary to the cause from which he derives\nhis being.\n\n\n\n\nLXXIII.--THE FORESIGHT ATTRIBUTED TO GOD, WOULD GIVE TO GUILTY MEN WHOM\nHE PUNISHES, THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN OF HIS CRUELTY.\n\nThe faculty of foresight, or the ability to know in advance all which is\nto happen in the world, is attributed to God. But this foresight can\nscarcely belong to His glory, nor spare Him the reproaches which men\ncould legitimately heap upon Him. If God had the foresight of the\nfuture, did He not foresee the fall of His creatures whom He had\ndestined to happiness? If He resolved in His decrees to allow this fall,\nthere is no doubt that He desired it to take place: otherwise it would\nnot have happened. If the Divine foresight of the sin of His creatures\nhad been necessary or forced, it might be supposed that God was\ncompelled by His justice to punish the guilty; but God, enjoying the\nfaculty of foresight and the power to predestinate everything, would it\nnot depend upon Himself not to impose upon men these cruel laws? Or, at\nleast, could He not have dispensed with creating beings whom He might be\ncompelled to punish and to render unhappy by a subsequent decree? What\ndoes it matter whether God destined men to happiness or to misery by a\nprevious decree, the effect of His foresight, or by a subsequent decree,\nthe effect of His justice. Does the arrangement of these decrees change\nthe fate of the miserable? Would they not have the right to complain of\na God who, having the power of leaving them in oblivion, brought them\nforth, although He foresaw very well that His justice would force Him\nsooner or later to punish them?\n\n\n\n\nLXXIV.--ABSURDITY OF THE THEOLOGICAL FABLES UPON ORIGINAL SIN AND UPON\nSATAN.\n\nMan, say you, issuing from the hands of God, was pure, innocent, and\ngood; but his nature became corrupted in consequence of sin. If man\ncould sin, when just leaving the hands of God, his nature was then not\nperfect! Why did God permit him to sin, and his nature to become\ncorrupt? Why did God allow him to be seduced, knowing well that he would\nbe too weak to resist the tempter? Why did God create a Satan, a\nmalicious spirit, a tempter? Why did not God, who was so desirous of\ndoing good to mankind, why did He not annihilate, once for all, so many\nevil genii whose nature rendered them enemies of our happiness? Or\nrather, why did God create evil spirits, whose victories and terrible\ninfluences upon the human race He must have foreseen? Finally, by what\nfatality, in all the religions of the world, has the evil principle such\na marked advantage over the good principle or over Divinity?\n\n\n\n\nLXXV.--THE DEVIL, LIKE RELIGION, WAS INVENTED TO ENRICH THE PRIESTS.\n\nWe are told a story of the simple-heartedness of an Italian monk, which\ndoes him honor. This good man preaching one day felt obliged to announce\nto his auditory that, thanks to Heaven, he had at last discovered a sure\nmeans of rendering all men happy. \"The devil,\" said he, \"tempts men but\nto have them as comrades of his misery in hell. Let us address\nourselves, then, to the Pope, who possesses the keys of paradise and of\nhell; let us ask him to beseech God, at the head of the whole Church, to\nreconcile Himself with the devil; to take him back into His favor; to\nre-establish him in His first rank. This can not fail to put an end to\nhis sinister projects against mankind.\" The good monk did not see,\nperhaps, that the devil is at least fully as useful as God to the\nministers of religion. These reap too many benefits from their\ndifferences to lend themselves willingly to a reconciliation between the\ntwo enemies ties, upon whose contests their existence and their revenues\ndepend. If men would cease to be tempted and to sin, the ministry of\npriests would become useless to them. Manicheism is evidently the\nsupport of all religions; but unfortunately the devil, being invented to\nremove all suspicion of malice from Divinity, proves to us at every\nmoment the powerlessness or the awkwardness of his celestial Adversary.\n\n\n\n\nLXXVI.--IF GOD COULD NOT RENDER HUMAN NATURE SINLESS, HE HAS NO RIGHT TO\nPUNISH MAN.\n\nMan's nature, it is said, must necessarily become corrupt. God could not\nendow him with sinlessness, which is an inalienable portion of Divine\nperfection. But if God could not render him sinless, why did He take the\ntrouble of creating man, whose nature was to become corrupt, and which,\nconsequently, had to offend God? On the other side, if God Himself was\nnot able to render human nature sinless, what right had He to punish men\nfor not being sinless? It is but by the right of might. But the right of\nthe strongest is violence; and violence is not suited to the most Just\nof Beings. God would be supremely unjust if He punished men for not\nhaving a portion of the Divine perfections, or for not being able to be\nGods like Himself.\n\nCould not God have at least endowed men with that sort of perfection of\nwhich their nature is susceptible? If some men are good or render\nthemselves agreeable to their God, why did not this God bestow the same\nfavor or give the same dispositions to all beings of our kind? Why does\nthe number of wicked exceed so greatly the number of good people? Why,\nfor every friend, does God find ten thousand enemies in a world which\ndepended upon Him alone to people with honest men? If it is true that\nGod intends to form in heaven a court of saints, of chosen ones, or of\nmen who have lived in this world according to His views, would He not\nhave had a court more numerous, more brilliant, and more honorable to\nHim, if it were composed of all the men to whom, in creating them, He\ncould have granted the degree of goodness necessary to obtain eternal\nhappiness? Finally, were it not easier not to take man from nothingness\nthan to create him full of defects, rebellious to his Creator,\nperpetually exposed to lose himself by a fatal abuse of his liberty?\nInstead of creating men, a perfect God ought to have created only docile\nand submissive angels. The angels, it is said, are free; a few among\nthem have sinned; but all of them have not sinned; all have not abused\ntheir liberty by revolting against their Master. Could not God have\ncreated only angels of the good kind? If God could create angels who\nhave not sinned, could He not create men sinless, or those who would\nnever abuse their liberty by doing evil. If the chosen ones are\nincapable of sinning in heaven, could not God have made sinless men upon\nthe earth?\n\n\n\n\nLXXVII.--IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT GOD'S CONDUCT MUST BE A MYSTERY TO MAN,\nAND THAT HE HAS NO RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND JUDGE IT.\n\nWe are told that the enormous distance which separates God from men,\nmakes God's conduct necessarily a mystery for us, and that we have no\nright to interrogate our Master. Is this statement satisfactory? But\naccording to you, when my eternal happiness is involved, have I not the\nright to examine God's own conduct? It is but with the hope of happiness\nthat men submit to the empire of a God. A despot to whom men are\nsubjected but through fear, a master whom they can not interrogate, a\ntotally inaccessible sovereign, can not merit the homage of intelligent\nbeings. If God's conduct is a mystery to me, it is not made for me. Man\ncan not adore, admire, respect, or imitate a conduct of which everything\nis impossible to conceive, or of which he can not form any but revolting\nideas; unless it is pretended that he should worship all the things of\nwhich he is forced to be ignorant, and then all that he does not\nunderstand becomes admirable.\n\nPriests! you teach us that the designs of God are impenetrable; that His\nways are not our ways; that His thoughts are not our thoughts; that it\nis folly to complain of His administration, whose motives and secret\nways are entirely unknown to us; that there is temerity in accusing Him\nof unjust judgments, because they are incomprehensible to us. But do you\nnot see that by speaking in this manner, you destroy with your own hands\nall your profound systems which have no design but to explain the ways\nof Divinity that you call impenetrable? These judgments, these ways, and\nthese designs, have you penetrated them? You dare not say so; and,\nalthough you season incessantly, you do not understand them more than we\ndo. If by chance you know the plan of God, which you tell us to admire,\nwhile there are many people who find it so little worthy of a just,\ngood, intelligent, and rational being; do not say that this plan is\nimpenetrable. If you are as ignorant as we, have some indulgence for\nthose who ingenuously confess that they comprehend nothing of it, or\nthat they see nothing in it Divine. Cease to persecute for opinions\nwhich you do not understand yourselves; cease to slander each other for\ndreams and conjectures which are altogether contradictory; speak to us\nof intelligible and truly useful things; and no longer tell us of the\nimpenetrable ways of a God, about which you do nothing but stammer and\ncontradict yourselves.\n\nIn speaking to us incessantly of the immense depths of Divine wisdom, in\nforbidding us to fathom these depths by telling us that it is insolence\nto call God to the tribunal of our humble reason, in making it a crime\nto judge our Master, the theologians only confess the embarrassment in\nwhich they find themselves as soon as they have to render account of the\nconduct of a God, which they tell us is marvelous, only because it is\ntotally impossible for them to understand it themselves.\n\n\n\n\nLXXVIII.--IT IS ABSURD TO CALL HIM A GOD OF JUSTICE AND GOODNESS, WHO\nINFLICTS EVIL INDISCRIMINATELY ON THE GOOD AND THE WICKED, UPON THE\nINNOCENT AND THE GUILTY; IT IS IDLE TO DEMAND THAT THE UNFORTUNATE\nSHOULD CONSOLE THEMSELVES FOR THEIR MISFORTUNES, IN THE VERY ARMS OF THE\nONE WHO ALONE IS THE AUTHOR OF THEM.\n\nPhysical evil commonly passes as the punishment of sin. Calamities,\ndiseases, famines, wars, earthquakes, are the means which God employs to\nchastise perverse men. Therefore, they have no difficulty in attributing\nthese evils to the severity of a just and good God. However, do we not\nsee these plagues fall indiscriminately upon the good and the wicked,\nupon the impious and the pious, upon the innocent and the guilty? How\ncan we be made to admire, in this proceeding, the justice and the\ngoodness of a being, the idea of whom appears so consoling to the\nunfortunate? Doubtless the brain of these unfortunate ones has been\ndisturbed by their misfortunes, since they forget that God is the\narbiter of things, the sole dispenser of the events of this world. In\nthis case ought they not to blame Him for the evils for which they would\nfind consolation in His arms? Unfortunate father! you console yourself\nin the bosom of Providence for the loss of a cherished child or of a\nwife, who made your happiness! Alas! do you not see that your God has\nkilled them? Your God has rendered you miserable; and you want Him to\nconsole you for the fearful blows He has inflicted upon you.\n\nThe fantastic and supernatural notions of theology have succeeded so\nthoroughly in overcoming the simplest, the clearest, the most natural\nideas of the human spirit, that the pious, incapable of accusing God of\nmalice, accustom themselves to look upon these sad afflictions as\nindubitable proofs of celestial goodness. Are they in affliction, they\nare told to believe that God loves them, that God visits them, that God\nwishes to try them. Thus it is that religion changes evil into good!\nSome one has said profanely, but with reason: \"If the good God treats\nthus those whom He loves, I beseech Him very earnestly not to think of\nme.\" Men must have formed very sinister and very cruel ideas of their\nGod whom they call so good, in order to persuade themselves that the\nmost frightful calamities and the most painful afflictions are signs of\nHis favor! Would a wicked Genii or a Devil be more ingenious in\ntormenting his enemies, than sometimes is this God of goodness, who is\nso often occupied with inflicting His chastisements upon His dearest\nfriends?\n\n\n\n\nLXXIX.--A GOD WHO PUNISHES THE FAULTS WHICH HE COULD HAVE PREVENTED, IS A\nFOOL, WHO ADDS INJUSTICE TO FOOLISHNESS.\n\nWhat would we say or a father who, we are assured, watches without\nrelaxation over the welfare of his feeble and unforeseeing children, and\nwho, however, would leave them at liberty to go astray in the midst of\nrocks, precipices, and waters; who would prevent them but rarely from\nfollowing their disordered appetites; who would permit them to handle,\nwithout precaution, deadly arms, at the risk of wounding themselves\nseverely? What would we think of this same father, if, instead of\nblaming himself for the harm which would have happened to his poor\nchildren, he should punish them for their faults in the most cruel way?\nWe would say, with reason, that this father is a fool, who joins\ninjustice to foolishness. A God who punishes the faults which He could\nhave prevented, is a being who lacks wisdom, goodness, and equity. A God\nof foresight would prevent evil, and in this way would be saved the\ntrouble of punishing it. A good God would not punish weaknesses which He\nknows to be inherent in human nature. A just God, if He has made man,\nwould not punish him for not being strong enough to resist his desires.\nTo punish weakness, is the most unjust tyranny. Is it not calumniating a\njust God, to say that He punishes men for their faults, even in the\npresent life? How would He punish beings whom He alone could correct,\nand who, as long as they had not received grace, can not act otherwise\nthan they do?\n\nAccording to the principles of theologians themselves, man, in his\nactual state of corruption, can do nothing but evil, for without Divine\ngrace he has not the strength to do good. Moreover, if man's nature,\nabandoned to itself, of destitute of Divine help, inclines him\nnecessarily to evil, or renders him incapable of doing good, what\nbecomes of his free will? According to such principles, man can merit\nneither reward nor punishment; in rewarding man for the good he does,\nGod would but recompense Himself; in punishing man for the evil he does,\nGod punishes him for not having been given the grace, without which it\nwas impossible for him to do better.\n\n\n\n\nLXXX.--FREE WILL IS AN IDLE FANCY.\n\nTheologians tell and repeat to us that man is free, while all their\nteachings conspire to destroy his liberty. Trying to justify Divinity,\nthey accuse him really of the blackest injustice. They suppose that,\nwithout grace, man is compelled to do evil: and they maintain that God\nwill punish him for not having been given the grace to do good! With a\nlittle reflection, we will be obliged to see that man in all things acts\nby compulsion, and that his free will is a chimera, even according to\nthe theological system. Does it depend upon man whether or not he shall\nbe born of such or such parents? Does it depend upon man to accept or\nnot to accept the opinions of his parents and of his teachers? If I were\nborn of idolatrous or Mohammedan parents, would it have depended upon me\nto become a Christian? However, grave Doctors of Divinity assure us that\na just God will damn without mercy all those to whom He has not given\nthe grace to know the religion of the Christians.\n\nMan's birth does not depend upon his choice; he was not asked if he\nwould or would not come into the world; nature did not consult him upon\nthe country and the parents that she gave him; the ideas he acquired,\nhis opinions, his true or false notions are the necessary fruits of the\neducation which he has received, and of which he has not been the\nmaster; his passions and his desires are the necessary results of the\ntemperament which nature has given him, and of the ideas with which he\nhas been inspired; during the whole course of his life, his wishes and\nhis actions are determined by his surroundings, his habits, his\noccupations, his pleasures, his conversations, and by the thoughts which\npresent themselves involuntarily to him; in short, by a multitude of\nevents and accidents which are beyond his control. Incapable of\nforeseeing the future, he knows neither what he will wish, nor what he\nwill do in the time which must immediately follow the present. Man\npasses his life, from the moment of his birth to that of his death,\nwithout having been free one instant. Man, you say, wishes, deliberates,\nchooses, determines; hence you conclude that his actions are free. It is\ntrue that man intends, but he is not master of his will or of his\ndesires. He can desire and wish only what he judges advantageous for\nhimself; he can not love pain nor detest pleasure. Man, it will be said,\nsometimes prefers pain to pleasure; but then, he prefers a passing pain\nin the hope of procuring a greater and more durable pleasure. In this\ncase, the idea of a greater good determines him to deprive himself of\none less desirable.\n\nIt is not the lover who gives to his mistress the features by which he\nis enchanted; he is not then the master to love or not to love the\nobject of his tenderness; he is not the master of the imagination or the\ntemperament which dominates him; from which it follows, evidently, that\nman is not the master of the wishes and desires which rise in his soul,\nindependently of him. But man, say you, can resist his desires; then he\nis free. Man resists his desires when the motives which turn him from an\nobject are stronger than those which draw him toward it; but then, his\nresistance is necessary. A man who fears dishonor and punishment more\nthan he loves money, resists necessarily the desire to take possession\nof another's money. Are we not free when we deliberate?--but has one the\npower to know or not to know, to be uncertain or to be assured?\nDeliberation is the necessary effect of the uncertainty in which we find\nourselves with reference to the results of our actions. As soon as we\nbelieve ourselves certain of these results, we necessarily decide; and\nthen we act necessarily according as we shall have judged right or\nwrong. Our judgments, true or false, are not free; they are necessarily\ndetermined by ideas which we have received, or which our mind has\nformed. Man is not free in his choice; he is evidently compelled to\nchoose what he judges the most useful or the most agreeable for himself.\nWhen he suspends his choice, he is not more free; he is forced to\nsuspend it till he knows or believes he knows the qualities of the\nobjects presented to him, or until he has weighed the consequence of his\nactions. Man, you will say, decides every moment on actions which he\nknows will endanger him; man kills himself sometimes, then he is free. I\ndeny it! Has man the ability to reason correctly or incorrectly? Do not\nhis reason and his wisdom depend either upon opinions that he has\nformed, or upon his mental constitution? As neither the one nor the\nother depends upon his will, they can not in any wise prove his liberty.\n\nIf I make the wager to do or not to do a thing, am I not free? Does it\nnot depend upon me to do or not to do it? No; I will answer you, the\ndesire to win the wager will necessarily determine you to do or not to\ndo the thing in question. \"But if I consent to lose the wager?\" Then the\ndesire to prove to me that you are free will have become to you a\nstronger motive than the desire to win the wager; and this motive will\nnecessarily have determined you to do or not to do what was understood\nbetween us. But you will say, \"I feel myself free.\" It is an illusion\nwhich may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, which, lighting\non the shaft of a heavy wagon, applauded itself as driver of the vehicle\nwhich carried it. Man who believes himself free, is a fly who believes\nhimself the master-motor in the machine of the universe, while he\nhimself, without his own volition, is carried on by it. The feeling\nwhich makes us believe that we are free to do or not to do a thing, is\nbut a pure illusion. When we come to the veritable principle of our\nactions, we will find that they are nothing but the necessary results of\nour wills and of our desires, which are never within our power. You\nbelieve yourselves free because you do as you choose; but are you really\nfree to will or not to will, to desire or not to desire? Your wills and\nyour desires, are they not necessarily excited by objects or by\nqualities which do not depend upon you at all?\n\n\n\n\nLXXXI.--WE SHOULD NOT CONCLUDE FROM THIS THAT SOCIETY HAS NOT THE RIGHT\nTO CHASTISE THE WICKED.\n\nIf the actions of men are necessary, if men are not free, what right has\nsociety to punish the wicked who infest it? Is it not very unjust to\nchastise beings who could not act otherwise than they did? If the wicked\nact from the impulse of their corrupt nature, society in punishing them\nacts necessarily on its side from the desire to preserve itself. Certain\nobjects produce in us the feeling of pain; therefore our nature compels\nus to hate them, and incites us to remove them. A tiger pressed by\nhunger, attacks the man whom he wishes to devour; but the man is not the\nmaster of his fear of the tiger, and seeks necessarily the means of\nexterminating it.\n\n\n\n\nLXXXII.--REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF FREE WILL.\n\nIf everything is necessary, if errors, opinions, and ideas of men are\nfated, how or why can we pretend to reform them? The errors of men are\nthe necessary results of their ignorance; their ignorance, their\nobstinacy, their credulity, are the necessary results of their\ninexperience, of their indifference, of their lack of reflection; the\nsame as congestion of the brain or lethargy are the natural effects of\nsome diseases. Truth, experience, reflection, reason, are the proper\nremedies to cure ignorance, fanaticism, and follies; the same as\nbleeding is good to soothe congestion of the brain. But you will say,\nwhy does not truth produce this effect upon many of the sick heads?\nThere are some diseases which resist all remedies; it is impossible to\ncure obstinate patients who refuse to take the remedies which are given\nthem; the interest of some men and the folly of others naturally oppose\nthem to the admission of truth. A cause produces its effect only when it\nis not interrupted in its action by other causes which are stronger, or\nwhich weaken the action of the first cause or render it useless. It is\nentirely impossible to have the best arguments accepted by men who are\nstrongly interested in error; who are prejudiced in its favor; who\nrefuse to reflect; but it must necessarily be that truth undeceives the\nhonest souls who seek it in good faith. Truth is a cause; it produces\nnecessarily its effect when its impulse is not interrupted by causes\nwhich suspend its effects.\n\n\n\n\nLXXXIII.--CONTINUATION.\n\nTo take away from man his free will, is, we are told, to make of him a\npure machine, an automaton without liberty; there would exist in him\nneither merit nor virtue What is merit in man?\n\nIt is a certain manner of acting which renders him estimable in the eyes\nof his fellow beings. What is virtue? It is the disposition that causes\nus to do good to others. What can there be contemptible in automatic\nmachines capable of producing such desirable effects? Marcus Aurelius\nwas a very useful spring to the vast machine of the Roman Empire. By\nwhat right will a machine despise another machine, whose springs would\nfacilitate its own play? Good people are springs which assist society in\nits tendency to happiness; wicked men are badly-formed springs, which\ndisturb the order, the progress, and harmony of society. If for its own\ninterests society loves and rewards the good, she hates, despises, and\nremoves the wicked, as useless or dangerous motors.\n\n\n\n\nLXXXIV.--GOD HIMSELF, IF THERE WAS A GOD, WOULD NOT BE FREE; HENCE THE\nUSELESSNESS OF ALL RELIGION.\n\nThe world is a necessary agent; all the beings which compose it are\nunited to each other, and can not do otherwise than they do, so long as\nthey are moved by the same causes and possessed of the same qualities.\nIf they lose these qualities, they will act necessarily in a different\nway. God Himself (admitting His existence a moment) can not be regarded\nas a free agent; if there existed a God, His manner of acting would\nnecessarily be determined by the qualities inherent in His nature;\nnothing would be able to alter or to oppose His wishes. This considered,\nneither our actions nor our prayers nor our sacrifices could suspend or\nchange His invariable progress and His immutable designs, from which we\nare compelled to conclude that all religion would be entirely useless.\n\n\n\n\nLXXXV.--EVEN ACCORDING TO THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES, MAN IS NOT FREE ONE\nINSTANT.\n\nIf theologians were not constantly contradicting each other, they would\nknow, from their own hypotheses, that man can not be called free for an\ninstant. Is not man supposed to be in a continual dependence upon God?\nIs one free, when one could not have existed or can not live without\nGod, and when one ceases to exist at the pleasure of His supreme will?\nIf God created man of nothing, if the preservation of man is a continual\ncreation, if God can not lose sight of His creature for an instant, if\nall that happens to him is a result of the Divine will, if man is\nnothing of himself, if all the events which he experiences are the\neffects of Divine decrees, if he can not do any good without assistance\nfrom above, how can it be pretended that man enjoys liberty during one\nmoment of his life? If God did not save him in the moment when he sins,\nhow could man sin? If God preserves him, God, therefore, forces him to\nlive in order to sin.\n\n\n\n\nLXXXVI.--ALL EVIL, ALL DISORDER, ALL SIN, CAN BE ATTRIBUTED BUT TO GOD;\nAND CONSEQUENTLY, HE HAS NO RIGHT TO PUNISH OR REWARD.\n\nDivinity is continually compared to a king, the majority of whose\nsubjects revolt against Him and it is pretended that He has the right to\nreward His faithful subjects, and to punish those who revolt against\nHim. This comparison is not just in any of its parts. God presides over\na machine, of which He has made all the springs; these springs act\naccording to the way in which God has formed them; it is the fault of\nHis inaptitude if these springs do not contribute to the harmony of the\nmachine in which the workman desired to place them. God is a creating\nKing, who created all kinds of subjects for Himself; who formed them\naccording to His pleasure, and whose wishes can never find any\nresistance. If God in His empire has rebellious subjects, it is God who\nresolved to have rebellious subjects. If the sins of men disturb the\norder of the world, it is God who desired this order to be disturbed.\nNobody dares to doubt Divine justice; however, under the empire of a\njust God, we find nothing but injustice and violence. Power decides the\nfate of nations. Equity seems to be banished from the earth; a small\nnumber of men enjoy with impunity the repose, the fortunes, the liberty,\nand the life of all the others. Everything is in disorder in a world\ngoverned by a God of whom it is said that disorder displeases Him\nexceedingly.\n\n\n\n\nLXXXVII.--MEN'S PRAYERS TO GOD PROVE SUFFICIENTLY THAT THEY ARE NOT\nSATISFIED WITH THE DIVINE ECONOMY.\n\nAlthough men incessantly admire the wisdom the goodness, the justice,\nthe beautiful order of Providence, they are, in fact, never contented\nwith it. The prayers which they continually offer to Heaven, prove to us\nthat they are not at all satisfied with God's administration. Praying to\nGod, asking a favor of Him, is to mistrust His vigilant care; to pray\nGod to avert or to suppress an evil, is to endeavor to put obstacles in\nthe way of His justice; to implore the assistance of God in our\ncalamities, means to appeal to the very author of these calamities in\norder to represent to Him our welfare; that He ought to rectify in our\nfavor His plan, which is not beneficial to our interests. The optimist,\nor the one who thinks that everything is good in the world, and who\nrepeats to us incessantly that we live in the best world possible, if he\nwere consistent, ought never to pray; still less should he expect\nanother world where men will be happier. Can there be a better world\nthan the best possible of all worlds? Some of the theologians have\ntreated the optimists as impious for having claimed that God could not\nhave made a better world than the one in which we live; according to\nthese doctors it is limiting the Divine power and insulting it. But do\nnot theologians see that it is less offensive for God, to pretend that\nHe did His best in creating the world, than to say that He, having the\npower to produce a better one, had the malice to make a very bad one? If\nthe optimist, by his system, does wrong to the Divine power, the\ntheologian, who treats him as impious, is himself a reprobate, who\nwounds the Divine goodness under pretext of taking interest in God.\n\n\n\n\nLXXXVIII.--THE REPARATION OF THE INIQUITIES AND THE MISERIES OF THIS\nWORLD IN ANOTHER WORLD, IS AN IDLE CONJECTURE AND AN ABSURD SUPPOSITION.\n\nWhen we complain of the evils of which this world is the theater, we are\nreferred to another world; we are told that there God will repair all\nthe iniquities and the miseries which He permits for a time here below.\nHowever, if leaving His eternal justice to sleep for a time, God could\nconsent to evil during the period of the existence of our globe, what\nassurance have we that during the existence of another globe, Divine\njustice will not likewise sleep during the misfortunes of its\ninhabitants? They console us in our troubles by saying, that God is\npatient, and that His justice, although often very slow, is not the less\ncertain. But do you not see, that patience can not be suited to a being\njust, immutable, and omnipotent? Can God tolerate injustice for an\ninstant? To temporize with an evil that one knows of, evinces either\nuncertainty, weakness, or collusion; to tolerate evil which one has the\npower to prevent, is to consent that evil should be committed.\n\n\n\n\nLXXXIX.--THEOLOGY JUSTIFIES THE EVIL AND INJUSTICE PERMITTED BY ITS GOD,\nONLY BY CONCEDING TO THIS GOD THE RIGHT OF THE STRONGEST, THAT IS TO\nSAY, THE VIOLATION OF ALL RIGHTS, OR IN COMMANDING FROM MEN A STUPID\nDEVOTION.\n\nI hear a multitude of theologians tell me on all sides, that God is\ninfinitely just, but that His justice is not that of men! Of what kind,\nor of what nature is this Divine justice then? What idea can I form of a\njustice which so often resembles human injustice? Is it not confounding\nall our ideas of justice and of injustice, to tell us that what is\nequitable in God is iniquitous in His creatures? How can we take as a\nmodel a being whose Divine perfections are precisely contrary to human\nperfections? God, you say, is the sovereign arbiter of our destinies;\nHis supreme power, that nothing can limit, authorizes Him to do as He\npleases with His works; a worm, such as man, has not the right to murmur\nagainst Him. This arrogant tone is literally borrowed from the language\nwhich the ministers of tyrants hold, when they silence those who suffer\nby their violences; it can not, then, be the language of the ministers\nof a God of whose equity they boast. It can not impose upon a being who\nreasons. Ministers of a just God! I tell you then, that the greatest\npower is not able to confer even upon your God Himself the right to be\nunjust to the vilest of His creatures. A despot is not a God. A God who\narrogates to Himself the right to do evil, is a tyrant; a tyrant is not\na model for men. He ought to be an execrable object in their eyes. Is it\nnot strange that, in order to justify Divinity, they made of Him the\nmost unjust of beings? As soon as we complain of His conduct, they think\nto silence us by claiming that God is the Master; which signifies that\nGod, being the strongest, He is not subjected to ordinary rules. But the\nright of the strongest is the violation of all rights; it can pass as a\nright but in the eyes of a savage conqueror, who, in the intoxication of\nhis fury, imagines he has the right to do as he pleases with the\nunfortunate ones whom he has conquered; this barbarous right can appear\nlegitimate only to slaves, who are blind enough to think that everything\nis allowed to tyrants, who are too strong for them to resist.\n\nBy a foolish simplicity, or rather by a plain contradiction of terms, do\nwe not see devotees exclaim, amidst the greatest calamities, that the\ngood Lord is the Master? Well, illogical reasoners, you believe in good\nfaith that the good Lord sends you the pestilence; that your good Lord\ngives war; that the good Lord is the cause of famine; in a word, that\nthe good Lord, without ceasing to be good, has the will and the right to\ndo you the greatest evils you can endure! Cease to call your Lord good\nwhen He does you harm; do not say that He is just; say that He is the\nstrongest, and that it is impossible for you to avert the blows which\nHis caprice inflicts upon you. God, you say, punishes us for our highest\ngood; but what real benefit can result to a nation in being exterminated\nby contagion, murdered by wars, corrupted by the examples of perverse\nmasters, continually pressed by the iron scepter of merciless tyrants,\nsubjected to the scourge of a bad government, which often for centuries\ncauses nations to suffer its destructive effects? The eyes of faith must\nbe strange eyes, if we see by their means any advantage in the most\ndreadful miseries and in the most durable evils, in the vices and\nfollies by which our kind is so cruelly afflicted!\n\n\n\n\nXC.--REDEMPTION, AND THE CONTINUAL EXTERMINATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO JEHOVAH\nIN THE BIBLE, ARE SO MANY ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS INVENTIONS WHICH\nPRESUPPOSE AN UNJUST AND BARBAROUS GOD.\n\nWhat strange ideas of the Divine justice must the Christians have who\nbelieve that their God, with the view of reconciling Himself with\nmankind, guilty without knowledge of the fault of their parents,\nsacrificed His own innocent and sinless Son! What would we say of a\nking, whose subjects having revolted against him, in order to appease\nhimself could find no other expedient than to put to death the heir to\nhis crown, who had taken no part in the general rebellion? It is, the\nChristian will say, through kindness for His subjects, incapable of\nsatisfying themselves of His Divine justice, that God consented to the\ncruel death of His Son. But the kindness of a father to strangers does\nnot give him the right to be unjust and cruel to his son. All the\nqualities that theology gives to its God annul each other. The exercise\nof one of His perfections is always at the expense of another.\n\nHas the Jew any more rational ideas than the Christian of Divine\njustice? A king, by his pride, kindles the wrath of Heaven. Jehovah\nsends pestilence upon His innocent people; seventy thousand subjects are\nexterminated to expiate the fault of  a monarch that the kindness of God\nresolved to spare.\n\n\n\n\nXCI.--HOW CAN WE DISCOVER A TENDER, GENEROUS, AND EQUITABLE FATHER IN A\nBEING WHO HAS CREATED HIS CHILDREN BUT TO MAKE THEM UNHAPPY?\n\nIn spite of the injustice with which all religions are pleased to\nblacken the Divinity, men can not consent to accuse Him of iniquity;\nthey fear that He, like the tyrants of this world, will be offended by\nthe truth, and redouble the weight of His malice and tyranny upon them.\nThey listen, then, to their priests, who tell them that their God is a\ntender Father; that this God is an equitable Monarch, whose object in\nthis world is to assure Himself of the love, obedience, and respect of\nHis subjects; who gives them the liberty to act, in order to give them\noccasion to deserve His favors and to acquire eternal happiness, which\nHe does not owe them in any way. In what way can we recognize the\ntenderness of a Father who created the majority of His children but for\nthe purpose of dragging out a life of pain, anxiety, and bitterness upon\nthis earth? Is there any more fatal boon than this pretended liberty\nwhich, it is said, men can abuse, and thereby expose themselves to the\nrisk of eternal misery?\n\n\n\n\nXCII.--THE LIFE OF MORTALS, ALL WHICH TAKES PLACE HERE BELOW, TESTIFIES\nAGAINST MAN'S LIBERTY AND AGAINST THE JUSTICE AND GOODNESS OF A\nPRETENDED GOD.\n\nIn calling mortals into life, what a cruel and dangerous game does the\nDivinity force them to play! Thrust into the world without their wish,\nprovided with a temperament of which they are not the masters, animated\nby passions and desires inherent in their nature, exposed to snares\nwhich they have not the skill to avoid, led away by events which they\ncould neither foresee nor prevent, the unfortunate beings are obliged to\nfollow a career which conducts them to horrible tortures.\n\nTravelers assert that in some part of Asia reigns a sultan full of\nphantasies, and very absolute in his will. By a strange mania this\nprince spends his time sitting before a table, on which are placed six\ndice and a dice-box. One end of the table is covered with a pile of\ngold, for the purpose of exciting the cupidity of the courtiers and of\nthe people by whom the sultan is surrounded. He, knowing the weak point\nof his subjects, speaks to them in this way: \"Slaves! I wish you well;\nmy aim is to enrich you and render you all happy. Do you see these\ntreasures? Well, they are for you! try to win them; let each one in turn\ntake this box and these dice; whoever shall have the good luck to raffle\nsix, will be master of this treasure; but I warn you that he who has not\nthe luck to throw the required number, will be precipitated forever into\nan obscure cell, where my justice exacts that he shall be burned by a\nslow fire.\" Upon this threat of the monarch, they regarded each other in\nconsternation; no one willing to take a risk so dangerous. \"What!\" said\nthe angry sultan, \"no one wants to play? Oh, this does not suit me! My\nglory demands that you play. You will raffle then; I wish it; obey\nwithout replying!\" It is well to observe that the despot's dice are\nprepared in such a way, that upon a hundred thousand throws there is but\none that wins; thus the generous monarch has the pleasure to see his\nprison well filled, and his treasures seldom carried away. Mortals! this\nSultan is your God; His treasures are heaven; His cell is hell; and you\nhold the dice!\n\n\n\n\nXCIII.--IT IS NOT TRUE THAT WE OWE ANY GRATITUDE TO WHAT WE CALL\nPROVIDENCE.\n\nWe are constantly told that we owe an infinite gratitude to Providence\nfor the countless blessings It is pleased to lavish upon us. They boast\nabove all that our existence is a blessing. But, alas! how many mortals\nare really satisfied with their mode of existence? If life has its\nsweets, how much of bitterness is mingled with it? Is not one bitter\ntrouble sufficient to blight all of a sudden the most peaceful and happy\nlife? Is there a great number of men who, if it depended upon them,\nwould wish to begin, at the same sacrifice, the painful career into\nwhich, without their consent, destiny has thrown them? You say that\nexistence itself is a great blessing. But is not this existence\ncontinually troubled by griefs, fears, and often cruel and undeserved\nmaladies. This existence, menaced on so many sides, can we not be\ndeprived of it at any moment? Who is there, after having lived for some\ntime, who has not been deprived of a beloved wife, a beloved child, a\nconsoling friend, whose loss fills his mind constantly? There are very\nfew mortals who have not been compelled to drink from the cup of\nbitterness; there are but few who have not often wished to die. Finally,\nit did not depend upon us to exist or not to exist. Would the bird be\nunder such great obligations to the bird-catcher for having caught it in\nhis net and for having put it into his cage, in order to eat it after\nbeing amused with it?\n\n\n\n\nXCIV.--TO PRETEND THAT MAN IS THE BELOVED CHILD OF PROVIDENCE, GOD'S\nFAVORITE, THE ONLY OBJECT OF HIS LABORS, THE KING OF NATURE, IS FOLLY.\n\nIn spite of the infirmities, the troubles, the miseries to which man is\ncompelled to submit in this world; in spite of the danger which his\nalarmed imagination creates in regard to another, he is still foolish\nenough to believe himself to be God's favorite, the only aim of all His\nworks. He imagines that the entire universe was made for him; he calls\nhimself arrogantly the king of nature, and ranks himself far above other\nanimals. Poor mortal! upon what can you establish your high pretensions?\nIt is, you say, upon your soul, upon your reason, upon your sublime\nfaculties, which place you in a condition to exercise an absolute\nauthority over the beings which surround you. But weak sovereign of this\nworld, art thou sure one instant of the duration of thy reign? The least\natoms of matter which you despise, are they not sufficient to deprive\nyou of your throne and life? Finally, does not the king of animals\nterminate always by becoming food for the worms?\n\nYou speak of your soul. But do you know what your soul is? Do you not\nsee that this soul is but the assemblage of your organs, from which life\nresults? Would you refuse a soul to other animals who live, who think,\nwho judge, who compare, who seek pleasure, and avoid pain even as you\ndo, and who often possess organs which are better than your own? You\nboast of your intellectual faculties, but these faculties which render\nyou so proud, do they make you any happier than other creatures? Do you\noften make use of this reason which you glory in, and which religion\ncommands you not to listen to? Those animals which you disdain because\nthey are weaker or less cunning than yourself, are they subject to\ntroubles, to mental anxieties, to a thousand frivolous passions, to a\nthousand imaginary needs, of which your heart is continually the prey?\nAre they, like you, tormented by the past, alarmed for the future?\n\nLimited solely to the present, what you call their instinct, and what I\ncall their intelligence, is it not sufficient to preserve and to defend\nthem and to provide for their needs? This instinct, of which you speak\nwith disdain, does it not often serve them much better than your\nwonderful faculties? Their peaceable ignorance, is it not more\nadvantageous than these extravagant meditations and these futile\ninvestigations which render you miserable, and for which you are driven\nto murdering beings of your own noble kind? Finally, these animals, have\nthey, like mortals, a troubled imagination which makes them fear not\nonly death, but even eternal torments? Augustus, having heard that\nHerod, king of Judea, had murdered his sons, cried out: \"It would be\nbetter to be Herod's pig than his son!\" We can say as much of men; this\nbeloved child of Providence runs much greater risks than all other\nanimals. After having suffered a great deal in this world, do we not\nbelieve ourselves in danger of suffering for eternity in another?\n\n\n\n\nXCV.--COMPARISON BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMALS.\n\nWhat is the exact line of demarcation between man and the other animals\nwhich he calls brutes? In what way does he essentially differ from the\nbeasts? It is, we are told, by his intelligence, by the faculties of his\nmind, by his reason, that man is superior to all the other animals,\nwhich in all they do, act but by physical impulsions, reason taking no\npart. But the beasts, having more limited needs than men, do very well\nwithout these intellectual faculties, which would be perfectly useless\nin their way of living. Their instinct is sufficient for them, while all\nthe faculties of man are hardly sufficient to render his existence\nendurable, and to satisfy the needs which his imagination, his\nprejudices, and his institutions multiply to his torment.\n\nThe brute is not affected by the same objects as man; it has neither the\nsame needs, nor the same desires, nor the same whims; it early reaches\nmaturity, while nothing is more rare than to see the human being\nenjoying all of his faculties, exercising them freely, and making a\nproper use of them for his own happiness.\n\n\n\n\nXCVI.--THERE ARE NO MORE DETESTABLE ANIMALS IN THIS WORLD THAN TYRANTS.\n\nWe are assured that the human soul is a simple substance; but if the\nsoul is such a simple substance, it ought to be the same in all the\nindividuals of the human race, who all ought to have the same\nintellectual faculties; however, this is not the case; men differ as\nmuch in qualities of mind as in the features of the face. There are in\nthe human race, beings as different from one another as man is from a\nhorse or a dog. What conformity or resemblance do we find between some\nmen? What an infinite distance between the genius of a Locke, of a\nNewton, and that of a peasant, of a Hottentot, or of a Laplander!\n\nMan differs from other animals but by the difference of his\norganization, which causes him to produce effects of which they are not\ncapable. The variety which we notice in the organs of individuals of the\nhuman race, suffices to explain to us the difference which is often\nfound between them in regard to the intellectual faculties. More or less\nof delicacy in these organs, of heat in the blood, of promptitude in the\nfluids, more or less of suppleness or of rigidity in the fibers and the\nnerves, must necessarily produce the infinite diversities which are\nnoticeable in the minds of men. It is by exercise, by habitude, by\neducation, that the human mind is developed and succeeds in rising above\nthe beings which surround it; man, without culture and without\nexperience, is a being as devoid of reason and of industry as the brute.\nA stupid individual is a man whose organs are acted upon with\ndifficulty, whose brain is hard to move, whose blood circulates slowly;\na man of mind is he whose organs are supple, who feels very quickly,\nwhose brain moves promptly; a learned man is one whose organs and whose\nbrain have been exercised a long while upon objects which occupy him.\n\nThe man without culture, experience, or reason, is he not more\ndespicable and more abominable than the vilest insects, or the most\nferocious beasts? Is there a more detestable being in nature than a\nTiberius, a Nero, a Caligula? These destroyers of the human race, known\nby the name of conquerors, have they better souls than those of bears,\nlions, and panthers? Are there more detestable animals in this world\nthan tyrants?\n\n\n\n\nXCVII.--REFUTATION OF MAN'S EXCELLENCE.\n\nHuman extravagances soon dispel, in the eyes of reason, the superiority\nwhich man arrogantly claims over other animals. Do we not see many\nanimals show more gentleness, more reflection and reason than the animal\nwhich calls itself reasonable par excellence? Are there amongst men, who\nare so often enslaved and oppressed, societies as well organized as\nthose of ants, bees, or beavers? Do we ever see ferocious beasts of the\nsame kind meet upon the plains to devour each other without profit? Do\nwe see among them religious wars? The cruelty of beasts against other\nspecies is caused by hunger, the need of nourishment; the cruelty of man\nagainst man has no other motive than the vanity of his masters and the\nfolly of his impertinent prejudices. Theorists who try to make us\nbelieve that everything in the universe was made for man, are very much\nembarrassed when we ask them in what way can so many mischievous animals\nwhich continually infest our life here, contribute to the welfare of\nmen. What known advantage results for God's friend to be bitten by a\nviper, stung by a gnat, devoured by vermin, torn into pieces by a tiger?\nWould not all these animals reason as wisely as our theologians, if they\nshould pretend that man was made for them?\n\n\n\n\nXCVIII.--AN ORIENTAL LEGEND.\n\nAt a short distance from Bagdad a dervis, celebrated for his holiness,\npassed his days tranquilly in agreeable solitude. The surrounding\ninhabitants, in order to have an interest in his prayers, eagerly\nbrought to him every day provisions and presents. The holy man thanked\nGod incessantly for the blessings Providence heaped upon him. \"O Allah,\"\nsaid he, \"how ineffable is Thy tenderness toward Thy servants. What have\nI done to deserve the benefactions which Thy liberality loads me with!\nOh, Monarch of the skies! oh, Father of nature! what praises could be\nworthy to celebrate Thy munificence and Thy paternal cares! O Allah, how\ngreat are Thy gifts to the children of men!\" Filled with gratitude, our\nhermit made a vow to undertake for the seventh time the pilgrimage to\nMecca. The war, which then existed between the Persians and the Turks,\ncould not make him defer the execution of his pious enterprise. Full of\nconfidence in God, he began his journey; under the inviolable safeguard\nof a respected garb, he passed through without obstacle the enemies'\ndetachments; far from being molested, he receives at every step marks of\nveneration from the soldiers of both sides. At last, overcome by\nfatigue, he finds himself obliged to seek a shelter from the rays of the\nburning sun; he finds it beneath a fresh group of palm-trees, whose\nroots were watered by a limpid rivulet. In this solitary place, where\nthe silence was broken only by the murmuring of the waters and the\nsinging of the birds, the man of God found not only an enchanting\nretreat, but also a delicious repast; he had but to extend the hand to\ngather dates and other agreeable fruits; the rivulet can appease his\nthirst; very soon a green plot invites him to take sweet repose. As he\nawakens he performs the holy cleansing; and in a transport of ecstasy,\nhe exclaimed: \"O Allah! HOW GREAT IS THY GOODNESS TO THE CHILDREN OF\nMEN!\" Well rested, refreshed, full of life and gayety, our holy man\ncontinues on his road; it conducts him for some time through a\ndelightful country, which offers to his sight but blooming shores and\ntrees filled with fruit. Softened by this spectacle, he worships\nincessantly the rich and liberal hand of Providence, which is everywhere\nseen occupied with the welfare of the human race. Going a little\nfarther, he comes across a few mountains, which were quite hard to\nascend; but having arrived at their summit, a hideous sight suddenly\nmeets his eyes; his soul is all consternation. He discovers a vast plain\nentirely devastated by the sword and fire; he looks at it and finds it\ncovered with more than a hundred thousand corpses, deplorable remains of\na bloody battle which had taken place a few days previous. Eagles,\nvultures, ravens, and wolves were devouring the dead bodies with which\nthe earth was covered. This sight plunges our pilgrim into a sad\nreverie. Heaven, by a special favor, had made him understand the\nlanguage of beasts. He heard a wolf, gorged with human flesh, exclaim in\nhis excessive joy: \"O Allah! how great is Thy kindness for the children\nof wolves! Thy foreseeing wisdom takes care to send infatuation upon\nthese detestable men who are so dangerous to us. Through an effect of\nThy Providence which watches over Thy creatures, these, our destroyers,\nmurder each other, and thus furnish us with sumptuous repasts. O Allah!\nHOW GREAT IS THY GOODNESS TO THE CHILDREN OF WOLVES!\"\n\n\n\n\nXCIX.--IT IS FOOLISH TO SEE IN THE UNIVERSE ONLY THE BENEFACTIONS OF\nHEAVEN, AND TO BELIEVE THAT THIS UNIVERSE WAS MADE BUT FOR MAN.\n\nAn exalted imagination sees in the universe but the benefactions of\nHeaven; a calm mind finds good and evil in it. I exist, you will say;\nbut is this existence always a benefit? You will say, look at this sun,\nwhich shines for you; this earth, which is covered with fruits and\nverdure; these flowers, which bloom for our sight and smell; these\ntrees, which bend beneath the weight of fruits; these pure streams,\nwhich flow but to quench your thirst; these seas, which embrace the\nuniverse to facilitate your commerce; these animals, which a foreseeing\nnature produces for your use! Yes, I see all these things, and I enjoy\nthem when I can. But in some climates this beautiful sun is most always\nobscured from me; in others, its excessive heat torments me, produces\nstorm, gives rise to dreadful diseases, dries up the fields; the meadows\nhave no grass, the trees are fruitless, the harvests are scorched, the\nsprings are dried up; I can scarcely exist, and I sigh under the cruelty\nof a nature which you find so benevolent. If these seas bring me spices,\nriches, and useless things, do they not destroy a multitude of mortals\nwho are dupes enough to go after them?\n\nMan's vanity persuades him that he is the sole center of the universe;\nhe creates for himself a world and a God; he thinks himself of\nsufficient consequence to derange nature at his will, but he reasons as\nan atheist when the question of other animals is involved. Does he not\nimagine that the individuals different from his species are automatons\nunworthy of the cares of universal Providence, and that the beasts can\nnot be the objects of its justice and kindness? Mortals consider\nfortunate or unfortunate events, health or sickness, life and death,\nabundance or famine, as rewards or punishments for the use or misuse of\nthe liberty which they arrogate to themselves. Do they reason on this\nprinciple when animals are taken into consideration? No; although they\nsee them under a just God enjoy and suffer, be healthy and sick, live\nand die, like themselves, it does not enter their mind to ask what\ncrimes these beasts have committed in order to cause the displeasure of\nthe Arbiter of nature. Philosophers, blinded by their theological\nprejudices, in order to disembarrass themselves, have gone so far as to\npretend that beasts have no feelings!\n\nWill men never renounce their foolish pretensions? Will they not\nrecognize that nature was not made for them? Will they not see that this\nnature has placed on equal footing all the beings which she produced?\nWill they not see that all organized beings are equally made to be born\nand to die, to enjoy and to suffer? Finally, instead of priding\nthemselves preposterously on their mental faculties, are they not\ncompelled to admit that they often render them more unhappy than the\nbeasts, in which we find neither opinions, prejudices, vanities, nor the\nweaknesses which decide at every moment the well-being of men?\n\n\n\n\nC.--WHAT IS THE SOUL? WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. IF THIS PRETENDED SOUL\nWAS OF ANOTHER ESSENCE FROM THAT OF THE BODY, THEIR UNION WOULD BE\nIMPOSSIBLE.\n\nThe superiority which men arrogate to themselves over other animals, is\nprincipally founded upon the opinion of possessing exclusively an\nimmortal soul. But as soon as we ask what this soul is, they begin to\nstammer. It is an unknown substance; it is a secret force distinguished\nfrom their bodies; it is a spirit of which they can form no idea. Ask\nthem how this spirit, which they suppose like their God, totally\ndeprived of a physical substance, could combine itself with their\nmaterial bodies? They will tell you that they know nothing about it;\nthat it is a mystery to them; that this combination is the effect of the\nAlmighty power. These are the clear ideas which men form of the hidden,\nor, rather, imaginary substance which they consider the motor of all\ntheir actions! If the soul is a substance essentially different from the\nbody, and which can have no affinity with it, their union would be, not\na mystery, but a thing impossible. Besides, this soul, being of an\nessence different from that of the body, ought to act necessarily in a\ndifferent way from it. However, we see that the movements of the body\nare felt by this pretended soul, and that these two substances, so\ndifferent in essence, always act in harmony. You will tell us that this\nharmony is a mystery; and I will tell you that I do not see my soul,\nthat I know and feel but my body; that it is my body which feels, which\nreflects, which judges, which suffers, and which enjoys, and that all of\nits faculties are the necessary results of its own mechanism or of its\norganization.\n\n\n\n\nCI.--THE EXISTENCE OF A SOUL IS AN ABSURD SUPPOSITION, AND THE EXISTENCE\nOF AN IMMORTAL SOUL IS A STILL MORE ABSURD SUPPOSITION.\n\nAlthough it is impossible for men to have the least idea of the soul, or\nof this pretended spirit which animates them, they persuade themselves,\nhowever, that this unknown soul is exempt from death; everything proves\nto them that they feel, think, acquire ideas, enjoy or suffer, but by\nthe means of the senses or of the material organs of the body. Even\nadmitting the existence of this soul, one can not refuse to recognize\nthat it depends wholly on the body, and suffers conjointly with it all\nthe vicissitudes which it experiences itself; and however it is imagined\nthat it has by its nature nothing analogous with it; it is pretended\nthat it can act and feel without the assistance of this body; that\ndeprived of this body and robbed of its senses, this soul will be able\nto live, to enjoy, to suffer, be sensitive of enjoyment or of rigorous\ntorments. Upon such a tissue of conjectural absurdities the wonderful\nopinion of the immortality of the soul is built.\n\nIf I ask what ground we have for supposing that the soul is immortal:\nthey reply, it is because man by his nature desires to be immortal, or\nto live forever. But I rejoin, if you desire anything very much, is it\nsufficient to conclude that this desire will be fulfilled? By what\nstrange logic do they decide that a thing can not fail to happen because\nthey ardently desire it to happen? Man's childish desires of the\nimagination, are they the measure of reality? Impious people, you say,\ndeprived of the flattering hopes of another life, desire to be\nannihilated. Well, have they not just as much right to conclude by this\ndesire that they will be annihilated, as you to conclude that you will\nexist forever because you desire it?\n\n\n\n\nCII.--IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE WHOLE OF MAN DIES.\n\nMan dies entirely. Nothing is more evident to him who is not delirious.\nThe human body, after death, is but a mass, incapable of producing any\nmovements the union of which constitutes life. We no longer see\ncirculation, respiration, digestion, speech, or reflection. It is\nclaimed then that the soul has separated itself from the body. But to\nsay that this soul, which is unknown, is the principle of life, is\nsaying nothing, unless that an unknown force is the invisible principle\nof imperceptible movements. Nothing is more natural and more simple than\nto believe that the dead man lives no more, nothing more absurd than to\nbelieve that the dead man is still living.\n\nWe ridicule the simplicity of some nations whose fashion is to bury\nprovisions with the dead--under the idea that this food might be useful\nand necessary to them in another life. Is it more ridiculous or more\nabsurd to believe that men will eat after death than to imagine that\nthey will think; that they will have agreeable or disagreeable ideas;\nthat they will enjoy; that they will suffer; that they will be conscious\nof sorrow or joy when the organs which produce sensations or ideas are\ndissolved and reduced to dust? To claim that the souls of men will be\nhappy or unhappy after the death of the body, is to pretend that man\nwill be able to see without eyes, to hear without ears, to taste without\na palate, to smell without a nose, and to feel without hands and without\nskin. Nations who believe themselves very rational, adopt, nevertheless,\nsuch ideas.\n\n\n\n\nCIII.--INCONTESTABLE PROOFS AGAINST THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE SOUL.\n\nThe dogma of the immortality of the soul assumes that the soul is a\nsimple substance, a spirit; but I will always ask, what is a spirit? It\nis, you say, a substance deprived of expansion, incorruptible, and which\nhas nothing in common with matter. But if this is true, how came your\nsoul into existence? how did it grow? how did it strengthen? how weaken\nitself, get out of order, and grow old with your body? In reply to all\nthese questions, you say that they are mysteries; but if they are\nmysteries, you understand nothing about them. If you do not understand\nanything about them, how can you positively affirm anything about them?\nIn order to believe or to affirm anything, it is necessary at least to\nknow what that consists of which we believe and which we affirm. To\nbelieve in the existence of your immaterial soul, is to say that you are\npersuaded of the existence of a thing of which it is impossible for you\nto form any true idea; it is to believe in words without attaching any\nsense to them; to affirm that the thing is as you claim, is the highest\nfolly or assumption.\n\n\n\n\nCIV.--THE ABSURDITY OF SUPERNATURAL CAUSES, WHICH THEOLOGIANS CONSTANTLY\n\n\n\nCALL TO THEIR AID.\n\nAre not theologians strange reasoners? As soon as they can not guess the\nnatural causes of things, they invent causes, which they call\nsupernatural; they imagine them spirits, occult causes, inexplicable\nagents, or rather words much more obscure than the things which they\nattempt to explain. Let us remain in nature when we desire to understand\nits phenomena; let us ignore the causes which are too delicate to be\nseized by our organs; and let us be assured that by seeking outside of\nnature we can never find the solution of nature's problems. Even upon\nthe theological hypothesis--that is to say, supposing an Almighty motor\nin matter--what right have theologians to refuse their God the power to\nendow this matter with thought? Would it be more difficult for Him to\ncreate combinations of matter from which results thought, than spirits\nwhich think? At least, in supposing a substance endowed with thought, we\ncould form some idea of the object of our thoughts, or of what thinks in\nus; while attributing thought to an immaterial being, it is impossible\nfor us to form the least idea of it.\n\n\n\n\nCV.--IT IS FALSE THAT MATERIALISM CAN BE DEBASING TO THE HUMAN RACE.\n\nMaterialism, it is objected, makes of man a mere machine, which is\nconsidered very debasing to the human race. But will the human race be\nmore honored when it can be said that man acts by the secret impulsions\nof a spirit, or a certain something which animates him without his\nknowing how? It is easy to perceive that the superiority which is given\nto mind over matter, or to the soul over the body, is based upon the\nignorance of the nature of this soul; while we are more familiarized\nwith matter or the body, which we imagine we know, and of which we\nbelieve we have understood the springs; but the most simple movements of\nour bodies are, for every thinking man, enigmas as difficult to divine\nas thought.\n\n\n\n\nCVI.--CONTINUATION.\n\nThe esteem which so many people have for the spiritual substance,\nappears to result from the impossibility they find in defining it in an\nintelligible way. The contempt which our metaphysicians show for matter,\ncomes from the fact that \"familiarity breeds contempt.\" When they tell\nus that the soul is more excellent and noble than the body, they tell us\nnothing, except that what they know nothing about must be more beautiful\nthan that of which they have some faint ideas.\n\n\n\n\nCVII.--THE DOGMA OF ANOTHER LIFE IS USEFUL BUT FOR THOSE WHO PROFIT BY IT\nAT THE EXPENSE OF THE CREDULOUS PUBLIC.\n\nWe are constantly told of the usefulness of the dogma of life hereafter.\nIt is pretended that even if it should be a fiction, it is advantageous,\nbecause it imposes upon men and leads them to virtue. But is it true\nthat this dogma renders men wiser and more virtuous? The nations where\nthis fiction is established, are they remarkable for the morality of\ntheir conduct? Is not the visible world always preferred to the\ninvisible world? If those who are charged to instruct and to govern men\nhad themselves enlightenment and virtue, they would govern them far\nbetter by realities than by vain chimeras; but deceitful, ambitious, and\ncorrupt, the legislators found it everywhere easier to put the nations\nto sleep by fables than to teach them truths; than to develop their\nreason; than to excite them to virtue by sensible and real motives; than\nto govern them in a reasonable way.\n\nTheologians, no doubt, have had reasons for making the soul immaterial.\nThey needed souls and chimeras to populate the imaginary regions which\nthey have discovered in the other life. Material souls would have been\nsubjected, like all bodies, to dissolution. Moreover, if men believe\nthat everything is to perish with the body, the geographers of the other\nworld would evidently lose the chance of guiding their souls to this\nunknown abode. They would draw no profits from the hopes with which they\nfeast them, and from the terrors with which they take care to overwhelm\nthem. If the future is of no real utility to the human race, it is at\nleast of the greatest advantage to those who take upon themselves the\nresponsibility of conducting mankind thither.\n\n\n\n\nCVIII.--IT IS FALSE THAT THE DOGMA OF ANOTHER LIFE CAN BE CONSOLING; AND\nIF IT WERE, IT WOULD BE NO PROOF THAT THIS ASSERTION IS TRUE.\n\nBut, it will be said, is not the dogma of the immortality of the soul\nconsoling for beings who often find themselves very unhappy here below?\nIf this should be an illusion, is it not a sweet and agreeable one? Is\nit not a benefit for man to believe that he can live again and enjoy,\nsometime, the happiness which is refused to him on earth? Thus, poor\nmortals! you make your wishes the measure of the truth! Because you\ndesire to live forever, and to be happier, you conclude from thence that\nyou will live forever, and that you will be more fortunate in an unknown\nworld than in the known world, in which you so often suffer! Consent,\nthen, to leave without regret this world, which causes more trouble than\npleasure to the majority of you. Resign yourselves to the order of\ndestiny, which decrees that you, like all other beings, should not\nendure forever. But what will become of me? you ask! What you were\nseveral millions of years ago. You were then, I do not know what; resign\nyourselves, then, to become again in an instant, I do not know what;\nwhat you were then; return peaceably to the universal home from which\nyou came without your knowledge into your material form, and pass by\nwithout murmuring, like all the beings which surround you!\n\nWe are repeatedly told that religious ideas offer infinite consolation\nto the unfortunate; it is pretended that the idea of the immortality of\nthe soul and of a happier life has a tendency to lift up the heart of\nman and to sustain him in the midst of the adversities with which he is\nassailed in this life. Materialism, on the contrary, is, we are told, an\nafflicting system, tending to degrade man, which ranks him among brutes;\nwhich destroys his courage, whose only hope is complete annihilation,\ntending to lead him to despair, and inducing him to commit suicide as\nsoon as he suffers in this world. The grand policy of theologians is to\nblow hot and to blow cold, to afflict and to console, to frighten and to\nreassure.\n\nAccording to the fictions of theology, the regions of the other life are\nhappy and unhappy. Nothing more difficult than to render one worthy of\nthe abode of felicity; nothing easier than to obtain a place in the\nabode of torments that Divinity prepares for the unfortunate victims of\nHis eternal fury. Those who find the idea of another life so flattering\nand so sweet, have they then forgotten that this other life, according\nto them, is to be accompanied by torments for the majority of mortals?\nIs not the idea of total annihilation infinitely preferable to the idea\nof an eternal existence accompanied with suffering and gnashing of\nteeth? The fear of ceasing to exist, is it more afflicting than the\nthought of having not always been? The fear of ceasing to be is but an\nevil for the imagination, which alone brought forth the dogma of another\nlife.\n\nYou say, O Christian philosophers, that the idea of a happier life is\ndelightful; we agree; there is no one who would not desire a more\nagreeable and a more durable existence than the one we enjoy here below.\nBut, if Paradise is tempting, you will admit, also, that hell is\nfrightful. It is very difficult to merit heaven, and very easy to gain\nhell. Do you not say that one straight and narrow path leads to the\nhappy regions, and that a broad road leads to the regions of the\nunhappy? Do you not constantly tell us that the number of the chosen\nones is very small, and that of the damned is very large? Do we not\nneed, in order to be saved, such grace as your God grants to but few?\nWell! I tell you that these ideas are by no means consoling; I prefer to\nbe annihilated at once rather than to burn forever; I will tell you that\nthe fate of beasts appears to me more desirable than the fate of the\ndamned; I will tell you that the belief which delivers me from\noverwhelming fears in this world, appears to me more desirable than the\nuncertainty in which I am left through belief in a God who, master of\nHis favors, gives them but to His favorites, and who permits all the\nothers to render themselves worthy of eternal punishments. It can be but\nblind enthusiasm or folly that can prefer a system which evidently\nencourages improbable conjectures, accompanied by uncertainty and\ndesolating fear.\n\n\n\n\nCIX.--ALL RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES ARE IMAGINARY. INNATE SENSE IS BUT THE\nEFFECT OF A ROOTED HABIT. GOD IS AN IDLE FANCY, AND THE QUALITIES WHICH\nARE LAVISHED UPON HIM DESTROY EACH OTHER.\n\nAll religious principles are a thing of imagination, in which experience\nand reason have nothing to do. We find much difficulty in conquering\nthem, because imagination, when once occupied in creating chimeras which\nastonish or excite it, is incapable of reasoning. He who combats\nreligion and its phantasies by the arms of reason, is like a man who\nuses a sword to kill flies: as soon as the blow is struck, the flies and\nthe fancies return to the minds from which we thought to have banished\nthem.\n\nAs soon as we refuse the proofs which theology pretends to give of the\nexistence of a God, they oppose to the arguments which destroy them, an\ninnate conviction, a profound persuasion, an invincible inclination\ninherent in every man, which brings to him, in spite of himself, the\nidea of an Almighty being which he can not altogether expel from his\nmind, and which he is compelled to recognize in spite of the strongest\nreasons that we can give him. But if we wish to analyze this innate\nconviction, upon which so much weight is placed, we will find that it is\nbut the effect of a rooted habit, which, making them close their eyes\nagainst the most demonstrative proofs, leads the majority of men, and\noften the most enlightened ones, back to the prejudices of childhood.\nWhat can this innate sense or this ill-founded persuasion prove against\nthe evidence which shows us that what implies contradiction can not\nexist?\n\nWe are told, very gravely, that it is not demonstrated that God does not\nexist. However, nothing is better demonstrated, notwithstanding all that\nmen have told us so far, than that this God is an idle fancy, whose\nexistence is totally impossible, as nothing is more evident or more\nclearly demonstrated than that a being can not combine qualities so\ndissimilar, so contradictory, so irreconcilable as those which all the\nreligions of the earth ascribe to Divinity. The theologian's God, as\nwell as the God of the theist, is He not evidently a cause incompatible\nwith the effects attributed to Him? In whatever light we may look upon\nit, we must either invent another God, or conclude that the one which,\nfor so many centuries, has been revealed to mortals, is at the same time\nvery good and very wicked, very powerful and very weak, immutable and\nchangeable, perfectly intelligent and perfectly destitute of reason, of\nplan, and of means; the friend of order and permitting disorder; very\njust and very unjust; very skillful and very awkward. Finally, are we\nnot obliged to admit that it is impossible to reconcile the discordant\nattributes which are heaped upon a being of whom we can not say a single\nword without falling into the most palpable contradictions? Let us\nattempt to attribute but a single quality to Divinity, and what is said\nof it will be contradicted immediately by the effects we assign to this\ncause.\n\n\n\n\nCX.--EVERY RELIGION IS BUT A SYSTEM IMAGINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF\nRECONCILING CONTRADICTIONS BY THE AID OF MYSTERIES.\n\nTheology could very properly be defined as the science of\ncontradictions. Every religion is but a system imagined for the purpose\nof reconciling irreconcilable ideas. By the aid of habitude and terror,\nwe come to persist in the greatest absurdities, even when they are the\nmost clearly exposed. All religions are easy to combat, but very\ndifficult to eradicate. Reason can do nothing against habit, which\nbecomes, as is said, a second nature. There are many persons otherwise\nsensible, who, even after having examined the ruinous foundations of\ntheir belief, return to it in spite of the most striking arguments.\n\nAs soon as we complain of not understanding religion, finding in it at\nevery step absurdities which are repulsive, seeing in it but\nimpossibilities, we are told that we are not made to conceive the truths\nof the religion which is proposed to us; that wandering reason is but an\nunfaithful guide, only capable of conducting us to perdition; and what\nis more, we are assured that what is folly in the eyes of man, is wisdom\nin the eyes of God, to whom nothing is impossible. Finally, in order to\ndecide by a single word the most insurmountable difficulties which\ntheology presents to us on all sides, they simply cry out: \"Mysteries!\"\n\n\n\n\nCXI.--ABSURDITY AND INUTILITY OF THE MYSTERIES FORGED IN THE SOLE\nINTEREST OF THE PRIESTS.\n\nWhat is a mystery? If I examine the thing closely, I discover very soon\nthat a mystery is nothing but a contradiction, a palpable absurdity, a\nnotorious impossibility, on which theologians wish to compel men to\nhumbly close the eyes; in a word, a mystery is whatever our spiritual\nguides can not explain to us.\n\nIt is advantageous for the ministers of religion that the people should\nnot comprehend what they are taught. It is impossible for us to examine\nwhat we do not comprehend. Every time that we can not see clearly, we\nare obliged to be guided. If religion was comprehensible, priests would\nnot have so many charges here below.\n\nNo religion is without mysteries; mystery is its essence; a religion\ndestitute of mysteries would be a contradiction of terms. The God which\nserves as a foundation to natural religion, to theism or to deism, is\nHimself the greatest mystery to a mind wishing to dwell upon Him.\n\n\n\n\nCXII.--CONTINUATION.\n\nAll the revealed religions which we see in the world are filled with\nmysterious dogmas, unintelligible principles, of incredible miracles, of\nastonishing tales which seem imagined but to confound reason. Every\nreligion announces a concealed God, whose essence is a mystery;\nconsequently, it is just as difficult to conceive of His conduct as of\nthe essence of this God Himself. Divinity has never spoken to us but in\nan enigmatical and mysterious way in the various religions which have\nbeen founded in the different regions of our globe. It has revealed\nitself everywhere but to announce mysteries, that is to say, to warn\nmortals that it designs that they should believe in contradictions, in\nimpossibilities, or in things of which they were incapable of forming\nany positive idea.\n\nThe more mysteries a religion has, the more incredible objects it\npresents to the mind, the better fitted it is to please the imagination\nof men, who find in it a continual pasturage to feed upon. The more\nobscure a religion is, the more it appears divine, that is to say, in\nconformity to the nature of an invisible being, of whom we have no idea.\n\nIt is the peculiarity of ignorance to prefer the unknown, the concealed,\nthe fabulous, the wonderful, the incredible, even the terrible, to that\nwhich is clear, simple, and true. Truth does not give to the imagination\nsuch lively play as fiction, which each one may arrange as he pleases.\nThe vulgar ask nothing better than to listen to fables; priests and\nlegislators, by inventing religions and forging mysteries from them,\nhave served them to their taste. In this way they have attracted\nenthusiasts, women, and the illiterate generally. Beings of this kind\nresign easily to reasons which they are incapable of examining; the love\nof the simple and the true is found but in the small number of those\nwhose imagination is regulated by study and by reflection. The\ninhabitants of a village are never more pleased with their pastor than\nwhen he mixes a good deal of Latin in his sermon. Ignorant men always\nimagine that he who speaks to them of things which they do not\nunderstand, is a very wise and learned man. This is the true principle\nof the credulity of nations, and of the authority of those who pretend\nto guide them.\n\n\n\n\nCXIII.--CONTINUATION.\n\nTo speak to men to announce to them mysteries, is to give and retain, it\nis to speak not to be understood. He who talks but by enigmas, either\nseeks to amuse himself by the embarrassment which he causes, or finds it\nto his advantage not to explain himself too clearly. Every secret\nbetrays suspicion, weakness, and fear. Princes and their ministers make\na mystery of their projects for fear that their enemies in penetrating\nthem would cause them to fail. Can a good God amuse Himself by the\nembarrassment of His creatures? A God who enjoys a power which nothing\nin the world can resist, can He apprehend that His intentions could be\nthwarted? What interest would He have in putting upon us enigmas and\nmysteries? We are told that man, by the weakness of his nature, is not\ncapable of comprehending the Divine economy which can be to him but a\ntissue of mysteries; that God can not unveil secrets to him which are\nbeyond his reach. In this case, I reply, that man is not made to trouble\nhimself with Divine economy, that this economy can not interest him in\nthe least, that he has no need of mysteries which he can not understand;\nfinally, that a mysterious religion is not made for him, any more than\nan eloquent discourse is made for a flock of sheep.\n\n\n\n\nCXIV.--A UNIVERSAL GOD SHOULD HAVE REVEALED A UNIVERSAL RELIGION.\n\nDivinity has revealed itself in the different parts of our globe in a\nmanner of such little uniformity, that in matters of religion men look\nupon each other with hatred and disdain. The partisans of the different\nsects see each other very ridiculous and foolish. The most respected\nmysteries in one religion are laughable for another. God, having\nrevealed Himself to men, ought at least to speak in the same language to\nall, and relieve their weak minds of the embarrassment of seeking what\ncan be the religion which truly emanated from Him, or what is the most\nagreeable form of worship in His eyes.\n\nA universal God ought to have revealed a universal religion. By what\nfatality are so many different religions found on the earth? Which is\nthe true one amongst the great number of those of which each one\npretends to be the right one, to the exclusion of all the others? We\nhave every reason to believe that not one of them enjoys this advantage.\nThe divisions and the disputes about opinions are indubitable signs of\nthe uncertainty and of the obscurity of the principles which they\nprofess.\n\n\n\n\nCXV.--THE PROOF THAT RELIGION IS NOT NECESSARY, IS THAT IT IS\nUNINTELLIGIBLE.\n\nIf religion was necessary to all men, it ought to be intelligible to all\nmen. If this religion was the most important thing for them, the\ngoodness of God, it seems, ought to make it for them the clearest, the\nmost evident, and the best demonstrated of all things. Is it not\nastonishing to see that this matter, so essential to the salvation of\nmortals, is precisely the one which they understand the least, and about\nwhich, during so many centuries, their doctors have disputed the most?\nNever have priests, of even the same sect, come to an agreement among\nthemselves about the manner of understanding the wishes of a God who has\ntruly revealed Himself to them. The world which we inhabit can be\ncompared to a public place, in whose different parts several charlatans\nare placed, each one straining himself to attract customers by\ndepreciating the remedies offered by his competitors. Each stand has its\npurchasers, who are persuaded that their empiric alone possesses the\ngood remedies; notwithstanding the continual use which they make of\nthem, they do not perceive that they are no better, or that they are\njust as sick as those who run after the charlatans of another stand.\nDevotion is a disease of the imagination, contracted in infancy; the\ndevotee is a hypochondriac, who increases his disease by the use of\nremedies. The wise man takes none of it; he follows a good regimen and\nleaves the rest to nature.\n\n\n\n\nCXVI.--ALL RELIGIONS ARE RIDICULED BY THOSE OF OPPOSITE THOUGH EQUALLY\nINSANE BELIEF.\n\nNothing appears more ridiculous in the eyes of a sensible man than for\none denomination to criticize another whose creed is equally foolish. A\nChristian thinks that the Koran, the Divine revelation announced by\nMohammed, is but a tissue of impertinent dreams and impostures injurious\nto Divinity. The Mohammedan, on his side, treats the Christian as an\nidolater and a dog; he sees but absurdities in his religion; he imagines\nhe has the right to conquer his country and force him, sword in hand, to\naccept the faith of his Divine prophet; he believes especially that\nnothing is more impious or more unreasonable than to worship a man or to\nbelieve in the Trinity. The Protestant Christian, who without scruple\nworships a man, and who believes firmly in the inconceivable mystery of\nthe Trinity, ridicules the Catholic Christian because the latter\nbelieves in the mystery of the transubstantiation. He treats him as a\nfool, as ungodly and idolatrous, because he kneels to worship the bread\nin which he believes he sees the God of the universe. All the Christian\ndenominations agree in considering as folly the incarnation of the God\nof the Indies, Vishnu. They contend that the only true incarnation is\nthat of Jesus, Son of the God of the universe and of the wife of a\ncarpenter. The theist, who calls himself a votary of natural religion,\nis satisfied to acknowledge a God of whom he has no conception; indulges\nhimself in jesting upon other mysteries taught by all the religions of\nthe world.\n\n\n\n\nCXVII.--OPINION OF A CELEBRATED THEOLOGIAN.\n\nDid not a famous theologian recognize the absurdity of admitting the\nexistence of a God and arresting His course? \"To us,\" he said, \"who\nbelieve through faith in a true God, an individual substance, there\nought to be no trouble in believing everything else. This first mystery,\nwhich is no small matter of itself, once admitted, our reason can not\nsuffer violence in admitting all the rest. As for myself, it is no more\ntrouble to accept a million of things that I do not understand, than to\nbelieve the first one.\"\n\nIs there anything more contradictory, more impossible, or more\nmysterious, than the creation of matter by an immaterial Being, who\nHimself immutable, causes the continual changes that we see in the\nworld? Is there anything more incompatible with all the ideas of common\nsense than to believe that a good, wise, equitable, and powerful Being\npresides over nature and directs Himself the movements of a world which\nis filled with follies, miseries, crimes, and disorders, which He could\nhave foreseen, and by a single word could have prevented or made to\ndisappear? Finally, as soon as we admit a Being so contradictory as the\ntheological God, what right have we to refuse to accept the most\nimprobable fables, the most astonishing miracles, the most profound\nmysteries?\n\n\n\n\nCXVIII.--THE DEIST'S GOD IS NO LESS CONTRADICTORY, NO LESS FANCIFUL, THAN\nTHE THEOLOGIAN'S GOD.\n\nThe theist exclaims, \"Be careful not to worship the ferocious and\nstrange God of theology; mine is much wiser and better; He is the Father\nof men; He is the mildest of Sovereigns; it is He who fills the universe\nwith His benefactions!\" But I will tell him, do you not see that\neverything in this world contradicts the good qualities which you\nattribute to your God? In the numerous family of this mild Father I see\nbut unfortunate ones. Under the empire of this just Sovereign I see\ncrime victorious and virtue in distress. Among these benefactions, which\nyou boast of, and which your enthusiasm alone sees, I see a multitude of\nevils of all kinds, upon which you obstinately close your eyes.\n\n\n\nCompelled to acknowledge that your good God, in contradiction with\nHimself, distributes with the same hand good and evil, you will find\nyourself obliged, in order to justify Him, to send me, as the priests\nwould, to the other life. Invent, then, another God than the one of\ntheology, because your God is as contradictory as its God is. A good God\nwho does evil or who permits it to be done, a God full of equity and in\nan empire where innocence is so often oppressed; a perfect God who\nproduces but imperfect and wretched works; such a God and His conduct,\nare they not as great mysteries as that of the incarnation? You blush,\nyou say, for your fellow beings who are persuaded that the God of the\nuniverse could change Himself into a man and die upon a cross in a\ncorner of Asia. You consider the ineffable mystery of the Trinity very\nabsurd Nothing appears more ridiculous to you than a God who changes\nHimself into bread and who is eaten every day in a thousand different\nplaces.\n\nWell! are all these mysteries any more shocking to reason than a God who\npunishes and rewards men's actions? Man, according to your views, is he\nfree or not? In either case your God, if He has the shadow of justice,\ncan neither punish him nor reward him. If man is free, it is God who\nmade him free to act or not to act; it is God, then, who is the\nprimitive cause of all his actions; in punishing man for his faults, He\nwould punish him for having done that which He gave him the liberty to\ndo. If man is not free to act otherwise than he does, would not God be\nthe most unjust of beings to punish him for the faults which he could\nnot help committing? Many persons are struck with the detail of\nabsurdities with which all religions of the world are filled; but they\nhave not the courage to seek for the source whence these absurdities\nnecessarily sprung. They do not see that a God full of contradictions,\nof oddities, of incompatible qualities, either inflaming or nursing the\nimagination of men, could create but a long line of idle fancies.\n\n\n\n\nCXIX.--WE DO NOT PROVE AT ALL THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD BY SAYING THAT IN\nALL AGES EVERY NATION HAS ACKNOWLEDGED SOME KIND OF DIVINITY.\n\nThey believe, to silence those who deny the existence of a God, by\ntelling them that all men, in all ages and in all centuries, have\nbelieved in some kind of a God; that there is no people on the earth who\nhave not believed in an invisible and powerful being, whom they made the\nobject of their worship and of their veneration; finally, that there is\nno nation, no matter how benighted we may suppose it to be, that is not\npersuaded of the existence of some intelligence superior to human\nnature. But can the belief of all men change an error into truth? A\ncelebrated philosopher has said with all reason: \"Neither general\ntradition nor the unanimous consent of all men could place any\ninjunction upon truth.\" [Bayle.] Another wise man said before him, that\n\"an army of philosophers would not be sufficient to change the nature of\nerror and to make it truth.\" [Averro\u00ebs]\n\nThere was a time when all men believed that the sun revolved around the\nearth, while the latter remained motionless in the center of the whole\nsystem of the universe; it is scarcely more than two hundred years since\nthis error was refuted. There was a time when nobody would believe in\nthe existence of antipodes, and when they persecuted those who had the\ncourage to sustain it; to-day no learned man dares to doubt it. All\nnations of the world, except some men less credulous than others, still\nbelieve in sorcerers, ghosts, apparitions, spirits; no sensible man\nimagines himself obliged to adopt these follies; but the most sensible\npeople feel obliged to believe in a universal Spirit!\n\n\n\n\nCXX.--ALL THE GODS ARE OF A BARBAROUS ORIGIN; ALL RELIGIONS ARE ANTIQUE\nMONUMENTS OF IGNORANCE, SUPERSTITION, AND FEROCITY; AND MODERN RELIGIONS\nARE BUT ANCIENT FOLLIES REVIVED.\n\nAll the Gods worshiped by men have a barbarous origin; they were visibly\nimagined by stupid nations, or were presented by ambitious and cunning\nlegislators to simple and benighted people, who had neither the capacity\nnor the courage to examine properly the object which, by means of\nterrors, they were made to worship. In examining closely the God which\nwe see adored still in our days by the most civilized nations, we are\ncompelled to acknowledge that He has evidently barbarous features. To be\nbarbarous is to recognize no right but force; it is being cruel to\nexcess; it is but following one's own caprice; it is a lack of\nforesight, of prudence, and reason. Nations, who believe yourselves\ncivilized! do you not perceive this frightful character of the God to\nwhom you offer your incense? The pictures which are drawn of Divinity,\nare they not visibly borrowed from the implacable, jealous, vindictive,\nblood-thirsty, capricious, inconsiderate humor of man, who has not yet\ncultivated his reason? Oh, men! you worship but a great savage, whom you\nconsider as a model to follow, as an amiable master, as a perfect\nsovereign.\n\nThe religious opinions of men in every country are antique and durable\nmonuments of ignorance credulity, of the terrors and the ferocity of\ntheir ancestors. Every barbarian is a child thirsting for the wonderful,\nwhich he imbibes with pleasure, and who never reasons upon that which he\nfinds proper to excite his imagination; his ignorance of the ways of\nnature makes him attribute to spirits, to enchantments, to magic, all\nthat appears to him extraordinary; in his eyes his priests are\nsorcerers, in whom he supposes an Almighty power; before whom his\nconfused reason humiliates itself, whose oracles are for him infallible\ndecrees, to contradict which would be dangerous. In matters of religion\nthe majority of men have remained in their primitive barbarity. Modern\nreligions are but follies of old times rejuvenated or presented in some\nnew form. If the ancient barbarians have worshiped mountains, rivers,\nserpents, trees, fetishes of every kind; if the wise Egyptians worshiped\ncrocodiles, rats, onions, do we not see nations who believe themselves\nwiser than they, worship with reverence a bread, into which they imagine\nthat the enchantments of their priests cause the Divinity to descend? Is\nnot the God-bread the fetish of many Christian nations, as little\nrational in this point as that of the most barbarous nations?\n\n\n\n\nCXXI.--ALL RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES BEAR THE SEAL OF STUPIDITY OR BARBARITY.\n\nIn all times the ferocity, the stupidity, the folly of savage men were\nshown in religious customs which were often cruel and extravagant. A\nspirit of barbarity has come down to our days; it intrudes itself into\nthe religions which are followed by the most civilized nations. Do we\nnot still see human victims offered to Divinity? In order to appease the\nwrath of a God whom we suppose as ferocious, as jealous, as vindictive,\nas a savage, do not sanguinary laws cause the destruction of those who\nare believed to have displeased Him by their way of thinking?\n\nModern nations, at the instigation of their priests, have even excelled\nthe atrocious folly of the most barbarous nations; at least do we not\nfind that it never entered into a savage's mind to torment for the sake\nof opinions, to meddle in thought, to trouble men for the invisible\nactions of their brains? When we see polished and wise nations, such as\nthe English, French, German, etc., notwithstanding all their\nenlightenment, continue to kneel before the barbarous God of the Jews,\nthat is to say, of the most stupid, the most credulous, the most savage,\nthe most unsocial nation which ever was on the earth; when we see these\nenlightened nations divide themselves into sects, tear one another, hate\nand despise each other for opinions, equally ridiculous, upon the\nconduct and the intentions of this irrational God; when we see\nintelligent persons occupy themselves foolishly in meditating on the\nwishes of this capricious and foolish God; we are tempted to exclaim,\n\"Oh, men! you are still savages! Oh, men! you are but children in the\nmatter of religion!\"\n\n\n\n\nCXXII.--THE MORE ANCIENT AND GENERAL A RELIGIOUS OPINION IS, THE GREATER\nTHE REASON FOR SUSPECTING IT.\n\nWhoever has formed true ideas of the ignorance, credulity, negligence,\nand sottishness of common people, will always regard their religious\nopinions with the greater suspicion for their being generally\nestablished. The majority of men examine nothing; they allow themselves\nto be blindly led by custom and authority; their religious opinions are\nspecially those which they have the least courage and capacity to\nexamine; as they do not understand anything about them, they are\ncompelled to be silent or put an end to their reasoning. Ask the common\nman if he believes in God. He will be surprised that you could doubt it.\nThen ask him what he understands by the word God. You will confuse him;\nyou will perceive at once that he is incapable of forming any real idea\nof this word which he so often repeats; he will tell you that God is\nGod, and you will find that he knows neither what he thinks of Him, nor\nthe motives which he has for believing in Him.\n\nAll nations speak of a God; but do they agree upon this God? No! Well,\ndifference of opinion does not serve as evidence, but is a sign of\nuncertainty and obscurity. Does the same man always agree with himself\nin his ideas of God? No! This idea varies with the vicissitudes of his\nlife. This is another sign of uncertainty. Men always agree with other\nmen and with themselves upon demonstrated truths, regardless of the\nposition in which they find themselves; except the insane, all agree\nthat two and two make four, that the sun shines, that the whole is\ngreater than any one of its parts, that Justice is a benefaction, that\nwe must be benevolent to deserve the love of men, that injustice and\ncruelty are incompatible with goodness. Do they agree in the same way if\nthey speak of God? All that they think or say of Him is immediately\ncontradicted by the effects which they wish to attribute to Him. Tell\nseveral artists to paint a chimera, each of them will form different\nideas of it, and will paint it differently; you will find no resemblance\nin the features each of them will have given to a portrait whose model\nexists nowhere. In painting God, do any of the theologians of the world\nrepresent Him otherwise than as a great chimera, upon whose features\nthey never agree, each one arranging it according to his style, which\nhas its origin but in his own brain? There are no two individuals in the\nworld who have or can have the same ideas of their God.\n\n\n\n\nCXXIII.--SKEPTICISM IN THE MATTER OF RELIGION, CAN BE THE EFFECT OF BUT A\nSUPERFICIAL EXAMINATION OF THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES.\n\nPerhaps it would be more truthful to say, that all men are either\nskeptics or atheists, than to pretend that they are firmly convinced of\nthe existence of a God. How can we be assured of the existence of a\nbeing whom we never have been able to examine, of whom it is impossible\nto form any permanent idea, whose different effects upon ourselves\nprevent us from forming an invariable judgment, of whom no idea can be\nuniform in two different brains? How can we claim to be completely\npersuaded of the existence of a being to whom we are constantly obliged\nto attribute a conduct opposed co the ideas which we had tried to form\nof it? Is it possible firmly to believe what we can not conceive? In\nbelieving thus, are we not adhering to the opinions of others without\nhaving one of our own? The priests regulate the belief of the vulgar;\nbut do not these priests themselves acknowledge that God is\nincomprehensible to them? Let us conclude, then, that the conviction of\nthe existence of a God is not as general as it is affirmed to be.\n\nTo be a skeptic, is to lack the motives necessary to establish a\njudgment. In view of the proofs which seem to establish, and of the\narguments which combat the existence of a God, some persons prefer to\ndoubt and to suspend their judgment; but at the bottom, this uncertainty\nis the result of an insufficient examination. Is it, then, possible to\ndoubt evidence? Sensible people deride, and with reason, an absolute\npyrrhonism, and even consider it impossible. A man who could doubt his\nown existence, or that of the sun, would appear very ridiculous, or\nwould be suspected of reasoning in bad faith. Is it less extravagant to\nhave uncertainties about the non-existence of an evidently impossible\nbeing? Is it more absurd to doubt of one's own existence, than to\nhesitate upon the impossibility of a being whose qualities destroy each\nother? Do we find more probabilities for believing in a spiritual being\nthan for believing in the existence of a stick without two ends? Is the\nnotion of an infinitely good and powerful being who permits an infinity\nof evils, less absurd or less impossible than that of a square triangle?\n\n\n\nLet us conclude, then, that religious skepticism can be but the effect\nof a superficial examination of theological principles, which are in a\nperpetual contradiction of the clearest and best demonstrated\nprinciples! To doubt is to deliberate upon the judgment which we should\npass. Skepticism is but a state of indecision which results from a\nsuperficial examination of subjects. Is it possible to be skeptical in\nthe matter of religion when we design to return to its principles, and\nlook closely into the idea of the God who serves as its foundation?\nDoubt arises ordinarily from laziness, weakness, indifference, or\nincapacity. To doubt, for many people, is to dread the trouble of\nexamining things to which one attaches but little interest. Although\nreligion is presented to men as the most important thing for them in\nthis world as well as in the other, skepticism and doubt on this subject\ncan be for the mind but a disagreeable state, and offers but a\ncomfortable cushion. No man who has not the courage to contemplate\nwithout prejudice the God upon whom every religion is founded, can know\nwhat religion to accept; he does not know what to believe and what not\nto believe, to accept or to reject, what to hope or fear; finally, he is\nincompetent to judge for himself.\n\nIndifference upon religion can not be confounded with skepticism; this\nindifference itself is founded upon the assurance or upon the\nprobability which we find in believing that religion is not made to\ninterest us. The persuasion which we have that a thing which is\npresented to us as very important, is not so, or is but indifferent,\nsupposes a sufficient examination of the thing, without which it would\nbe impossible to have this persuasion. Those who call themselves\nskeptics in regard to the fundamental points of religion, are generally\nbut idle and lazy men, who are incapable of examining them.\n\n\n\n\nCXXIV.--REVELATION REFUTED.\n\nIn all parts of the world, we are assured that God revealed Himself.\nWhat did He teach men? Does He prove to them evidently that He exists?\nDoes He tell them where He resides? Does He teach them what He is, or of\nwhat His essence consists? Does He explain to them clearly His\nintentions and His plan? What He says of this plan, does it agree with\nthe effects which we see? No! He informs us only that \"He is the One\nthat is,\" [I am that I am, saith the Lord] that He is an invincible God,\nthat His ways are ineffable, that He becomes furious as soon as one has\nthe temerity to penetrate His decrees, or to consult reason in order to\njudge of Him or His works. Does the revealed conduct of God correspond\nwith the magnificent ideas which are given to us of His wisdom,\ngoodness, justice, of His omnipotence? Not at all; in every revelation\nthis conduct shows a partial, capricious being, at least, good to His\nfavorite people, an enemy to all others. If He condescends to show\nHimself to some men, He takes care to keep all the others in invincible\nignorance of His divine intentions. Does not every special revelation\nannounce an unjust, partial, and malicious God?\n\nAre the revealed wishes of a God capable of striking us by the sublime\nreason or the wisdom which they contain? Do they tend to the happiness\nof the people to whom Divinity has declared them? Examining the Divine\nwishes, I find in them, in all countries, but whimsical ordinances,\nridiculous precepts, ceremonies of which we do not understand the aim,\npuerile practices, principles of conduct unworthy of the Monarch of\nNature, offerings, sacrifices, expiations, useful, in fact, to the\nministers of God, but very onerous to the rest of mankind. I find also,\nthat they often have a tendency to render men unsocial, disdainful,\nintolerant, quarrelsome, unjust, inhuman toward all those who have not\nreceived either the same revelations as they, or the same ordinances, or\nthe same favors from Heaven.\n\n\n\n\nCXXV.--WHERE, THEN, IS THE PROOF THAT GOD DID EVER SHOW HIMSELF TO MEN OR\nSPEAK TO THEM?\n\nAre the precepts of morality as announced by Divinity truly Divine, or\nsuperior to those which every rational man could imagine? They are\nDivine only because it is impossible for the human mind to see their\nutility. Their virtue consists in a total renunciation of human nature,\nin a voluntary oblivion of one's reason, in a holy hatred of self;\nfinally, these sublime precepts show us perfection in a conduct cruel to\nourselves and perfectly useless to others.\n\nHow did God show Himself? Did He Himself promulgate His laws? Did He\nspeak to men with His own mouth? I am told that God did not show Himself\nto a whole nation, but that He employed always the organism of a few\nfavored persons, who took the care to teach and to explain His\nintentions to the unlearned. It was never permitted to the people to go\nto the sanctuary; the ministers of the Gods always alone had the right\nto report to them what transpired.\n\n\n\n\nCXXVI.--NOTHING ESTABLISHES THE TRUTH OF MIRACLES.\n\nIf, in the economy of all Divine revelations, I am unable to recognize\neither the wisdom, the goodness, or the equity of a God; if I suspect\ndeceit, ambition, selfish designs in the great personages who have\ninterposed between Heaven and us, I am assured that God has confirmed,\nby splendid miracles, the mission of those who have spoken for Him. But\nwas it not much easier to show Himself, and to explain for Himself? On\nthe other hand, if I have the curiosity to examine these miracles, I\nfind that they are tales void of probability, related by suspicious\npeople, who had the greatest interest in making others believe that they\nwere sent from the Most High.\n\nWhat witnesses are referred to in order to make us believe incredible\nmiracles? They call as witnesses stupid people, who have ceased to exist\nfor thousands of years, and who, even if they could attest the miracles\nin question, would be suspected of having been deceived by their own\nimagination, and of permitting themselves to be seduced by the illusions\nwhich skillful impostors performed before their eyes. But, you will say,\nthese miracles are recorded in books which through constant tradition\nhave been handed down to us. By whom were these books written? Who are\nthe men who have transmitted and perpetuated them? They are either the\nsame people who established these religions, or those who have become\ntheir adherents and their assistants. Thus, in the matter of religion,\nthe testimony of interested parties is irrefragable and can not be\ncontested!\n\n\n\n\nCXXVII.--IF GOD HAD SPOKEN, IT WOULD BE STRANGE THAT HE HAD SPOKEN\nDIFFERENTLY TO ALL THE ADHERENTS OF THE DIFFERENT SECTS, WHO DAMN EACH\nOTHER, WHO ACCUSE EACH OTHER, WITH REASON, OF SUPERSTITION AND IMPIETY.\n\nGod has spoken differently to each nation of the globe which we inhabit.\nThe Indian does not believe one word of what He said to the Chinaman;\nthe Mohammedan considers what He has told to the Christian as fables;\nthe Jew considers the Mohammedan and the Christian as sacrilegious\ncorruptors of the Holy Law, which his God has given to his fathers. The\nChristian, proud of his more modern revelation, equally damns the Indian\nand the Chinaman, the Mohammedan, and even the Jew, whose holy books he\nholds. Who is wrong or right? Each one exclaims: \"It is I!\" Every one\nclaims the same proofs; each one speaks of his miracles, his saints, his\nprophets, his martyrs. Sensible men answer, that they are all delirious;\nthat God has not spoken, if it is true that He is a Spirit who has\nneither mouth nor tongue; that the God of the Universe could, without\nborrowing mortal organism, inspire His creatures with what He desired\nthem to learn, and that, as they are all equally ignorant of what they\nought to think about God, it is evident that God did not want to\ninstruct them. The adherents of the different forms of worship which we\nsee established in this world, accuse each other of superstition and of\nungodliness. The Christians abhor the superstition of the heathen, of\nthe Chinese, of the Mohammedans. The Roman Catholics treat the\nProtestant Christians as impious; the latter incessantly declaim against\nRoman superstition. They are all right. To be impious, is to have unjust\nopinions about the God who is adored; to be superstitious, is to have\nfalse ideas of Him. In accusing each other of superstition, the\ndifferent religionists resemble humpbacks who taunt each other with\ntheir malformation.\n\n\n\n\nCXXVIII.--OBSCURE AND SUSPICIOUS ORIGIN OF ORACLES.\n\nThe oracles which the Deity has revealed to the nations through His\ndifferent mediums, are they clear? Alas! there are not two men who\nunderstand them alike. Those who explain them to others do not agree\namong themselves; in order to make them clear, they have recourse to\ninterpretations, to commentaries, to allegories, to parables, in which\nis found a mystical sense very different from the literal one. Men are\nneeded everywhere to explain the wishes of God, who could not or would\nnot explain Himself clearly to those whom He desired to enlighten. God\nalways prefers to use as mediums men who can be suspected of having been\ndeceived themselves, or having reasons to deceive others.\n\n\n\n\nCXXIX.--ABSURDITY OF PRETENDED MIRACLES.\n\nThe founders of all religions have usually proved their mission by\nmiracles. But what is a miracle? It is an operation directly opposed to\nthe laws of nature. But, according to you, who has made these laws? It\nis God. Thus your God, who, according to you, has foreseen everything,\ncounteracts the laws which His wisdom had imposed upon nature! These\nlaws were then defective, or at least in certain circumstances they\nwere but in accordance with the views of this same God, for you tell us\nthat He thought He ought to suspend or counteract them.\n\nAn attempt is made to persuade us that men who have been favored by the\nMost High have received from Him the power to perform miracles; but in\norder to perform a miracle, it is necessary to have the faculty of\ncreating new causes capable of producing effects opposed to those which\nordinary causes can produce. Can we realize how God can give to men the\ninconceivable power of creating causes out of nothing? Can it be\nbelieved that an unchangeable God can communicate to man the power to\nchange or rectify His plan, a power which, according to His essence, an\nimmutable being can not have himself? Miracles, far from doing much\nhonor to God, far from proving the Divinity of religion, destroy\nevidently the idea which is given to us of God, of His immutability, of\nHis incommunicable attributes, and even of His omnipotence. How can a\ntheologian tell us that a God who embraced at once the whole of His\nplan, who could make but perfect laws, who can change nothing in them,\nshould be obliged to employ miracles to make His projects successful, or\ngrant to His creatures the faculty of performing prodigies, in order to\nexecute His Divine will? Is it probable that a God needs the support of\nmen? An Omnipotent Being, whose wishes are always gratified, a Being who\nholds in His hands the hearts and the minds of His creatures, needs but\nto wish, in order to make them believe all He desires.\n\n\n\n\nCXXX.--REFUTATION OF PASCAL'S MANNER OF REASONING AS TO HOW WE SHOULD\nJUDGE MIRACLES.\n\nWhat should we say of religions that based their Divinity upon miracles\nwhich they themselves cause to appear suspicious? How can we place any\nfaith in the miracles related in the Holy Books of the Christians, where\nGod Himself boasts of hardening hearts, of blinding those whom He wishes\nto ruin; where this God permits wicked spirits and magicians to perform\nas wonderful miracles as those of His servants; where it is prophesied\nthat the Anti-Christ will have the power to perform miracles capable of\ndestroying the faith even of the elect? This granted, how can we know\nwhether God wants to instruct us or to lay a snare for us? How can we\ndistinguish whether the wonders which we see, proceed from God or the\nDevil? Pascal, in order to disembarrass us, says very gravely, that we\nmust judge the doctrine by miracles, and the miracles by the doctrine;\nthat doctrine judges the miracles, and the miracles judge the doctrine.\nIf there exists a defective and ridiculous circle, it is no doubt in\nthis fine reasoning of one of the greatest defenders of the Christian\nreligion. Which of all the religions in the world does not claim to\npossess the most admirable doctrine, and which does not bring to its aid\na great number of miracles?\n\nIs a miracle capable of destroying a demonstrated truth? Although a man\nshould have the secret of curing all diseases, of making the lame to\nwalk, of raising all the dead of a city, of floating in the air, of\narresting the course of the sun and of the moon, will he be able to\nconvince me by all this that two and two do not make four; that one\nmakes three and that three makes but one; that a God who fills the\nuniverse with His immensity, could have transformed Himself into the\nbody of a Jew; that the eternal can perish like man; that an immutable,\nforeseeing, and sensible God could have changed His opinion upon His\nreligion, and reform His own work by a new revelation?\n\n\n\n\nCXXXI.--EVEN ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY ITSELF, EVERY NEW\nREVELATION SHOULD BE REFUTED AS FALSE AND IMPIOUS.\n\nAccording to the principles of theology itself, whether natural or\nrevealed, every new revelation ought to be considered false; every\nchange in a religion which had emanated from the Deity ought to be\nrefuted as ungodly and blasphemous. Does not every reform suppose that\nGod did not know how at the start to give His religion the required\nsolidity and perfection? To say that God in giving a first law\naccommodated Himself to the gross ideas of a people whom He wished to\nenlighten, is to pretend that God neither could nor would make the\npeople whom He enlightened at that time, as reasonable as they ought to\nbe to please Him.\n\n\n\n\nChristianity is an impiety, if it is true that Judaism as a religion\nreally emanated from a Holy, Immutable, Almighty, grid Foreseeing God.\n\n\n\nChrist's religion implies either defects in the law that God Himself\ngave by Moses, or impotence or malice in this God who could not, or\nwould not make the Jews as they ought to be to please Him. All\nreligions, whether new, or ancient ones reformed, are evidently founded\non the weakness, the inconstancy, the imprudence, and the malice of the\nDeity.\n\n\n\n\nCXXXII.--EVEN THE BLOOD OF THE MARTYRS, TESTIFIES AGAINST THE TRUTH OF\nMIRACLES AND AGAINST THE DIVINE ORIGIN WHICH CHRISTIANITY CLAIMS.\n\nIf history informs me that the first apostles, founders or reformers of\nreligions, performed great miracles, history teaches me also that these\nreforming apostles and their adherents have been usually despised,\npersecuted, and put to death as disturbers of the peace of nations. I am\nthen tempted to believe that they have not performed the miracles\nattributed to them. Finally, these miracles should have procured to them\na great number of disciples among those who witnessed them, who ought to\nhave prevented the performers from being maltreated. My incredulity\nincreases if I am told that the performers of miracles have been cruelly\ntormented or slain. How can we believe that missionaries, protected by a\nGod, invested with His Divine Power, and enjoying the gift of miracles,\ncould not perform the simple miracle of escaping from the cruelty of\ntheir persecutors?\n\nPersecutions themselves are considered as a convincing proof in favor of\nthe religion of those who have suffered them; but a religion which\nboasts of having caused the death of many martyrs, and which informs us\nthat its founders have suffered for its extension unheard-of torments,\ncan not be the religion of a benevolent, equitable, and Almighty God. A\ngood God would not permit that men charged with revealing His will\nshould be misused. An omnipotent God desiring to found a religion, would\nhave employed simpler and less fatal means for His most faithful\nservants. To say that God desired that His religion should be sealed by\nblood, is to say that this God is weak, unjust, ungrateful, and\nsanguinary, and that He sacrifices unworthily His missionaries to the\ninterests of His ambition.\n\n\n\n\nCXXXIII.--THE FANATICISM OF THE MARTYRS, THE INTERESTED ZEAL OF\nMISSIONARIES, PROVE IN NOWISE THE TRUTH OF RELIGION.\n\nTo die for a religion does not prove it true or Divine; this proves at\nmost that we suppose it to be so. An enthusiast in dying proves nothing\nbut that religious fanaticism is often stronger than the love of life.\nAn impostor can sometimes die with courage; he makes then, as is said,\n\"a virtue of necessity.\" We are often surprised and affected at the\nsight of the generous courage and the disinterested zeal which have led\nmissionaries to preach their doctrine at the risk even of suffering the\nmost rigorous torments. We draw from this love, which is exhibited for\nthe salvation of men, deductions favorable to the religion which they\nhave proclaimed; but in truth this disinterestedness is only apparent.\n\"Nothing ventured, nothing gained!\" A missionary seeks fortune by the\naid of his doctrine; he knows that if he has the good fortune to retail\nhis commodity, he will become the absolute master of those who accept\nhim as their guide; he is sure to become the object of their care, of\ntheir respect, of their veneration; he has every reason to believe that\nhe will be abundantly provided for. These are the true motives which\nkindle the zeal and the charity of so many preachers and missionaries\nwho travel all over the world.\n\nTo die for an opinion, proves no more the truth or the soundness of this\nopinion than to die in a battle proves the right of the prince, for\nwhose benefit so many people are foolish enough to sacrifice themselves.\nThe courage of a martyr, animated by the idea of Paradise, is not any\nmore supernatural than the courage of a warrior, inspired with the idea\nof glory or held to duty by the fear of disgrace. What difference do we\nfind between an Iroquois who sings while he is burned by a slow fire,\nand the martyr St. Lawrence, who while upon the gridiron insults his\ntyrant?\n\nThe preachers of a new doctrine succumb because they are not the\nstrongest; the apostles usually practice a perilous business, whose\nconsequences they can foresee; their courageous death does not prove any\nmore the truth of their principles or their own sincerity, than the\nviolent death of an ambitious man or a brigand proves that they had the\nright to trouble society, or that they believed themselves authorized to\ndo it. A missionary's profession has been always flattering to his\nambition, and has enabled him to subsist at the expense of the common\npeople; these advantages have been sufficient to make him forget the\ndangers which are connected with it.\n\n\n\n\nCXXXIV.--THEOLOGY MAKES OF ITS GOD AN ENEMY OF COMMON SENSE AND OF\nENLIGHTENMENT.\n\nYou tell us, O theologians! that \"what is folly in the eyes of men, is\nwisdom before God, who is pleased to confound the wisdom of the wise.\"\nBut do you not pretend that human wisdom is a gift from Heaven? In\ntelling us that this wisdom displeases God, is but folly in His eyes,\nand that He wishes to confound it, you proclaim that your God is but the\nfriend of unenlightened people, and that He makes to sensible people a\nfatal gift, for which this perfidious Tyrant promises to punish them\ncruelly some day. Is it not very strange that we can not be the friend\nof your God but by declaring ourselves the enemy of reason and common\nsense?\n\n\n\n\nCXXXV.--FAITH IS IRRECONCILABLE WITH REASON, AND REASON IS PREFERABLE TO\nFAITH.\n\nFaith, according to theologians, is consent without evidence. From this\nit follows that religion exacts that we should firmly believe, without\nevidence, in propositions which are often improbable or opposed to\nreason. But to challenge reason as a judge of faith, is it not\nacknowledging that reason can not agree with faith? As the ministers of\nreligion have determined to banish reason, they must have felt the\nimpossibility of reconciling reason with faith, which is visibly but a\nblind submission to those priests whose authority, in many minds,\nappears to be of a greater importance than evidence itself, and\npreferable to the testimony of the senses. \"Sacrifice your reason; give\nup experience; distrust the testimony of your senses; submit without\nexamination to all that is given to you as coming from Heaven.\" This is\nthe usual language of all the priests of the world; they do not agree\nupon any point, except in the necessity of never reasoning when they\npresent principles to us which they claim as the most important to our\nhappiness.\n\nI will not sacrifice my reason, because this reason alone enables me to\ndistinguish good from evil, the true from the false. If, as you pretend,\nmy reason comes from God, I will never believe that a God whom you call\nso good, had ever given me reason but as a snare, in order to lead me to\nperdition. Priests! in crying down reason, do you not see that you\nslander your God, who, as you assure us, has given us this reason?\n\nI will not give up experience, because it is a much better guide than\nimagination, or than the authority of the guides whom they wish to give\nme. This experience teaches me that enthusiasm and interest can blind\nand mislead them, and that the authority of experience ought to have\nmore weight upon my mind than the suspicious testimony of many men whom\nI know to be capable of deceiving themselves, or very much interested in\ndeceiving others.\n\nI will not distrust my senses. I do not ignore the fact that they can\nsometimes lead me into error; but on the other hand, I know that they do\nnot deceive me always. I know very well that the eye shows the sun much\nsmaller than it really is; but experience, which is only the repeated\napplication of the senses, teaches me that objects continually diminish\nby reason of their distance; it is by these means that I reach the\nconclusion that the sun is much larger than the earth; it is thus that\nmy senses suffice to rectify the hasty judgments which they induced me\nto form. In warning me to doubt the testimony of my senses, you destroy\nfor me the proofs of all religion. If men can be dupes of their\nimagination, if their senses are deceivers, why would you have me\nbelieve in the miracles which made an impression upon the deceiving\nsenses of our ancestors? If my senses are faithless guides, I learn that\nI should not have faith even in the miracles which I might see performed\nunder my own eyes.\n\n\n\n\nCXXXVI.--HOW ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS IS THE SOPHISTRY OF THOSE WHO WISH TO\nSUBSTITUTE FAITH FOR REASON.\n\nYou tell me continually that the \"truths of religion are beyond reason.\"\nDo you not admit, then, that these truths are not made for reasonable\nbeings? To pretend that reason can deceive us, is to say that truth can\nbe false, that usefulness can be injurious. Is reason anything else but\nthe knowledge of the useful and the true? Besides, as we have but our\nreason, which is more or less exercised, and our senses, such as they\nare, to lead us in this life, to claim that reason is an unsafe guide,\nand that our senses are deceivers, is to tell us that our errors are\nnecessary, that our ignorance is invincible, and that, without extreme\ninjustice, God can not punish us for having followed the only guides\nwhich He desired to give us. To pretend that we are obliged to believe\nin things which are beyond our reason, is an assertion as ridiculous as\nto say that God would compel us to fly without wings. To claim that\nthere are objects on which reason should not be consulted, is to say\nthat in the most important affairs, we must consult but imagination, or\nact by chance.\n\nOur Doctors of Divinity tell us that we ought to sacrifice our reason to\nGod; but what motives can we have for sacrificing our reason to a being\nwho gives us but useless gifts, which He does not intend that we should\nmake use of? What confidence can we place in a God who, according to our\nDoctors themselves, is wicked enough to harden hearts, to strike us with\nblindness, to place snares in our way, to lead us into temptation?\nFinally, how can we place confidence in the ministers of this God, who,\nin order to guide us more conveniently, command us to close our eyes?\n\n\n\n\nCXXXVII.--HOW PRETEND THAT MAN OUGHT TO BELIEVE VERBAL TESTIMONY ON WHAT\nIS CLAIMED TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR HIM?\n\nMen persuade themselves that religion is the most serious affair in the\nworld for them, while it is the very thing which they least examine for\nthemselves. If the question arises in the purchase of land, of a house,\nof the investment of money, of a transaction, or of some kind of an\nagreement, you will see each one examine everything with care, take the\ngreatest precautions, weigh all the words of a document, to beware of\nany surprise or imposition. It is not the same with religion; each one\naccepts it at hazard, and believes it upon verbal testimony, without\ntaking the trouble to examine it. Two causes seem to concur in\nsustaining men in the negligence and the thoughtlessness which they\nexhibit when the question comes up of examining their religious\nopinions. The first one is, the hopelessness of penetrating the\nobscurity by which every religion is surrounded; even in its first\nprinciples, it has only a tendency to repel indolent minds, who see in\nit but chaos, to penetrate which, they judge impossible. The second is,\nthat each one is afraid to incommode himself by the severe precepts\nwhich everybody admires in the theory, and which few persons take the\ntrouble of practicing. Many people preserve their religion like old\nfamily titles which they have never taken the trouble to examine\nminutely, but which they place in their archives in case they need them.\n\n\n\n\nCXXXVIII.--FAITH TAKES ROOT BUT IN WEAK, IGNORANT, OR INDOLENT MINDS.\n\nThe disciples of Pythagoras had an implicit faith in their Master's\ndoctrine: \"HE HAS SAID IT!\" was for them the solution of all problems.\nThe majority of men act with as little reason. A curate, a priest, an\nignorant monk, will become in the matter of religion the master of one's\nthoughts. Faith relieves the weakness of the human mind, for whom\napplication is commonly a very painful work; it is much easier to rely\nupon others than to examine for one's self; examination being slow and\ndifficult, it is usually unpleasant to ignorant and stupid minds as well\nas to very ardent ones; this is, no doubt, why faith finds so many\npartisans.\n\nThe less enlightenment and reason men possess, the more zeal they\nexhibit for their religion. In all the religious factions, women,\naroused by their directors, exhibit very great zeal in opinions of which\nit is evident they have not the least idea. In theological quarrels\npeople rush like a ferocious beast upon all those against whom their\npriest wishes to excite them. Profound ignorance, unlimited credulity, a\nvery weak head, an irritated imagination, these are the materials of\nwhich devotees, zealots, fanatics, and saints are made. How can we make\nthose people understand reason who allow themselves to be guided without\nexamining anything? The devotees and common people are, in the hands of\ntheir guides, only automatons which they move at their fancy.\n\n\n\n\nCXXXIX.--TO TEACH THAT THERE EXISTS ONE TRUE RELIGION IS AN ABSURDITY,\nAND A CAUSE OF MUCH TROUBLE AMONG THE NATIONS.\n\nReligion is a thing of custom and fashion; we must do as others do. But,\namong the many religions in the world, which one ought we to choose?\nThis examination would be too long and too painful; we must then hold to\nthe faith of our fathers, to that of our country, or to that of the\nprince, who, possessing power, must be the best. Chance alone decides\nthe religion of a man and of a people. The French would be to-day as\ngood Mussulmen as they are Christians, if their ancestors had not\nrepulsed the efforts of the Saracens. If we judge of the intentions of\nProvidence by the events and the revolutions of this world, we are\ncompelled to believe that it is quite indifferent about the different\nreligions which exist on earth. During thousands of years Paganism,\nPolytheism, and Idolatry have been the religions of the world; we are\nassured today, that during this period the most flourishing nations had\nnot the least idea of the Deity, an idea which is claimed, however, to\nbe so important to all men. The Christians pretend that, with the\nexception of the Jewish people, that is to say, a handful of unfortunate\nbeings, the whole human race lived in utter ignorance of its duties\ntoward God, and had but imperfect ideas of Divine majesty. Christianity,\noffshoot of Judaism, which was very humble in its obscure origin, became\npowerful and cruel under the Christian emperors, who, driven by a holy\nzeal, spread it marvelously in their empire by sword and fire, and\nfounded it upon the ruins of overthrown Paganism. Mohammed and his\nsuccessors, aided by Providence, or by their victorious arms, succeeded\nin a short time in expelling the Christian religion from a part of Asia,\nAfrica, and even of Europe itself; the Gospel was compelled to surrender\nto the Koran. In all the factions or sects which during a great number\nof centuries have lacerated the Christians, \"THE REASON OF THE STRONGEST\nWAS ALWAYS THE BEST;\" the arms and the will of the princes alone decided\nupon the most useful doctrine for the salvation of the nations. Could we\nnot conclude by this, either that the Deity takes but little interest in\nthe religion of men, or that He declares Himself always in favor of\nopinions which best suit the Authorities of the earth, in order that He\ncan change His systems as soon as they take a notion to change?\n\nA king of Macassar, tired of the idolatry of his fathers, took a notion\none day to leave it. The monarch's council deliberated for a long time\nto know whether they should consult Christian or Mohammedan Doctors. In\nthe impossibility of finding out which was the better of the two\nreligions, it was resolved to send at the same time for the missionaries\nof both, and to accept the doctrine of those who would have the\nadvantage of arriving first. They did not doubt that God, who disposes\nof events, would thus Himself explain His will. Mohammed's missionaries\nhaving been more diligent, the king with his people submitted to the law\nwhich he had imposed upon himself; the missionaries of Christ were\ndismissed by default of their God, who did not permit them to arrive\nearly enough. God evidently consents that chance should decide the\nreligion of nations.\n\nThose who govern, always decide the religion of the people. The true\nreligion is but the religion of the prince; the true God is the God whom\nthe prince wishes them to worship; the will of the priests who govern\nthe prince, always becomes the will of God. A jester once said, with\nreason, that \"the true faith is always the one which has on its side\n'the prince and the executioner.'\"\n\nEmperors and executioners for a long time sustained the Gods of Rome\nagainst the God of the Christians; the latter having won over to their\nside the emperors, their soldiers and their executioners succeeded in\nsuppressing the worship of the Roman Gods. Mohammed's God succeeded in\nexpelling the Christian's God from a large part of the countries which\nHe formerly occupied. In the eastern part of Asia, there is a large\ncountry which is very flourishing, very productive, thickly populated,\nand governed by such wise laws, that the most savage conquerors adopted\nthem with respect. It is China! With the exception of Christianity,\nwhich was banished as dangerous, they followed their own superstitious\nideas; while the mandarins or magistrates, undeceived long ago about the\npopular religion, do not trouble themselves in regard to it, except to\nwatch over it, that the bonzes or priests do not use this religion to\ndisturb the peace of the State. However, we do not see that Providence\nwithholds its benefactions from a nation whose chiefs take so little\ninterest in the worship which is offered to it. The Chinese enjoy, on\nthe contrary, blessings and a peace worthy of being envied by many\nnations which religion divides, ravages, and often destroys. We can not\nreasonably expect to deprive a people of its follies; but we can hope to\ncure of their follies those who govern the people; these will then\nprevent the follies of the people from becoming dangerous. Superstition\nis never to be feared except when it has the support of princes and\nsoldiers; it is only then that it becomes cruel and sanguinary. Every\nsovereign who assumes the protection of a sect or of a religious\nfaction, usually becomes the tyrant of other sects, and makes himself\nthe must cruel perturbator in his kingdom.\n\n\n\n\nCXL.--RELIGION IS NOT NECESSARY TO MORALITY AND TO VIRTUE.\n\nWe are constantly told, and a good many sensible persons come to believe\nit, that religion is necessary to restrain men; that without it there\nwould be no check upon the people; that morality and virtue are\nintimately connected with it: \"The fear of the Lord is,\" we are told,\n\"the beginning of wisdom.\" The terrors of another life are salutary\nterrors, and calculated to subdue men's passions. To disabuse us in\nregard to the utility of religious notions, it is sufficient to open the\neyes and to consider what are the morals of the most religious people.\nWe see haughty tyrants, oppressive ministers, perfidious courtiers,\ncountless extortioners, unscrupulous magistrates, impostors, adulterers,\nlibertines, prostitutes, thieves, and rogues of all kinds, who have\nnever doubted the existence of a vindictive God, or the punishments of\nhell, or the joys of Paradise.\n\nAlthough very useless for the majority of men, the ministers of religion\nhave tried to make death appear terrible to the eyes of their votaries.\nIf the most devoted Christians could be consistent, they would pass\ntheir whole lives in tears, and would finally die in the most terrible\nalarms. What is more frightful than death to those unfortunate ones who\nare constantly reminded that \"it is a fearful thing to fall into the\nhands of a living God;\" that they should \"seek salvation with fear and\ntrembling!\" However, we are assured that the Christian's death has great\nconsolations, of which the unbeliever is deprived. The good Christian,\nwe are told, dies with the firm hope of enjoying eternal happiness,\nwhich he has tried to deserve. But this firm assurance, is it not a\npunishable presumption in the eyes of a severe God? The greatest saints,\nare they not to be in doubt whether they are worthy of the love or of\nthe hatred of God Priests who console us with the hope of the joys of\nParadise, and close your eyes to the torments of hell, have you then had\nthe advantage of seeing your names and ours inscribed in the book of\nlife?\n\n\n\n\nCXLI.--RELIGION IS THE WEAKEST RESTRAINT THAT CAN BE OPPOSED TO THE\nPASSIONS.\n\nTo oppose to the passions and present interests of men the obscure\nnotions about a metaphysical God whom no one can conceive of; the\nincredible punishments of another life; the pleasures of Heaven, of\nwhich we can not form an idea, is it not combating realities with\nchimeras? Men have always but confused ideas of their God; they see Him\nonly in the clouds; they never think of Him when they wish to do wrong.\nWhenever ambition, fortune, or pleasure entices them or leads them away,\nGod, and His menaces, and His promises weigh nothing in the balance. The\nthings of this life have for men a degree of certainty, which the most\nlively faith can never give to the objects of another life.\n\nEvery religion, in its origin, was a restraint invented by legislators\nwho wished to subjugate the minds of the common people. Like nurses who\nfrighten children in order to put them to sleep, ambitious men use the\nname of the gods to inspire fear in savages; terror seems well suited to\ncompel them to submit quietly to the yoke which is to be imposed upon\nthem. Are the ghost stories of childhood fit for mature age? Man in his\nmaturity no longer believes in them, or if he does, he is troubled but\nlittle by it, and he keeps on his road.\n\n\n\n\nCXLII.--HONOR IS A MORE SALUTARY AND A STRONGER CHECK THAN RELIGION.\n\nThere is scarcely a man who does not fear more what he sees than what he\ndoes not see; the judgments of men, of which he experiences the effects,\nthan the judgments of God, of whom he has but floating ideas. The desire\nto please the world, the current of custom, the fear of being ridiculed,\nand of \"WHAT WILL THEY SAY?\" have more power than all religious\nopinions. A warrior with the fear of dishonor, does he not hazard his\nlife in battles every day, even at the risk of incurring eternal\ndamnation?\n\nThe most religious persons sometimes show more respect for a servant\nthan for God. A man that firmly believes that God sees everything, knows\neverything, is everywhere, will, when he is alone, commit actions which\nhe never would do in the presence of the meanest of mortals. Those even\nwho claim to be the most firmly convinced of the existence of a God, act\nevery instant as if they did not believe anything about it.\n\n\n\n\nCXLIII.--RELIGION IS CERTAINLY NOT A POWERFUL CHECK UPON THE PASSIONS OF\nKINGS, WHO ARE ALMOST ALWAYS CRUEL AND FANTASTIC TYRANTS BY THE EXAMPLE\nOF THIS SAME GOD, OF WHOM THEY CLAIM TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVES; THEY USE\nRELIGION BUT TO BRUTALIZE THEIR SLAVES SO MUCH THE MORE, TO LULL THEM TO\nSLEEP IN THEIR FETTERS, AND TO PREY UPON THEM WITH THE GREATER FACILITY.\n\n\"Let us tolerate at least,\" we are told, \"the idea of a God, which alone\ncan be a restraint upon the passions of kings.\" But, in good faith, can\nwe admire the marvelous effects which the fear of this God produces\ngenerally upon the mind of the princes who claim to be His images? What\nidea can we form of the original, if we judge it by its duplicates?\nSovereigns, it is true, call, themselves the representatives of God, His\nlieutenants upon earth. But does the fear of a more powerful master than\nthemselves make them attend to the welfare of the peoples that\nProvidence has confided to their care? The idea of an invisible Judge,\nto whom alone they pretend to be accountable for their actions, should\ninspire them with terror! But does this terror render them more\nequitable, more humane, less avaricious of the blood and the goods of\ntheir subjects, more moderate in their pleasures, more attentive to\ntheir duties? Finally, does this God, by whom we are assured that kings\nreign, prevent them from vexing in a thousand ways the peoples of whom\nthey ought to be the leaders, the protectors, and fathers? Let us open\nour eyes, let us turn our regards upon all the earth, and we shall see,\nalmost everywhere, men governed by tyrants, who make use of religion but\nto brutalize their slaves, whom they oppress by the weight of their\nvices, or whom they sacrifice without mercy to their fatal\nextravagances. Far from being a restraint to the passions of kings,\nreligion, by its very principles, gives them a loose rein. It transforms\nthem into Divinities, whose caprices the nations never dare to resist.\nAt the same time that it unchains princes and breaks for them the ties\nof the social pact, it enchains the minds and the hands of their\noppressed subjects. Is it surprising, then, that the gods of the earth\nbelieve that all is permitted to them, and consider their subjects as\nvile instruments of their caprices or of their ambition?\n\nReligion, in every country, has made of the Monarch of Nature a cruel,\nfantastic, partial tyrant, whose caprice is the rule. The God-monarch is\nbut too well imitated by His representatives upon the earth. Everywhere\nreligion seems invented but to lull to sleep the people in fetters, in\norder to furnish their masters the facility of devouring them, or to\nrender them miserable with impunity.\n\n\n\n\nCXLIV.--ORIGIN OF THE MOST ABSURD, THE MOST RIDICULOUS, AND THE MOST\nODIOUS USURPATION, CALLED THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS. WISE COUNSELS TO\nKINGS.\n\nIn order to guard themselves against the enterprises of a haughty\nPontiff who desired to reign over kings, and in order to protect their\npersons from the attacks of the credulous people excited by their\npriests, several princes of Europe pretended to have received their\ncrowns and their rights from God alone, and that they should account to\nHim only for their actions. Civil power in its battles against spiritual\npower, having at length gained the advantage, and the priests being\ncompelled to yield, recognized the Divine right of kings and preached it\nto the people, reserving to themselves the right to change opinions and\nto preach revolution, every time that the divine rights of kings did not\nagree with the divine rights of the clergy. It was always at the expense\nof the people that peace was restored between the kings and the priests,\nbut the latter maintained their pretensions notwithstanding all\ntreaties.\n\nMany tyrants and wicked princes, whose conscience reproaches them for\ntheir negligence or their perversity, far from fearing their God, rather\nlike to bargain with this invisible Judge, who never refuses anything,\nor with His priests, who are accommodating to the masters of the earth\nrather than to their subjects. The people, when reduced to despair,\nconsider the divine rights of their chiefs as an abuse. When men become\nexasperated, the divine rights of tyrants are compelled to yield to the\nnatural rights of their subjects; they have better market with the gods\nthan with men. Kings are responsible for their actions but to God, the\npriests but to themselves; there is reason to believe that both of them\nhave more faith in the indulgence of Heaven than in that of earth. It is\nmuch easier to escape the judgments of the gods, who can be appeased at\nlittle expense, than the judgments of men whose patience is exhausted.\nIf you take away from the sovereigns the fear of an invisible power,\nwhat restraint will you oppose to their misconduct? Let them learn how\nto govern, how to be just, how to respect the rights of the people, to\nrecognize the benefactions of the nations from whom they obtain their\ngrandeur and power; let them learn to fear men, to submit to the laws of\nequity, that no one can violate without danger; let these laws restrain\nequally the powerful and the weak, the great and the small, the\nsovereign and the subjects.\n\nThe fear of the Gods, religion, the terrors of another life--these are\nthe metaphysical and supernatural barriers which are opposed to the\nfurious passions of princes! Are these barriers sufficient? We leave it\nto experience to solve the question! To oppose religion to the\nwickedness of tyrants, is to wish that vague speculations should be more\npowerful than inclinations which conspire to fortify them in it from day\nto day.\n\n\n\n\nCXLV.--RELIGION IS FATAL TO POLITICS; IT FORMS BUT LICENTIOUS AND\nPERVERSE DESPOTS, AS WELL AS ABJECT AND UNHAPPY SUBJECTS.\n\nWe are told constantly of the immense advantages which religion secures\nto politics; but if we reflect a moment, we will see without trouble\nthat religious opinions blind and lead astray equally the rulers and the\npeople, and never enlighten them either in regard to their true duties\nor their real interests. Religion but too often forms licentious,\nimmoral tyrants, obeyed by slaves who are obliged to conform to their\nviews. From lack of the knowledge of the true principles of\nadministration, the aim and the rights of social life, the real\ninterests of men, and the duties which unite them, the princes are\nbecome, in almost every land, licentious, absolute, and perverse; and\ntheir subjects abject unhappy, and wicked. It was to avoid the trouble\nof studying these important subjects, that they felt themselves obliged\nto have recourse to chimeras, which so far, instead of being a remedy,\nhave but increased the evils of the human race and withdrawn their\nattention from the most interesting things. Does not the unjust and\ncruel manner in which so many nations are governed here below, furnish\nthe most visible proofs, not only of the non-effect produced by the fear\nof another life, but of the non-existence of a Providence interested in\nthe fate of the human race? If there existed a good God, would we not be\nforced to admit that He strangely neglects the majority of men in this\nlife? It would appear that this God created the nations but to be toys\nfor the passions and follies of His representatives upon earth.\n\n\n\n\nCXLVI.--CHRISTIANITY EXTENDED ITSELF BUT BY ENCOURAGING DESPOTISM, OF\nWHICH IT, LIKE ALL RELIGION, IS THE STRONGEST SUPPORT.\n\nIf we read history with some attention, we shall see that Christianity,\nfawning at first, insinuated itself among the savage and free nations of\nEurope but by showing their chiefs that its principles would favor\ndespotism and place absolute power in their hands. We see, consequently,\nbarbarous kings converting themselves with a miraculous promptitude;\nthat is to say, adopting without examination a system so favorable to\ntheir ambition, and exerting themselves to have it adopted by their\nsubjects. If the ministers of this religion have since often moderated\ntheir servile principles, it is because the theory has no influence upon\nthe conduct of the Lord's ministers, except when it suits their temporal\ninterests.\n\n\n\n\nChristianity boasts of having brought to men a happiness unknown to\npreceding centuries. It is true that the Grecians have not known the\nDivine right of tyrants or usurpers over their native country. Under the\nreign of Paganism it never entered the brain of anybody that Heaven did\nnot want a nation to defend itself against a ferocious beast which\ninsolently ravaged it. The Christian religion, devised for the benefit\nof tyrants, was established on the principle that the nations should\nrenounce the legitimate defense of themselves. Thus Christian nations\nare deprived of the first law of nature, which decrees that man should\nresist evil and disarm all who attempt to destroy him. If the ministers\nof the Church have often permitted nations to revolt for Heaven's cause,\nthey never allowed them to revolt against real evils or known violences.\n\nIt is from Heaven that the chains have come to fetter the minds of\nmortals. Why is the Mohammedan everywhere a slave? It is because his\nProphet subdued him in the name of the Deity, just as Moses before him\nsubjugated the Jews. In all parts of the world we see that priests were\nthe first law-givers and the first sovereigns of the savages whom they\ngoverned. Religion seems to have been invented but to exalt princes\nabove their nations, and to deliver the people to their discretion. As\nsoon as the latter find themselves unhappy here below, they are silenced\nby menacing them with God's wrath; their eyes are fixed on Heaven, in\norder to prevent them from perceiving the real causes of their\nsufferings and from applying the remedies which nature offers them.\n\n\n\n\nCXLVII.--THE ONLY AIM OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES IS TO PERPETUATE THE\nTYRANNY OF KINGS AND TO SACRIFICE THE NATIONS TO THEM.\n\nBy incessantly repeating to men that the earth is not their true\ncountry; that the present life is but a passage; that they were not made\nto be happy in this world; that their sovereigns hold their authority\nbut from God, and are responsible to Him alone for the misuse of it;\nthat it is never permitted to them to resist, the priesthood succeeded\nin perpetuating the misconduct of the kings and the misfortunes of the\npeople; the interests of the nations have been cowardly sacrificed to\ntheir chiefs. The more we consider the dogmas and the principles of\nreligion, the more we shall be convinced that their only aim is to give\nadvantage to tyrants and priests; not having the least regard for the\ngood of society. In order to mask the powerlessness of these deaf Gods,\nreligion has succeeded in making mortals believe that it is always\niniquity which excites the wrath of Heaven. The people blame themselves\nfor the disasters and the adversities which they endure continually. If\ndisturbed nature sometimes causes the people to feel its blows, their\nbad governments are but too often the immediate and permanent causes\nfrom which spring the continual calamities that they are obliged to\nendure. Is it not the ambition of kings and of the great, their\nnegligence, their vices, their oppression, to which are generally due\nsterility, mendacity, wars, contagions, bad morals, and all the\nmultiplied scourges which desolate the earth?\n\nIn continually directing the eyes of men toward Heaven, making them\nbelieve that all their evils are due to Divine wrath, in furnishing them\nbut inefficient and futile means of lessening their troubles, it would\nappear that the only object of the priests is to prevent the nations\nfrom dreaming of the true sources of their miseries, and to perpetuate\nthem. The ministers of religion act like those indigent mothers, who, in\nneed of bread, put their hungry children to sleep by songs, or who\npresent them toys to make them forget the want which torments them.\n\nBlinded from childhood by error, held by the invincible ties of opinion,\ncrushed by panic terrors, stupefied at the bosom of ignorance, how could\nthe people understand the true causes of their troubles? They think to\nremedy them by invoking the gods. Alas! do they not see that it is it\nthe name of these gods that they are ordered to present their throat to\nthe sword of their pitiless tyrants, in whom they would find the most\nvisible cause of the evils under which they groan, and for which they\nuselessly implore the assistance of Heaven? Credulous people! in your\nadversities redouble your prayers, your offerings, your sacrifices;\nbesiege your temples, strangle countless victims, fast in sackcloth and\nin ashes, drink your own tears; finally, exhaust yourselves to enrich\nyour gods: you will do nothing but enrich their priests; the gods of\nHeaven will not be propitious to you, except when the gods of the earth\nwill recognize that they are men like yourselves, and will give to your\nwelfare the care which is your due.\n\n\n\n\nCXLVIII.--HOW FATAL IT IS TO PERSUADE KINGS THAT THEY HAVE ONLY GOD TO\nFEAR IF THEY INJURE THE PEOPLE.\n\nNegligent, ambitious, and perverse princes are the real causes of public\nadversities, of useless and unjust wars continually depopulating the\nearth, of greedy and despotic governments, destroying the benefactions\nof nature for men. The rapacity of the courts discourages agriculture,\nblots out industry, causes famine, contagion, misery; Heaven is neither\ncruel nor favorable to the wishes of the people; it is their haughty\nchiefs, who always have a heart of brass.\n\nIt is a notion destructive to wholesome politics and to the morals of\nprinces, to persuade them that God alone is to be feared by them, when\nthey injure their subjects or when they neglect to render them happy.\nSovereigns! It is not the Gods, but your people whom you offend when you\ndo evil. It is to these people, and by retroaction, to yourselves, that\nyou do harm when you govern unjustly.\n\nNothing is more common in history than to see religious tyrants; nothing\nmore rare than to find equitable, vigilant, enlightened princes. A\nmonarch can be pious, very strict in fulfilling servilely the duties of\nhis religion, very submissive to his priests, liberal in their behalf,\nand at the same time destitute of all the virtues and talents necessary\nfor governing. Religion for the princes is but an instrument intended to\nkeep the people more firmly under the yoke. According to the beautiful\nprinciples of religious morality, a tyrant who, during a long reign,\nwill have done nothing but oppress his subjects, rob them of the fruits\nof their labor, sacrifice them without pity to his insatiable ambition;\na conqueror who will have usurped the provinces of others, who will have\nslaughtered whole nations, who will have been all his life a real\nscourge of the human race, imagines that his conscience can be\ntranquillized, if, in order to expiate so many crimes, he will have wept\nat the feet of a priest, who will have the cowardly complaisance to\nconsole and reassure a brigand, whom the most frightful despair would\npunish too little for the evil which he has done upon earth.\n\n\n\n\nCLXIX.--A RELIGIOUS KING IS A SCOURGE TO HIS KINGDOM.\n\nA sincerely religious sovereign is generally a very dangerous chief for\na State; credulity always indicates a narrow mind; devotion generally\nabsorbs the attention which the prince ought to give to the ruling of\nhis people. Docile to the suggestions of his priests, he constantly\nbecomes the toy of their caprices, the abettor of their quarrels, the\ninstrument and the accomplice of their follies, to which he attaches the\ngreatest importance. Among the most fatal gifts which religion has\nbestowed upon the world, we must consider above all, these devoted and\nzealous monarchs, who, with the idea of working for the salvation of\ntheir subjects, have made it their sacred duty to torment, to persecute,\nto destroy those whose conscience made them think otherwise than they\ndo. A religious bigot at the head of an empire, is one of the greatest\nscourges which Heaven in its fury could have sent upon earth. One\nfanatical or deceitful priest who has the ear of a credulous and\npowerful prince, suffices to put a State into disorder and the universe\ninto combustion.\n\nIn almost all countries, priests and devout persons are charged with\nforming the mind and the heart of the young princes destined to govern\nthe nations. What enlightenment can teachers of this stamp give? Filled\nthemselves with prejudices, they will hold up to their pupil\nsuperstition as the most important and the most sacred thing, its\nchimerical duties as the most holy obligations, intolerance, and the\nspirit of persecution, as the true foundations of his future authority;\nthey will try to make him a chief of party, a turbulent fanatic, and a\ntyrant; they will suppress at an early period his reason; they will\npremonish him against it; they will prevent truth from reaching him;\nthey will prejudice him against true talents, and prepossess him in\nfavor of despicable talents; finally they will make of him an imbecile\ndevotee, who will have no idea of justice or of injustice, of true glory\nor of true greatness, and who will be devoid of the intelligence and\nvirtue necessary to the government of a great kingdom. Here, in brief,\nis the plan of education for a child destined to make, one day, the\nhappiness or the misery of several millions of men.\n\n\n\n\nCL.--THE SHIELD OF RELIGION IS FOR TYRANNY, A WEAK RAMPART AGAINST THE\nDESPAIR OF THE PEOPLE. A DESPOT IS A MADMAN, WHO INJURES HIMSELF AND\nSLEEPS UPON THE EDGE OF A PRECIPICE.\n\nPriests in all times have shown themselves supporters of despotism, and\nthe enemies of public liberty. Their profession requires vile and\nsubmissive slaves, who never have the audacity to reason. In an absolute\ngovernment, their great object is to secure control of the mind of a\nweak and stupid prince, in order to make themselves masters of the\npeople. Instead of leading the people to salvation, priests have always\nled them to servitude.\n\nFor the sake of the supernatural titles which religion has forged for\nthe most wicked princes, the latter have generally united with the\npriests, who, sure of governing by controlling the opinion of the\nsovereign himself, have charge of tying the hands of the people and of\nkeeping them under their yoke. But it is vain that the tyrant, protected\nby the shield of religion, flatters himself with being sheltered from\nall the blows of fate. Opinion is a weak rampart against the despair of\nthe people. Besides, the priest is the friend of the tyrant only so long\nas he finds his profit by the tyranny; he preaches sedition and\ndemolishes the idol which he has made, when he considers it no longer in\nconformity with the interests of Heaven, which he speaks of as he\npleases, and which never speaks but in behalf of his interests. No doubt\nit will be said, that the sovereigns, knowing all the advantages which\nreligion procures for them, are truly interested in upholding it with\nall their strength. If religious opinions are useful to tyrants, it is\nevident that they are useless to those who govern according to the laws\nof reason and of equity. Is there any advantage in exercising tyranny?\nDoes not tyranny deprive princes of true power, the love of the people,\nin which is safety? Should not every rational prince perceive that the\ndespot is but an insane man who injures himself? Will not every\nenlightened prince beware of his flatterers, whose object is to put him\nto sleep at the edge of the precipice to which they lead him?\n\n\n\n\nCLI.--RELIGION FAVORS THE ERRORS OF PRINCES, BY DELIVERING THEM FROM FEAR\nAND REMORSE.\n\nIf the sacerdotal flatteries succeed in perverting princes and changing\nthem into tyrants, the latter on their side necessarily corrupt the\ngreat men and the people. Under an unjust master, without goodness,\nwithout virtue, who knows no law but his caprice, a nation must become\nnecessarily depraved. Will this master wish to have honest, enlightened,\nand virtuous men near him? No! he needs flatterers in those who\napproach him, imitators, slaves, base and servile minds, who give\nthemselves up to his taste; his court will spread the contagion of vice\nto the inferior classes. By degrees all will be necessarily corrupted,\nin a State whose chief is corrupt himself. It was said a long time ago\nthat the princes seem ordained to do all they do themselves. Religion,\nfar from being a restraint upon the sovereigns, entitles them, without\nfear and without remorse, to the errors which are as fatal to themselves\nas to the nations which they govern. Men are never deceived with\nimpunity. Tell a prince that he is a God, and very soon he will believe\nthat he owes nothing to anybody. As long as he is feared, he will not\ncare much for love; he will recognize no rights, no relations with his\nsubjects, nor obligations in their behalf. Tell this prince that he is\nresponsible for his actions to God alone, and very soon he will act as\nif he was responsible to nobody.\n\n\n\n\nCLII.--WHAT IS AN ENLIGHTENED SOVEREIGN?\n\nAn enlightened sovereign is he who understands his true interests; he\nknows they are united to those of his nation; he knows that a prince can\nbe neither great, nor powerful, nor beloved, nor respected, so long as\nhe will command but miserable slaves; he knows that equity, benevolence,\nand vigilance will give him more real rights over men than fabulous\ntitles which claim to come from Heaven. He will feel that religion is\nuseful but to the priests; that it is useless to society, which is often\ntroubled by it; that it must be limited to prevent it from doing injury;\nfinally, he will understand that, in order to reign with glory, he must\nmake good laws, possess virtues, and not base his power on impositions\nand chimeras.\n\n\n\n\nCLIII.--THE DOMINANT PASSIONS AND CRIMES OF PRIESTCRAFT. WITH THE\nASSISTANCE OF ITS PRETENDED GOD AND OF RELIGION, IT ASSERTS ITS PASSIONS\nAND COMMITS ITS CRIMES.\n\nThe ministers of religion have taken great care to make of their God a\nterrible, capricious, and changeable tyrant; it was necessary for them\nthat He should be thus in order that He might lend Himself to their\nvarious interests. A God who would be just and good, without a mixture\nof caprice and perversity; a God who would constantly have the qualities\nof an honest man or of a compliant sovereign, would not suit His\nministers. It is necessary to the priests that we tremble before their\nGod, in order that we have recourse to them to obtain the means to be\nquieted. No man is a hero to his valet de chambre. It is not surprising\nthat a God clothed by His priests in such a way as to cause others to\nfear Him, should rarely impose upon those priests themselves, or exert\nbut little influence upon their conduct. Consequently we see them behave\nthemselves in a uniform way in every land; everywhere they devour\nnations, debase souls, discourage industry, and sow discord under the\npretext of the glory of their God. Ambition and avarice were at all\ntimes the dominating passions of the priesthood; everywhere the priest\nplaces himself above the sovereign and the laws; everywhere we see him\noccupied but with the interests of his pride, his cupidity, his despotic\nand vindictive mood; everywhere he substitutes expiations, sacrifices,\nceremonies, and mysterious practices; in a word, inventions lucrative to\nhimself for useful and social virtues. The mind is confounded and reason\ninterdicted with the view of ridiculous practices and pitiable means\nwhich the ministers of the gods invented in every country to purify\nsouls and render Heaven favorable to nations. Here, they practice\ncircumcision upon a child to procure it Divine benevolence; there, they\npour water upon his head to wash away the crimes which he could not yet\nhave committed; in other places he is told to plunge himself into a\nriver whose waters have the power to wash away all his impurities; in\nother places certain food is forbidden to him, whose use would not fail\nto excite celestial indignation; in other countries they order the\nsinful man to come periodically for the confession of his faults to a\npriest, who is often a greater sinner than he.\n\n\n\n\nCLIV.--CHARLATANRY OF THE PRIESTS.\n\nWhat would we say of a crowd of quacks, who every day would exhibit in a\npublic place, selling their remedies and recommending them as\ninfallible, while we should find them afflicted with the same\ninfirmities which they pretend to cure? Would we have much confidence in\nthe recipes of these charlatans, who would bawl out: \"Take our remedies,\ntheir effects are infallible--they cure everybody except us?\" What would\nwe think to see these same charlatans pass their lives in complaining\nthat their remedies never produce any effect upon the patients who take\nthem? Finally, what idea would we form of the foolishness of the common\nman who, in spite of this confession, would continue to pay very high\nfor remedies which will not be beneficial to him? The priests resemble\nalchemists, who boldly assert that they have the secret of making gold,\nwhile they scarcely have clothing enough to cover their nudity.\n\nThe ministers of religion incessantly declaim against the corruption of\nthe age, and complain loudly of the little success of their teachings,\nat the same time they assure us that religion is the universal remedy,\nthe true panacea for all human evils. These priests are sick themselves;\nhowever, men continue to frequent their stands and to have faith in\ntheir Divine antidotes, which, according to their own confession, cure\nnobody!\n\n\n\n\nCLV.--COUNTLESS CALAMITIES ARE PRODUCED BY RELIGION, WHICH HAS TAINTED\nMORALITY AND DISTURBED ALL JUST IDEAS AND ALL SOUND DOCTRINES.\n\nReligion, especially among modern people, in taking possession of\nmorality, totally obscured its principles; it has rendered men unsocial\nfrom a sense of duty; it has forced them to be inhuman toward all those\nwho did not think as they did. Theological disputes, equally\nunintelligible for the parties already irritated against each other,\nhave unsettled empires, caused revolutions, ruined sovereigns,\ndevastated the whole of Europe; these despicable quarrels could not be\nextinguished even in rivers of blood. After the extinction of Paganism\nthe people established a religious principle of going into a frenzy,\nevery time that an opinion was brought forth which their priests\nconsidered contrary to the holy doctrine. The votaries of a religion\nwhich preaches externally but charity, harmony, and peace, have shown\nthemselves more ferocious than cannibals or savages every time that\ntheir instructors have excited them to the destruction of their\nbrethren. There is no crime which men have not committed in the idea of\npleasing the Deity or of appeasing His wrath. The idea of a terrible God\nwho was represented as a despot, must necessarily have rendered His\nsubjects wicked. Fear makes but slaves, and slaves are cowardly, low,\ncruel, and think they have a right to do anything when it is the\nquestion of gaining the good-will or of escaping the punishments of the\nmaster whom they fear. Liberty of thought can alone give to men humanity\nand grandeur of soul. The notion of a tyrant God can create but abject,\nangry, quarrelsome, intolerant slaves. Every religion which supposes a\nGod easily irritated, jealous, vindictive, punctilious about His rights\nor His title, a God small enough to be offended at opinions which we\nhave of Him, a God unjust enough to exact uniform ideas in regard to\nHim, such a religion becomes necessarily turbulent, unsocial,\nsanguinary; the worshipers of such a God never believe they can, without\ncrime, dispense with hating and even destroying all those whom they\ndesignate as adversaries of this God; they would believe themselves\ntraitors to the cause of their celestial Monarch, if they should live on\ngood terms with rebellious fellow-citizens. To love what God hates,\nwould it not be exposing one's self to His implacable hatred? Infamous\npersecutors, and you, religious cannibals! will you never feel the folly\nand injustice of your intolerant disposition? Do you not see that man is\nno more the master of his religious opinions, of his credulity or\nincredulity, than of the language which he learns in childhood, and\nwhich he can not change? To tell men to think as you do, is it not\nasking a foreigner to express his thoughts in your language? To punish a\nman for his erroneous opinions, is it not punishing him for having been\neducated differently from yourself? If I am incredulous, is it possible\nfor me to banish from my mind the reasons which have unsettled my faith?\nIf God allows men the freedom to damn themselves, is it your business?\nAre you wiser and more prudent than this God whose rights you wish to\navenge?\n\n\n\n\nCLVI.--EVERY RELIGION IS INTOLERANT, AND CONSEQUENTLY DESTRUCTIVE OF\nBENEFICENCE.\n\nThere is no religious person who, according to his temperament, does not\nhate, despise, or pity the adherents of a sect different from his own.\nThe dominant religion (which is never but that of the sovereign and the\narmies) always makes its superiority felt in a very cruel and injurious\nmanner toward the weaker sects. There does not exist yet upon earth a\ntrue tolerance; everywhere a jealous God is worshiped, and each nation\nbelieves itself His friend to the exclusion of all others.\n\nEvery nation boasts itself of worshiping the true God, the universal\nGod, the Sovereign of Nature; but when we come to examine this Monarch\nof the world, we perceive that each organization, each sect, each\nreligious party, makes of this powerful God but an inferior sovereign,\nwhose cares and kindness extend themselves but over a small number of\nHis subjects who pretend to have the exclusive advantage of His favors,\nand that He does not trouble Himself about the others.\n\nThe founders of religions, and the priests who maintain them, have\nintended to separate the nations which they indoctrinated, from other\nnations; they desired to separate their own flock by distinctive\nfeatures; they gave to their votaries Gods inimical to other Gods as\nwell as the forms of worship, dogmas, ceremonies, separately; they\npersuaded them especially that the religions of others were ungodly and\nabominable. By this infamous contrivance, these ambitious impostors took\nexclusive possession of the minds of their votaries, rendered them\nunsocial, and made them consider as outcasts all those who had not the\nsame ideas and form of worship as their own. This is the way religion\nsucceeded in closing the heart, and in banishing from it that affection\nwhich man ought to have for his fellow-being. Sociability, tolerance,\nhumanity, these first virtues of all morality are totally in compatible\nwith religious prejudices.\n\n\n\n\nCLVII.--ABUSE OF A STATE RELIGION.\n\nEvery national religion has a tendency to make man vain, unsocial, and\nwicked; the first step toward humanity is to permit each one to follow\npeacefully the worship and the opinions which suit him. But such a\nconduct can not please the ministers of religion, who wish to have the\nright to tyrannize over even the thoughts of men. Blind and bigoted\nprinces, you hate, you persecute, you devote heretics to torture,\nbecause you are persuaded that these unfortunate ones displease God. But\ndo you not claim that your God is full of kindness? How can you hope to\nplease Him by such barbarous actions which He can not help disapproving\nof? Besides, who told you that their opinions displease your God? Your\npriests told you! But who guarantees that your priests are not deceived\nthemselves or that they do not wish to deceive you? It is these same\npriests! Princes! it is upon the perilous word of your priests that you\ncommit the most atrocious and the most unheard-of crimes, with the idea\nof pleasing the Deity!\n\n\n\n\nCLVIII.--RELIGION GIVES LICENSE TO THE FEROCITY OF THE PEOPLE BY\n\n\n\nLEGITIMIZING IT, AND AUTHORIZES CRIME BY TEACHING THAT IT CAN BE USEFUL\nTO THE DESIGNS OF GOD.\n\n\"Never,\" says Pascal, \"do we do evil so thoroughly and so willingly as\nwhen we do it through a false principle of conscience.\" Nothing is more\ndangerous than a religion which licenses the ferocity of the people, and\njustifies in their eyes the blackest crimes; it puts no limits to their\nwickedness as soon as they believe it authorized by their God, whose\ninterests, as they are told, can justify all their actions. If there is\na question of religion, immediately the most civilized nations become\ntrue savages, and believe everything is permitted to them. The more\ncruel they are, the more agreeable they suppose themselves to be to\ntheir God, whose cause they imagine can not be sustained by too much\nzeal. All religions of the world have authorized countless crimes. The\nJews, excited by the promises of their God, arrogated to themselves the\nright of exterminating whole nations; the Romans, whose faith was\nfounded upon the oracles of their Gods, became real brigands, and\nconquered and ravaged the world; the Arabians, encouraged by their\nDivine preceptor, carried the sword and the flame among Christians and\nidolaters. The Christians, under pretext of spreading their holy\nreligion, covered the two hemispheres a hundred times with blood. In all\nevents favorable to their own interests, which they always call the\ncause of God, the priests show us the finger of God. According to these\nprinciples, religious bigots have the luck of seeing the finger of God\nin revolts, in revolutions, massacres, regicides, prostitutions,\ninfamies, and, if these things contribute to the advantage of religion,\nwe can say, then, that God uses all sorts of means to secure His ends.\nIs there anything better calculated to annihilate every idea of morality\nin the minds of men, than to make them understand that their God, who is\nso powerful and so perfect, is often compelled to use crime to\naccomplish His designs?\n\n\n\n\nCLIX.--REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENT, THAT THE EVILS ATTRIBUTED TO RELIGION\nARE BUT THE SAD EFFECTS OF THE PASSIONS OF MEN.\n\nWhen we complain about the violence and evils which generally religion\ncauses upon earth, we are answered at once, that these excesses are not\ndue to religion, but that they are the sad effect of men's passions. I\nwould ask, however, what unchained these passions? It is evidently\nreligion; it is a zeal which renders inhuman, and which serves to cover\nthe greatest infamy. Do not these disorders prove that religion, instead\nof restraining the passions of men, does but cover them with a cloak\nthat sanctifies them; and that nothing would be more beneficial than to\ntear away this sacred cloak of which men make such a bad use? What\nhorrors would be banished from society, if the wicked were deprived of a\npretext so plausible for disturbing it!\n\nInstead of cherishing peace among men, the priests stirred up hatred and\nstrife. They pleaded their conscience, and pretended to have received\nfrom Heaven the right to be quarrelsome, turbulent, and rebellious. Do\nnot the ministers of God consider themselves to be wronged, do they not\npretend that His Divine Majesty is injured every time that the\nsovereigns have the temerity to try to prevent them from doing injury?\nThe priests resemble that irritable woman, who cried out fire! murder!\nassassins! while her husband was holding her hands to prevent her from\nbeating him.\n\n\n\n\nCLX.--ALL MORALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH RELIGIOUS OPINIONS.\n\nNotwithstanding the bloody tragedies which religion has so often caused\nin this world, we are constantly told that there can be no morality\nwithout religion. If we judge theological opinions by their effects, we\nwould be right in assuming that all morality is perfectly incompatible\nwith the religious opinions of men. \"Imitate God,\" is constantly\nrepeated to us. Ah! what morals would we have if we should imitate this\nGod! Which God should we imitate? Is it the deist's God? But even this\nGod can not be a model of goodness for us. If He is the author of all,\nHe is equally the author of the good and of the bad we see in this\nworld; if He is the author of order, He is also the author of disorder,\nwhich would not exist without His permission; if He produces, He\ndestroys; if He gives life, He also causes death; if He grants\nabundance, riches, prosperity, and peace, He permits or sends famines,\npoverty, calamities, and wars. How can you accept as a model of\npermanent beneficence the God of theism or of natural religion, whose\nfavorable intentions are at every moment contradicted by everything that\ntranspires in the world? Morality needs a firmer basis than the example\nof a God whose conduct varies, and whom we can not call good but by\nobstinately closing the eyes to the evil which He causes, or permits to\nbe done in this world.\n\nShall we imitate the good and great Jupiter of ancient Paganism? To\nimitate such a God would be to take as a model a rebellious son, who\nwrests his father's throne from him and then mutilates his body; it is\nimitating a debauchee and adulterer, an incestuous, intemperate man,\nwhose conduct would cause any reasonable mortal to blush. What would\nhave become of men under the control of Paganism if they had imagined,\naccording to Plato, that virtue consisted in imitating the gods?\n\nMust we imitate the God of the Jews? Will we find a model for our\nconduct in Jehovah? He is truly a savage God, really created for an\nignorant, cruel, and immoral people; He is a God who is constantly\nenraged, breathing only vengeance; who is without pity, who commands\ncarnage and robbery; in a word, He is a God whose conduct can not serve\nas a model to an honest man, and who can be imitated but by a chief of\nbrigands.\n\nShall we imitate, then, the Jesus of the Christians? Can this God, who\ndied to appease the implacable fury of His Father, serve as an example\nwhich men ought to follow? Alas! we will see in Him but a God, or rather\na fanatic, a misanthrope, who being plunged Himself into misery, and\npreaching to the wretched, advises them to be poor, to combat and\nextinguish nature, to hate pleasure, to seek sufferings, and to despise\nthemselves; He tells them to leave father, mother, all the ties of life,\nin order to follow Him. What beautiful morality! you will say. It is\nadmirable, no doubt; it must be Divine, because it is impracticable for\nmen. But does not this sublime morality tend to render virtue\ndespicable? According to this boasted morality of the man-God of the\nChristians, His disciples in this lower world are, like Tantalus,\ntormented with burning thirst, which they are not permitted to quench.\nDo not such morals give us a wonderful idea of nature's Author? If He\nhas, as we are assured, created everything for the use of His creatures,\nby what strange caprice does He forbid the use of the good things which\nHe has created for them? Is the pleasure which man constantly desires\nbut a snare that God has maliciously laid in his path to entrap him?\n\n\n\n\nCLXI.--THE MORALS OF THE GOSPEL ARE IMPRACTICABLE.\n\nThe votaries of Christ would like to make us regard as a miracle the\nestablishment of their religion, which is in every respect contrary to\nnature, opposed to all the inclinations of the heart, an enemy to\nphysical pleasures. But the austerity of a doctrine has a tendency to\nrender it more wonderful to the ignorant. The same reason which makes us\nrespect, as Divine and supernatural, inconceivable mysteries, causes us\nto admire, as Divine and supernatural, a morality impracticable and\nbeyond the power of man. To admire morals and to practice them, are two\nvery different things. All the Christians continually admire the morals\nof the Gospel, but it is practiced but by a small number of saints;\nadmired by people who themselves avoid imitating their conduct, under\nthe pretext that they are lacking either the power or the grace.\n\nThe whole universe is infected more or less with a religious morality\nwhich is founded upon the opinion that to please the Deity it is\nnecessary to render one's self unhappy upon earth. We see in all parts\nof our globe penitents, hermits, fakirs, fanatics, who seem to have\nstudied profoundly the means of tormenting themselves for the glory of a\nBeing whose goodness they all agree in celebrating. Religion, by its\nessence, is the enemy of joy and of the welfare of men. \"Blessed are\nthose who suffer!\" Woe to those who have abundance and joy! These are\nthe rare revelations which Christianity teaches!\n\n\n\n\nCLXII.--A SOCIETY OF SAINTS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE.\n\nIn what consists the saint of all religions? It is a man who prays,\nfasts, who torments himself, who avoids the world, who, like an owl, is\npleased but in solitude, who abstains from all pleasure, who seems\nfrightened at every object which turns him a moment from his fanatical\nmeditations. Is this virtue? Is a being of this stamp of any use to\nhimself or to others? Would not society be dissolved, and would not men\nretrograde into barbarism, if each one should be fool enough to wish to\nbe a saint?\n\nIt is evident that the literal and rigorous practice of the Divine\nmorality of the Christians would lead nations to ruin. A Christian who\nwould attain perfection, ought to drive away from his mind all that can\nalienate him from heaven--his true country. He sees upon earth but\ntemptations, snares, and opportunities to go astray; he must fear\nscience as injurious to faith; he must avoid industry, as it is a means\nof obtaining riches, which are fatal to salvation; he must renounce\npreferments and honors, as things capable of exciting his pride and\ncalling his attention away from his soul; in a word, the sublime\nmorality of Christ, if it were not impracticable, would sever all the\nties of society.\n\nA saint in the world is no more useful than a saint in the desert; the\nsaint has an unhappy, discontented, and often irritable, turbulent\ndisposition; his zeal often obliges him, conscientiously, to disturb\nsociety by opinions or dreams which his vanity makes him accept as\ninspirations from Heaven. The annals of all religions are filled with\naccounts of anxious, intractable, seditious saints, who have\ndistinguished themselves by ravages that, for the greater glory of God,\nthey have scattered throughout the universe. If the saints who live in\nsolitude are useless, those who live in the world are very often\ndangerous. The vanity of performing a role, the desire of distinguishing\nthemselves in the eyes of the stupid vulgar by a strange conduct,\nconstitute usually the distinctive characteristics of great saints;\npride persuades them that they are extraordinary men, far above human\nnature; beings who are more perfect than others; chosen ones, which God\nlooks upon with more complaisance than the rest of mortals. Humility in\na saint is, is a general rule, but a pride more refined than that of\ncommon men. It must be a very ridiculous vanity which can determine a\nman to continually war with his own nature!\n\n\n\n\nCLXIII.--HUMAN NATURE IS NOT DEPRAVED; AND A MORALITY WHICH CONTRADICTS\nTHIS FACT IS NOT MADE FOR MAN.\n\nA morality which contradicts the nature of man is not made for him. But\nyou will say that man's nature is depraved. In what consists this\npretended depravity? Is it because he has passions? But are not passions\nthe very essence of man? Must he not seek, desire, love that which is,\nor that which he believes to be, essential to his happiness? Must he not\nfear and avoid that which he judges injurious or fatal to him? Excite\nhis passions by useful objects; let him attach himself to these same\nobjects, divert him by sensible and known motives from that which can do\nhim or others harm, and you will make of him a reasonable and virtuous\nbeing. A man without passions would be equally indifferent to vice and\nto virtue.\n\nHoly doctors! you constantly tell us that man's nature is perverted; you\ntell us that the way of all flesh is corrupt; you tell us that nature\ngives us but inordinate inclinations. In this case you accuse your God,\nwho has not been able or willing to keep this nature in its original\nperfection. If this nature became corrupted, why did not this God repair\nit? The Christian assures me that human nature is repaired, that the\ndeath of his God has reestablished it in its integrity. How comes it\nthen, that human nature, notwithstanding the death of a God, is still\ndepraved? Is it, then, a pure loss that your God died? What becomes of\nHis omnipotence and His victory over the Devil, if it is true that the\nDevil still holds the empire which, according to you, he has always\nexercised in the world?\n\nDeath, according to Christian theology, is the penalty of sin. This\nopinion agrees with that of some savage Negro nations, who imagine that\nthe death of a man is always the supernatural effect of the wrath of the\nGods. The Christians firmly believe that Christ has delivered them from\nsin, while they see that, in their religion as in the others, man is\nsubject to death. To say that Jesus Christ has delivered us from sin, is\nit not claiming that a judge has granted pardon to a guilty man, while\nwe see him sent to torture?\n\n\n\n\nCLXIV.--OF JESUS CHRIST, THE PRIEST'S GOD.\n\nIf, closing our eyes upon all that transpires in this world, we should\nrely upon the votaries of the Christian religion, we would believe that\nthe coming of our Divine Saviour has produced the most wonderful\nrevolution and the most complete reform in the morals of nations. The\nMessiah, according to Pascal, [See Thoughts of Pascal] ought of Himself\nalone to produce a great, select, and holy people; conducting and\nnourishing it, and introducing it into the place of repose and sanctity,\nrendering it holy to God, making it the temple of God, saving it from\nthe wrath of God, delivering it from the servitude of sin, giving laws\nto this people, engraving these laws upon their hearts, offering Himself\nto God for them, crushing the head of the serpent, etc. This great man\nhas forgotten to show us the people upon whom His Divine Messiah has\nproduced the miraculous effects of which He speaks with so much\nemphasis; so far, it seems, they do not exist upon the earth!\n\nIf we examine ever so little the morals of the Christian nations, and\nlisten to the clamors of their priests, we will be obliged to conclude\nthat their God, Jesus Christ, preached without fruit, without success;\nthat His Almighty will still finds in men a resistance, over which this\nGod either can not or does not wish to triumph. The morality of this\nDivine Doctor which His disciples admire so much, and practice so\nlittle, is followed during a whole century but by half a dozen of\nobscure saints, fanatical and ignorant monks, who alone will have the\nglory of shining in the celestial court; all the remainder of mortals,\nalthough redeemed by the blood of this God, will be the prey of eternal\nflames.\n\n\n\n\nCLXV.--THE DOGMA OF THE REMISSION OF SINS HAS BEEN INVENTED IN THE\nINTEREST OF THE PRIESTS.\n\nWhen a man has a great desire to sin, he thinks very little about his\nGod; more than this, whatever crimes he may have committed, he always\nflatters himself that this God will mitigate the severity of his\npunishments. No mortal seriously believes that his conduct can damn him.\nAlthough he fears a terrible God, who often makes him tremble, every\ntime he is strongly tempted he succumbs and sees but a God of mercy, the\nidea of whom quiets him. Does he do evil? He hopes to have the time to\ncorrect himself, and promises earnestly to repent some day.\n\nThere are in the religious pharmacy infallible receipts for calming the\nconscience; the priests in every country possess sovereign secrets for\ndisarming the wrath of Heaven. However true it may be that the anger of\nDeity is appeased by prayers, by offerings, by sacrifices, by\npenitential tears, we have no right to say that religion holds in check\nthe irregularities of men; they will first sin, and afterward seek the\nmeans to reconcile God. Every religion which expiates, and which\npromises the remission of crimes, if it restrains any, it encourages the\ngreat number to commit evil. Notwithstanding His immutability, God is,\nin all the religions of this world, a veritable Proteus. His priests\nshow Him now armed with severity, and then full of clemency and\ngentleness; now cruel and pitiless, and then easily reconciled by the\nrepentance and the tears of the sinners. Consequently, men face the\nDeity in the manner which conforms the most to their present interests.\nAn always wrathful God would repel His worshipers, or cast them into\ndespair. Men need a God who becomes angry and who can be appeased; if\nHis anger alarms a few timid souls, His clemency reassures the\ndetermined wicked ones who intend to have recourse sooner or later to\nthe means of reconciling themselves with Him; if the judgments of God\nfrighten a few faint-hearted devotees who already by temperament and by\nhabitude are not inclined to evil, the treasures of Divine mercy\nreassure the greatest criminals, who have reason to hope that they will\nparticipate in them with the others.\n\n\n\n\nCLXVI.--THE FEAR OF GOD IS POWERLESS AGAINST HUMAN PASSIONS.\n\nThe majority of men rarely think of God, or, at least, do not occupy\nthemselves much with Him. The idea of God has so little stability, it is\nso afflicting, that it can not hold the imagination for a long time,\nexcept in some sad and melancholy visionists who do not constitute the\nmajority of the inhabitants of this world. The common man has no\nconception of it; his weak brain becomes perplexed the moment he\nattempts to think of Him. The business man thinks of nothing but his\naffairs; the courtier of his intrigues; worldly men, women, youth, of\ntheir pleasures; dissipation soon dispels the wearisome notions of\nreligion. The ambitious, the avaricious, and the debauchee sedulously\nlay aside speculations too feeble to counterbalance their diverse\npassions.\n\nWhom does the idea of God overawe? A few weak men disappointed and\ndisgusted with this world; some persons whose passions are already\nextinguished by age, by infirmities, or by reverses of fortune. Religion\nis a restraint but for those whose temperament or circumstances have\nalready subjected them to reason. The fear of God does not prevent any\nfrom committing sin but those who do not wish to sin very much, or who\nare no longer in a condition to sin. To tell men that Divinity punishes\ncrime in this world, is to claim as a fact that which experience\ncontradicts constantly The most wicked men are usually the arbiters of\nthe world, and those whom fortune blesses with its favors. To convince\nus of the judgments of God by sending us to the other life, is to make\nus accept conjectures in order to destroy facts which we can not\ndispute.\n\n\n\n\nCLXVII.--THE INVENTION OF HELL IS TOO ABSURD TO PREVENT EVIL.\n\nNo one dreams about another life when he is very much absorbed in\nobjects which he meets on earth. In the eyes of a passionate lover, the\npresence of his mistress extinguishes the fires of hell, and her charms\nblot out all the pleasures of Paradise. Woman! you leave, you say, your\nlover for your God? It is that your lover is no longer the same in your\nestimation; or your lover leaves you, and you must fill the void which\nis made in your heart. Nothing is more common than to see ambitious,\nperverse, corrupt, and immoral men who are religious, and who sometimes\nexhibit even zeal in its behalf; if they do not practice religion, they\npromise themselves they will practice it some day; they keep it in\nreserve as a remedy which, sooner or later, will be necessary to quiet\nthe conscience for the evil which they intend yet to do. Besides,\ndevotees and priests being a very numerous, active, and powerful party,\nit is not astonishing to see impostors and thieves seek for its support\nin order to gain their ends. We will be told, no doubt, that many honest\npeople are sincerely religious without profit; but is uprightness of\nheart always accompanied with intelligence? We are cited to a great\nnumber of learned men, men of genius, who are very religious. This\nproves that men of genius can have prejudices, can be pusillanimous, can\nhave an imagination which seduces them and prevents them from examining\nobjects coolly. Pascal proves nothing in favor of religion, except that\na man of genius can possess a grain of weakness, and is but a child when\nhe is weak enough to listen to prejudices. Pascal himself tells us \"that\nthe mind can be strong and narrow, and just as extended as it is weak.\"\nHe says more: \"We can have our senses all right, and not be equally able\nin all things; because there are men who, being right in a certain\nsphere of things, lose themselves in others.\"\n\n\n\n\nCLXVIII.--ABSURDITY OF THE MORALITY AND OF THE RELIGIOUS VIRTUES\nESTABLISHED SOLELY IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRIESTS.\n\nWhat is virtue according to theology? It is, we are told, the conformity\nof men's actions with the will of God. But who is God? He is a being\nwhom no one is able to conceive of, and whom, consequently, each one\nmodifies in his own way. What is the will of God? It is what men who\nhave seen God, or whom God has inspired, have told us. Who are those who\nhave seen God? They are either fanatics, or scoundrels, or ambitious\nmen, whose word we can not rely upon. To found morality upon a God that\neach man represents differently, that each one composes by his own idea,\nwhom everybody arranges according to his own temperament and his own\ninterest, is evidently founding morality upon the caprice and upon the\nimagination of men; it is basing it upon the whims of a sect, faction,\nor party, who, excluding all others, claim to have the advantage of\nworshiping the true God.\n\nTo establish morality, or the duties of man, upon the Divine will, is\nfounding it upon the wishes, the reveries, or the interests of those who\nmake God talk without fear of contradiction. In every religion the\npriests alone have the right to decide upon what pleases or displeases\ntheir God; we may rest assured that they will decide upon what pleases\nor displeases themselves.\n\nThe dogmas, ceremonies, the morality and the virtues which all religions\nof the world prescribe, are visibly calculated only to extend the power\nor to increase the emoluments of the founders and of the ministers of\nthese religions; the dogmas are obscure, inconceivable, frightful, and,\nthereby, very liable to cause the imagination to wander, and to render\nthe common man more docile to those who wish to domineer over him; the\nceremonies and practices procure fortune or consideration to the\npriests; the religious morals and virtues consist in a submissive faith,\nwhich prevents reasoning; in a devout humility, which assures to the\npriests the submission of their slaves; in an ardent zeal, when the\nquestion of religion is agitated; that is to say, when the interest of\nthese priests is considered, all religious virtues having evidently for\ntheir object the advantage of the priests.\n\n\n\n\nCLXIX.--WHAT DOES THAT CHRISTIAN CHARITY AMOUNT TO, SUCH AS THEOLOGIANS\nTEACH AND PRACTICE?\n\nWhen we reproach the theologians with the sterility of their religious\nvirtues, they praise, with emphasis, charity, that tender love of our\nneighbor which Christianity makes an essential duty for its disciples.\nBut, alas! what becomes of this pretended charity as soon as we examine\nthe actions of the Lord's ministers? Ask if you must love your neighbor\nif he is impious, heretical, and incredulous, that is to say, if he does\nnot think as they do? Ask them if you must tolerate opinions contrary to\nthose which they profess? Ask them if the Lord can show indulgence to\nthose who are in error? Immediately their charity disappears, and the\ndominating clergy will tell you that the prince carries the sword but to\nsustain the interests of the Most High; they will tell you that for love\nof the neighbor, you must persecute, imprison, exile, or burn him. You\nwill find tolerance among a few priests who are persecuted themselves,\nbut who put aside Christian charity as soon as they have the power to\npersecute in their turn.\n\nThe Christian religion which was originally preached by beggars and by\nvery wretched men, strongly recommends alms-giving under the name of\ncharity; the faith of Mohammed equally makes it an indispensable duty.\nNothing, no doubt, is better suited to humanity than to assist the\nunfortunate, to clothe the naked, to lend a charitable hand to whoever\nneeds it. But would it not be more humane and more charitable to foresee\nthe misery and to prevent the poor from increasing? If religion, instead\nof deifying princes, had but taught them to respect the property of\ntheir subjects, to be just, and to exercise but their legitimate rights,\nwe should not see such a great number of mendicants in their realms. A\ngreedy, unjust, tyrannical government multiplies misery; the rigor of\ntaxes produces discouragement, idleness, indigence, which, on their\npart, produce robbery, murders, and all kinds of crime. If the\nsovereigns had more humanity, charity, and justice, their States would\nnot be peopled by so many unfortunate ones whose misery becomes\nimpossible to soothe.\n\nThe Christian and Mohammedan States are filled with vast and richly\nendowed hospitals, in which we admire the pious charity of the kings and\nof the sultans who erected them. Would it not have been more humane to\ngovern the people well, to procure them ease, to excite and to favor\nindustry and trade, to permit them to enjoy in safety the fruits of\ntheir labors, than to oppress them under a despotic yoke, to impoverish\nthem by senseless wars, to reduce them to mendicity in order to gratify\nan immoderate luxury, and afterward build sumptuous monuments which can\ncontain but a very small portion of those whom they have rendered\nmiserable? Religion, by its virtues, has but given a change to men;\ninstead of foreseeing evils, it applies but insufficient remedies. The\nministers of Heaven have always known how to benefit themselves by the\ncalamities of others; public misery became their element; they made\nthemselves the administrators of the goods of the poor, the distributors\nof alms, the depositaries of charities; thereby they extended and\nsustained at all times their power over the unfortunates who usually\ncompose the most numerous, the most anxious, the most seditious part of\nsociety. Thus the greatest evils are made profitable to the ministers\nof the Lord.\n\nThe Christian priests tell us that the goods which they possess are the\ngoods of the poor, and pretend by this title that their possessions are\nsacred; consequently, the sovereigns and the people press themselves to\naccumulate lands, revenues, treasures for them; under pretext of\ncharity, our spiritual guides have become very opulent, and enjoy, in\nthe sight of the impoverished nations, goods which were destined but for\nthe miserable; the latter, far from murmuring about it, applaud a\ndeceitful generosity which enriches the Church, but which very rarely\nalleviates the sufferings of the poor.\n\nAccording to the principles of Christianity, poverty itself is a virtue,\nand it is this virtue which the sovereigns and the priests make their\nslaves observe the most. According to these ideas, a great number of\npious Christians have renounced with good-will the perishable riches of\nthe earth; have distributed their patrimony to the poor, and have\nretired into a desert to live a life of voluntary indigence. But very\nsoon this enthusiasm, this supernatural taste for misery, must surrender\nto nature. The successors to these voluntary poor, sold to the religious\npeople their prayers and their powerful intercession with the Deity;\nthey became rich and powerful; thus, monks and hermits lived in\nidleness, and, under the pretext of charity, devoured insultingly the\nsubstance of the poor. Poverty of spirit was that of which religion made\nalways the greatest use. The fundamental virtue of all religion, that is\nto say, the most useful one to its ministers, is faith. It consists in\nan unlimited credulity, which causes men to believe, without\nexamination, all that which the interpreters of the Deity wish them to\nbelieve. With the aid of this wonderful virtue, the priests became the\narbiters of justice and of injustice; of good and of evil; they found it\neasy to commit crimes when crimes became necessary to their interests.\nImplicit faith has been the source of the greatest outrages which have\nbeen committed upon the earth.\n\n\n\n\nCLXX.--CONFESSION, THAT GOLDEN MINE FOR THE PRIESTS, HAS DESTROYED THE\nTRUE PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY.\n\nHe who first proclaimed to the nations that, when man had wronged man,\nhe must ask God's pardon, appease His wrath by presents, and offer Him\nsacrifices, obviously subverted the true principles of morality.\nAccording to these ideas, men imagine that they can obtain from the King\nof Heaven, as well as from the kings of the earth, permission to be\nunjust and wicked, or at least pardon for the evil which they might\ncommit.\n\nMorality is founded upon the relations, the needs, and the constant\ninterests of the inhabitants of the earth; the relations which subsist\nbetween men and God are either entirely unknown or imaginary. The\nreligion associating God with men has visibly weakened or destroyed the\nties which unite men.\n\nMortals imagine that they can, with impunity, injure each other by\nmaking a suitable reparation to the Almighty Being, who is supposed to\nhave the right to remit all the injuries done to His creatures. Is there\nanything more liable to encourage wickedness and to embolden to crime,\nthan to persuade men that there exists an invisible being who has the\nright to pardon injustice, rapine, perfidy, and all the outrages they\ncan inflict upon society? Encouraged by these fatal ideas, we see the\nmost perverse men abandon themselves to the greatest crimes, and expect\nto repair them by imploring Divine mercy; their conscience rests in\npeace when a priest assures them that Heaven is quieted by sincere\nrepentance, which is very useless to the world; this priest consoles\nthem in the name of Deity, if they consent in reparation of their faults\nto divide with His ministers the fruits of their plunderings, of their\nfrauds, and of their wickedness. Morality united to religion, becomes\nnecessarily subordinate to it. In the mind of a religious person, God\nmust be preferred to His creatures; \"It is better to obey Him than men!\"\nThe interests of the Celestial Monarch must be above those of weak\nmortals. But the interests of Heaven are evidently the interests of the\nministers of Heaven; from which it follows evidently, that in all\nreligions, the priests, under pretext of Heaven's interest's, or of\nGod's glory, will be able to dispense with the duties of human morals\nwhen they do not agree with the duties which God is entitled to impose.\n\nBesides, He who has the power to pardon crimes, has He not the right to\norder them committed?\n\n\n\n\nCLXXI.--THE SUPPOSITION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD IS NOT NECESSARY TO\nMORALITY.\n\nWe are constantly told that without a God, there can be no moral\nobligation; that it is necessary for men and for the sovereigns\nthemselves to have a lawgiver sufficiently powerful to compel them to be\nmoral; moral obligation implies a law; but this law arises from the\neternal and necessary relations of things among themselves, which have\nnothing in common with the existence of a God. The rules which govern\nmen's conduct spring from their own nature, which they are supposed to\nknow, and not from the Divine nature, of which they have no conception;\nthese rules compel us to render ourselves estimable or contemptible,\namiable or hateful, worthy of reward or of punishments, happy or\nunhappy, according to the extent to which we observe them. The law that\ncompels man not to harm himself, is inherent in the nature of a sensible\nbeing, who, no matter how he came into this world, or what can be his\nfate in another, is compelled by his very nature to seek his welfare and\nto shun evil, to love pleasure and to fear pain. The law which compels a\nman not to harm others and to do good, is inherent in the nature of\nsensible beings living in society, who, by their nature, are compelled\nto despise those who do them no good, and to detest those who oppose\ntheir happiness. Whether there exists a God or not, whether this God has\nspoken or not, men's moral duties will always be the same so long as\nthey possess their own nature; that is to say, so long as they are\nsensible beings. Do men need a God whom they do not know, or an\ninvisible lawgiver, or a mysterious religion, or chimerical fears in\norder to comprehend that all excess tends ultimately to destroy them,\nand that in order to preserve themselves they must abstain from it; that\nin order to be loved by others, they must do good; that doing evil is a\nsure means of incurring their hatred and vengeance? \"Before the law\nthere was no sin.\" Nothing is more false than this maxim. It is enough\nfor a man to be what he is, to be a sensible being in order to\ndistinguish that which pleases or displeases him. It is enough that a\nman knows that another man is a sensible being like himself, in order\nfor him to know what is useful or injurious to him. It is enough that\nman needs his fellow-creature, in order that he should fear that he\nmight produce unfavorable impressions upon him. Thus a sentient and\nthinking being needs but to feel and to think, in order to discover that\nwhich is due to him and to others. I feel, and another feels, like\nmyself; this is the foundation of all morality.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXII.--RELIGION AND ITS SUPERNATURAL MORALITY ARE FATAL TO THE PEOPLE,\nAND OPPOSED TO MAN'S NATURE.\n\nWe can judge of the merit of a system of morals but by its conformity\nwith man's nature. According to this comparison, we have a right to\nreject it, if we find it detrimental to the welfare of mankind. Whoever\nhas seriously meditated upon religion and its supernatural morality,\nwhoever has weighed its advantages and disadvantages, will become\nconvinced that they are both injurious to the interests of the human\nrace, or directly opposed to man's nature.\n\n\"People, to arms! Your God's cause is at stake! Heaven is outraged!\nFaith is in danger! Down upon infidelity, blasphemy, and heresy!\"\n\nBy the magical power of these valiant words, which the people never\nunderstand, the priests in all ages were the leaders in the revolts of\nnations, in dethroning kings, in kindling civil wars, and in imprisoning\nmen. When we chance to examine the important objects which have excited\nthe Celestial wrath and produced so many ravages upon the earth, it is\nfound that the foolish reveries and the strange conjectures of some\ntheologian who did not understand himself, or, the pretensions of the\nclergy, have severed all ties of society and inundated the human race in\nits own blood and tears.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXIII.--HOW THE UNION OF RELIGION AND POLITICS IS FATAL TO THE PEOPLE\nAND TO THE KINGS.\n\nThe sovereigns of this world in associating the Deity in the government\nof their realms, in pretending to be His lieutenants and His\nrepresentatives upon earth, in admitting that they hold their power from\nHim, must necessarily accept His ministers as rivals or as masters. Is\nit, then, astonishing that the priests have often made the kings feel\nthe superiority of the Celestial Monarch? Have they not more than once\nmade the temporal princes understand that the greatest physical power is\ncompelled to surrender to the spiritual power of opinion? Nothing is\nmore difficult than to serve two masters, especially when they do not\nagree upon what they demand of their subjects. The union of religion\nwith politics has necessarily caused a double legislation in the States.\nThe law of God, interpreted by His priests, is often contrary to the law\nof the sovereign or to the interest of the State. When the princes are\nfirm, and sure of the love of their subjects, God's law is sometimes\nobliged to comply with the wise intentions of the temporal sovereign;\nbut more often the sovereign authority is obliged to retreat before the\nDivine authority, that is to say, before the interests of the clergy.\nNothing is more dangerous for a prince, than to meddle with\necclesiastical affairs (to put his hands into the holy-water pot), that\nis to say, to attempt the reform of abuses consecrated by religion. God\nis never more angry than when the Divine rights, the privileges, the\npossessions, and the immunities of His priests are interfered with.\n\nMetaphysical speculations or the religious opinions of men, never\ninfluence their conduct except when they believe them conformed to their\ninterests. Nothing proves this truth more forcibly than the conduct of a\ngreat number of princes in regard to the spiritual power, which we see\nthem very often resist. Should not a sovereign who is persuaded of the\nimportance and the rights of religion, conscientiously feel himself\nobliged to receive with respect the orders of his priests, and consider\nthem as commandments of the Deity? There was a time when the kings and\nthe people, more conformable, and convinced of the rights of the\nspiritual power, became its slaves, surrendered to it on all occasions,\nand were but docile instruments in its hands; this happy time is no\nmore. By a strange inconsistency, we sometimes see the most religious\nmonarchs oppose the enterprises of those whom they regard as God's\nministers. A sovereign who is filled with religion or respect for his\nGod, ought to be constantly prostrate before his priests, and regard\nthem as his true sovereigns. Is there a power upon the earth which has\nthe right to measure itself with that of the Most High?\n\n\n\n\nCLXXIV.--CREEDS ARE BURDENSOME AND RUINOUS TO THE MAJORITY OF NATIONS.\n\nHave the princes who believe themselves interested in propagating the\nprejudices of their subjects, reflected well upon the effects which are\nproduced by privileged demagogues, who have the right to speak when they\nchoose, and excite in the name of Heaven the passions of many millions\nof their subjects? What ravages would not these holy haranguers cause\nshould they conspire to disturb a State, as they have so often done?\n\nNothing is more onerous and more ruinous for the greatest part of the\nnations than the worship of their Gods! Everywhere their ministers not\nonly rank as the first order in the State, but also enjoy the greater\nportion of society's benefits, and have the right to levy continual\ntaxes upon their fellow-citizens. What real advantages do these organs\nof the Most High procure for the people in exchange for the immense\nprofits which they draw from them? Do they give them in exchange for\ntheir wealth and their courtesies anything but mysteries, hypotheses,\nceremonies, subtle questions, interminable quarrels, which very often\ntheir States must pay for with their blood?\n\n\n\n\nCLXXV.--RELIGION PARALYZES MORALITY.\n\nReligion, which claims to be the firmest support of morality, evidently\ndeprives it of its true motor, to substitute imaginary motors,\ninconceivable chimeras, which, being obviously contrary to common sense,\ncan not be firmly believed by any one. Everybody assures us that he\nbelieves firmly in a God who rewards and punishes; everybody claims to\nbe persuaded of the existence of a hell and of a Paradise; however, do\nwe see that these ideas render men better or counterbalance in the minds\nof the greatest number of them the slightest interest? Each one assures\nus that he is afraid of God's judgments, although each one gives vent to\nhis passions when he believes himself sure of escaping the judgments of\nmen. The fear of invisible powers is rarely as great as the fear of\nvisible powers. Unknown or distant sufferings make less impression upon\npeople than the erected gallows, or the example of a hanged man. There\nis scarcely any courtier who fears God's anger more than the displeasure\nof his master. A pension, a title, a ribbon, are sufficient to make one\nforget the torments of hell and the pleasures of the celestial court. A\nwoman's caresses expose him every day to the displeasure of the Most\nHigh. A joke, a banter, a bon-mot, make more impression upon the man of\nthe world than all the grave notions of his religion. Are we not assured\nthat a true repentance is sufficient to appease Divinity? However, we do\nnot see that this true repentance is sincerely expressed; at least, we\nvery rarely see great thieves, even in the hour of death, restore the\ngoods which they know they have unjustly acquired. Men persuade\nthemselves, no doubt, that they will submit to the eternal fire, if they\ncan not guarantee themselves against it. But as settlements can be made\nwith Heaven by giving the Church a portion of their fortunes, there are\nvery few religious thieves who do not die perfectly quieted about the\nmanner in which they gained their riches in this world.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXVI.--FATAL CONSEQUENCES OF PIETY.\n\nEven by the confession of the most ardent defenders of religion and of\nits usefulness, nothing is more rare than sincere conversions; to which\nwe might add, nothing is more useless to society. Men do not become\ndisgusted with the world until the world is disgusted with them; a woman\ngives herself to God only when the world no longer wants her. Her vanity\nfinds in religious devotion a role which occupies her and consoles her\nfor the ruin of her charms. She passes her time in the most trifling\npractices, parties, intrigues, invectives, and slander; zeal furnishes\nher the means of distinguishing herself and becoming an object of\nconsideration in the religious circle. If the bigots have the talent to\nplease God and His priests, they rarely possess that of pleasing society\nor of rendering themselves useful to it. Religion for a devotee is a\nveil which covers and justifies all his passions, his pride, his bad\nhumor, his anger, his vengeance, his impatience, his bitterness.\nReligion arrogates to itself a tyrannical superiority which banishes\nfrom commerce all gentleness, gaiety, and joy; it gives the right to\ncensure others; to capture and to exterminate the infidels for the glory\nof God; it is very common to be religious and to have none of the\nvirtues or the qualities necessary to social life.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXVII.--THE SUPPOSITION OF ANOTHER LIFE IS NEITHER CONSOLING TO MAN NOR\nNECESSARY TO MORALITY.\n\nWe are assured that the dogma of another life is of the greatest\nimportance to the peace of society; it is imagined that without it men\nwould have no motives for doing good. Why do we need terrors and fables\nto teach any reasonable man how he ought to conduct himself upon earth?\nDoes not each one of us see that he has the greatest interest in\ndeserving the approbation, esteem, and kindness of the beings which\nsurround him, and in avoiding all that can cause the censure, the\ncontempt, and the resentment of society? No matter how short the\nduration of a festival, of a conversation, or of a visit may be, does\nnot each one of us wish to act a befitting part in it, agreeable to\nhimself and to others? If life is but a passage, let us try to make it\neasy; it can not be so if we lack the regards of those who travel with\nus.\n\nReligion, which is so sadly occupied with its gloomy reveries,\nrepresents man to us as but a pilgrim upon earth; it concludes that in\norder to travel with more safety, he should travel alone; renounce the\npleasures which he meets and deprive himself of the amusements which\ncould console him for the fatigues and the weariness of the road. A\nstoical and morose philosophy sometimes gives us counsels as senseless\nas religion; but a more rational philosophy inspires us to strew flowers\non life's pathway; to dispel melancholy and panic terrors; to link our\ninterests with those of our traveling companions; to divert ourselves by\ngaiety and honest pleasures from the pains and the crosses to which we\nare so often exposed. We are made to feel, that in order to travel\npleasantly, we should abstain from that which could become injurious to\nourselves, and to avoid with great care that which could make us odious\nto our associates.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXVIII.--AN ATHEIST HAS MORE MOTIVES FOR ACTING UPRIGHTLY, MORE\n\n\n\nCONSCIENCE, THAN A RELIGIOUS PERSON.\n\nIt is asked what motives has an atheist for doing right. He can have the\nmotive of pleasing himself and his fellow-creatures; of living happily\nand tranquilly; of making himself loved and respected by men, whose\nexistence and whose dispositions are better known than those of a being\nimpossible to understand. Can he who fears not the Gods, fear anything?\nHe can fear men, their contempt, their disrespect, and the punishments\nwhich the laws inflict; finally, he can fear himself; he can be afraid\nof the remorse that all those experience whose conscience reproaches\nthem for having deserved the hatred of their fellow-beings. Conscience\nis the inward testimony which we render to ourselves for having acted in\nsuch a manner as to deserve the esteem or the censure of those with whom\nwe associate. This conscience is based upon the knowledge which we have\nof men, and of the sentiments which our actions must awaken in them. A\nreligious person's conscience persuades him that he has pleased or\ndispleased his God, of whom he has no idea, and whose obscure and\ndoubtful intentions are explained to him only by suspicious men, who\nknow no more of the essence of Divinity than he does, and who do not\nagree upon what can please or displease God. In a word, the conscience\nof a credulous man is guided by men whose own conscience is in error, or\nwhose interest extinguishes intelligence.\n\n\n\n\nCan an atheist have conscience? What are his motives for abstaining from\nsecret vices and crimes of which other men are ignorant, and which are\nbeyond the reach of laws? He can be assured by constant experience that\nthere is no vice which, in the nature of things, does not bring its own\npunishment. If he wishes to preserve himself, he will avoid all those\nexcesses which can be injurious to his health; he would not desire to\nlive and linger, thus becoming a burden to himself and others. In regard\nto secret crimes, he would avoid them through fear of being ashamed of\nhimself, from whom he can not hide. If he has reason, he will know the\nprice of the esteem that an honest man should have for himself. He will\nknow, besides, that unexpected circumstances can unveil to the eyes of\nothers the conduct which he feels interested in concealing. The other\nworld gives no motive for doing well to him who finds no motive for it\nhere.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXIX.--AN ATHEISTICAL KING WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO ONE WHO IS RELIGIOUS\nAND WICKED, AS WE OFTEN SEE THEM.\n\nThe speculating atheist, the theist will tell us, may be an honest man,\nbut his writings will cause atheism in politics. Princes and ministers,\nbeing no longer restrained by the fear of God, will give themselves up\nwithout scruple to the most frightful excesses. But no matter what we\ncan suppose of the depravity of an atheist on a throne, can it ever be\nany greater or more injurious than that of so many conquerors, tyrants,\npersecutors, of ambitious and perverse courtiers, who, without being\natheists, but who, being very often religious, do not cease to make\nhumanity groan under the weight of their crimes? Can an atheistical king\ninflict more evil on the world than a Louis XI., a Philip II., a\nRichelieu, who have all allied religion with crime? Nothing is rarer\nthan atheistical princes, and nothing more common than very bad and very\nreligious tyrants.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXX.--THE MORALITY ACQUIRED BY PHILOSOPHY IS SUFFICIENT TO VIRTUE.\n\nAny man who reflects can not fail of knowing his duties, of discovering\nthe relations which subsist between men, of meditating upon his own\nnature, of discerning his needs, his inclinations, and his desires, and\nof perceiving what he owes to the beings necessary to his own happiness.\nThese reflections naturally lead to the knowledge of the morality which\nis the most essential for society. Every man who loves to retire within\nhimself in order to study and seek for the principles of things, has no\nvery dangerous passions; his greatest passion will be to know the truth,\nand his greatest ambition to show it to others. Philosophy is beneficial\nin cultivating the heart and the mind. In regard to morals, has not he\nwho reflects and reasons the advantage over him who does not reason?\n\nIf ignorance is useful to priests and to the oppressors of humanity, it\nis very fatal to society. Man, deprived of intelligence, does not enjoy\nthe use of his reason; man, deprived of reason and intelligence, is a\nsavage, who is liable at any moment to be led into crime. Morality, or\nthe science of moral duties, is acquired but by the study of man and his\nrelations. He who does not reflect for himself does not know true\nmorals, and can not walk the road of virtue. The less men reason, the\nmore wicked they are. The barbarians, the princes, the great, and the\ndregs of society, are generally the most wicked because they are those\nwho reason the least. The religious man never reflects, and avoids\nreasoning; he fears examination; he follows authority; and very often an\nerroneous conscience makes him consider it a holy duty to commit evil.\nThe incredulous man reasons, consults experience, and prefers it to\nprejudice. If he has reasoned justly, his conscience becomes clear; he\nfinds more real motives for right-doing than the religious man, who has\nno motives but his chimeras, and who never listens to reason. Are not\nthe motives of the incredulous man strong enough to counterbalance his\npassions? Is he blind enough not to recognize the interests which should\nrestrain him? Well! he will be vicious and wicked; but even then he will\nbe no worse and no better than many credulous men who, notwithstanding\nreligion and its sublime precepts, continue to lead a life which this\nvery religion condemns. Is a credulous murderer less to be feared than a\nmurderer who does not believe anything? Is a religious tyrant any less a\ntyrant than an irreligious one?\n\n\n\n\nCLXXXI.--OPINIONS RARELY INFLUENCE CONDUCT.\n\nThere is nothing more rare in the world than consistent men. Their\nopinions do not influence their conduct, except when they conform to\ntheir temperament, their passions, and to their interests. Religious\nopinions, according to daily experience, produce much more evil than\ngood; they are injurious, because they very often agree with the\npassions of tyrants, fanatics, and priests; they produce no effect,\nbecause they have not the power to balance the present interests of the\nmajority of men. Religious principles are always put aside when they are\nopposed to ardent desires; without being incredulous, they act as if\nthey believed nothing. We risk being deceived when we judge the opinions\nof men by their conduct or their conduct by their opinions. A very\nreligious man, notwithstanding the austere and cruel principles of a\nbloody religion, will sometimes be, by a fortunate inconsistency,\nhumane, tolerant, moderate; in this case the principles of his religion\ndo not agree with the mildness of his disposition. A libertine, a\ndebauchee, a hypocrite, an adulterer, or a thief will often show us that\nhe has the clearest ideas of morals. Why do they not practice them? It\nis because neither their temperament, their interests, nor their habits\nagree with their sublime theories. The rigid principles of Christian\nmorality, which so many attempt to pass off as Divine, have but very\nlittle influence upon the conduct of those who preach them to others. Do\nthey not tell us every day to do what they preach, and not what they\npractice?\n\nThe religious partisans generally designate the incredulous as\nlibertines. It may be that many incredulous people are immoral; this\nimmorality is due to their temperament, and not to their opinions. But\nwhat has their conduct to do with these opinions? Can not an immoral man\nbe a good physician, a good architect, a good geometer, a good logician,\na good metaphysician? With an irreproachable conduct, one can be\nignorant upon many things, and reason very badly. When truth is\npresented, it matters not from whom it comes. Let us not judge men by\ntheir opinions, or opinions by men; let us judge men by their conduct;\nand their opinions by their conformity with experience, reason, and\ntheir usefulness for mankind.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXXII.---REASON LEADS MEN TO IRRELIGION AND TO ATHEISM, BECAUSE\nRELIGION IS ABSURD, AND THE GOD OF THE PRIESTS IS A MALICIOUS AND\nFEROCIOUS BEING.\n\nEvery man who reasons soon becomes incredulous, because reasoning proves\nto him that theology is but a tissue of falsehoods; that religion is\ncontrary to all principles of common sense; that it gives a false color\nto all human knowledge. The rational man becomes incredulous, because he\nsees that religion, far from rendering men happier, is the first cause\nof the greatest disorders, and of the permanent calamities with which\nthe human race is afflicted. The man who seeks his well-being and his\nown tranquillity, examines his religion and is undeceived, because he\nfinds it inconvenient and useless to pass his life in trembling at\nphantoms which are made but to intimidate silly women or children. If,\nsometimes, libertinage, which reasons but little, leads to irreligion,\nthe man who is regular in his morals can have very legitimate motives\nfor examining his religion, and for banishing it from his mind. Too weak\nto intimidate the wicked, in whom vice has become deeply rooted,\nreligious terrors afflict, torment, and burden imaginative minds. If\nsouls have courage and elasticity, they shake off a yoke which they bear\nunwillingly. If weak or timorous, they wear the yoke during their whole\nlife, and they grow old, trembling, or at least they live under\nburdensome uncertainty.\n\nThe priests have made of God such a malicious, ferocious being, so ready\nto be vexed, that there are few men in the world who do not wish at the\nbottom of their hearts that this God did not exist. We can not live\nhappy if we are always in fear. You worship a terrible God, O religious\npeople! Alas! And yet you hate Him; you wish that He was not. Can we\navoid wishing the absence or the destruction of a master, the idea of\nwhom can but torment the mind? It is the dark colors in which the\npriests paint the Deity which revolt men, moving them to hate and\nreject Him.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXXIII.--FEAR ALONE CREATES THEISTS AND BIGOTS.\n\nIf fear has created the Gods, fear still holds their empire in the mind\nof mortals; they have been so early accustomed to tremble even at the\nname of the Deity, that it has become for them a specter, a goblin, a\nwere-wolf which torments them, and whose idea deprives them even of the\ncourage to attempt to reassure themselves. They are afraid that this\ninvisible specter will strike them if they cease to be afraid. The\nreligious people fear their God too much to love Him sincerely; they\nserve Him as slaves, who can not escape His power, and take the part of\nflattering their Master; and who, by continually lying, persuade\nthemselves that they love Him. They make a virtue of necessity. The love\nof religious bigots for their God, and of slaves for their despots, is\nbut a servile and simulated homage which they render by compulsion, in\nwhich the heart has no part.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXXIV.--CAN WE, OR SHOULD WE, LOVE OR NOT LOVE GOD?\n\nThe Christian Doctors have made their God so little worthy of love, that\nseveral among them have thought it their duty not to love Him; this is a\nblasphemy which makes less sincere doctors tremble. Saint Thomas, having\nasserted that we are under obligation to love God as soon as we can use\nour reason, the Jesuit Sirmond replied to him that that was very soon;\nthe Jesuit Vasquez claims that it is sufficient to love God in the hour\nof death; Hurtado says that we should love God at all times; Henriquez\nis content with loving Him every five years; Sotus, every Sunday. \"Upon\nwhat shall we rely?\" asks Father Sirmond, who adds: \"that Suarez desires\nthat we should love God sometimes. But at what time? He allows you to\njudge of it; he knows nothing about it himself; for he adds: 'What a\nlearned doctor does not know, who can know?'\" The same Jesuit Sirmond\ncontinues, by saying: \"that God does not command us to love Him with\nhuman affection, and does not promise us salvation but on condition of\ngiving Him our hearts; it is enough to obey Him and to love Him, by\nfulfilling His commandments; that this is the only love which we owe\nHim, and He has not commanded so much to love Him as not to hate Him.\"\n[See \"Apology, Des Lettres Provinciales,\" Tome II.] This doctrine\nappears heretical, ungodly, and abominable to the Jansenists, who, by\nthe revolting severity which they attribute to their God, render Him\nstill less lovable than their adversaries, the Jesuits. The latter, in\norder to make converts, represent God in such a light as to give\nconfidence to the most perverse mortals. Thus, nothing is less\nestablished among the Christians than the important question, whether we\ncan or should love or not love God. Among their spiritual guides some\npretend that we must love God with all the heart, notwithstanding all\nHis severity; others, like the Father Daniel, think that an act of pure\nlove of God is the most heroic act of Christian virtue, and that human\nweakness can scarcely reach so high. The Jesuit Pintereau goes still\nfurther; he says: \"The deliverance from the grievous yoke of Divine love\nis a privilege of the new alliance.\"\n\n\n\n\nCLXXXV.--THE VARIOUS AND CONTRADICTORY IDEAS WHICH EXIST EVERYWHERE UPON\nGOD AND RELIGION, PROVE THAT THEY ARE BUT IDLE FANCIES.\n\nIt is always the character of man which decides upon the character of\nhis God; each one creates a God for himself, and in his own image. The\ncheerful man who indulges in pleasures and dissipation, can not imagine\nGod to be an austere and rebukeful being; he requires a facile God with\nwhom he can make an agreement. The severe, sour, bilious man wants a God\nlike himself; one who inspires fear; and regards as perverse those that\naccept only a God who is yielding and easily won over. Heresies,\nquarrels, and schisms are necessary. Can men differently organized and\nmodified by diverse circumstances, agree in regard to an imaginary being\nwhich exists but in their own brains? The cruel and interminable\ndisputes continually arising among the ministers of the Lord, have not a\ntendency to attract the confidence of those who take an impartial view\nof them. How can we help our incredulity, when we see principles about\nwhich those who teach them to others, never agree? How can we avoid\ndoubting the existence of a God, the idea of whom varies in such a\nremarkable way in the mind of His ministers? How can we avoid rejecting\ntotally a God who is full of contradictions? How can we rely upon\npriests whom we see continually contending, accusing each other of being\ninfidels and heretics, rending and persecuting each other without mercy,\nabout the way in which they understand the pretended truths which they\nreveal to the world?\n\n\n\n\nCLXXXVI.--THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ALL RELIGION, HAS\nNOT YET BEEN DEMONSTRATED.\n\nHowever, so far, this important truth has not yet been demonstrated, not\nonly to the incredulous, but in a satisfactory way to theologians\nthemselves. In all times, we have seen profound thinkers who thought\nthey had new proofs of the truth most important to men. What have been\nthe fruits of their meditations and of their arguments? They left the\nthing at the same point; they have demonstrated nothing; nearly always\nthey have excited the clamors of their colleagues, who accuse them of\nhaving badly defended the best of causes.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXXVII.--PRIESTS, MORE THAN UNBELIEVERS, ACT FROM INTEREST.\n\nThe apologists of religion repeat to us every day that the passions\nalone create unbelievers. \"It is,\" they say, \"pride, and a desire to\ndistinguish themselves, that make atheists; they seek also to efface the\nidea of God from their minds, because they have reason to fear His\nrigorous judgments.\" Whatever may be the motives which cause men to be\nirreligious, the thing in question is whether they have found truth. No\nman acts without motives; let us first examine the arguments--we shall\nexamine the motives afterward--and we shall find that they are more\nlegitimate, and more sensible, than those of many credulous devotees who\nallow themselves to be guided by masters little worthy of men's\nconfidence.\n\nYou say, O priests of the Lord! that the passions cause unbelievers; you\npretend that they renounce religion through interest, or because it\ninterferes with their irregular inclinations; you assert that they\nattack your Gods because they fear their punishments. Ah! yourselves in\ndefending this religion and its chimeras, are you, then, really exempt\nfrom passions and interests? Who receive the fees of this religion, on\nwhose behalf the priests are so zealous? It is the priests. To whom does\nreligion procure power, credit, honors, wealth? To the priests! In all\ncountries, who make war upon reason, science, truth, and philosophy and\nrender them odious to the sovereigns and to the people? Who profit by\nthe ignorance of men and their vain prejudices? The priests! You are, O\npriests, rewarded, honored, and paid for deceiving mortals, and you\npunish those who undeceive them. The follies of men procure you\nblessings, offerings, expiations; the most useful truths bring to those\nwho announce them, chains, sufferings, stakes. Let the world judge\nbetween us.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXXVIII.--PRIDE, PRESUMPTION, AND CORRUPTION OF THE HEART ARE MORE\nOFTEN FOUND AMONG PRIESTS THAN AMONG ATHEISTS AND UNBELIEVERS.\n\nPride and vanity always were and always will be the inherent vices of\nthe priesthood. Is there anything that has a tendency to render men\nhaughty and vain more than the assumption of exercising Heavenly power,\nof possessing a sacred character, of being the messengers of the Most\nHigh? Are not these dispositions continually increased by the credulity\nof the people, by the deference and the respect of the sovereigns, by\nthe immunities, the privileges, and the distinctions which the clergy\nenjoy? The common man is, in every country, more devoted to his\nspiritual guides, whom he considers as Divine men, than to his temporal\nsuperiors, whom he considers as ordinary men. Village priests enjoy more\nhonor than the lord or the judge. A Christian priest believes himself\nfar above a king or an emperor. A Spanish grandee having spoken hastily\nto a monk, the latter said to him, arrogantly, \"Learn to respect a man\nwho has every day your God in his hands and your queen at his feet.\"\n\nHave the priests any right to accuse the unbelievers of pride? Do they\ndistinguish themselves by a rare modesty or profound humility? Is it not\nevident that the desire to domineer over men is the essence of their\nprofession? If the Lord's ministers were truly modest, would we see them\nso greedy of respect, so easily irritated by contradictions, so prompt\nand so cruel in revenging themselves upon those whose opinions offend\nthem? Does not modest science impress us with the difficulty of\nunraveling truth? What other passion than frenzied pride can render men\nso ferocious, so vindictive, so devoid of toleration and gentleness?\nWhat is more presumptuous than to arm nations and cause rivers of blood,\nin order to establish or to defend futile conjectures?\n\nYou say, O Doctors of Divinity! that it is presumption alone which makes\natheists. Teach them, then, what your God is; instruct them about His\nessence; speak of Him in an intelligible way; tell of Him reasonable\nthings, which are not contradictory or impossible! If you are not in the\ncondition to satisfy them; if, so far, none of you have been able to\ndemonstrate the existence of a God in a clear and convincing way; if,\naccording to your own confession, His essence is as much hidden from you\nas from the rest of mortals, pardon those who can not admit that which\nthey can neither understand nor reconcile. Do not accuse of presumption\nand vanity those who have the sincerity to confess their ignorance;\naccuse not of folly those who find it impossible to believe in\ncontradictions. You should blush at the thought of exciting the hatred\nof the people and the vengeance of the sovereigns against men who do not\nthink as you do upon a Being of whom you have no idea yourselves. Is\nthere anything more audacious and more extravagant than to reason about\nan object which it is impossible to conceive of?\n\nYou tell us it is corruption of the heart which produces atheists; that\nthey shake off the yoke of the Deity because they fear His terrible\njudgments. But why do you paint your God in such black colors? Why does\nthis powerful God permit that such corrupt hearts should exist? Why\nshould we not make efforts to break the yoke of a Tyrant who, being able\nto make of the hearts of men what He pleases, allows them to become\nperverted and hardened; blinds them; refuses them His grace, in order to\nhave the satisfaction of punishing them eternally for having been\nhardened, blinded, and not having received the grace which He refused\nthem? The theologians and the priests must feel themselves very sure of\nHeaven's grace and of a happy future, in order not to detest a Master so\ncapricious as the God whom they announce to us. A God who damns\neternally must be the most odious Being that the human mind could\nimagine.\n\n\n\n\nCLXXXIX.--PREJUDICES ARE BUT FOR A TIME, AND NO POWER IS DURABLE EXCEPT\nIT IS BASED UPON TRUTH, REASON, AND EQUITY.\n\nNo man on earth is truly interested in sustaining error; sooner or later\nit is compelled to surrender to truth. General interest tends to the\nenlightenment of mortals; even the passions sometimes contribute to the\nbreaking of some of the chains of prejudice. Have not the passions of\nsome sovereigns destroyed, within the past two centuries in some\ncountries of Europe, the tyrannical power which a haughty Pontiff\nformerly exercised over all the princes of his sect? Politics, becoming\nmore enlightened, has despoiled the clergy of an immense amount of\nproperty which credulity had accumulated in their hands. Should not this\nmemorable example make even the priests realize that prejudices are but\nfor a time, and that truth alone is capable of assuring a substantial\nwell-being?\n\nHave not the ministers of the Lord seen that in pampering the\nsovereigns, in forging Divine rights for them, and in delivering to them\nthe people, bound hand and foot, they were making tyrants of them? Have\nthey not reason to fear that these gigantic idols, whom they have raised\nto the skies, will crush them also some day? Do not a thousand examples\nprove that they ought to fear that these unchained lions, after having\ndevoured nations, will in turn devour them?\n\nWe will respect the priests when they become citizens. Let them make\nuse, if they can, of Heaven's authority to create fear in those princes\nwho incessantly desolate the earth; let them deprive them of the right\nof being unjust; let them recognize that no subject of a State enjoys\nliving under tyranny; let them make the sovereigns feel that they\nthemselves are not interested in exercising a power which, rendering\nthem odious, injures their own safety, their own power, their own\ngrandeur; finally, let the priests and the undeceived kings recognize\nthat no power is safe that is not based upon truth, reason, and equity.\n\n\n\n\nCXC.--HOW MUCH POWER AND CONSIDERATION THE MINISTERS OF THE GODS WOULD\nHAVE, IF THEY BECAME THE APOSTLES OF REASON AND THE DEFENDERS OF\nLIBERTY!\n\nThe ministers of the Gods, in warring against human reason, which they\nought to develop, act against their own interest. What would be their\npower, their consideration, their empire over the wisest men; what would\nbe the gratitude of the people toward them if, instead of occupying\nthemselves with their vain quarrels, they had applied themselves to the\nuseful sciences; if they had sought the true principles of physics, of\ngovernment, and of morals. Who would dare reproach the opulence and\ncredit of a corporation which, consecrating its leisure and its\nauthority to the public good, should use the one for studying and\nmeditating, and the other for enlightening equally the minds of the\nsovereigns and the subjects?\n\nPriests! lay aside your idle fancies, your unintelligible dogmas, your\ndespicable quarrels; banish to imaginary regions these phantoms, which\ncould be of use to you only in the infancy of nations; take the tone of\nreason, instead of sounding the tocsin of persecution against your\nadversaries; instead of entertaining the people with foolish disputes,\nof preaching useless and fanatical virtues, preach to them humane and\nsocial morality; preach to them virtues which are really useful to the\nworld; become the apostles of reason, the lights of the nations, the\ndefenders of liberty, reformers of abuses, the friends of truth, and we\nwill bless you, we will honor you, we will love you, and you will be\nsure of holding an eternal empire over the hearts of your fellow-beings.\n\n\n\n\nCXCI.--WHAT A HAPPY AND GREAT REVOLUTION WOULD TAKE PLACE IN THE\nUNIVERSE, IF PHILOSOPHY WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR RELIGION!\n\nPhilosophers, in all ages, have taken the part that seemed destined for\nthe ministers of religion. The hatred of the latter for philosophy was\nnever more than professional jealousy. All men accustomed to think,\ninstead of seeking to injure each other, should unite their efforts in\ncombating errors, in seeking truth, and especially in dispelling the\nprejudices from which the sovereigns and subjects suffer alike, and\nwhose upholders themselves finish, sooner or later, by becoming the\nvictims.\n\nIn the hands of an enlightened government the priests would become the\nmost useful of citizens. Could men with rich stipends from the State,\nand relieved of the care of providing for their own subsistence, do\nanything better than to instruct themselves in order to be able to\ninstruct others? Would not their minds be better satisfied in\ndiscovering truth than in wandering in the labyrinths of darkness? Would\nit be any more difficult to unravel the principles of man's morals, than\nthe imaginary principles of Divine and theological morals? Would\nordinary men have as much trouble in understanding the simple notions of\ntheir duties, as in charging their memories with mysteries,\nunintelligible words, and obscure definitions which are impossible for\nthem to understand? How much time and trouble is lost in trying to teach\nmen things which are of no use to them. What resources for the public\nbenefit, for encouraging the progress of the sciences and the\nadvancement of knowledge, for the education of youth, are presented to\nwell-meaning sovereigns through so many monasteries, which, in a great\nnumber of countries devour the people's substance without an equivalent.\nBut superstition, jealous of its exclusive empire, seems to have formed\nbut useless beings. What advantage could not be drawn from a multitude\nof cenobites of both sexes whom we see in so many countries, and who are\nso well paid to do nothing. Instead of occupying them with sterile\ncontemplations, with mechanical prayers, with monotonous practices;\ninstead of burdening them with fasts and austerities, let there be\nexcited among them a salutary emulation that would inspire them to seek\nthe means of serving usefully the world, which their fatal vows oblige\nthem to renounce. Instead of filling the youthful minds of their pupils\nwith fables, dogmas, and puerilities, why not invite or oblige the\npriests to teach them true things, and so make of them citizens useful\nto their country? The way in which men are brought up makes them useful\nbut to the clergy, who blind them, and to the tyrants, who plunder them.\n\n\n\n\nCXCII.--THE RETRACTION OF AN UNBELIEVER AT THE HOUR OF DEATH, PROVES\nNOTHING AGAINST INCREDULITY.\n\nThe adherents of credulity often accuse the unbelievers of bad faith\nbecause they sometimes waver in their principles, changing opinions\nduring sickness, and retracting them at the hour of death. When the body\nis diseased, the faculty of reasoning is generally disturbed also. The\ninfirm and decrepit man, in approaching his end, sometimes perceives\nhimself that reason is leaving him, he feels that prejudice returns.\nThere are diseases which have a tendency to lessen courage, to make\npusillanimous, and to enfeeble the brain; there are others which, in\ndestroying the body, do not affect the reason. However, an unbeliever\nwho retracts in sickness, is not more rare or more extraordinary than a\ndevotionist who permits himself, while in health, to neglect the duties\nthat his religion prescribes for him in the most formal manner.\n\nCleomenes, King of Sparta, having shown little respect for the Gods\nduring his reign, became superstitious in his last days; with the view\nof interesting Heaven in his favor, he called around him a multitude of\nsacrificing priests. One of his friends expressing his surprise,\nCleomenes said: \"What are you astonished at? I am no longer what I was,\nand not being the same, I can not think in the same way.\"\n\nThe ministers of religion in their daily conduct, often belie the\nrigorous principles which they teach to others, so that the unbelievers\nin their turn think they have a right to accuse them of bad faith. If\nsome unbelievers contradict, in sight of death or during sickness, the\nopinions which they entertained in health, do not the priests in health\nbelie opinions of the religion which they hold? Do we see a great\nmultitude of humble, generous prelates devoid of ambition, enemies of\npomp and grandeur, the friends of poverty? In short, do we see the\nconduct of many Christian priests corresponding with the austere\nmorality of Christ, their God and their model?\n\n\n\n\nCXCIII.--IT IS NOT TRUE THAT ATHEISM SUNDERS ALL THE TIES OF SOCIETY.\n\nAtheism, we are told, breaks all social ties. Without belief in God,\nwhat becomes of the sacredness of the oath? How can we bind an atheist\nwho can not seriously attest the Deity? But does the oath place us under\nstronger obligations to the engagements which we make? Whoever dares to\nlie, will he not dare to perjure himself? He who is base enough to\nviolate his word, or unjust enough to break his promises in contempt of\nthe esteem of men, will not be more faithful for having taken all the\nGods as witnesses to his oaths. Those who rank themselves above the\njudgments of men, will soon put themselves above the judgments of God.\nAre not princes, of all mortals, the most prompt in taking oaths, and\nthe most prompt in violating them?\n\n\n\n\nCXCIV.--REFUTATION OF THE ASSERTION THAT RELIGION IS NECESSARY FOR THE\nMASSES.\n\nReligion, they tell us, is necessary for the masses; that though\nenlightened persons may not need restraint upon their opinions, it is\nnecessary at least for the common people, in whom education has not\ndeveloped reason. Is it true, then, that religion is a restraint for the\npeople? Do we see that this religion prevents them from intemperance,\ndrunkenness, brutality, violence, frauds, and all kinds of excesses?\n\nCould a people who had no idea of the Deity, conduct itself in a more\ndetestable manner than many believing people in whom we see dissolute\nhabits, and the vices most unworthy of rational beings? Do we not see\nthe artisan or the man of the people go from his church and plunge\nheadlong into his usual excesses, persuading himself all the while that\nhis periodical homage to God gives him the right to follow without\nremorse his vicious practices and habitual inclinations? If the people\nare gross and ignorant, is not their stupidity due to the negligence of\nthe princes who do not attend to the public education, or who oppose the\ninstruction of their subjects? Finally, is not the irrationality of the\npeople plainly the work of the priests, who, instead of interesting them\nin a rational morality, do nothing but entertain them with fables,\nphantoms, intrigues, observances, idle fancies, and false virtues, upon\nwhich they claim that everything depends?\n\nReligion is, for the people, but a vain attendance upon ceremonies, to\nwhich they cling from habit, which amuses their eyes, which enlivens\ntemporarily their sleepy minds, without influencing the conduct, and\nwithout correcting their morals. By the confession even of the ministers\nat the altars, nothing is more rare than the interior and spiritual\nreligion, which is alone capable of regulating the life of man, and of\ntriumphing over his inclinations. In good faith, among the most numerous\nand the most devotional people, are there many capable of understanding\nthe principles of their religious system, and who find them of\nsufficient strength to stifle their perverse inclinations?\n\nMany people will tell us that it is better to have some kind of a\nrestraint than none at all. They will pretend that if religion does not\ncontrol the great mass, it serves at least to restrain some individuals,\nwho, without it, would abandon themselves to crime without remorse. No\ndoubt it is necessary for men to have a restraint; but they do not need\nan imaginary one; they need true and visible restraints; they need real\nfears, which are much better to restrain them than panic terrors and\nidle fancies. Religion frightens but a few pusillanimous minds, whose\nweakness of character already renders them little to be dreaded by their\nfellow-citizens. An equitable government, severe laws, a sound morality,\nwill apply equally to everybody; every one would be forced to believe in\nit, and would feel the danger of not conforming to it.\n\n\n\n\nCXCV.--EVERY RATIONAL SYSTEM IS NOT MADE FOR THE MULTITUDE.\n\nWe may be asked if atheism can suit the multitude? I reply, that every\nsystem which demands discussion is not for the multitude. What use is\nthere, then, in preaching atheism? It can at least make those who\nreason, feel that nothing is more extravagant than to make ourselves\nuneasy, and nothing more unjust than to cause anxiety to others on\naccount of conjectures, destitute of all foundation. As to the common\nman, who never reasons, the arguments of an atheist are no better suited\nto him than a philosopher's hypothesis, an astronomer's observations, a\nchemist's experiments, a geometer's calculations, a physician's\nexaminations, an architect's designs, or a lawyer's pleadings, who all\nlabor for the people without their knowledge.\n\nThe metaphysical arguments of theology, and the religious disputes which\nhave occupied for so long many profound visionists, are they made any\nmore for the common man than the arguments of an atheist? More than\nthis, the principles of atheism, founded upon common sense, are they not\nmore intelligible than those of a theology which we see bristling with\ninsolvable difficulties, even for the most active minds? The people in\nevery country have a religion which they do not understand, which they\ndo not examine, and which they follow but by routine; their priests\nalone occupy themselves with the theology which is too sublime for them.\nIf, by accident, the people should lose this unknown theology, they\ncould console them selves for the loss of a thing which is not only\nentirely useless, but which produces among them very dangerous\nebullitions.\n\nIt would be very foolish to write for the common man or to attempt to\ncure his prejudices all at once. We write but for those who read and\nreason; the people read but little, and reason less. Sensible and\npeaceable people enlighten themselves; their light spreads itself\ngradually, and in time reaches the people. On the other hand, those who\ndeceive men, do they not often take the trouble themselves of\nundeceiving them?\n\n\n\n\nCXCVI.--FUTILITY AND DANGER OF THEOLOGY. WISE COUNSELS TO PRINCES.\n\nIf theology is a branch of commerce useful to theologians, it has been\ndemonstrated to be superfluous and injurious to the rest of society. The\ninterests of men will succeed in opening their eyes sooner or later. The\nsovereigns and the people will some day discover the indifference and\nthe contempt that a futile science deserves which serves but to trouble\nmen without making them better. They will feel the uselessness of many\nexpensive practices, which do not at all contribute to public welfare;\nthey will blush at many pitiful quarrels, which will cease to disturb\nthe tranquillity of the States as soon as they cease to attach any\nimportance to them.\n\nPrinces! instead of taking part in the senseless contentions of your\npriests, instead of espousing foolishly their impertinent quarrels,\ninstead of striving to bring all your subjects to uniform opinions,\noccupy yourselves with their happiness in this world, and do not trouble\nyourselves about the fate which awaits them in another. Govern them\njustly, give them good laws, respect their liberty and their property,\nsuperintend their education, encourage them in their labors, reward\ntheir talents and their virtues, repress their licentiousness, and do\nnot trouble yourselves upon what they think about objects useless to\nthem and to you. Then you will no longer need fictions to make\nyourselves obeyed; you will become the only guides of your subjects;\ntheir ideas will be uniform about the feelings of love and respect which\nwill be your due. Theological fables are useful but to tyrants, who do\nnot understand the art of ruling over reasonable beings.\n\n\n\n\nCXCVII.--FATAL EFFECTS OF RELIGION UPON THE PEOPLE AND THE PRINCES.\n\nDoes it require the efforts of genius to comprehend that what is beyond\nman, is not made for men; that what is supernatural, is not made for\nnatural beings; that impenetrable mysteries are not made for limited\nminds? If theologians are foolish enough to dispute about subjects which\nthey acknowledge to be unintelligible to themselves, should society take\na part in their foolish quarrels? Must human blood flow in order to give\nvalue to the conjectures of a few obstinate visionists? If it is very\ndifficult to cure the theologians of their mania and the people of their\nprejudices, it is at least very easy to prevent the extravagances of the\none and the folly of the other from producing pernicious effects. Let\neach one be allowed to think as he chooses, but let him not be allowed\nto annoy others for their mode of thinking. If the chiefs of nations\nwere more just and more sensible, theological opinions would not disturb\nthe public tranquillity any more than the disputes of philosophers,\nphysicians, grammarians, and of critics. It is the tyranny of princes\nwhich makes theological quarrels have serious consequences. When kings\nshall cease to meddle with theology, theological quarrels will no longer\nbe a thing to fear.\n\nThose who boast so much upon the importance and usefulness of religion,\nought to show us its beneficial results, and the advantages that the\ndisputes and abstract speculations of theology can bring to porters, to\nartisans, to farmers, to fishmongers, to women, and to so many depraved\nservants, with whom the large cities are filled. People of this kind are\nall religious, they have implicit faith; their priests believe for them;\nthey accept a faith unknown to their guides; they listen assiduously to\nsermons; they assist regularly in ceremonies; they think it a great\ncrime to transgress the ordinances to which from childhood they have\nbeen taught to conform. What good to morality results from all this?\nNone whatever; they have no idea of morality, and you see them indulge\nin all kinds of rogueries, frauds, rapine, and excesses which the law\ndoes not punish. The masses, in truth, have no idea of religion; what is\ncalled religion, is but a blind attachment to unknown opinions and\nmysterious dealings. In fact, to deprive the people of religion, is\ndepriving them of nothing. If we should succeed in destroying their\nprejudices, we would but diminish or annihilate the dangerous confidence\nwhich they have in self-interested guides, and teach them to beware of\nthose who, under the pretext of religion, very often lead them into\nfatal excesses.\n\n\n\n\nCXCVIII.--CONTINUATION.\n\nUnder pretext of instructing and enlightening men, religion really holds\nthem in ignorance, and deprives them even of the desire of understanding\nthe objects which interest them the most. There exists for the people no\nother rule of conduct than that which their priests indicate to them.\nReligion takes the place of everything; but being in darkness itself, it\nhas a greater tendency to misguide mortals, than to guide them in the\nway of science and happiness. Philosophy, morality, legislation, and\npolitics are to them enigmas. Man, blinded by religious prejudices,\nfinds it impossible to understand his own nature, to cultivate his\nreason, to make experiments; he fears truth as soon as it does not agree\nwith his opinions. Everything tends to render the people devout, but all\nis opposed to their being humane, reasonable, and virtuous. Religion\nseems to have for its object only to blunt the feeling and to dull the\nintelligence of men.\n\nThe war which always existed between the priests and the best minds of\nall ages, comes from this, that the wise men perceived the fetters which\nsuperstition wished to place upon the human mind, which it fain would\nkeep in eternal infancy, that it might be occupied with fables, burdened\nwith terrors, and frightened by phantoms which would prevent it from\nprogressing. Incapable of perfecting itself, theology opposed\ninsurmountable barriers to the progress of true knowledge; it seemed to\nbe occupied but with the care to keep the nations and their chiefs in\nthe most profound ignorance of their true interests, of their relations,\nof their duties, of the real motives which can lead them to prosperity;\nit does but obscure morality; renders its principles arbitrary, subjects\nit to the caprices of the Gods, or of their ministers; it converts the\nart of governing men into a mysterious tyranny which becomes the scourge\nof nations; it changes the princes into unjust and licentious despots,\nand the people into ignorant slaves, who corrupt themselves in order to\nobtain the favor of their masters.\n\n\n\n\nCXCIX.--HISTORY TEACHES US THAT ALL RELIGIONS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE AID\nOF IGNORANCE, AND BY MEN WHO HAD THU EFFRONTERY TO STYLE THEMSELVES THE\nENVOYS OF DIVINITY.\n\nIf we take the trouble to follow the history of the human mind, we will\ndiscover that theology took care not to extend its limits. It began by\nrepeating fables, which it claimed to be sacred truths; it gave birth to\npoesy, which filled the people's imagination with puerile fictions; it\nentertained them but with its Gods and their incredible feats; in a\nword, religion always treated men like children, whom they put to sleep\nwith tales that their ministers would like still to pass as\nincontestable truths. If the ministers of the Gods sometimes made useful\ndiscoveries, they always took care to hide them in enigmas and to\nenvelope them in shadows of mystery. The Pythagorases and the Platos, in\norder to acquire some futile attainments, were obliged to crawl to the\nfeet of the priests, to become initiated into their mysteries, to submit\nto the tests which they desired to impose upon them; it is at this cost\nthat they were permitted to draw from the fountain-head their exalted\nideas, so seducing still to all those who admire what is unintelligible.\nIt was among Egyptian, Indian, Chaldean priests; it was in the schools\nof these dreamers, interested by profession in dethroning human reason,\nthat philosophy was obliged to borrow its first rudiments. Obscure or\nfalse in its principles, mingled with fictions and fables, solely made\nto seduce imagination, this philosophy progressed but waveringly, and\ninstead of enlightening the mind, it blinded it, and turned it away from\nuseful objects. The theological speculations and mystical reveries of\nthe ancients have, even in our days, the making of the law in a great\npart of the philosophical world. Adopted by modern theology, we can\nscarcely deviate from them without heresy; they entertain us with aerial\nbeings, with spirits, angels, demons, genii, and other phantoms, which\nare the object of the meditations of our most profound thinkers, and\nwhich serve as a basis to metaphysics, an abstract and futile science,\nupon which the greatest geniuses have vainly exercised themselves for\nthousands of years. Thus hypotheses, invented by a few visionists of\nMemphis and of Babylon, continue to be the basis of a science revered\nfor the obscurity which makes it pass as marvelous and Divine. The first\nlegislators of nations were priests; the first mythologists and poets\nwere priests; the first philosophers were priests; the first physicians\nwere priests. In their hands science became a sacred thing, prohibited\nto the profane; they spoke only by allegories, emblems, enigmas, and\nambiguous oracles--means well-suited to excite curiosity, to put to work\nthe imagination, and especially to inspire in the ignorant man a holy\nrespect for those whom he believed instructed by Heaven, capable of\nreading the destinies of earth, and who boldly pretended to be the\norgans of Divinity.\n\n\n\n\nCC.--ALL RELIGIONS, ANCIENT AND MODERN, HAVE MUTUALLY BORROWED THEIR\nABSTRACT REVERIES AND THEIR RIDICULOUS PRACTICES.\n\nThe religions of these ancient priests have disappeared, or, rather,\nthey have changed their form. Although our modern theologians regard the\nancient priests as impostors, they have taken care to gather up the\nscattered fragments of their religious systems, the whole of which does\nnot exist any longer for us; we will find in our modern religions, not\nonly the metaphysical dogmas which theology has but dressed in another\nform, but we still find remarkable remains of their superstitious\npractices, of their theurgy, of their magic, of their enchantments.\n\nChristians are still commanded to regard with respect the monuments of\nthe legislators, the priests, and the prophets of the Hebrew religion,\nwhich, according to appearances, has borrowed from Egypt the fantastic\nnotions with which we see it filled. Thus the extravagances invented by\nfrauds or idolatrous visionists, are still regarded as sacred opinions\nby the Christians!\n\nIf we but look at history, we see striking resemblances in all\nreligions. Everywhere on earth we find religious ideas periodically\nafflicting and rejoicing the people; everywhere we see rites, practices\noften abominable, and formidable mysteries occupying the mind, and\nbecoming objects of meditation. We see the different superstitions\nborrowing from each other their abstract reveries and their ceremonies.\nReligions are generally unformed rhapsodies combined by new Doctors of\nDivinity, who, in composing them, have used the materials of their\npredecessors, reserving the right of adding or subtracting what suits or\ndoes not suit their present views. The religion of Egypt served\nevidently as a basis for the religion of Moses, who expunged from it the\nworship of idols. Moses was but an Egyptian schismatic, Christianity is\nbut a reformed Judaism. Mohammedanism is composed of Judaism, of\nChristianity, and of the ancient religion of Arabia.\n\n\n\n\nCCI.--THEOLOGY HAS ALWAYS TURNED PHILOSOPHY FROM ITS TRUE COURSE.\n\nFrom the most remote period theology alone regulated the march of\nphilosophy. What aid has it lent it? It changed it into an\nunintelligible jargon, which only had a tendency to render the clearest\ntruth uncertain; it converted the art of reasoning into a science of\nwords; it threw the human mind into the aerial regions of metaphysics,\nwhere it unsuccessfully occupied itself in sounding useless and\ndangerous abysses. For physical and simple causes, this philosophy\nsubstituted supernatural causes, or, rather, causes truly occult; it\nexplained difficult phenomena by agents more inconceivable than these\nphenomena; it filled discourse with words void of sense, incapable of\ngiving the reason of things, better suited to obscure than to enlighten,\nand which seem invented but to discourage man, to guard him against the\npowers of his own mind, to make him distrust the principles of reason\nand evidence, and to surround the truth with an insurmountable barrier.\n\n\n\n\nCCII.---THEOLOGY NEITHER EXPLAINS NOR ENLIGHTENS ANYTHING IN THE WORLD OR\nIN NATURE.\n\nIf we would believe the adherents of religion, nothing could be\nexplicable in the world without it; nature would be a continual enigma;\nit would be impossible for man to comprehend himself. But, at the\nbottom, what does this religion explain to us? The more we examine it,\nthe more we find that theological notions are fit but to perplex all our\nideas; they change all into mysteries; they explain to us difficult\nthings by impossible things. Is it, then, explaining things to attribute\nthem to unknown agencies, to invisible powers, to immaterial causes? Is\nit really enlightening the human mind when, in its embarrassment, it is\ndirected to the \"depths of the treasures of Divine Wisdom,\" upon which\nthey tell us it is in vain for us to turn our bold regards? Can the\nDivine Nature, which we know nothing about, make us understand man's\nnature, which we find so difficult to explain?\n\nAsk a Christian philosopher what is the origin of the world. He will\nanswer that God created the universe. What is God? We do not know\nanything about it. What is it to create? We have no idea of it! What is\nthe cause of pestilences, famines, wars, sterility, inundations,\nearthquakes? It is God's wrath. What remedies can prevent these\ncalamities? Prayers, sacrifices, processions, offerings, ceremonies,\nare, we are told, the true means to disarm Celestial fury. But why is\nHeaven angry? Because men are wicked. Why are men wicked? Because their\nnature is corrupt. What is the cause of this corruption? It is, a\ntheologian of enlightened Europe will reply, because the first man was\nseduced by the first woman to eat of an apple which his God had\nforbidden him to touch. Who induced this woman to do such a folly? The\nDevil. Who created the Devil? God! Why did God create this Devil\ndestined to pervert the human race? We know nothing about it; it is a\nmystery hidden in the bosom of the Deity.\n\nDoes the earth revolve around the sun? Two centuries ago a devout\nphilosopher would have replied that such a thought was blasphemy,\nbecause such a system could not agree with the Holy Book, which every\nChristian reveres as inspired by the Deity Himself. What is the opinion\nto-day about it? Notwithstanding Divine Inspiration, the Christian\nphilosophers finally concluded to rely upon evidence rather than upon\nthe testimony of their inspired books.\n\nWhat is the hidden principle of the actions and of the motions of the\nhuman body? It is the soul. What is a soul? It is a spirit. What is a\nspirit? It is a substance which has neither form, color, expansion, nor\nparts. How can we conceive of such a substance? How can it move a body?\nWe know nothing about it. Have brutes souls? The Carthusian assures you\nthat they are machines. But do we not see them act, feel, and think in a\nmanner which resembles that of men? This is a pure illusion, you say.\nBut why do you deprive the brutes of souls, which, without understanding\nit, you attribute to men? It is that the souls of the brutes would\nembarrass our theologians, who, content with the power of frightening\nand damning the immortal souls of men, do not take the same interest in\ndamning those of the brutes. Such are the puerile solutions which\nphilosophy, always guided by the leading-strings of theology, was\nobliged to bring forth to explain the problems of the physical and moral\nworld.\n\n\n\n\nCCIII.--HOW THEOLOGY HAS FETTERED HUMAN MORALS AND RETARDED THE PROGRESS\nOF ENLIGHTENMENT, OF REASON, AND OF TRUTH.\n\nHow many subterfuges and mental gymnastics all the ancient and modern\nthinkers have employed, in order to avoid falling out with the ministers\nof the Gods, who in all ages were the true tyrants of thought! How\nDescartes, Malebranche, Leibnitz, and many others have been compelled to\ninvent hypotheses and evasions in order to reconcile their discoveries\nwith the reveries and the blunders which religion had rendered sacred!\nWith what prevarications have not the greatest philosophers guarded\nthemselves even at the risk of being absurd, inconsistent, and\nunintelligible whenever their ideas did not correspond with the\nprinciples of theology! Vigilant priests were always ready to extinguish\nsystems which could not be made to tally with their interests. Theology\nin every age has been the bed of Procrustes upon which this brigand\nextended his victims; he cut off the limbs when they were too long, or\nstretched them by horses when they were shorter than the bed upon which\nhe placed them.\n\nWhat sensible man who has a love for science, and is interested in the\nwelfare of humanity, can reflect without sorrow and pain upon the loss\nof so many profound, laborious, and subtle heads, who, for many\ncenturies, have foolishly exhausted themselves upon idle fancies that\nproved to be injurious to our race? What light could have been thrown\ninto the minds of many famous thinkers, if, instead of occupying\nthemselves with a useless theology, and its impertinent disputes, they\nhad turned their attention upon intelligible and truly important\nobjects. Half of the efforts that it cost the genius that was able to\nforge their religious opinions, half of the expense which their\nfrivolous worship cost the nations, would have sufficed to enlighten\nthem perfectly upon morality, politics, philosophy, medicine,\nagriculture, etc. Superstition nearly always absorbs the attention, the\nadmiration, and the treasures of the people; they have a very expensive\nreligion; but they have for their money, neither light, virtue, nor\nhappiness.\n\n\n\n\nCCIV.--CONTINUATION.\n\nSome ancient and modern philosophers have had the courage to accept\nexperience and reason as their guides, and to shake off the chains of\nsuperstition. Lucippe, Democritus, Epicurus, Straton, and some other\nGreeks, dared to tear away the thick veil of prejudice, and to deliver\nphilosophy from theological fetters. But their systems, too simple, too\nsensible, and too stripped of wonders for the lovers of fancy, were\nobliged to surrender to the fabulous conjectures of Plato, Socrates, and\nZeno. Among the moderns, Hobbes, Spinoza, Bayle, and others have\nfollowed the path of Epicurus, but their doctrine found but few votaries\nin a world still too much infatuated with fables to listen to reason.\n\nIn all ages one could not, without imminent danger, lay aside the\nprejudices which opinion had rendered sacred. No one was permitted to\nmake discoveries of any kind; all that the most enlightened men could do\nwas to speak and write with hidden meaning; and often, by a cowardly\ncomplaisance, to shamefully ally falsehood with truth. A few of them had\na double doctrine--one public and the other secret. The key of this last\nhaving been lost, their true sentiments often became unintelligible and,\nconsequently, useless to us. How could modern philosophers who, being\nthreatened with the most cruel persecution, were called upon to renounce\nreason and to submit to faith--that is to say, to priestly authority--I\nsay, how could men thus fettered give free flight to their genius,\nperfect reason, or hasten human progress? It was but in fear and\ntrembling that the greatest men obtained glimpses of truth; they rarely\nhad the courage to announce it; those who dared to do it have generally\nbeen punished for their temerity. Thanks to religion, it was never\npermitted to think aloud or to combat the prejudices of which man is\neverywhere the victim or the dupe.\n\n\n\n\nCCV.--WE COULD NOT REPEAT TOO OFTEN HOW EXTRAVAGANT AND FATAL RELIGION\nIS.\n\nEvery man who has the boldness to announce truths to the world, is sure\nto receive the hatred of the priests; the latter loudly call upon the\npowers that be, for assistance; they need the assistance of kings to\nsustain their arguments and their Gods. These clamors show the weakness\nof their cause.\n\n\"They are in embarrassment when they cry for help.\"\n\nIt is not permitted to err in the matter of religion; on every other\nsubject we can be deceived with impunity; we pity those who go astray,\nand we have some liking for the persons who discover truths new to us.\nBut as soon as theology supposes itself concerned, be it in errors or\ndiscoveries, a holy zeal is kindled; the sovereigns exterminate; the\npeople fly into frenzy; and the nations are all stirred up without\nknowing why. Is there anything more afflicting than to see public and\nindividual welfare depend upon a futile science, which is void of\nprinciples, which has no standing ground but imagination, and which\npresents to the mind but words void of sense? What good is a religion\nwhich no one understands; which continually torments those who trouble\nthemselves about it; which is incapable of rendering men better; and\nwhich often gives them the credit of being unjust and wicked? Is there a\nmore deplorable folly, and one that ought more to be abated, than that\nwhich, far from doing any good to the human race, does but blind it,\ncause transports, and render it miserable, depriving it of truth, which\nalone can soften the rigor of fate?\n\n\n\n\nCCVI.--RELIGION IS PANDORA'S BOX, AND THIS FATAL BOX IS OPEN.\n\nReligion has in every age kept the human mind in darkness and held it in\nignorance of its true relations, of its real duties and its true\ninterests. It is but in removing its clouds and phantoms that we may\nfind the sources of truth, reason, morality, and the actual motives\nwhich inspire virtue. This religion puts us on the wrong track for the\ncauses of our evils, and the natural remedies which we can apply. Far\nfrom curing them, it can but multiply them and render them more durable.\n\nLet us, then, say, with the celebrated Lord Bolingbroke, in his\nposthumous works: \"Theology is the Box of Pandora; and if it is\nimpossible to close it, it is at least useful to give warning that this\nfatal box is open.\"\n\n*****\n\nI believe, my dear friends, that I have given you a sufficient\npreventative against all these follies. Your reason will do more than my\ndiscourses, and I sincerely wish that we had only to complain of being\ndeceived! But human blood has flowed since the time of Constantine for\nthe establishment of these horrible impositions. The Roman, the Greek,\nand the Protestant churches by vain, ambitious, and hypocritical\ndisputes have ravaged Europe, Asia, and Africa. Add to these men, whom\nthese quarrels murdered, the multitudes of monks and of nuns, who became\nsterile by their profession, and you will perceive that the Christian\nreligion has destroyed half of the human race.\n\nI conclude with the desire that we may return to Nature, whose declared\nenemy the Christian religion is, and which necessarily instructs us to\ndo unto others as we would wish them to do unto us. Then the universe\nwill be composed of good citizens, just fathers, obedient children,\ntender friends. Nature has given us this Religion, in giving us Reason.\nMay fanaticism pervert it no more! I die filled with these desires more\nthan with hope.\n\nETREPIGNY, March 15, 1732\n\nJOHN MESLIER\n\n\n\n\n\nABSTRACT OF THE TESTAMENT OF JOHN MESLIER\n\nBy Voltaire;\n\nOR, SENTIMENTS OF THE CURATE OF ETREPIGNY ADDRESSED TO HIS PARISHIONERS.\n\n\n\n\nI.--OF RELIGIONS.\n\nAs there is no one religious denomination which does not pretend to be\ntruly founded upon the authority of God, and entirely exempt from all\nthe errors and impositions which are found in the others, it is for\nthose who purpose to establish the truth of the faith of their sect, to\nshow, by clear and convincing proofs, that it is of Divine origin; as\nthis is lacking, we must conclude that it is but of human invention, and\nfull of errors and deceptions; for it is incredible that an Omnipotent\nand Infinitely good God would have desired to give laws and ordinances\nto men, and not have wished them to bear better authenticated marks of\ntruth, than those of the numerous impostors. Moreover, there is not one\nof our Christ-worshipers, of whatever sect he may be, who can make us\nsee, by convincing proofs, that his religion is exclusively of Divine\norigin; and for want of such proof they have been for many centuries\ncontesting this subject among themselves, even to persecuting each other\nby fire and sword to maintain their opinions; there is, however, not one\nsect of them all which could convince and persuade the others by such\nwitnesses of truth; this certainly would not be, if they had, on one\nside or the other, convincing proofs of Divine origin. For, as no one of\nany religious sect, enlightened and of good faith, pretends to hold and\nto favor error and falsehood; and as, on the contrary, each, on his\nside, pretends to sustain truth, the true means of banishing all errors,\nand of uniting all men in peace in the same sentiments and in the same\nform of religion, would be to produce convincing proofs and testimonies\nof the truth; and thus show that such religion is of Divine origin, and\nnot any of the others; then each one would accept this truth; and no\nperson would dare to question these testimonies, or sustain the side of\nerror and imposition, lest he should be, at the same time, confounded by\ncontrary proofs: but, as these proofs are not found in any religion, it\ngives to impostors occasion to invent and boldly sustain all kinds of\nfalsehoods.\n\nHere are still other proofs, which will not be less evident, of the\nfalsity of human religions, and especially of the falsity of our own.\nEvery religion which relies upon mysteries as its foundation, and which\ntakes, as a rule of its doctrine and its morals, a principle of errors,\nand which is at the same time a source of trouble and eternal divisions\namong men, can not be a true religion, nor a Divine Institution. Now,\nhuman religions, especially the Catholic, establish as the basis of\ntheir doctrine and of their morals, a principle of errors; then, it\nfollows that these religions can not be true, or of Divine origin. I do\nnot see that we can deny the first proposition of this argument; it is\ntoo clear and too evident to admit of a doubt. I pass to the proof of\nthe second proposition, which is, that the Christian religion takes for\nthe rule of its doctrine and its morals what they call faith, a blind\ntrust, but yet firm, and secured by some laws or revelations of some\nDeity. We must necessarily suppose that it is thus, because it is this\nbelief in some Deity and in some Divine Revelations, which gives all the\ncredit and all the authority that it has in the world, and without which\nwe could make no use of what it prescribes. This is why there is no\nreligion which does not expressly recommend its votaries to be firm in\ntheir faith. [\"Estate fortes in fide!\"] This is the reason that all\nChristians accept as a maxim, that faith is the commencement and the\nbasis of salvation, that it is the root of all justice and of all\nsanctification, as it is expressed at the Council of Trent.--Sess. 6,\nCh. VIII.\n\nNow it is evident that a blind faith in all which is proposed in the\nname and authority of God, is a principle of errors and falsehoods. As a\nproof, we see that there is no impostor in the matter of religion, who\ndoes not pretend to be clothed with the name and the authority of God,\nand who does  not claim to be especially inspired and sent by God. Not\nonly is this faith and blind belief which they accept as a basis of\ntheir doctrine, a principle of errors, etc., but it is also a source of\ntrouble and division among men for the maintenance of their religion.\nThere is no cruelty which they do not practice upon each other under\nthis specious pretext.\n\nNow then, it is not credible that an Almighty, All-Kind, and All-Wise\nGod desired to use such means or such a deceitful way to inform men of\nHis wishes; for this would be manifestly desiring to lead them into\nerror and to lay snares in their way, in order to make them accept the\nside of falsehood. It is impossible to believe that a God who loved\nunity and peace, the welfare and the happiness of men, would ever have\nestablished as the basis of His religion, such a fatal source of trouble\nand of eternal divisions among them. Such religions can not be true,\nneither could they have been instituted by God. But I see that our\nChrist-worshipers will not fail to have recourse to their pretended\nmotives for credulity, and that they will say, that although their faith\nand belief may be blind in one sense, they are nevertheless supported by\nsuch clear and convincing testimonies of truth, that it would be not\nonly imprudence, but temerity and folly not to surrender one's self.\nThey generally reduce these pretended motives to three or four leading\nfeatures. The first, they draw from the pretended holiness of their\nreligion, which condemns vice, and which recommends the practice of\nvirtue. Its doctrine is so pure, so simple, according to what they say,\nthat it is evident it could spring but from the sanctity of an\ninfinitely good and wise God.\n\nThe second motive for credulity, they draw from the innocence and the\nholiness of life in those who embraced it with love, and defended it by\nsuffering death and the most cruel torments, rather than forsake it: it\nnot being credible that such great personages would allow themselves to\nbe deceived in their belief, that they would renounce all the advantages\nof life, and expose themselves to such cruel torments and persecutions,\nin order to maintain errors and impositions. Their third motive for\ncredulity, they draw from the oracles and prophecies which have so long\nbeen rendered in their favor, and which they pretend have been\naccomplished in a manner which permits no doubt. Finally, their fourth\nmotive for credulity, which is the most important of all, is drawn from\nthe grandeur and the multitude of the miracles performed, in all ages,\nand in every place, in favor of their religion.\n\nBut it is easy to refute all these useless reasonings and to show the\nfalsity of all these evidences. For, firstly, the arguments which our\nChrist-worshipers draw from their pretended motives for credulity can\nserve to establish and confirm falsehood as well as truth; for we see\nthat there is no religion, no matter how false it may be, which does not\npretend to have a sound and true doctrine, and which, in its way, does\nnot condemn all vices and recommend the practice of all virtues; there\nis not one which has not had firm and zealous defenders who have\nsuffered persecution in order to maintain their religion; and, finally,\nthere is none which does not pretend to have wonders and miracles that\nhave been performed in their favor. The Mohammedans, the Indians, the\nheathen, as well as the Christians, claim miracles in their religions.\nIf our Christ-worshipers make use of their miracles and their\nprophecies, they are found no less in the Pagan religions than in\ntheirs. Thus the advantage we might draw from all these motives for\ncredulity, is found about the same in all sorts of religions. This being\nestablished, as the history and practice of all religions demonstrate,\nit evidently follows that all these pretended motives for credulity,\nupon which our Christ-worshipers place so much value, are found equally\nin all religions; and, consequently, can not serve as reliable evidences\nof the truth of their religion more than of the truth of any other. The\nresult is clear.\n\nSecondly. In order to give an idea of the resemblance of the miracles of\nPaganism to those of Christianity, could we not say, for example, that\nthere would be more reason to believe Philostratus in what he recites of\nthe life of Apollonius than to believe all the evangelists in what they\nsay of the miracles of Jesus Christ; because we know, at least that\nPhilostratus was a man of intelligence, eloquence, and fluency; that he\nwas the secretary of the Empress Julia, wife of the Emperor Severus, and\nthat he was requested by this empress to write the life and the\nwonderful acts of Apollonius? It is evident that Apollonius rendered\nhimself famous by great and extraordinary deeds, since an empress was\nsufficiently interested in them to desire a history of his life. This is\nwhat can not be said of Jesus Christ, nor of those who have furnished us\nHis biography, for they were but ignorant men of the common people, poor\nworkmen, fishermen, who had not even the sense to relate consistently\nthe facts which they speak of, and which they mutually contradict very\noften. In regard to the One whose life and actions they describe, if He\nhad really performed the miracles attributed to Him, He would have\nrendered Himself notable by His beautiful acts; every one would have\nadmired Him, and there would be statues erected to Him as was done for\nthe Gods; but instead of that, He was regarded as a man of no\nconsequence, as a fanatic, etc. Josephus, the historian, after having\nspoken of the great miracles performed in favor of his nation and his\nreligion, immediately diminishes their credibility and renders it\nsuspicious by saying that he leaves to each one the liberty of believing\nwhat he chooses; this evidently shows that he had not much faith in\nthem. It also gives occasion to the more judicious to regard the\nhistories which speak of this kind of things as fabulous narrations.\n[See Montaigne, and the author of the \"Apology for Great Men.\"] All that\ncan be said upon this subject shows us clearly that pretended miracles\ncan be invented to favor vice and falsehood as well as justice and\ntruth.\n\nI prove it by the evidence of what even our Christ-worshipers call the\nWord of God, and by the evidence of the One they adore; for their books,\nwhich they claim contain the Word of God, and Christ Himself, whom they\nadore as a God-made man, show us explicitly that there are not only\nfalse prophets--that is to say, impostors--who claim to be sent by God,\nand who speak in His name, but which show as explicitly that these false\nprophets can perform such great and prodigious miracles as shall deceive\nthe very elect. [See Matthew, chapter xxiv., verses 5, 21-27.] More than\nthis, all these pretended performers of miracles wish us to put faith\nonly in them, and not in those who belong to an opposite party.\n\nOn one occasion one of these pretended prophets, named Sedecias, being\ncontradicted by another, named Michea, the former struck the latter and\nsaid to him, pleasantly, \"By what way did the Spirit of God pass from me\nto you?\"\n\nBut how can these pretended miracles be the evidences of truth? for it\nis clear that they were not performed. For it would be necessary to\nknow: Firstly, If those who are said to be the first authors of these\nnarrations truly are such. Secondly, If they were honest men, worthy of\nconfidence, wise and enlightened; and to know if they were not\nprejudiced in favor of those of whom they speak so favorably. Thirdly,\nIf they have examined all the circumstances of the facts which they\nrelate; if they know them well; and if they make a faithful report of\nthem. Fourthly, If the books or the ancient histories which relate all\nthese great miracles have not been falsified and changed in course of\ntime, as many others have been?\n\nIf we consult Tacitus and many other celebrated historians, in regard to\nMoses and his nation, we shall see that they are considered as a horde\nof thieves and bandits. Magic and astrology were in those days the only\nfashionable sciences; and as Moses was, it is said, instructed in the\nwisdom of the Egyptians, it was not difficult for him to inspire\nveneration and attachment for himself in the rustic and ignorant\nchildren of Jacob, and to induce them to accept, in their misery, the\ndiscipline he wished to give them. That is very different from what the\nJews and our Christ-worshipers wish to make us believe. By what certain\nrule can we know that we should put faith in these rather than in the\nothers? There is no sound reason for it. There is as little of certainty\nand even of probability in the miracles of the New Testament as in those\nof the Old.\n\nIt will serve no purpose to say that the histories which relate the\nfacts contained in the Gospels have been regarded as true and sacred;\nthat they have always been faithfully preserved without any alteration\nof the truths which they contain; since this is perhaps the very reason\nwhy they should be the more suspected, having been corrupted by those\nwho drew profit from them, or who feared that they were not sufficiently\nfavorable to them.\n\nGenerally, authors who transcribe this kind of histories, take the right\nto enlarge or to retrench all they please, in order to serve their own\ninterests. This is what even our Christ-worshipers can not deny; for,\nwithout mentioning several other important personages who recognized the\nadditions, the retrenchments, and the falsifications which have been\nmade at different times in their Holy Scriptures, their saint Jerome, a\nfamous philosopher among them, formally said in several passages of his\n\"Prologues,\" that they had been corrupted and falsified; being, even in\nhis day, in the hands of all kinds of persons, who added and suppressed\nwhatever they pleased; so, \"Thus there were,\" said he, \"as many\ndifferent models as different copies of the Gospels.\"\n\nIn regard to the books of the Old Testament, Esdras, a priest of the\nlaw, testifies himself to having corrected and completed wholly the\npretended sacred books of his law, which had partly been lost and partly\ncorrupted. He divided them into twenty-two books, according to the\nnumber of the Hebraic letters, and wrote several other books, whose\ndoctrine was to be revealed to the learned men alone. If these books\nhave been partly lost and partly corrupted, as Esdras and St. Jerome\ntestify in so many passages, there is then no certainty in regard to\nwhat they contain; and as for Esdras saying he had corrected and\ncompiled them by the inspiration of God Himself there is no certainty of\nthat, since there is no impostor who would not make the same claim. All\nthe books of the law of Moses and of the prophets which could be found,\nwere burned in the days of Antiochus. The Talmud, considered by the Jews\nas a holy and sacred book, and which contains all the Divine laws, with\nthe sentences and notable sayings of the Rabbins, of their\ninterpretation of the Divine and of the human laws, and a prodigious\nnumber of other secrets and mysteries in the Hebraic language, is\nconsidered by the Christians as a book made up of reveries, fables,\nimpositions, and ungodliness. In the year 1559 they burned in Rome,\naccording to the command of the inquisitors of the faith, twelve hundred\nof these Talmuds, which were found in a library in the city of Cremona.\nThe Pharisees, a famous sect among the Jews, accepted but the five books\nof Moses, and rejected all the prophets. Among the Christians, Marcion\nand his votaries rejected the books of Moses and the prophets, and\nintroduced other fashionable Scriptures. Carpocrates and his followers\ndid the same, and rejected the whole of the Old Testament, and contended\nthat Jesus Christ was but a man like all others. The Marcionites\nrepudiated as bad, the whole of the Old Testament, and rejected the\ngreater part of the four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. The\nEbionites accepted but the Gospel of St. Matthew, rejecting the three\nothers, and the Epistles of St. Paul. The Marcionites published a Gospel\nunder the name of St. Matthias, in order to confirm their doctrine. The\napostles introduced other Scriptures in order to maintain their errors;\nand to carry out this, they made use of certain Acts, which they\nattributed to St. Andrew and to St. Thomas.\n\nThe Manicheans wrote a gospel of their own style, and rejected the\nScriptures of the prophets and the apostles. The Etzaites sold a certain\nbook which they claimed to have come from Heaven; they cut up the other\nScriptures according to their fancy. Origen himself, with all his great\nmind, corrupted the Scriptures and forged changes in the allegories\nwhich did not suit him, thus corrupting the sense of the prophets and\napostles, and even some of the principal points of doctrine. His books\nare now mutilated and falsified; they are but fragments collected by\nothers who have appeared since. The Ellogians attributed to the heretic\nCorinthus the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John; this is why they\nreject them. The heretics of our last centuries reject as apocryphal\nseveral books which the Roman Catholics consider as true and sacred--such\nas the books of Tobias, Judith, Esther, Baruch, the Song of the Three\nChildren in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, and that of the Idol\nBel, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the first and second book of\nMaccabees; to which uncertain and doubtful books we could add several\nothers that have been attributed to the other apostles; as, for example,\nthe Acts of St. Thomas, his Circuits, his Gospel, and his Apocalypse;\nthe Gospel of St. Bartholomew, that of St. Matthias, of St. Jacques, of\nSt. Peter and of the Apostles, as also the Deeds of St. Peter, his book\non Preaching, and that of his Apocalypse; that of the Judgment, that of\nthe Childhood of the Saviour, and several others of the same kind, which\nare all rejected as apocryphal by the Roman Catholics, even by the Pope\nGelasee, and by the S. S. F. F. of the Romish Communion. That which most\nconfirms that there is no foundation of truth in regard to the authority\ngiven to these books, is that those who maintain their Divinity are\ncompelled to acknowledge that they have no certainty as a basis, if\ntheir faith did not assure them and oblige them to believe it. Now, as\nfaith is but a principle of error and imposture, how can faith, that is\nto say, a blind belief, render the books reliable which are themselves\nthe foundation of this blind belief? What a pity and what insanity! But\nlet us see if these books have of themselves any feature of truth; as,\nfor example, of erudition, of wisdom, and of holiness, or some other\nperfections which are suited only to a God; and if the miracles which\nare cited agree with what we ought to think of the grandeur, goodness,\njustice, and infinite wisdom of an Omnipotent God.\n\nThere is no erudition, no sublime thought, nor any production which\nsurpasses the ordinary capacities of the human mind. On the contrary, we\nshall see on one side fabulous tales similar to that of a woman formed\nof a man's rib; of the pretended terrestrial Paradise; of a serpent\nwhich spoke, which reasoned, and which was more cunning than man; of an\nass which spoke, and reprimanded its master for ill-treating it; of a\nuniversal deluge, and of an ark where animals of all kinds were\ninclosed; of the confusion of languages and of the division of the\nnations, without speaking of numerous other useless narrations upon low\nand frivolous subjects which important authors would scorn to relate.\nAll these narrations appear to be fables, as much as those invented\nabout the industry of Prometheus, the box of Pandora, the war of the\nGiants against the Gods, and similar others which the poets have\ninvented to amuse the men of their time.\n\nOn the other hand we will see a mixture of laws and ordinances, or\nsuperstitious practices concerning sacrifices, the purifications of the\nold law, the senseless distinctions in regard to animals, of which it\nsupposes some to be pure and others to be impure. These laws are no more\nrespectable than those of the most idolatrous nations. We shall see but\nsimple stories, true or false, of several kings, princes, or\nindividuals, who lived right or wrong, or who performed noble or mean\nactions, with other low and frivolous things also related.\n\nFrom all this, it is evident that no great genius was required, nor\nDivine Revelations to produce these things. It would not be creditable\nto a God.\n\nFinally, we see in these books but the discourses, the conduct, and the\nactions of those renowned prophets who proclaimed themselves especially\ninspired by God. We will see their way of acting and speaking, their\ndreams, their illusions, their reveries; and it will be easy to judge\nwhether they do not resemble visionaries and fanatics much more than\nwise and enlightened persons.\n\nThere are, however, in a few of these books, several good teachings and\nbeautiful maxims of morals, as in the Proverbs attributed to Solomon, in\nthe book of Wisdom and of Ecclesiastes; but this same Solomon, the\nwisest of their writers, is also the most incredulous; he doubts even\nthe immortality of the soul, and concludes his works by saying that\nthere is nothing good but to enjoy in peace the fruits of one's labor,\nand to live with those whom we love.\n\nHow superior are the authors who are called profane, such as Xenophon,\nPlato, Cicero, the Emperor Antoninus, the Emperor Julian, Virgil, etc.,\nto the books which we are told are inspired of God. I can truly say that\nthe fables of Aesop, for example, are certainly more ingenious and more\ninstructive than all these rough and poor parables which are related in\nthe Gospels.\n\nBut what shows us that this kind of books is not of Divine Inspiration,\nis, that aside from the low order, coarseness of style, and the lack of\nsystem in the narrations of the different facts, which are very badly\narranged, we do not see that the authors agree; they contradict each\nother in several things; they had not even sufficient enlightenment or\nnatural talents to write a history.\n\nHere are some examples of the contradictions which are found among them.\nThe Evangelist Matthew claims that Jesus Christ descended from king\nDavid by his son Solomon through Joseph, reputed to be His father; and\nLuke claims that He is descended from the same David by his son Nathan\nthrough Joseph.\n\nMatthew says, in speaking of Jesus, that, it being reported in Jerusalem\nthat a new king of the Jews was born, and that the wise men had come to\nadore Him, the king Herod, fearing that this pretended new king would\nrob him of his crown some day, caused the murder of all the new-born\nchildren under two years, in all the neighborhood of Bethlehem, where he\nhad been told that this new king was born; and that Joseph and the\nmother of Jesus, having been warned in a dream by an angel, of this\nwicked intention, took flight immediately to Egypt, where they stayed\nuntil the death of Herod, which happened many years afterward.\n\nOn the contrary, Luke asserts that Joseph and the mother of Jesus lived\npeaceably during six weeks in the place where their child Jesus was\nborn; that He was circumcised according to the law of the Jews, eight\ndays after His birth; and when the time prescribed by the law for the\npurification of His mother had arrived, she and Joseph, her husband,\ncarried Him to Jerusalem in order to present Him to God in His temple,\nand to offer at the same time a sacrifice which was ordained by God's\nlaw; after which they returned to Galilee, into their town of Nazareth,\nwhere their child Jesus grew every day in grace and in wisdom. Luke goes\non to say that His father and His mother went every year to Jerusalem on\nthe solemn days of their Easter feast, but makes no mention of their\nflight into Egypt, nor of the cruelty of Herod toward the children of\nthe province of Bethlehem. In regard to the cruelty of Herod, as neither\nthe historians of that time speak of it, nor Josephus, the historian who\nwrote the life of this Herod, and as the other Evangelists do not\nmention it, it is evident that the journey of those wise men, guided by\na star, this massacre of little children, and this flight to Egypt, were\nbut absurd falsehoods. For it is not credible that Josephus, who blamed\nthe vices of this king, could have been silent on such a dark and\ndetestable action, if what the Evangelist said had been true.\n\nIn regard to the duration of the public life of Jesus Christ, according\nto what the first three Evangelists say, there could be scarcely more\nthan three months from the time of His baptism until His death,\nsupposing He was thirty years old when He was baptized by John,\naccording to Luke, and that He was born on the 25th of December. For,\nfrom this baptism, which was in the year 15 of Tiberius Caesar, and in\nthe year when Anne and Caiaphas were high-priests, to the first Easter\nfollowing, which was in the month of March, there was but about three\nmonths; according to what the first three Evangelists say, He was\ncrucified on the eve of the first Easter following His baptism, and the\nfirst time He went to Jerusalem with His disciples; because all that\nthey say of His baptism, of His travels, of His miracles, of His\npreaching, of His death and passion, must have taken place in the same\nyear of His baptism, for the Evangelists speak of no other year\nfollowing, and it appears even by the narration of His acts that He\nperformed them consecutively immediately after His baptism, and in a\nvery short time, during which we see but an interval of six days before\nhis Transfiguration; during these six days we do not see that He did\nanything. We see by this that He lived but about three months after His\nbaptism, from which, if we subtract the forty days and forty nights\nwhich He passed in the desert immediately after His baptism, it would\nfollow that the length of His public life from His first preaching till\nHis death, would have lasted but about six weeks; and according to what\nJohn says, it would have lasted at least three years and three months,\nbecause it appears by the Gospel of this apostle, that, during the\ncourse of His public life He might have been three or four times at\nJerusalem at the Easter feast which happened but once a year.\n\nNow if it is true that He had been there three or four times after His\nbaptism, as John testifies, it is false that He lived but three months\nafter His baptism, and that He was crucified the first time He went to\nJerusalem.\n\nIf it is said that these first three Evangelists really mean but one\nyear, but that they do not indicate distinctly the others which elapsed\nsince His baptism; or that John understood that there was but one\nEaster, although he speaks of several, and that he only anticipated the\ntime when he repeatedly tells us that the Easter feast of the Jews was\nnear at hand, and that Jesus went to Jerusalem, and, consequently, that\nthere is but an apparent contradiction upon this subject between the\nEvangelists, I am willing to accept this; but it is certain that this\napparent contradiction springs from the fact, that they do not explain\nthemselves in all the circumstances that are noted in the narration\nwhich they make. Be that as it may, there will always be this inference\nmade, that they were not inspired by God when they wrote their\nbiographies of Christ.\n\nHere is another contradiction in regard to the first thing which Jesus\n\nChrist did immediately after His baptism; for the first three\nEvangelists state, that He was transported immediately by the Spirit\ninto the desert, where He fasted forty days and forty nights, and where\nHe was several times tempted by the Devil; and, according to what John\nsays, He departed two days after His baptism to go into Galilee, where\nHe performed His first miracle by changing water into wine at the\nwedding of Cana, where He found Himself three days after His arrival in\nGalilee, more than thirty leagues from the place in which He had been.\n\nIn regard to the place of His first retreat after His departure from the\ndesert, Matthew says that He returned to Galilee, and that leaving the\ncity of Nazareth, He went to live at Capernaum, a maritime city; and\nLuke says, that He came at first to Nazareth, and afterward went to\nCapernaum.\n\nThey contradict each other in regard to the time and manner in which the\napostles followed Him; for the first three say that Jesus, passing on\nthe shore of the Sea of Galilee, saw Simon and Andrew his brother, and\nthat He saw at a little distance James and his brother John with their\nfather, Zebedee. John, on the contrary, says that it was Andrew, brother\nof Simon Peter, who first followed Jesus with another disciple of John\nthe Baptist, having seen Him pass before them, when they were with their\nMaster on the shores of the Jordan.\n\nIn regard to the Lord's Supper, the first three Evangelists note that\nJesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of His body and His blood, in the\nform of bread and wine, the same as our Roman Christ-worshipers say; and\nJohn does not mention this mysterious sacrament. John says that after\nthis supper, Jesus washed His apostles' feet, and commanded them to do\nthe same thing to each other, and relates a long discourse which He\ndelivered then. But the other Evangelists do not speak of the washing of\nthe feet, nor of the long discourse He gave them then. On the contrary,\nthey testify that immediately after this supper, He went with His\napostles upon the Mount of Olives, where He gave up His Spirit to\nsadness, and was in anguish while His apostles slept, at a short\ndistance. They contradict each other upon the day on which they say the\nLord's Supper took place; because on one side, they note that it took\nplace Easter-eve, that is, the evening of the first day of Azymes, or of\nthe feast of unleavened bread; as it is noted (1) in Exodus, (2) in\nLeviticus, and (3) in Numbers; and, on the other hand, they say that He\nwas crucified the day following the Lord's Supper, about midday after\nthe Jews had His trial during the whole night and morning. Now,\naccording to what they say, the day after this supper took place, ought\nnot to be Easter-eve. Therefore, if He died on the eve of Easter, toward\nmidday, it was not on the eve of this feast that this supper took place.\nThere is consequently a manifest error.\n\nThey contradict each other, also, in regard to the women who followed\nJesus from Galilee, for the first three Evangelists say that these\nwomen, and those who knew Him, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary,\nmother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's children, were\nlooking on at a distance when He was hanged and nailed upon the cross.\nJohn says, on the contrary, that the mother of Jesus and His mother's\nsister, and Mary Magdalene were standing near His cross with John, His\napostle. The contradiction is manifest, for, if these women and this\ndisciple were near Him, they were not at a distance, as the others say\nthey were.\n\nThey contradict each other upon the pretended apparitions which they\nrelate that Jesus made after His pretended resurrection; for Matthew\nspeaks of but two apparitions: the one when He appeared to Mary\nMagdalene and to another woman, also named Mary, and when He appeared to\nHis eleven disciples who had returned to Galilee upon the mountain where\nHe had appointed to meet them. Mark speaks of three apparitions: The\nfirst, when He appeared to Mary Magdalene; the second, when He appeared\nto His two disciples, who went to Emmaus; and the third, when He\nappeared to His eleven disciples, whom He reproaches for their\nincredulity. Luke speaks of but two apparitions the same as Matthew; and\nJohn the Evangelist speaks of four apparitions, and adds to Mark's\nthree, the one which He made to seven or eight of His disciples who were\nfishing upon the shores of the Tiberian Sea.\n\nThey contradict each other, also, in regard to the place of these\napparitions; for Matthew says that it was in Galilee, upon a mountain;\nMark says that it was when they were at table; Luke says that He brought\nthem out of Jerusalem as far as Bethany, where He left them by rising to\nHeaven; and John says that it was in the city of Jerusalem, in a house\nof which they had closed the doors, and another time upon the borders of\nthe Tiberian Sea.\n\nThus is much contradiction in the report of these pretended apparitions.\nThey contradict each other in regard to His pretended ascension to\nheaven; for Luke and Mark say positively that He went to heaven in\npresence of the eleven apostles, but neither Matthew nor John mentions\nat all this pretended ascension. More than this, Matthew testifies\nsufficiently that He did not ascend to heaven; for he said positively\nthat Jesus Christ assured His apostles that He would be and remain\nalways with them until the end of the world. \"Go ye,\" He said to them,\nin this pretended apparition, \"and teach all nations, and be assured\nthat I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.\" Luke\ncontradicts himself upon the subject; for in his Gospel he says that it\nwas in Bethany where He ascended to heaven in the presence of His\napostles, and in his Acts of the Apostles (supposing him to have been\nthe author) he says that it was upon the Mount of Olives. He contradicts\nhimself again about this ascension; for he notes in his Gospel that it\nwas the very day of His resurrection, or the first night following, that\nHe ascended to heaven; and in the Acts of the Apostles he says that it\nwas forty days after His resurrection; this certainly does not\ncorrespond. If all the apostles had really seen their Master gloriously\nrise to heaven, how could it be possible that Matthew and John, who\nwould have seen it as well as the others, passed in silence such a\nglorious mystery, and which was so advantageous to their Master,\nconsidering that they relate many other circumstances of His life and of\nHis actions which are much less important than this one? How is it that\nMatthew does not mention this ascension? And why does Christ not explain\nclearly how He would live with them always, although He left them\nvisibly to ascend to heaven? It is not easy to comprehend by what secret\nHe could live with those whom He left.\n\nI pass in silence many other contradictions; what I have said is\nsufficient to show that these books are not of Divine Inspiration, nor\neven of human wisdom, and, consequently, do not deserve that we should\nput any faith in them.\n\n\n\n\nII.--OF MIRACLES.\n\nBut by what privilege do these four Gospels, and some other similar\nbooks, pass for Holy and Divine more than several others, which bear no\nless the title of Gospels, and which have been published under the name\nof some other apostles? If it is said that the reputed Gospels are\nfalsely attributed to the apostles, we can say the same of the first\nones; if we suppose the first ones to be falsified and changed, we can\nthink the same of the others. Thus there is no positive proof to make us\ndiscern the one from the other; in spite of the Church, which assumes to\nderide the matter, it is not credible.\n\nIn regard to the pretended miracles related in the Old Testament, they\ncould have been performed but to indicate on the part of God an unjust\nand odious discrimination between nations and between individuals;\npurposely injuring the one in order to especially favor the other. The\nvocation and the choice which God made of the Patriarchs, Abraham,\nIsaac, and Jacob, in order to make for Himself of their posterity a\npeople which He would sanctify and bless above all other peoples of the\nearth, is a proof of it. But it will be said God is the absolute master\nof His favors and of His benefits; He can grant them to whomsoever He\npleases, without any one having the right to complain or to accuse Him\nof injustice. This reason is useless; for God, the Author of nature, the\nFather of all men, ought to love them all alike as His own work, and,\nconsequently, He ought to be equally their protector and their\nbenefactor; giving them life, He ought to give all that is necessary for\nthe well-being of His creatures.\n\nIf all these pretended miracles of the Old and of the New Testament were\ntrue, we could say that God would have had more care in providing for\nthe least good of men than for their greatest and principal good; that\nHe would have punished more severely trifling faults in certain persons\nthan He would have punished great crimes in others; and, finally, that\nHe would not have desired to show Himself as beneficent in the most\npressing needs as in the least. This is easy enough to show as much by\nthe miracles which it is pretended that He performed, as by those which\nHe did not perform, and which He would have performed rather than any\nother, if it is true that He performed any at all. For example, it is\nclaimed that God had the kindness to send an angel to console and to\nassist a simple maid, while He left, and still leaves every day, a\ncountless number of innocents to languish and starve to death; it is\nclaimed that He miraculously preserved during forty years the clothes\nand the shoes of a few people, while He will not watch over the natural\npreservation of the vast quantities of goods which are useful and\nnecessary for the subsistence of great nations, and that are lost every\nday by different accidents. It is claimed that He sent to the first\nbeings of the human race, Adam and Eve, a devil, or a simple serpent, to\nseduce them, and by this means ruin all men. This is not credible! It is\nclaimed, that by a special providence, He prevented the King of Gerais,\na Pagan, from committing sin with a strange woman, although there would\nbe no results to follow; and yet He did not prevent Adam and Eve from\noffending Him and falling into the sin of disobedience--a sin which,\naccording to our Christ-worshipers was to be fatal, and cause the\ndestruction of the human race. This is not credible!\n\nLet us come to the pretended miracles of the New Testament. They\nconsist, as is pretended, in this: that Jesus Christ and His apostles\ncured, through the Deity, all kinds of diseases and infirmities, giving\nsight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, making the\nlame to walk, curing the paralytics, driving the devils from those who\nwere possessed, and bringing the dead to life.\n\nWe find several of these miracles in the Gospels, but we see a good many\nmore of them in the books that our Christ-worshipers have written of the\nadmirable lives of their saints; for in these lives we nearly everywhere\nread that these pretended blessed ones cured diseases and infirmities,\nexpelled the devils wherever they encountered them, solely in the name\nof Jesus or by the sign of the cross; that they controlled the elements;\nthat God favored them so much that He even preserved to them His Divine\npower after their death, and that this Divine power could be\ncommunicated even to the least of their clothing, even to their shadows,\nand even to the infamous instruments of their death. It is said that the\nshoe of St. Honorius raised a dead man on the sixth of January; that the\nstaff of St. Peter, that of St. James, and that of St. Bernard performed\nmiracles. The same is said of the cord of St. Francis, of the staff of\nSt. John of God, and of the girdle of St. Melanie. It is said that St.\nGracilien was divinely instructed as to what he ought to believe and to\nteach, and that he, by the influence of his prayer, removed a mountain\nwhich prevented him from building a church; that from the sepulchre of\nSt. Andrew flowed incessantly a liquor which cured all sorts of\ndiseases; that the soul of St. Benedict was seen ascending to Heaven\nclothed with a precious cloak and surrounded by burning lamps; that St.\nDominic said that God never refused him anything he asked; that St.\nFrancis commanded the swallows, swans, and other birds to obey him, and\nthat often the fishes, rabbits, and the hares came and placed themselves\non his hands and on his lap; that St. Paul and St. Pantaleon, having\nbeen beheaded, there flowed milk instead of blood; that the blessed\nPeter of Luxembourg, in the first two years after his death (1388 and\n1389), performed two thousand four hundred miracles, among which\nforty-two dead were brought to life, not including more than three\nthousand other miracles which he has performed since; that the fifty\nphilosophers whom St. Catherine converted, having all been thrown into a\ngreat fire, their whole bodies were afterward found and not a single\nhair was scorched; that the body of St. Catherine was carried off by\nangels after her death, and buried by them upon Mount Sinai; that the\nday of the canonization of St. Antoine de Padua, all the bells of the\ncity of Lisbon rang of themselves, without any one knowing how it was\ndone; that this saint being once near the sea-shore, and calling the\nfishes, they came to him in a great multitude, and raised their heads\nout of the water and listened to him attentively. We should never come\nto an end if we had to report all this idle talk; there is no subject,\nhowever vain, frivolous, and even ridiculous, on which the authors of\nthese \"LIVES OF THE SAINTS\" do not take pleasure in heaping miracles\nupon miracles, for they are skillful in forging absurd falsehoods.\n\nIt is certainly not without reason that we consider these things as\nlies; for it is easy to see that all these pretended miracles have been\ninvented but by imitating the fables of the Pagan poets. This is\nsufficiently obvious by the resemblance which they bear one to another.\n\n\n\n\nIII.--SIMILARITY BETWEEN ANCIENT AND MODERN MIRACLES.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers claim that God endowed their saints with power\nto perform the miracles related in their lives, some of the Pagans claim\nalso that the daughters of Anius, high-priest of Apollo, had really\nreceived from the god Bacchus the power to change all they desired into\nwheat, into wine, or into oil, etc.; that Jupiter gave to the nymphs who\ntook care of his education, a horn of the goat which nursed him in his\ninfancy, with this virtue, that it could give them an abundance of all\nthey wished for.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers assert that their saints had the power of\nraising the dead, and that they had Divine revelations, the Pagans had\nsaid before them that Athalide, son of Mercury, had obtained from his\nfather the gift of living, dying, and coming to life whenever he wished,\nand that he had also the knowledge of all that transpired in this world\nas well as in the other; and that Esculapius, son of Apollo, had raised\nthe dead, and, among others, he brought to life Hyppolites, son of\nTheseus, by Diana's request; and that Hercules, also, raised from the\ndead Alceste, wife of Admetus, King of Thessalia, to return her to her\nhusband.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers say that Christ was miraculously born of a\nvirgin, the Pagans had said before them that Remus and Romulus, the\nfounders of Rome, were miraculously born of a vestal virgin named Ilia,\nor Silvia, or Rhea Silvia; they had already said that Mars, Argus,\nVulcan, and others were born of the goddess Juno without sexual union;\nand, also, that Minerva, goddess of the sciences, sprang from Jupiter's\nbrain, and that she came out of it, all armed, by means of a blow which\nthis god gave to his own head.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers claim that their saints made water gush from\nrocks, the Pagans pretend also that Minerva made a fountain of oil\nspring forth from a rock as a recompense for a temple which had been\ndedicated to her.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers boast of having received images from Heaven\nmiraculously, as, for example, those of Notre-Dame de Loretto, and of\nLiesse and several other gifts from Heaven, as the pretended Holy Vial\nof Rheims, as the white Chasuble which St. Ildefonse received from the\nVirgin Mary, and other similar things: the Pagans boasted before them of\nhaving received a sacred shield as a mark of the preservation of their\ncity of Rome, and the Trojans boasted before them of having received\nmiraculously from Heaven their Palladium, or their Idol of Pallas, which\ncame, they said, to takes its place in the temple which they had erected\nin honor of this Goddess.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers pretend that Jesus Christ was seen by His\napostles ascending to Heaven, and that several of their pretended saints\nwere transported to Heaven by angels, the Roman Pagans had said before\nthem, that Romulus, their founder, was seen after his death; that\nGanymede, son of Troas, king of Troy, was transported to Heaven by\nJupiter to serve him as cup-bearer that the hair of Berenice, being\nconsecrated to the temple of Venus, was afterward carried to Heaven;\nthey say the same thing of Cassiope and Andromedes, and even of the ass\nof Silenus.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers pretend that several of their saints' bodies\nwere miraculously saved from decomposition after death, and that they\nwere found by Divine Revelations, after having been lost for a long\ntime, the Pagans say the same of the holy of Orestes, which they pretend\nto have found through an oracle, etc.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers say that the seven sleeping brothers slept\nduring one hundred and seventy-seven years, while they were shut up in a\ncave, the Pagans claim that Epimenides, the philosopher, slept during\nfifty-seven years in a cave where he fell asleep.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers claim that several of their saints continued to\nspeak after losing the head, or having the tongue cut out, the Pagans\nclaim that the head of Gambienus recited a long poem after separation\nfrom his body.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers glorify themselves that their temples and\nchurches are ornamented with several pictures and rich gifts which show\nmiraculous cures performed by the intercession of their saints, we also\nsee, or at least we formerly saw in the temple of Esculapius at\nEpidaurus, many paintings of miraculous cures which he had performed.\n\nIf our Christ-worshipers claim that several of their saints have been\nmiraculously preserved in the flames without having received any injury\nto their bodies or their clothing, the Pagans claim that the Holy women\nof the temple of Diana walked upon burning coals barefooted without\nburning or hurting their feet, and that the priests of the Goddess\nFeronie and of Hirpicus walked in the same way upon burning coals in the\nfires which were made in honor of Apollo.\n\nIf the angels built a chapel for St. Clement at the bottom of the sea,\nthe little house of Baucis and of Philemon was miraculously changed into\na superb temple as a reward of their piety. If several of their saints,\nas St. James and St. Maurice, appeared several times in their armies,\nmounted and equipped in ancient style, and fought for them, Castor and\nPollux appeared several times in battles and fought for the Romans\nagainst their enemies; if a ram was miraculously found to be offered as\na sacrifice in the place of Isaac, whom his father Abraham was about to\nsacrifice, the Goddess Vesta also sent a heifer to be sacrificed in the\nplace of Metella, daughter of Metellus: the Goddess Diana sent a hind in\nthe place of Iphigenie when she was at the stake to be sacrificed to\nher, and by this means Iphigenie was saved.\n\nIf St. Joseph went into Egypt by the warning of an angel, Simonides, the\npoet, avoided several great dangers by miraculous warnings which had\nbeen given to him.\n\nIf Moses forced a stream of water to flow from a rock by striking it\nwith his staff, the horse Pegasus did the same: by striking a rock with\nhis foot a fountain issued.\n\nIf St. Vincent Ferrier brought to life a dead man hacked into pieces,\nwhose body was already half roasted and half broiled, Pelops, son of\nTantalus king of Phrygia, having been torn to pieces by his father to be\nsacrificed to the Gods, they gathered all the pieces, joined them, and\nbrought them to life.\n\nIf several crucifixes and other images have miraculously spoken and\nanswered, the Pagans say that their oracles have spoken and given\nanswers to those who consulted them, and that the head of Orpheus and\nthat of Policrates gave oracles after their death.\n\nIf God revealed by a voice from Heaven that Jesus Christ was His Son, as\nthe Evangelists say, Vulcan showed by the apparition of a miraculous\nflame, that Coceculus was really his son.\n\nIf God has miraculously nourished some of His saints, the Pagan poets\npretend that Triptolemus was miraculously nourished with Divine milk by\nCeres, who gave him also a chariot drawn by two dragons, and that\nPhineus, son of Mars, being born after his mother's death, was\nnevertheless miraculously nourished by her milk.\n\nIf several saints miraculously tamed the ferocity of the most cruel\nbeasts, it is said that Orpheus attracted to him, by the sweetness of\nhis voice and by the harmony of his instruments, lions, bears, and\ntigers, and softened the ferocity of their nature; that he attracted\nrocks and trees, and that even the rivers stopped their course to listen\nto his song.\n\nFinally, to abbreviate, because we could report many others, if our\nChrist-worshipers pretend that the walls of the city of Jericho fell by\nthe sound of their trumpets, the Pagans say that the walls of the city\nof Thebes were built by the sound of the musical instruments of\nAmphion; the stones, as the poets say, arranging themselves to the\nsweetness of his harmony; this would be much more miraculous and more\nadmirable than to see the walls demolished.\n\nThere is certainly a great similarity between the Pagan miracles and our\nown. As it would be great folly to give credence to these pretended\nmiracles of Paganism, it is not any the less so to have faith in those\nof Christianity, because they all come from the same source of error. It\nwas for this that the Manicheans and the Arians, who existed at the\ncommencement of the Christian Era, derided these pretended miracles\nperformed by the invocation of saints, and blamed those who invoked them\nafter death and honored their relics.\n\nLet us return at present to the principal end which God proposed to\nHimself, in sending His Son into the world to become man; it must have\nbeen, as they say, to redeem the world from sin and to destroy\nentirely the works of the pretended Devil, etc. This is what our\nChrist-worshipers claim also, that Jesus Christ died for them according\nto His Father's intention, which is plainly stated in all the pretended\nHoly Books. What! an Almighty God, who was willing to become a mortal\nman for the love of men, and to shed His blood to the last drop, to save\nthem all, would yet have limited His power to only curing a few diseases\nand physical infirmities of a few individuals who were brought to Him;\nand would not have employed His Divine goodness in curing the\ninfirmities of the soul! that is to say, in curing all men of their\nvices and their depravities, which are worse than the diseases of their\nbodies! This is not credible. What! such a good God would desire to\npreserve dead corpses from decay and corruption; and would not keep from\nthe contagion and corruption of vice and sin the souls of a countless\nnumber of persons whom He sought to redeem at the price of His blood,\nand to sanctify by His grace! What a pitiful contradiction!\n\n\n\n\nIV.--OF THE FALSITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\nLet us proceed to the pretended visions and Divine Revelations, upon\nwhich our Christ-worshipers establish the truth and the certainty of\ntheir religion.\n\nIn order to give a just idea of it, I believe it is best to say in\ngeneral, that they are such, that if any one should dare now to boast of\nsimilar ones, or wish to make them valued, he would certainly be\nregarded as a fool or a fanatic.\n\nHere is what the pretended Visions and Divine Revelations are:\n\nGod, as these pretended Holy Books claim, having appeared for the first\ntime to Abraham, said to him: \"Get thee out of thy country, and from thy\nkindred and from thy father's house, into a land that I will show thee.\"\nAbraham, having gone there, God, says the Bible, appeared the second\ntime to him, and said, \"Unto thy seed will I give this land,\" and there\nbuilded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him. After the\ndeath of Isaac, his son, Jacob going one day to Mesopotamia to look for\na wife that would suit him, having walked all the day, and being tired\nfrom the long distance, desired to rest toward evening; lying upon the\nground, with his head resting upon a few stones, he fell asleep, and\nduring his sleep he saw a ladder set upon the earth, and the top of it\nreached to Heaven; and beheld the angels of God ascending and descending\non it. And behold, the Lord stood above it, and said: \"I am the Lord,\nGod of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land whereon thou\nliest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed. And thy seed shall be as\nthe dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west and to\nthe east, and to the north and to the south and in thee and in thy seed\nshall all the nations of the earth be blessed. And behold, I am with\nthee and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring\nthee again into this land: for I will not leave thee until I have done\nthat which I have spoken to thee of.\" And Jacob awaked out of his sleep,\nand he said: \"Surely the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not.\" And\nhe was afraid, and said: \"How dreadful is this place! this is none other\nthan the house of God, and this is the gate of Heaven.\" And Jacob rose\nup early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his\npillow, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil on the top of it, and\nmade at the same time a vow to God, that if he should return safe and\nsound, he would give Him a tithe of all he might possess.\n\nHere is yet another vision. Watching the flocks of his father-in-law,\nLaban, who had promised him that all the speckled lambs produced by his\nsheep should be his recompense, he dreamed one night that he saw all the\nmales leap upon the females, and all the lambs they brought forth were\nspeckled. In this beautiful dream, God appeared to him, and said: \"Lift\nup now thine eyes and see that the rams which leap upon the cattle are\nring-streaked, speckled, and grizzled; for I have seen all that Laban\ndoes unto thee. Now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto\nthe land of thy kindred.\" As he was returning with his whole family, and\nwith all he obtained from his father-in-law, he had, says the Bible, a\nwrestle with an unknown man during the whole night, until the breaking\nof the day, and as this man had not been able to subdue him, He asked\nhim who he was. Jacob told Him his name; and He said: \"Thy name shall be\ncalled no more Jacob, but Israel; for as a prince hast thou power with\nGod and with men, and hast prevailed.\"\n\nThis is a specimen of the first of these pretended Visions and Divine\nRevelations. We can judge of the others by these. Now, what appearance\nof Divinity is there in dreams so gross and illusions so vain? As if\nsome foreigners, Germans, for instance, should come into our France,\nand, after seeing all the beautiful provinces of our kingdom, should\nclaim that God had appeared to them in their country, that He had told\nthem to go into France, and that He would give to them and to their\nposterity all the beautiful lands, domains, and provinces of this\nkingdom which extend from the rivers Rhine and Rhone, even to the sea;\nthat He would make an everlasting alliance with them, that He would\nmultiply their race, that He would make their posterity as numerous as\nthe stars of Heaven and as the sands of the sea, etc., who would not\nlaugh at such folly, and consider these strangers as insane fools!\n\nNow there is no reason to think otherwise of all that has been said by\nthese pretended Holy Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in regard to\nthe Divine Revelations which they claim to have had. As to the\ninstitution of bloody sacrifices, the Holy Scriptures attribute it to\nGod. As it would be too wearisome to go into the disgusting details of\nthis kind of sacrifices, I refer the reader to Exodus. [See chapters\nxxv., xxvii., xxyiii., and xxix.]\n\nWere not men insane and blind to believe they were honoring God by\ntearing into pieces, butchering, and burning His own creatures, under\nthe pretext of offering them as sacrifices to Him? And even now, how is\nit that our Christ-worshipers are so extravagant as to expect to please\nGod the Father, by offering up to Him the sacrifice of His Divine Son,\nin remembrance of His being shamefully nailed to a cross upon which He\ndied? Certainly this can spring only from an obstinate blindness of\nmind.\n\nIn regard to the detail of the sacrifices of animals, it consists but in\ncolored clothing, blood, plucks, livers, birds' crops, kidneys, claws,\nskins, in the dung, smoke, cakes, certain measures of oil and wine, the\nwhole being offered and infected by dirty ceremonies as filthy and\ncontemptible as the most extravagant performances of magic. What is most\nhorrible of all this is, that the law of this detestable Jewish people\ncommanded that even men should be offered up as sacrifices. The\nbarbarians, whoever they were, who introduced this horrible law,\ncommanded to put to death any man who had been consecrated to the God of\nthe Jews, whom they called Adonai: and it is according to this execrable\nprecept that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, and that Saul wanted to\nsacrifice his son.\n\nBut here is yet another proof of the falsity of these revelations of\nwhich we have spoken. It is the lack of the fulfillment of the great and\nmagnificent promises by which they were accompanied, for it is evident\nthat these promises never have been fulfilled.\n\nThe proof of this consists in three principal points:\n\nFirstly. Their posterity was to be more numerous than all the other\nnations of the world.\n\nSecondly. The people who should spring from their race were to be the\nhappiest, the holiest, and the most victorious of all the people of the\nearth.\n\nThirdly. His covenant was to be everlasting, and they should possess\nforever the country He should give them. Now it is plain that these\npromises-never were fulfilled.\n\nFirstly. It is certain that the Jewish people, or the people of\nIsrael--which is the only one that can be regarded as having descended\nfrom the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the only ones to whom\nthese promises should have been fulfilled--have never been so numerous\nthat it could be compared with the other nations of the earth, much less\nwith the sands of the sea, etc., for we see that in the very time when\nit was the most numerous and the most flourishing, it never occupied\nmore than the little sterile provinces of Palestine and its environs,\nwhich are almost nothing in comparison with the vast extent of a\nmultitude of flourishing kingdoms which are on all sides of the earth.\n\nSecondly. They have never been fulfilled concerning the great blessings\nwith which they were to be favored; for, although they won a few small\nvictories over some poor nations whom they plundered, this did not\nprevent them from being conquered and reduced to servitude; their\nkingdom destroyed as well as their nation, by the Roman army; and even\nnow the remainder of this unfortunate nation is looked upon as the\nvilest and most contemptible of all the earth, having no country, no\ndominion, no superiority.\n\nFinally, these promises have not been fulfilled in respect to this\neverlasting covenant, which God ought to have fulfilled to them; because\nwe do not see now, and we have never seen, any evidence of this\ncovenant; and, on the contrary, they have been for many centuries\nexcluded from the possession of the small country they pretended God had\npromised that they should enjoy forever. Thus, since these pretended\npromises were never fulfilled, it is certain evidence of their falsity;\nwhich proves, plainly, that these pretended Holy Books which contain\nthem were not of Divine inspiration. Therefore it is useless for our\nChrist-worshipers to pretend to make use of them as infallible testimony\nto prove the truth of their religion.\n\n\n\n\nTHE HOLY SCRIPTURES.\n\n\n\n\nV.--(1) OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n\nOur Christ-worshipers add to their reasons for credulity and to the\nproofs of the truth of their testimony, the prophecies which are, as\nthey pretend, sure evidences of the truth of the revelations or\ninspirations of God, there being no one but God who could predict future\nevents so long before they came to pass, as those which have been\npredicted by the prophets.\n\nLet us see, then, who these pretended prophets are, and if we ought to\nconsider them as important as our Christ-worshipers pretend they are.\nThese men were but visionaries and fanatics, who acted and spoke\naccording to the impulsions of their ruling passions, and who imagined\nthat it was the Spirit of God by which they spoke and acted; or they\nwere impostors who feigned to be prophets, and who, in order to more\neasily deceive the ignorant and simple-minded, boasted of acting and\nspeaking by the Spirit of God. I would like to know how an Ezekiel would\nbe received who should say that God made him eat for his breakfast a\nroll of parchment; commanded him to be tied like an insane man, and lie\nthree hundred and ninety days upon his right side, and forty days upon\nhis left, and commanded him to eat man's dung upon his bread, and\nafterward, as an accommodation, cow's dung? I ask how such a filthy\nstatement would be received by the most stupid people of our provinces?\n\nWhat can be yet a greater proof of the falsity of these pretended\nprophecies, than the violence with which these prophets reproach each\nother for speaking falsely in the name of God, reproaches which they\nclaim to make in behalf of God. All of them say, \"Beware of the false\nprophets!\" as the quacks say, \"Beware of the counterfeit pills!\" How\ncould these insane impostors tell the future? No prophecy in favor of\ntheir Jewish nation was ever fulfilled. The number of prophecies which\npredict the prosperity and the greatness of Jerusalem is almost\ninnumerable; in explanation of this, it will be said that it is very\nnatural that a subdued and captive people should comfort themselves in\ntheir real afflictions by imaginary hopes--as a year after King James was\ndeposed, the Irish people of his party forged several prophecies in\nregard to him.\n\nBut if these promises made to the Jews had been really true, the Jewish\nnation long ago would have been, and would still be, the most numerous,\nthe most powerful, the most blessed, and the most victorious of all\nnations.\n\n\n\n\nVI.--(2) THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nLet us examine the pretended prophecies which are contained in the\nGospels.\n\nFirstly. An angel having appeared in a dream to a man named Joseph,\nfather, or at least so reputed, of Jesus, son of Mary, said unto him:\n\n\"Joseph, thou son of David fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for\nthat which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring\nforth a Son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS; for He shall save His\npeople from their sins.\" This angel said also to Mary:\n\n\"Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor with God. And behold, thou\nshalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His\nname Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the\nHighest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father\nDavid. And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His\nkingdom there shall be no end!\" Jesus began to preach and to say:\n\n\"Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Take no thought for your\nlife, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your body\nwhat ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than\nraiment, for your Heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these\nthings. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and\nall these things shall be added unto you.\"\n\nNow, let every man who has not lost common sense, examine if this Jesus\never was a king, or if His disciples had abundance of all things. This\nJesus promised to deliver the world from sin. Is there any prophecy\nwhich is more false? Is not our age a striking proof of it? It is said\nthat Jesus came to save His people. In what way did He save it? It is\nthe greatest number which rules any party. For example, one dozen or two\nof Spaniards or Frenchmen do not constitute the French or Spanish\npeople; and if an army of a hundred and twenty thousand men were taken\nprisoners of war by an army of enemies which was stronger, and if the\nchief of this army should redeem only a few men, as ten or twelve\nsoldiers or officers, by paying their ransom, it could not be claimed\nthat he had delivered or redeemed his army. Then, who is this God who\nhas been sacrificed, who died to save the world, and leaves so many\nnations damned? What a pity! and what horror!\n\nJesus Christ says that we have but to ask and we shall receive, and to\nseek and we shall find. He assures us that all we ask of God in His name\nshall be granted, and that if we have faith as a grain of mustard-seed,\nwe could by one word remove mountains. If this promise is true, nothing\nappears impossible to our Christ-worshipers who have faith in Jesus.\nHowever, the contrary happens. If Mohammed had made the promises to his\nvotaries that Christ made to His, without success, what would not be\nsaid about it. They would cry out, \"Ah, the cheat! ah, the impostor!\"\nThese Christ-worshipers are in the same condition: they have been blind,\nand have not even yet recovered from their blindness; on the contrary,\nthey are so ingenious in deceiving themselves, that they pretend that\nthese promises have been fulfilled from the beginning of Christianity;\nthat at that time it was necessary to have miracles, in order to\nconvince the incredulous of the truth of religion; but that this\nreligion being sufficiently established, the miracles were no longer\nnecessary. Where, then, is their proof of all this?\n\nBesides, He who made these promises did not limit them to a certain\ntime, or to certain places, or to certain persons; but He made them\ngenerally to everybody. The faith of those who believe, says He, shall\nbe followed by these miracles; \"They shall cast out devils in My name,\nthey shall speak in divers tongues, they shall handle serpents,\" etc.\n\nIn regard to the removal of mountains, He positively says that \"whoever\nshall say to a mountain: 'Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the\nsea;' it shall be done;\" provided that he does not doubt in his heart,\nbut believes all he commands will be done. Are not all these promises\ngiven in a general way, without restriction as to time, place, or\npersons?\n\nIt is said that all the sects which are founded in errors and imposture\nwill come to a shameful end. But if Jesus Christ intends to say that He\nhas established a society of followers who will not fall either into\nvice or error, these words are absolutely false, as there is in\nChristendom no sect, no society, and no church which is not full of\nerrors and vices, especially the Roman Church, although it claims to be\nthe purest and the holiest of all. It was born into error, or rather it\nwas conceived and formed in error; and even now it is full of delusions\nwhich are contrary to the intentions, the sentiments, or the doctrine of\nits Founder, because it has, contrary to His intention, abolished the\nlaws of the Jews, which He approved, and which He came Himself, as He\nsaid, to fulfill and not to destroy. It has fallen into the errors and\nidolatry of Paganism, as is seen by the idolatrous worship which is\noffered to its God of dough, to its saints, to their images, and to\ntheir relics.\n\nI know well that our Christ-worshipers consider it a lack of\nintelligence to accept literally the promises and prophecies as they are\nexpressed; they reject the literal and natural sense of the words, to\ngive them a mystical and spiritual sense which they call allegorical and\nfigurative; claiming, for example, that the people of Israel and Judea,\nto whom these promises were made, were not understood as the Israelites\nafter the body, but the Israelites in spirit: that is to say, the\nChristians which are the Israel of God, the true chosen people that by\nthe promise made to this enslaved people, to deliver it from captivity,\nit is understood to be not the corporal deliverance of a single captive\npeople, but the spiritual deliverance of all men from the servitude of\nthe Devil, which was to be accomplished by their Divine Saviour; that by\nthe abundance of riches, and all the temporal blessings promised to this\npeople, is meant the abundance of spiritual graces; and finally, that by\nthe city of Jerusalem, is meant not the terrestrial Jerusalem, but the\nspiritual Jerusalem, which is the Christian Church.\n\nBut it is easy to see that these spiritual and allegorical meanings\nhaving only a strange, imaginary sense, being a subterfuge of the\ninterpreters, can not serve to show the truth or the falsehood of a\nproposition, or of any promises whatever. It is ridiculous to forge such\nallegorical meanings, since it is only by the relations of the natural\nand true sense that we can judge of their truth or falsehood. A\nproposition, a promise, for example, which is considered true in the\nproper and natural sense of the terms in which it is expressed, will not\nbecome false in itself under cover of a strange sense, one which does\nnot belong to it. By the same reasoning, that which is manifestly false\nin its proper and natural sense, will not become true in itself,\nalthough we give it a strange sense, one foreign to the true.\n\nWe can say that the prophecies of the Old Testament adjusted to the New,\nwould be very absurd and puerile things. For example, Abraham had two\nwives, of which the one, who was but a servant, represented the\nsynagogue, and the other one, his lawful wife, represented the Christian\nChurch; and that this Abraham had two sons, of which the one born of\nHagar, the servant, represented the Old Testament; and the other, born\nof Sarah, the wife, represented the New Testament. Who would not laugh\nat such a ridiculous doctrine?\n\nIs it not amusing that a piece of red cloth, exhibited by a prostitute\nas a signal to spies, in the Old Testament is made to represent the\nblood of Jesus Christ shed in the New? If--according to this manner of\ninterpreting allegorically all that is said, done, and practiced in the\nancient law of the Jews--we should interpret in the same allegorical way\nall the discourses, the actions, and the adventures of the famous Don\nQuixote de la Mancha, we would find the same sort of mysteries and\nridiculous figures.\n\nIt is nevertheless upon this absurd foundation that the whole Christian\nreligion rests. Thus it is that there is scarcely anything in this\nancient law that the Christ-worshiping doctors do not try to explain in\na mystical way to build up their system. The most false and the most\nridiculous prophecy ever made is that of Jesus, in Luke, where it is\npretended that there will be signs in the sun and in the moon, and that\nthe Son of Man will appear in a cloud to judge men; and this is\npredicted for the generation living at that time. Has it come to pass?\nDid the Son of Man appear in a cloud?\n\n\n\n\nVII.--ERRORS OF DOCTRINE AND OF MORALITY.\n\nThe Christian Apostolical Roman Religion teaches, and compels belief,\nthat there is but one God, and, at the same time, that there are three\nDivine persons, each one being God. This is absurd; for if there are\nthree who are truly God, then there are three Gods. It is false, then,\nto say that there is but one God; or if this is true, it is false to say\nthat there are really three who are God, for one and three can not be\nclaimed to be one and the same number. It is also said that the first of\nthese pretended Divine persons, called the Father, has brought forth the\nsecond person, which is called the Son, and that these first two persons\ntogether have produced the third, which is called the Holy Ghost, and,\nnevertheless, these three pretended Divine persons do not depend the one\nupon the other, and even that one is not older than the other. This,\ntoo, is manifestly absurd; because one thing can not receive its\nexistence from another thing without some dependence on this other; and\na thing must necessarily exist in order to give birth to another. If,\nthen, the Second and the Third persons of Divinity have received their\nexistence from the First person, they must necessarily depend for their\nexistence on this First person, who gave them birth, or who begot them,\nand it is necessary also that the First person of the Divinity, who gave\nbirth to the two other persons, should have existed before them; because\nthat which does not exist can not beget anything. Nevertheless, it is\nrepugnant as well as absurd to claim that anything could be begotten\nor born without having had a beginning. Now, according to our\nChrist-worshipers, the Second and Third persons of Divinity were\nbegotten and born; then they had a beginning, and the First person had\nnone, not being begotten by another; it therefore follows necessarily\nthat one existed before the other.\n\nOur Christ-worshipers, who feel these absurdities and can not avoid them\nby any good reasoning, have no other resource than to say that we must\nignore human reason and humbly adore these sublime mysteries without\nwishing to understand them; but that which they call faith is refuted\nwhen they tell us that we must submit; it is telling us that we must\nblindly believe that which we do not believe. Our Christ-worshipers\ncondemn the blindness of the ancient Pagans, who worshiped several\nGods; they deride the genealogy of those Gods, their birth, their\nmarriages, and the generating of their children; yet they do not observe\nthat they themselves say things which are much more ridiculous and\nabsurd.\n\nIf the Pagans believed that there were Goddesses as well as Gods, that\nthese Gods and Goddesses married and begat children, they thought of\nnothing, then, but what is natural; for they did not believe yet that\nthe Gods were without body or feeling; they believed they were similar\nto men. Why should there not be females as well as males? It is not more\nreasonable to deny or to recognize the one than the other; and supposing\nthere were Gods and Goddesses, why should they not beget children in the\nordinary way? There would be certainly nothing ridiculous or absurd in\nthis doctrine, if it were true that their Gods existed. But in the\ndoctrine of our Christ-worshipers there is something absolutely\nridiculous and absurd; for besides claiming that one God forms Three,\nand that these Three form but One, they pretend that this Triple and\nUnique God has neither body, form, nor face; that the First person of\nthis Triple and Unique God, whom they call the Father, begot of Himself\na Second person, which they call the Son, and which is the same as His\nFather, being, like Him, without body, form, or face. If this is true,\nwhy is it that the First one is called Father rather than mother, or the\nSecond called Son rather than daughter? For if the First one is really\nfather instead of mother, and if the Second is son instead of daughter,\nthere must be something in both of these two persons which causes the\none to be father rather than mother, and the other to be son rather than\ndaughter. Now who can assert that they are males and not females? But\nhow should they be rather males than females, as they have neither body,\nform, nor face? That is not an imaginable thing, and destroys itself. No\nmatter, they claim chat these two Persons, without body, form, or face,\nand, consequently, without difference of sex, are nevertheless Father\nand Son, and that they produced by their mutual love a third person,\nwhom they called the Holy Ghost, who has, like the other two, no body,\nno form, and no face. What abominable nonsense!\n\nAs our Christ-worshipers limit the power of God the Father to begetting\nbut one Son, why do they not desire that this Second person, and the\nThird, should have the same power to beget a Son like themselves?  If\nthis power to beget a son is perfection in the First person, it is,\nthen, a perfection and a power which does not exist in the Second and in\nthe Third person. Thus these two Persons, lacking a perfection and a\npower which is found in the First one, they are consequently not equal\nwith Him. If, on the contrary, they say that this power to beget a son\nis no perfection, they should not attribute it, then, to the First\nperson any more than to the other two; for we should attribute\nperfections only to an absolutely perfect being. Besides, they would not\ndare to say that the power to beget a Divine person is not a perfection;\nand if they claim that this First person could have begotten several\nsons and daughters, but that He desired but this only Son, and that the\ntwo other persons did not desire to beget any others, we could ask them,\nfirstly, from whence they know this, for we do not see in their\npretended Holy Scriptures that any One of these Divine personages\nreveals any such assertions; how, then, can our Christ-worshipers know\nanything about it? They speak but according to their ideas and to their\nhollow imaginations. Secondly, we could not avoid saying, that if these\npretended Divine personages had the power of begetting several children,\nand did not wish to make use of it, the consequence would be that this\nDivine power was ineffectual. It would be entirely without effect in the\nThird person, who did not beget or produce any, and would be almost\nwithout effect in the two others, because they limited it. Then this\npower of begetting or producing an unlimited number of children would\nremain idle and useless; it would be inconsistent to suppose this of\nDivine Personages, One of whom had already produced a Son.\n\nOur Christ-worshipers blame and condemn the Pagans because they\nattribute Divinity to mortal men, and worship them as Gods after their\ndeath; they are right in doing this. But these Pagans did only what our\nChrist-worshipers still do in attributing Divinity to their Christ;\ndoing which, they condemn themselves also, because they are in the same\nerror as these Pagans, in that they worship a man who was mortal, and so\nvery mortal that He died shamefully upon a cross.\n\nIt would be of no use for our Christ-worshipers to say that there was a\ngreat difference between their Jesus Christ and the Pagan Gods, under\nthe pretense that their Christ was, as they claim, really God and man at\nthe same time, while the Divinity was incarnated in Him, by means of\nwhich, the Divine nature found itself united personally, as they say,\nwith human nature; these two natures would have made of Jesus Christ a\ntrue God and a true man; this is what never happened, they claim, in the\nPagan Gods.\n\nBut it is easy to show the weakness of this reply; for, on the one hand,\nwas it not as easy to the Pagans as to the Christians, to say that the\nDivinity was incarnated in the men whom they worshiped as Gods? On the\nother hand, if the Divinity wanted to incarnate and unite in the human\nnature of their Jesus Christ, how did they know that this Divinity would\nnot wish to also incarnate and unite Himself personally to the human\nnature of those great men and those admirable women, who, by their\nvirtue, by their good qualities, or by their noble actions, have\nexcelled the generality of people, and made themselves worshiped as Gods\nand Goddesses? And if our Christ-worshipers do not wish to believe that\nDivinity ever incarnated in these great personages, why do they wish to\npersuade us that He was incarnated in their Jesus? Where is the proof?\nTheir faith and their belief; but as the Pagans rely on the same proof,\nwe conclude both to be equally in error.\n\nBut what is more ridiculous in Christianity than in Paganism, is that\nthe Pagans have generally attributed Divinity but to great men, authors\nof arts and sciences, and who excelled in virtues useful to their\ncountry. But to whom do our God-Christ-worshipers attribute Divinity? To\na nobody, to a vile and contemptible man, who had neither talent,\nscience, nor ability; born of poor parents, and who, while He figured in\nthe world, passed but for a monomaniac and a seditious fool, who was\ndisdained, ridiculed, persecuted, whipped, and, finally, was hanged like\nmost of those who desired to act the same part, when they had neither\nthe courage nor skill. About that time there were several other\nimpostors who claimed to be the true promised Messiah; amongst others a\ncertain Judas, a Galilean, a Theodorus, a Barcon, and others who, under\nthis vain pretext, abused the people, and tried to excite them, in order\nto win them, but they all perished.\n\nLet us pass now to His discourses and to some of His actions, which are\nthe most singular of this kind: \"Repent,\" said He to the people, \"for\nthe kingdom of Heaven is at hand; believe these good tidings.\" And He\nwent all over Galilee preaching this pretended approach of the kingdom\nof Heaven. As no one has seen the arrival of this kingdom of Heaven, it\nis evident that it was but imaginary. But let us see other predictions,\nthe praise, and the description of this beautiful kingdom.\n\nBehold what He said to the people:\n\nThe kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in his\nfield. But while he slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the\nwheat, and went his way. Again, the kingdom of Heaven is like unto\ntreasure hidden in a field, the which, when a man has found, he hideth\nagain, and for joy thereof goes and sells all that he has, and buys that\nfield. Again, the kingdom of Heaven is like unto a merchantman seeking\ngoodly pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and\nsold all he had, and bought it. Again, the kingdom of Heaven is like\nunto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind;\nwhich, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down and gathered\nthe good into vessels, but cast the bad away. It is like a grain of\nmustard-seed, which a man took and sowed in his field which, indeed, is\nthe least of all seeds, but when it is grown it is the greatest among\nherbs, etc.\n\nIs this a language worthy of a God? We will pass the same judgment upon\nHim if we examine His actions more closely. Because, firstly, He is\nrepresented as running all over a country preaching the approach of a\npretended kingdom; Secondly, as having been transported by the Devil\nupon a high mountain, from which He believed He saw all the kingdoms of\nthe world; this could only happen to a visionist; for it is certain,\nthere is no mountain upon the earth from which He could see even one\nentire kingdom, unless it was the little kingdom of Yvetot, which is in\nFrance; thus it was only in imagination that He saw all these kingdoms,\nand was transported upon this mountain, as well as upon the pinnacle of\nthe temple. Thirdly, when He cured the deaf-mute, spoken of in St. Mark,\nit is said that He placed His fingers in the ears, spit, and touched his\ntongue, then casting His eyes up to Heaven, He sighed deeply, and said\nunto him: \"Ephphatha!\" Finally, let us read all that is related of Him,\nand we can judge whether there is anything in the world more ridiculous.\n\nHaving considered some of the silly things attributed to God by our\nChrist-worshipers, let us look a little further into their mysteries.\nThey worship one God in three persons, or three persons in one God, and\nthey attribute to themselves the power of forming Gods out of dough, and\nof making as many as they want. For, according to their principles, they\nhave only to say four words over a certain quantity of wine or over\nthese little images of paste, to make as many Gods of them as they\ndesire. What folly! With all the pretended power of their Christ, they\nwould not be able to make the smallest fly, and yet they claim the\nability to produce millions of Gods. One must be struck by a strange\nblindness to maintain such pitiable things, and that upon such vain\nfoundation as the equivocal words of a fanatic. Do not these blind\ntheologians see that it means opening a wide door to all sorts of\nidolatries, to adore these paste images under the pretext that the\npriests have the power of consecrating them and changing them into Gods?\n\nCan not the priests of the idols boast of having a similar ability?\n\nDo they not see, also, that the same reasoning which demonstrates the\nvanity of the gods or idols of wood, of stone, etc., which the Pagans\nworshiped, shows exactly the same vanity of the Gods and idols of paste\nor of flour which our Christ-worshipers adore? By what right do they\nderide the falseness of the Pagan Gods? Is it not because they are but\nthe work of human hands, mute and insensible images? And what kind of\nGods are those which we preserve in boxes for fear of the mice?\n\nWhat are these boasted resources of the Christ-worshipers? Their\nmorality? It is the same as in all religions, but their cruel dogmas\nproduced and taught persecution and trouble. Their miracles? But what\npeople has not its own, and what wise men do not disdain these fables?\nTheir prophecies? Have we not shown their falsity? Their morals? Are\nthey not often infamous? The establishment of their religion? but did\nnot fanaticism begin, and has not intrigue visibly sustained this\nedifice? The doctrine? but is it not the height of absurdity?\n\nEnd Of The Abstract By Voltaire.\n\n\n\n\nPUBLISHER'S PREFACE.\n\nBy translating into both the English and German languages Le Bon Sens,\ncontaining the Last Will and Testament of the French curate JEAN\nMESLIER, Miss Anna Knoop has performed a most useful and meritorious\ntask, and in issuing a new edition of this work, it is but justice to\nher memory [Miss Knoop died Jan. 11, 1889.] to state that her\ntranslation has received the endorsement of our most competent critics.\n\nIn a letter dated Newburyport, Mass., Sep. 23, 1878, Mr. James Parton,\nthe celebrated author, commends Miss Knoop for \"translating Meslier's\nbook so well,\" and says that:\n\n\"This work of the honest pastor is the most curious and the most\npowerful thing of the kind which the last century produced. . . . .\nPaine and Voltaire had reserves, but Jean Meslier had none. He keeps\nnothing back; and yet, after all, the wonder is not that there should\nhave been one priest who left that testimony at his death, but that all\npriests do not. True, there is a great deal more to be said about\nreligion, which I believe to be an eternal necessity of human nature,\nbut no man has uttered the negative side of the matter with so much\ncandor and completeness as Jean Meslier.\"\n\nThe value of the testimony of a catholic priest, who in his last moments\nrecanted the errors of his faith and asked God's pardon for having\ntaught the catholic religion, was fully appreciated by Voltaire, who\nhighly commended this grand work of Meslier. He voluntarily made every\neffort to increase its circulation, and even complained to D' Alembert\n\"that there were not as many copies in all Paris as he himself had\ndispersed throughout the mountains of Switzerland.\" [See Letter 504,\nVoltaire to D'Alembert] He earnestly entreats his associates to print\nand distribute in Paris an edition of at least four or five thousand\ncopies, and at the suggestion of D'Alembert, made an abstract or\nabridgment of The Testament \"so small as to cost no more than five\npence, and thus to be fitted for the pocket and reading of every\nworkman.\" [Letter 146, from D'Alembert.]\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 Barruel claims in his Memoirs [See History of Jacobinism by the\nAbb\u00e9 Barruel, 4 vols. 8 VO, translated by the Hon. Robert Clifford, F.\nR. S., and printed in London in 1798. The learned Abb\u00e9 defines\nJacobinism as \"the error of every man who, judging of all things by the\nstandard of his own reason, rejects in religious matters every authority\nthat is not derived from the light of nature. It is the error of every\nman who denies the possibility of any mystery beyond the limits of his\nreason, of every one who, discarding revelation in defence of the\npretended rights of Reason, Equality, and Liberty, seeks to subvert the\nwhole fabric of the Christian religion.\" B. 4.] to detect in the\nwritings of Voltaire and of the leading Encyclopedists, a conspiracy not\nonly against the Altar but also against the Throne. He severely\ndenounces the \"Last Will of Jean Meslier,--that famous Curate of\nEtrepigni,--whose  apostasy and blasphemies made so strong an impression\non the minds of the populace,\" and he styles the plan of D'Alembert for\ncirculating a few thousand copies of the Abstract of the Will, as a \"base\nproject against the doctrines of the Gospel.\" [Ibid, page 145] He even\nasserts his belief that:\n\n\"The Jacobins will one day declare that all men are free, that all men\nare equal; and as a consequence of this Equality and Liberty they will\nconclude that every man must be left to the light of reason. That every\nreligion subjecting man's reason to mysteries, or to the authority of\nany revelation speaking in God's name, is a religion of constraint and\nslavery; that as such it should be annihilated in order to reestablish\nthe indefeasible rights of Equality and Liberty as to the belief or\ndisbelief of all that the reason of man approves or disapproves: and\nthey will call this Equality and Liberty the reign of Reason and the\nempire of Philosophy.\" [History of Jacobinism, page 51.]\n\nThe results which the Abb\u00e9 Barruel so clearly foresaw have at length\nbeen realized. The labors of the Jacobins have not been in vain, and the\nRevolution they incited has restored France to the government of the\npeople!\n\n\"With ardent hope for the future,\" says President Carnot in his\ncentennial address, May 5, 1889, \"I greet in the palace of the monarchy\nthe representatives of a nation that is now in complete possession of\nherself, that is mistress of her destinies, and that is in the full\nsplendor and strength of liberty. The first thoughts on this solemn\nmeeting turn to our fathers. The immortal generation  of 1789, by dint\nof courage and many sacrifices, secured for us benefits which we must\nbequeath to our sons as a most precious inheritance. Never can our\ngratitude equal the grandeur of the services rendered by our fathers to\nFrance and to the human race. . . . The Revolution was based upon the\nrights of man. It created a new era in history and founded modern\nsociety.\"\n\nThis is literally true. The freethinkers of France have taught mankind\nthe doctrines of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. They have taught the\ndignity of human reason, and the sacredness of human rights. They have\nbroken the bondage of the altar, and severed the shackles of the throne;\nand it is to be regretted that at the centennial celebration held in\nthis city on April 30th, 1889, the appointed orator [See the Centennial\nAddress of the Hon. Chauncey M. Depew.] did not realize the grandeur of\nthe occasion, and did not, like Carnot, pay a just tribute to our\nallies, the reformers of Europe, as well as to the fathers of the\nrepublic. But the people of America will remember what the politician\nhas forgotten. They will remember the names and deeds of their foreign\nbenefactors as well as of the American patriots of '76. When they recall\nthe illustrious Europeans who fought for our liberties they will\nremember the name of Lafayette; when they think of the Declaration of\nIndependence they will not forget the name of Thomas Jefferson; and when\nthey speak of \"the times that tried men's souls\" they will recall with\ngratitude the name of Thomas Paine.\n\nAlthough the ecclesiastical conclave at Rome claims the power of working\nmiracles in defiance of Nature's laws, yet with or without miracles,\nthey have never answered the simple arguments advanced by Jean Meslier;\nalthough they claim to hold the keys of Paradise, and bind on earth the\nsouls that are to be bound in heaven, yet year by year their waning\npower refutes their senseless boast; although they boldly assert the\ndogma of popish infallibility, yet the loss of the temporal power once\nwielded by Rome, and the death of each succeeding pontiff, attest both\nthe Pope's fallibility and the Pope's mortality. Indeed, the successor\nof St. Peter is but human--the sacred college at Rome is but mortal; and\nfaith and dogma cannot forever resist the influence of light and\nknowledge. The power of Catholicism is surely declining throughout\nEurope; and if it has become aggressive in our American cities, is it\nnot because the friends of freedom have forgotten the well-known axiom\nthat \"eternal vigilance is the price of liberty\"?\n\nPETER ECKLER.\n\nNew York, May 21, 1889.\n\n\n\n\nPREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR\n\nSome years ago a copy of John Meslier fell into my hands. I was struck\nwith the simple truthfulness of his arguments, and the thought never\nleft me of the happy change that would be produced all over the world\nwhen the religious prejudices should be dispelled, and when all the\ndifferent nations and sects would unite and lend each other a friendly\nhand.\n\nSince I had the opportunity of hearing the speeches and lectures of\nliberal men, it has seemed to me that the time has come for this work of\nJohn Meslier to be appreciated, and I concluded to translate it into the\nlanguage of my adopted country, presuming that many would be happy to\nstudy it.\n\nIn this faith I offer it now to the public, and I hope that the name of\nJohn Meslier will be honored as one of the greatest benefactors of\nhumanity.\n\nANNA KNOOP.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE OF THE EDITOR OF THE FRENCH EDITION OF 1830.\n\nIt is said that truth is generally revealed by dying lips. When men full\nof health and enjoying all the pleasures of life, exert themselves\nwithout ceasing, to excite minds and to take advantage of their\nfanaticism by wearing the mask of religion, it will not be without\ninterest or importance to know what other men, invested with the same\nministry, have taught under the impulse of a conscience quickened by the\napproach of the final hour. Their confessions are more valuable because\nthey carry with them the spirit of contrition. It is then that the\ntruth, which is no longer obscured by narrow passions and sordid\ninterests, presents itself in all its brilliancy, and imposes upon him\nwho has kept it hidden during his life, the duty, and even the\nnecessity, of unveiling it fully at his death. It is then that human\nspeech, losing in a measure its terrestrial nature, becomes persuasive\nand convincing.\n\nWe know this fact of a celebrated preacher who in the beginning of the\nRevolution stood in the same pulpit which we are pleased to call the\npulpit of truth, and with his hand upon his heart declared that till\nthen he had taught only falsehood. He did more; he implored his\nparishioners to forgive him for the gross errors in which he had kept\nthem, and congratulated them upon having at last arrived at a period\nwhen it was permitted to establish the empire of reason upon the ruins\nof prejudice. Times have changed very much, it is true; however, so long\nas the press shall be able to combat the fatal errors of religious\nfanaticism, and perhaps even to some extent prevent its violence, it\nwill be the duty of every friend of humanity to reproduce continually\nthe full retractions which opposed the sincerity and conscience of the\ndying to the bad faith and hypocritical avidity of the living. Guided by\nthis intention, and ashamed to see the human race, in a land just freed\nfrom the yoke of prejudice, give birth to a disgraceful juggling which\nwill terminate in dominating authority, and associate itself with the\npersecutions of which our incredulous or dissenting ancestors were the\nsad victims, we believe it useful to reprint the last lessons of a\npriest--an honest man--bequeathed to his fellow-citizens and to posterity.\nThe service we render to Philosophy will be so much the greater when we\ncan consider as immutable, perpetual, permanent, and ready to appear in\nthe hour of need, the edition which we are preparing of \"COMMON SENSE,\nBY THE PRIEST JEAN MESLIER, AND HIS DYING CONFESSION.\"\n\nTo do justice to these two works, to which we have added analytical\nnotes, which will greatly facilitate our researches, we will limit\nourselves by giving the imposing approbation of two philosophers of the\neighteenth century--Voltaire and d'Alembert. They certainly understood\nmuch better the sublimity of evangelical morality, and spoke of it in a\nmanner more worthy of its author, than did those who deified it to\nprofit by its divinity, and who abused so cruelly the ignorance and\nbarbarity of the first centuries, to establish, in the interest of their\nfortunes and power, so many base prejudices, so many puerile and\nsuperstitious practices.\n\nHere is what Voltaire and d'Alembert thought of the curate Meslier and\nof his work. Their letters are presented here in order to excite\ncuriosity and convince the judgment:\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO D'ALEMBERT.\n\nFERNEY, February, 1762.\n\nThey have printed in Holland the Testament of Jean Meslier. I trembled\nwith horror in reading it. The testimony of a priest, who, in dying,\nasks God's pardon for having taught Christianity, must be a great weight\nin the balance of Liberals. I will send you a copy of this Testament of\nthe anti-Christ, because you desire to refute it. You have but to tell\nme by what manner it will reach you. It is written with great\nsimplicity, which unfortunately resembles candor.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO THE SAME.\n\nFERNEY, February 25, 1762.\n\nMeslier also has the wisdom of the serpent. He sets an example for you;\nthe good grain was hidden in the chaff of his book. A good Swiss has\nmade a faithful abstract and this abstract can do a great deal of good.\nWhat an answer to the insolent fanatics who treat philosophers like\nlibertines. What an answer to you, wretches that you are, this testimony\nof a priest, who asks God's pardon for having been a Christian!\n\n\nD'ALEMBERT'S ANSWER.\n\nPARIS, March 31, 1762.\n\nA misunderstanding has been the cause, my dear philosopher, that I\nreceived but a few days since the work of Jean Meslier, which you had\nsent almost a month ago. I waited till I received it to write to you. It\nseems to me that we could inscribe upon the tombstone of this curate:\n\"Here lies a very honest priest, curate of a village in Champagne, who,\nin dying, asks God's pardon for having been a Christian, and who has\nproved by this, that ninety-nine sheep and one native of Champagne do\nnot make a hundred beasts.\" I suspect that the abstract of his work is\nwritten by a Swiss, who understands French very well, though he affects\nto speak it badly. This is neat, earnest, and concise, and I bless the\nauthor of the abstract, whoever he may be. \"It is of the Lord to\ncultivate the vine.\" After all, my dear philosopher, a little longer,\nand I do not know whether all these books will be necessary, and whether\nman will not have enough sense to comprehend by himself that three do\nnot make one, and that bread is not God. The enemies of reason are\nplaying a very foolish part at this moment, and I believe that we can\nsay as in the song:\n\n\"To destroy all these people\nYou should let them alone.\"\n\nI do not know what will become of the religion of Christ, but its\nprofessors are in false garb. What Pascal, Nicole, and Arnaud could not\ndo, there is an appearance that three or four absurd and ignorant\nfanatics will accomplish. The nation will give this vigorous blow\nwithin, while she is doing so little outside, and we will put in the\nabbreviated chronological pages of the year 1762: \"This year France lost\nall its colonies and expelled the Jesuits.\" I know nothing but powder,\nwhich with so little apparent force, could produce such great results.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO D'ALEMBERT.\n\nDELICES, July 12, 1762.\n\nIt appears to me that the Testament of Jean Meslier has a great effect;\nall those who read it are convinced; this man discusses and proves. He\nspeaks in the moment of death, at the moment when even liars tell the\ntruth fully. This is the strongest of all arguments. Jean Meslier is to\nconvert the world. Why is his gospel in so few hands? How lukewarm you\nare at Paris! You hide your light under a bushel!\n\n\nD'ALEMBERT'S ANSWER.\n\nPARIS, July 31, 1762.\n\nYou reproach us with lukewarmness, but I believe I have told you already\nthat the fear of the fagot is very cooling. You would like us to print\nthe Testament of Jean Meslier and distribute four or five thousand\ncopies. The infamous fanaticism, for infamous it is, would lose little\nor nothing, and we should be treated as fools by those whom we would\nhave converted. Man is so little enlightened to-day only because we had\nthe precaution or the good fortune to enlighten him little by little. If\nthe sun should appear all of a sudden in a cave, the inhabitants would\nperceive only the harm it would do their eyes. The excess of light would\nresult only in blinding them.\n\n\nD'ALEMBERT TO VOLTAIRE.\n\nPARIS, July 9, 1764.\n\nApropos, they have lent me that work attributed to St. Evremont, and\nwhich is said to be by Dumarsais, of which you spoke to me some time\nago; it is good, but the Testament of Meslier is still better!\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO D'ALEMBERT.\n\nFERNEY, July 16, 1764.\n\nThe Testament of Meslier ought to be in the pocket of all honest men; a\ngood priest, full of candor, who asks God's pardon for deceiving\nhimself, must enlighten those who deceive themselves.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO THE COUNT D'ARGENTAL.\n\nAUX DELICES, February 6, 1762.\n\nBut no little bird told me of the infernal book of that curate, Jean\nMeslier; a very important work to the angels of darkness. An excellent\ncatechism for Beelzebub. Know that this book is very rare; it is a\ntreasure!\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO THE SAME.\n\nAUX DEUCES, May 31, 1762.\n\nIt is just that I should send you a copy of the second edition of\nMeslier. In the first edition they forgot the preface, which is very\nstrange. You have wise friends who would not be sorry to have this book\nin their secret cabinet. It is excellent to form youthful minds. The\nbook, which was sold in manuscript form for eight Louis-d'or, is\nillegible. This little abstract is very edifying. Let us thank the good\nsouls who give it gratuitously, and let us pray God to extend His\nbenedictions upon this useful reading.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO D'AMILAVILLE.\n\nAUX DEUCES, February 8, 1762.\n\nMy brother shall have a Meslier soon as I shall have received the order;\nit would seem that my brother has not the facts. Fifteen to twenty years\nago the manuscript of this work sold for eight Louis-d'or; it was a very\nlarge quarto. There are more than a hundred copies in Paris. Brother\nThiriot understands the facts. It is not known who made the abstract,\nbut it is taken wholly, word for word, from the original. There are\nstill many persons who have seen the curate Meslier. It would be very\nuseful to make a new edition of this little work in Paris; it can be\ndone easily in three or four days.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO THE SAME.\n\nFERNEY, December 6, 1762.\n\nBut I believe there will never be another impression of the little book\nof Meslier. Think of the weight of the testimony of one dying, of a\npriest, of a good man.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO THE SAME.\n\nFERNEY, July 6, 1764.\n\nThree hundred Mesliers distributed in a province have caused many\nconversions. Ah, if I was assisted!\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO THE SAME.\n\nFERNEY, September 29, 1764.\n\nThere are too few Mesliers and too many swindlers.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO THE SAME.\n\nAUX DELICES, October 8, 1764.\n\nNames injure the cause; they awaken prejudice. Only the name of Jean\nMeslier can do good, because the repentance of a good priest in the hour\nof death must make a great impression. This Meslier should be in the\nhands of all the world.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO MADAM DE FLORIAN.\n\nAUX DELICES, May 20, 1762.\n\nMy dear niece, it is very sad to be so far from you. Read and read again\nJean Meslier; he is a good curate.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO THE MARQUIS D'ARGENCE.\n\nMarch 2, 1763.\n\nI have found a Testament of Jean Meslier, which I send you. The\nsimplicity of this man, the purity of his manners, the pardon which he\nasks of God, and the authenticity of his book, must produce a great\neffect. I will send you as many copies as you want of the Testament of\nthis good curate.\n\n\nVOLTAIRE TO HELVETIUS.\n\nAUX DEUCES, May 1, 1763.\n\nThey have sent me the two abstracts of Jean Meslier. It is true that it\nis written in the style of a carriage-horse, but it is well suited to\nthe street. And what testimony! that of a priest who asks pardon in\ndying, for having taught absurd and horrible things! What an answer to\nthe platitudes of fanatics who have the audacity to assert that\nphilosophy is but the fruit of libertinage!","title":"Superstition in all ages","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":82903}