{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_40770/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_40770","id":"gutenberg_40770","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40770","summary":null,"tags":["Atheism","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Free thought"],"text":"CHRISTIANITY UNVEILED\n\nBeing An Examination of The Principles And Effects of The Christian\nReligion\n\nBy Nicolas-Antoine Boulanger\n\nTranslated From The French By W. M. Johnson.\n\n  \"Slave to no Sect, who takes no private read,\n  But looks through Nature up to Nature's God;\n\n  \"And knows where faith, law, morals, all began,\n  All end in love of God, and love of Man.\"\n\nPope\n\n\nLondon\n\nPrinted & Published By R. Carlile, 56, Fleet Street.\n\n1819\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.\n\nIn this philosophic age, when nature, reason, and the rights of man have\nresumed their empire; when the genius of a great, generous, and brave\npeople is giving the last blow to superstition and despotism, the\npublication of a work which has greatly contributed to these glorious\nevents, must be highly acceptable, not only to the literary world, but\neven to the community at large, who eagerly seek after instruction, the\nmoment they believe it necessary for their happiness.\n\nThis publication bears a conspicuous rank among those works whose free\nand independent sentiments have introduced a happy change in the public\nmind, and concurred with the writings of Rousseau, Mably, Raynal, and\nVoltaire, in bringing forward the French Revolution: a revolution which\nwill probably prove the harbinger of the complete triumph of reason.\nPersecutions and wars will then cease for ever throughout the civilized\nworld.\n\nIn offering this translation to the public, I pay a tribute that every\nmember of society owes to his fellow-citizens, that of endeavouring to\nacquaint them with their true rights and duties, and, consequently, the\nmeans most conducive to their happiness.\n\nNew York, 1804.\n\n\n\n\nLETTER FROM THE AUTHOR TO A FRIEND.\n\nI receive, Sir, with gratitude, the remarks which you send me upon my\nwork. If I am sensible to the praises you condescend to give it, I am\ntoo fond of truth to be displeased with the frankness with which you\npropose your objections. I find them sufficiently weighty to merit all\nmy attention. He but ill deserves the title of philosopher, who has not\nthe courage to hear his opinions contradicted. We are not divines; our\ndisputes are of a nature to terminate amicably; they in no way resemble\nthose of the apostles of superstition, who endeavour to overreach each\nother by captious arguments, and who, at the expence of good faith,\ncontend only to advocate the cause of their vanity and their prejudices.\nWe both desire the happiness of mankind, we both search after truth;\nthis being the case, we cannot disagree.\n\nYou begin by admitting the necessity of examining religion, and\nsubmitting opinions to the decision of reason. You acknowledge that\nChristianity cannot sustain this trial, and that in the eye of good\nsense it can never appear to be any thing but a tissue of absurdities,\nof unconnected fables, senseless dogmas, puerile ceremonies, and notions\nborrowed from the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Phenicians, Grecians, and\nRomans. In one word, you confess that this religious system is only,\nthe deformed offspring of almost all ancient superstitions, begotten\nby oriental fanaticism, and diversely modified by the circumstances\nand prejudices of those who have since pretended to be the inspired\nambassadors of God, and the interpreters of his will.\n\nYou tremble at the horrors which the intolerant spirit of Christians has\ncaused them to commit, whenever they had power to do it; you feel that a\nreligion founded on a sanguinary deity must be a religion of blood. You\nlament that phrenzy, which in infancy takes possession of princes and\npeople, and renders them equally the slaves of superstition and her\npriests; which prevents their acquaintance with their true interests,\nrenders them deaf to reason, and turns them aside from the great objects\nby which they ought to be occupied. You confess that a religion founded\nupon enthusiasm or imposture can have no sure principles; that it must\nprove an eternal source of disputes, and always end in causing troubles,\npersecutions, and ravages; especially when political power conceives\nitself indispensibly obliged to enter into its quarrels. In fine, you\ngo so far as to agree that a good Christian who follows literally the\nconduct prescribed to him as the most perfect by the gospel, knows\nnot in this world any thing of those duties on which true morality\nis founded; and that if he wants energy he must prove an useless\nmisanthrope, or if his temper be warm a turbulent fanatic.\n\nAfter acknowledging all this, how could it happen that you should\npronounce my work a dangerous one! You tell me that a-wise man ought to\nthink only for himself; that to the populace a religion is necessary, be\nit good or bad; that it is a restraint necessary to gross and ignorant\nminds, which, without it, would have no longer any motive for abstaining\nfrom vice. You look upon a reform of religious prejudices as impossible,\nbecause it is the interest of many of those persons who alone can effect\nit, to continue mankind in that ignorance of which themselves reap\nthe advantage. These, if I mistake not, are the weightiest of your\nobjections. I will endeavour to remove them.\n\nBooks are generally written for that part of a nation whose\ncircumstances, education, and sentiments, place them above the\ncommission of crimes. This enlightened portion of society, which governs\nthe other, reads and judges of writings; if they contain maxims false\nor injurious, they are soon either condemned to oblivion, or held up to\npublic execration; if they contain only truth, they are not in danger.\nFanatics and ignorant people are the disturbers of society. Sensible,\nenlightened, and disinterested persons are ever the friends of peace.\n\nYou are not, Sir, of the number of pusillanimous thinkers, who believe\nthat truth is capable of doing harm. It does harm to those only who\ndeceive mankind, and to the rest of the human species it will always be\nuseful. You ought long to have been convinced that the evils with which\nmankind are afflicted, arise only from our errors, our prejudices, our\ninterests misunderstood, and the false ideas we attach to objects.\n\nIn fine, it is easy to see that the policy and morality of man have\nbeen particularly corrupted by their religious prejudices. Was it not\nreligious and supernatural ideas which caused sovereigns to be looked\nupon as gods? It is then religion which raised up tyrants and despots;\ntyrants and despots made wicked laws; their example corrupted the great,\nthe great corrupted the lower classes of mankind; these vitiated\nbeings became unhappy slaves, employed either in injuring themselves,\nflattering the great, or struggling to get clear of their misery. Kings\nwere styled images of God: they were absolute like him they created\njustice and injustice; their wills often sanctified oppression,\nviolence, and rapine. The means of obtaining their favours were vice and\nmeanness. Thus nations became filled with perverted citizens, who, under\nleaders corrupted by religious notions, made continually a war,\neither open or clandestine, and were left destitute of any motive for\npractising virtue.\n\nHas this religion influenced the manners of sovereigns, who derive their\ndivine power from it? Do we not behold princes, overflowing with faith,\ncontinually undertaking the most unjust wars; wasting the blood and\ntreasure of their subjects; wrenching the bread from the hands of the\npoor; permitting and even commanding every species of injustice? Does\nthis religion, considered by so many sovereigns as the support of their\nthrones, render them more humane, temperate, chaste, or faithful to\ntheir oaths? Alas! when we consult history, we there find sovereigns who\nwere orthodox, zealous, and religious to a scruple, and at the same time\nguilty of perjury, usurpation, adultery, robbery, and murder; men who,\nin fine, behaved as if they feared not the God whom they honoured\nwith their mouths. Among the courtiers who surrounded them, we see a\ncontinual alliance of Christianity and vice, devotion and iniquity,\nreligion and treason. Among the priests of a poor and crucified God, who\nfound their existence upon religion, and pretend that without it there\ncould be no morality, do we not see reigning amongst them, pride,\navarice, wantonness, and revenge?\n\nAmongst us, education is very little attended to by the government,\nwhich shews the most profound indifference concerning an object the most\nessential to the happiness of states. With most modern nations public\neducation is confined to teaching of languages, useless to most who\nlearn them. Christians, instead of morality, inculcate the marvellous\nfables and incomprehensible dogmas of a religion extremely repugnant to\nright reason. At the first step a young man makes in his studies, he is\ntaught that he ought to renounce the testimony of his senses, to reject\nhis reason as an unfaithful guide, and blindly conform himself to the\ndictates of his masters? But who are these masters? Priests, whose\ninterest it is to continue mankind in errors, of which they alone reap\nthe advantage. Can the abject and isolated mind of these mercenary\npedagogues be capable of instructing their pupils in that of which\nthemselves are ignorant? Will they teach then to love the public good,\nto serve their country, to know the duties of the man and citizen?\nCertainly not; we can expect nothing from the hands of such teachers\nbut ignorant and superstitious pupils, who, if they have profited of the\nlessons they have received, are unacquainted with every thing necessary\nin society, of which they must consequently become useless members.\n\nOn whatever side we cast our eyes, we see the study of the object most\nimportant to man totally neglected. Morality, in which I also comprehend\npolicy, is considered of very little importance in European education.\nThe only morality taught by Christians is, the enthusiastic,\nimpracticable, contradictory, and uncertain morality contained in the\ngospel. This is calculated only to degrade the mind, to render virtue\nodious, to form abject slaves, and break the spring of the soul; or,\nif it is sown in warm and active minds, to produce turbulent fanatics,\ncapable of shaking the foundations of society.\n\nNotwithstanding the inutility and perversity of the morality which\nChristianity teaches mankind, its partisans presume to tell us, that\nwithout this religion we cannot have morals. But what is it to have\nmorals, in; the language of Christians? It is to pray without ceasing,\nto frequent churches, to do penance, and to: abstain from pleasure; it\nis to live in selfishness and solitude. What good results to society\nfrom these practices, all of which may be observed by a man who has\nnot the shadow of virtue? If such morals lead to heaven, they are\nvery useless on earth. But certain it is, that a man may be a faithful\nobserver of all that Christianity enjoins, without possessing any of the\nvirtues which reason shews to be necessary to the support of political\nsociety.\n\nIt is necessary, then, to carefully distinguish Christian morality from\npolitical morality; the former makes saints, the latter citizens: one\nmakes men useless, or even hurtful to the world; the other has for\nits object the formation of members useful to society; men active\nand vigorous, who are capable of serving it, who fulfil the duties\nof husbands, fathers, friends, and companions, whatever may be their\nmetaphysical opinions, which, let theologists say what they will, are\nmuch less sure than the invariable rules of good sense.\n\nIn fact, it is certain, that man is a social being, who in all things\nseeks his own happiness; that he does good when he finds it his\ninterest; that he is not commonly bad, because that would be contrary\nto his welfare. This being premised, let education teach men to know\nthe relations which exist among themselves, and the duties arising from\nthose relations; let governments, calling to their aid laws, rewards,\nand punishments, confirm the lessons given by education; let happiness\naccompany useful and virtuous actions, let shame, contempt, and\nchastisement be the rewards of vice. Then would mankind have a true\nmorality, founded in their own nature upon their mutual wants, and the\ninterest of nations at large. This morality, independent of the sublime\nnotions of Theology, might perhaps have very little in common\nwith Christian morality; but society has nothing to lose from this\ncircumstance, as has already been proved.\n\nWhen the people receive a proper education, which, by inspiring them\nearly in life with virtuous principles, will habituate them to do homage\nto virtue, detest crimes, contemn vice, and shrink from infamy; such\nan education cannot be vain, when continual example shall prove to\nthe citizens that talents and virtue are the only means of arriving at\nhonour, fortune, distinction, consideration, and favour; and that vice\nconducts only to contempt and ignominy.\n\nIf the clergy have usurped from the sovereign power the right of\ninstructing the people, let the latter re-assume its rights, or at least\nnot suffer the former to enjoy the exclusive liberty of governing the\nmanners of mankind, and dictating their morality. Let them teach, if\nthey please, that their God transforms himself into bread, but let them\nnever teach that we ought to hate or destroy those who refuse to believe\nthis ineffable mystery. Let no individual in society have the power of\nexciting citizens to rebellion, of sowing discord, breaking the bands\nwhich unite the people amongst one another, and disturbing the\npublic tranquillity for the sake of opinions. If it be said that all\ngovernments think it their interest to support religious prejudices,\nand manage the clergy through policy, although they themselves\nare undeceived; I answer, that it is easy to convince enlightened\ngovernment, that it is their true interest to govern a happy people;\nthat upon the happiness it procures the nation, depends the stability\nand safety of the government; in one word, that a nation composed of\nwise and virtuous citizens, are much more powerful than a troop of\nignorant and corrupted slaves, whom the government is forced to deceive\nin order to satisfy, and to deluge with impositions that it may succeed\nin any enterprise.\n\nThus let us not despair, that truth will one day force its way even to\nthrones. If the light of reason and science reaches princes with so much\ndifficulty, it is because interested priests and starveling courtiers\nendeavour, to keep them in a perpetual infancy, point out to them\nchimerical prospects of power and grandeur, and thus turn away their\nattention from objects necessary to their true happiness.\n\nEvery government must feel that their power will always be tottering\nand precarious, so long as it depends for support on the phantoms of\nreligion, the errors of the people, and the caprices of the priesthood.\nIt must feel the inconveniencies resulting from fanatic administrations,\nwhich have hitherto produced nothing but ignorance and presumption,\nnothing but obstinate, weak citizens, incapable of doing service to-the\nstate, and ready to receive the false impressions of guides who would\nlead them astray.. It must perceive what immense resources might be\nderived from the wealth, which has been accumulated by a body of useless\nmen, who, under pretensions of teaching the nation, cheat and devour\nit.1 Upon this foundation (which to the shame of mankind be it said,\nhas hitherto served only to support sacerdotal pride) a wise government\nmight raise establishments which would become useful to the state in\nforming the youth, cherishing talents, rewarding virtuous services, and\ncomforting the people.\n\nI flatter myself, Sir, that these reflections will exculpate me in your\neyes. I do not hope for the suffrages of those who feel themselves,\ninterested in the continuance of the evils suffered by their\nfellow-citizens; it is not such whom I aim to convince nothing can be\nmade to appear evident to vicious and unreasonable men. But I presume\nto hope, that you will cease to look upon my book as dangerous, and my\nexpectations as altogether chimerical. Many immoral men have attacked\nthe Christian religion, because it opposed their propensities; many wise\nmen: have despised it, because to them it appeared, ridiculous; many\npersons have looked upon it with indifference, because they did not feel\nits real inconveniencies. I attack it as a citizen, because it appears\nto me to be injurious to the welfare of the state, an enemy to the\nprogress, of the human, mind, and opposed to the principles of true\nmorality, from which political interests can never be separated. It\nremains only for me to say, with a poet, who was, like myself, an enemy,\nto superstition:\n\n  .........Si tibi vera videtur\n     Dede menus, et si falsa est, accingere contra.\n\nI am, &c.\n\n     1 Some have thought that the clergy might one day serve as a\n     barrier against despotism, but experience sufficiently\n     proves that this body always stipulates for itself alone.\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY UNVEILED\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. I.--INTRODUCTION.\n\nOF THE NECESSITY OF AN INQUIRY RESPECTING RELIGION, AND THE OBSTACLES\nWHICH ARE MET IN PURSUING THIS INQUIRY.\n\n\nA reasonable being ought in all his actions to aim at his own happiness\nand that of his fellow-creatures. Religion, which is held up as an\nobject most important to our temporal and eternal felicity, can be\nadvantageous to us only so far as it renders our existence happy in this\nworld, or as we are assured that it will fulfil the flattering promises\nwhich it makes us respecting another. Our duty towards God, whom we look\nupon as the ruler of our destinies, can be founded, it is said, only\non the evils which we fear on his part. It is then necessary that man\nshould examine the grounds of his fears. He ought, for this purpose, to\nconsult experience and reason, which are the only guides to truth. By\nthe benefits which he derives from religion in the visible world which\nhe inhabits, he may judge of the reality of those blessings for which it\nleads him to hope in that invisible world, to which it commands him to\nturn his views.\n\nMankind, for the most part, hold to their religion through habit. They\nhave never seriously examined the reasons why they are attached to it,\nthe motives of their conduct, or the foundations of their opinions.\nThus, what has ever been considered as most important to all, has been\nof all things least subjected to scrutiny. Men blindly follow on in the\npaths which their fathers trod; they believe, because in infancy they\nwere told they must believe; they hope, because their progenitors hoped;\nand they tremble, because they trembled. Scarcely ever have they deigned\nto render an account of the motives of their belief. Very few men\nhave leisure to examine, or fortitude to analyse, the objects of their\nhabitual veneration, their blind attachment, or their traditional\nfears. Nations are carried away in the torrent of habit, example, and\nprejudice. Education habituates the mind to opinions the most monstrous,\nas it accustoms the body to attitudes the most uneasy. All that has long\nexisted appears sacred to the eyes of man; they think it sacrilege\nto examine things stamped with the seal of antiquity. Prepossessed in\nfavour of the wisdom of their fathers, they have not the presumption to\ninvestigate what has received their sanction. They see not that man has\never been the dupe of his prejudices, his hopes, and his fears; and\nthat the same reasons have almost al ways rendered this enquiry equally\nimpracticable.\n\nThe vulgar, busied in the labours necessary to their subsistence, place\na blind confidence in those who pretend to guide them, give up to\nthem the right of thinking, and submit without murmuring to all they\nprescribe. They believe they shall offend God, if they doubt, for a\nmoment, the veracity of those who speak to them in his name. The great,\nthe rich, the men of the world, even when they are more enlightened\nthan the vulgar, have found it their interest to conform to received\nprejudices, and even to maintain them; or, swallowed up in dissipation,\npleasure, and effeminacy, they have no time to bestow on a religion,\nwhich they easily accommodate to their passions, propensities, and\nfondness for amusement. In childhood, we receive all the impressions\nothers wish to make upon us; we have neither the capacity, experience,\nor courage, necessary to examine what is taught us by those, on whom our\nweakness renders us dependent. In youth, the ardour of our passions, and\nthe continual ebriety of our senses, prevent our thinking seriously of\na religion, too austere and gloomy to please; if by chance a young man\nexamines it, he does it with partiality, or without perseverance; he\nis often disgusted with a single glance of the eye on an object so\ndisgusting. In riper age, new passions and cares, ideas of ambition,\ngreatness, power, the desire of riches, and the hurry of business,\nabsorb the whole attention of man, or leave him but few moments to think\nof religion, which he never has the leisure to scrutinize. In old age,\nthe faculties are blunted, habits become incorporated with the machine,\nand the senses are debilitated by time and infirmity; and we are no\nlonger able to penetrate back to the source of our opinions; besides,\nthe fear of death then renders an examination, over which terror\ncommonly presides, very liable to suspicion.\n\nThus, religious opinions, once received, maintain their ground, through\na long succession of ages; thus nations transmit from generation to\ngeneration ideas which they have never examined: they imagine their\nwelfare to be attached to institutions in which, were the truth known,\nthey would behold the source of the greater part of their misfortunes.\nCivil authority also flies to the support of the prejudices of mankind,\ncompels them to ignorance by forbidding inquiry, and holds itself in\ncontinual readiness to punish all who attempt to undeceive themselves.\n\nLet us not be surprised, then, if we see error almost inextricably\ninterwoven with human nature. All things seem to concur to perpetuate\nour blindness, and hide the truth from us. Tyrants detest and oppress\ntruth, because it dares to dispute their unjust and, chimerical\ntitles; it is opposed by the priesthood because it annihilates their\nsuperstitions. Ignorance, indolence, and passion render the great part\nof mankind accomplices of those who strive to deceive them, in order to\nkeep their necks beneath the yoke, and profit by their miseries. Hence\nnations groan under hereditary evils, thoughtless of a remedy; being\neither ignorant of the cause, or so long accustomed to disease, that\nthey have lost even the desire of health.\n\nIf religion be the object most important to mankind, if it extends its\ninfluences not only over our conduct in this life, but also over\nour eternal happiness, nothing can demand from us a more serious\nexamination. Yet it is of all things, that, respecting which, mankind\nexercise the most implicit credulity. The same man, who examines\nwith scrupulous nicety things of little moment to his welfare, wholly\nneglects inquiry concerning the motives which determine him to believe\nand perform things, on which, according to his own confession, depend\nboth his temporal and eternal felicity. He blindly abandons himself to\nthose whom chance has given him for guides; he confides to them the care\nof thinking for him, and even makes a merit of his own indolence and\ncredulity. In matters of religion, infancy and barbarity seem to be the\nboast of the greater part of the human race.\n\nNevertheless, men have in all ages appeared, who, shaking off the\nprejudices of their fellows, have dared to lift before their eyes the\nlight of truth. But what could their feeble voice effect against errors\nimbibed at the breast, confirmed by habit, authorised by example, and\nfortified by a policy, which often became the accomplice of its own\nruin? The stentorian clamours of imposture soon overwhelm the calm\nexhortations of the advocates of reason. In vain shall the philosopher\nendeavour to inspire mankind with courage, so long as they tremble\nbeneath the rod of priests and kings.\n\nThe surest means of deceiving mankind, and perpetuating their errors,\nis to deceive them in infancy. Amongst many nations at the present day,\neducation seems designed only to form fanatics, devotees, and monks;\nthat is to say, men either useless or injurious to society. Few are the\nplaces in which it is calculated to form good citizens. Princes, to\nwhom a great part of the earth is at present unhappily subjected, are\ncommonly the victims of a superstitious education, and remain all their\nlives in the profoundest ignorance of their own duties, and the truest\ninterests of the states which they govern. Religion seems to have been\ninvented only to render both kings and people equally the slaves of the\npriesthood. The latter is continually busied in raising obstacles to the\nfelicity of nations. Wherever this reigns, other governments have but a\nprecarious power; and citizens become indolent, ignorant, destitute\nof greatness of soul, and, in short, of every quality necessary to the\nhappiness of society.\n\nIf, in a state where the Christian religion is professed, we find\nsome activity, some science, and an approach to social manners; it is,\nbecause nature, whenever it is in her power, restores mankind to\nreason, and obliges them to labour for their own felicity. Were all\nChristian nations exactly conformed to their principles, they must\nbe plunged into the most profound inactivity. Our countries would be\ninhabited by a small number of pious savages, who would meet only to\ndestroy each other. For why should a man mingle with the affairs of a\nworld, which his religion informs him is only a place of passage? What\ncan be the industry of that people, who believe themselves commanded\nby their God to live in continual fear, to pray, to groan, and afflict\nthemselves incessantly? How can a society exist which is composed of men\nwho are convinced that, in their zeal for religion, they ought to hate\nand destroy all whose opinions differ from their own? How can we expect\nto find humanity, justice, or any virtue, amongst a horde of fanatics,\nwho copy in their conduct a cruel, dissembling, and dishonest God? A God\nwho delights in the tears of his unhappy creatures, who sets for them\nthe ambush, and then punishes them for having fallen into it? A God who\nhimself ordains robbery, persecution, and carnage?\n\nSuch, however, are the traits with which the Christian religion\nrepresents the God which it has inherited from the Jews. This God was\na sultan, a despot, a tyrant, to whom all things were lawful. Yet he is\nheld up to us as a model of perfection. Crimes, at which human nature\nrevolts, have been committed in his name; and the greatest villanies\nhave been justified by the pretence of their being committed, either by\nhis command, or to merit his favour. Thus the Christian religion, which\nboasts of being the only true support of morality, and of furnishing\nmankind with the strongest motives for the practice of virtue, has\nproved to them a source of divisions, oppressions, and the blackest\ncrimes. Under the pretext of bringing peace on earth, it has overwhelmed\nit with hate, discord, and war. It furnishes the human race with a\nthousand ingenious means of tormenting themselves, and scatters amongst\nthem scourges unknown before. The Christian, possessed of common sense,\nmust bitterly regret the tranquil ignorance of his idolatrous ancestors.\n\nIf the manners of nations have gained nothing by the Christian religion,\ngovernments, of which it has pretended to be the support, have drawn\nfrom it advantages equally small. It establishes to itself in every\nstate a separate power, and becomes the tyrant or the enemy of every\nother power. Kings were always the slaves of priests; or if they refused\nto bow the knee, they were proscribed, stripped of their privileges, and\nexterminated either by subjects whom religion had excited to revolt, or\nassassins whose hands she had armed with her sacred poignard. Before the\nintroduction of the Christian religion, those who governed the state,\ncommonly governed the priesthood; since that period, sovereigns have\ndwindled into the first slaves of the priesthood, the mere executors of\nits vengeance and its decrees.\n\nLet us then conclude, that the Christian religion has no right to boast\nof procuring advantages either by policy or morality. Let us tear aside\nthe veil with which it envelopes itself. Let us penetrate back to its\nsource. Let us pursue it in its course, we shall find that, founded on\nimposture, ignorance, and credulity, it can never be useful but to men\nwho wish to deceive their fellow-creatures. We shall find, that it\nwill never cease to generate the greatest evils among mankind, and that\ninstead of producing the felicity it promises, it is formed to cover\nthe earth with outrages, and deluge it in blood; that it will plunge the\nhuman race in delirium and vice, and blind their eyes to their truest\ninterests and their plainest duties.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.--SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS.\n\nIn a small country, almost unknown to others, lived a nation, the\nfounders of which having too long been slaves among the Egyptians, were\ndelivered, from their servitude by a priest of Heliopolis, who, by means\nof his superior genius and knowledge, gained the ascendancy over them.1\nThis man, known by the name of Diodorus Siculus also relates the history\nof Moses--Vide translation of Abbe Terrasson.\n\n     1 Maneton and Cheremon, Egyptian historians, respecting\n     whom testimonies have been transmitted to us by Joseph the\n     Jew, inform us that a multitude of lepers were drawn out of\n     Egypt by king Amenophis; and that these exiles elected for\n     their leader a priest of Heliopolis whose name was Moses,\n     and who formed for them a religion and a code of laws.\n     Joseph contre Appion. liv. i. chap. ix. II, 12.\n\n\nBe this as it may, Moses, by the confession of the Bible itself, began\nhis career by assassinating an Egyptian, who was quarrelling with an\nHebrew; after which he fled into Arabia, and married the daughter of\nan idolatrous priest, by whom he was often reproached for his cruelty.\nThence he returned into Egypt, and placed himself at the head of his\nnation, which was dissatisfied with king Pharaoh. Moses reigned very\ntyrannically; the examples of Korah, Dathan, and Abirain, prove to what\nkind of people he had an aversion. He at last disappeared like Romulus,\nno one being able to find his body, or the place of his sepulture.\n\nMoses, being educated in the mysteries of a religion, which was fertile\nin prodigies, and the mother of superstitions, placed himself at\nthe head of a band of fugitives, whom he persuaded that he was an\ninterpreter of the will of their God, whose immediate commands he\npretended to receive. He proved his mission, it is said, by works which\nappeared supernatural to men ignorant of the operations of nature, and\nthe resources of art. The first command that he gave them on the part of\nhis God was to rob their masters, whom they were about to desert. When\nhe had thus enriched them with the spoils of Egypt, being sure of their\nconfidence, he conducted them into a desert, where, during forty years,\nhe accustomed them to the blindest obedience, he taught them the will of\nheaven, the marvellous fables of their forefathers, and the ridiculous\nceremonies to which he pretended the Most High attached his favours. He\nwas particularly careful to inspire them with the most envenomed hatred\nagainst the gods of other nations, and the most refined cruelty to those\nwho adored them. By means of carnage and severity, he rendered them a\nnation of slaves, obsequious to his will, ready to second his passions,\nand sacrifice themselves to gratify his ambitious views. In one word,\nhe made the Hebrews monsters of phrenzy and ferocity. After having thus\nanimated them with the spirit of destruction, he shewed them the lands\nand possessions of their neighbours, as an inheritance assigned them by\nGod himself.\n\nProud of the protection of Jehovah, the Hebrews marched forth to\nvictory. Heaven authorised in them knavery and cruelty. Religion, united\nto avidity, rendered them deaf to the cries of nature; and, under the\nconduct of inhuman chiefs, they destroyed the Canaanitish nations with\na barbarity, at which every man must revolt, whose reason is not wholly\nannihilated by superstition. Their fury destroyed every thing, even\ninfants at the breast, in those cities whither these monsters carried\ntheir victorious arms. By the commands of their God, or his prophets,\ngood faith was violated, justice outraged, and cruelty exercised.\n\nThis nation of robbers, usurpers, and murderers, at length established\nthemselves in a country, not indeed very fertile, but which they found\ndelicious in comparison with the desert in which they had so long\nwandered. Here, under the authority of the visible priests of their\nhidden God, they founded a state, detestable to its neighbours, and at\nall times the object of their contempt or their hatred. The priesthood,\nunder the title of a theocracy, for a long time governed this blind and\nferocious people. They were persuaded that in obeying their priests they\nobeyed God himself.\n\nNotwithstanding their superstition, the Hebrews at length, forced by\ncircumstances, or perhaps weary of the yoke of priesthood, determined\nto have a king, according to the example of other nations. But in the\nchoice of their monarch they thought themselves obliged to have recourse\nto a prophet. Thus began the monarchy of the Hebrews. Their princes,\nhowever, were always crossed in their enterprises by inspired priests\nand ambitious prophets, who continually laid obstacles in the way of\nevery sovereign whom they did not find sufficiently submissive to their\nown wills. The history of the Jews at all times shews us nothing\nbut kings blindly obedient to the priesthood, or at war with it, and\nperishing under its blows.\n\nThe ferocious and ridiculous superstitions of the Jews rendered them at\nonce the natural enemies of mankind, and the object of their contempt.\nThey were always treated with great severity by those who made inroads\nupon their territory. Successively enslaved by the Egyptians, the\nBabylonians, and the Grecians, they experienced from their masters\nthe bitterest treatment, which was indeed but too well deserved. Often\ndisobedient to their God, whose own cruelty, as well as the tyranny of\nhis priests frequently disgusted them, they were never faithful to their\nprinces. In vain were they crushed beneath sceptres of iron; it was\nimpossible to render them loyal subjects. The Jews were always the dupes\nof their prophets, and in their greatest distresses their obstinate\nfanaticism, ridiculous hopes, and indefatigable credulity, supported\nthem against the blows of fortune. At last, conquered with the rest of\nthe earth, Judah submitted to the Roman yoke.\n\nDespised by their new masters, the Jews were treated hardly, and\nwith great haughtiness; for their laws, as well as their conduct, had\ninspired the hearts of their conquerors with the liveliest detestation.\nSoured by misfortune, they became more blind, fanatic, and seditious.\nExalted by the pretended promises of their God; full of confidence in\noracles, which have always announced to them a felicity which they\nhave never tasted; encouraged by enthusiasts, or by impostors, who\nsuccessively profit by their credulity; the Jews have, to this day,\nexpected the coming of a Messiah, a monarch, a deliverer, who shall free\nthem from the yokes beneath which they groan, and cause their nation to\nreign over all other nations in the universe.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.--SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\nIn the midst of this nation, thus disposed to feed on hope and chimera,\na new prophet arose, whose sectaries in process of time have changed the\nface of the earth. A poor Jew, who pretended to be descended from the\nroyal house of David,1 after being long unknown in his own country,\nemerges from obscurity, and goes forth to make proselytes. He succeeded\namongst some of the most ignorant part of the populace. To them he\npreached his doctrines, and taught them that he was the Son of God,\nthe deliverer of his oppressed nation, and the Messiah announced by the\nprophets. His disciples, being either impostors, or themselves deceived,\nrendered a clamorous testimony of his power, and declared that his\nmission had been proved by miracles without number. The only prodigy\nwhich he was incapable of effecting, was that of convincing the Jews,\nwho, far from being touched with his beneficent and marvellous works,\ncaused him to suffer an ignominious death. Thus the Son of God died\nin the sight of all Jerusalem; but his followers declare that he was\nsecretly resuscitated three days after his death. Visible to them alone,\nand invisible to the nation which he came to enlighten and convert to\nhis doctrine, Jesus, after his resurrection, say they, conversed some\ntime with his disciples, and then ascended into heaven, where, having\nagain become equal to God the father, he shares with him the\nadorations and homages of the sectaries of his law. These sectaries, by\naccumulating superstitions, inventing impostures, and fabricating dogmas\nand mysteries, have, by little and little, heaped up a distorted and\nunconnected system of religion which is called Christianity, after the\nname of Christ its founder.\n\n     1 The Jews say that Jesus was the son of one Pandira, or\n     Panther, who had seduced his mother Mary, a milliner, the\n     wife of Jochanan. According to others, Pandira, by some\n     artifice, enjoyed her several times, while she thought him\n     her husband; after which, she becoming pregnant, her\n     husband, suspicious of her fidelity, retired into Babylon.\n     Some say that Jesus was taught magic in Egypt, from whence\n     he went and exercised his art in Galilee, where he was put\n     to death.--Vide Peiffer, Theol. Jud. and Mahom. &c.\n     Principia. Lypsiae, 1687.\n\n\nThe different nations, to which the Jews were successively subjected,\nhad infected them with a multitude of Pagan dogmas. Thus the Jewish\nreligion, Egyptian in its origin, adopted many of the rites and opinions\nof the people, with whom the Jews conversed. We need not then be\nsurprised, if we see the Jews, and the Christians their successors,\nfilled with notions borrowed of the Phenicians, the Magi or Persians,\nthe Greeks, and the Romans. The errors of mankind respecting religion\nhave a general resemblance; they appear to differ only by their\ncombinations. The commerce of the Jews and Christians with the Grecians\nmade them acquainted with the philosophy of Plato, so analogous to the\nromantic spirit of the orientals, and so conformable to the genius of a\nreligion which boasts in being inaccessible to reason.1 Paul, the most\nambitious and enthusiastic of the apostles, carried his doctrines,\nseasoned with the sublime and marvellous, among the people of Greece and\nAsia, and even the inhabitants of Rome. He gained proselytes, as every\nman who addresses himself to the imagination of ignorant people may do;\nand he may be justly styled the principal founder of a religion, which,\nwithout him, could never have spread far; for the rest of its followers\nwere ignorant men, from whom he soon separated himself to become the\nleader of his own sect.2\n\n     1 Origen says, that Celsus reproached Christ with having\n     borrowed many of his maxims from Plato. See Origen contra\n     Cel. chap. i. 6. Augustin confesses, that he found the\n     beginning of the Gospel of John, in Plato. See S. Aug. Conf.\n     I. vii. ch. 9, 10, 11. The notion of the word is evidently\n     taken from Plato; the church has since found means of\n     transplanting a great part of Plato, as we shall hereafter\n     prove.\n\n     2 The Ebionites, or first Christians, looked upon St. Paul\n     as an apostate and an heretic, because he wholly rejected\n     the law of Moses, which the other apostles wished only to\n     reform.\n\n\nThe conquests of the Christian religion were, in its infancy, generally\nlimited to the vulgar and ignorant. It was embraced only by the most\nabject amongst the Jews and Pagans. It is over men of this description\nthat the marvellous has the greatest influence.1 An unfortunate God, the\ninnocent victim of wickedness and cruelty, and an enemy to riches and\nthe great, must have been an object of consolation to the wretched. The\nausterity, contempt of riches, and apparently disinterested cares of\nthe first preachers of the gospel, whose ambition was limited to the\ngovernment of souls; the equality of rank and property enjoined by their\nreligion, and the mutual succours interchanged by its followers; these\nwere objects well calculated to excite the desires of the poor, and\nmultiply Christians. The union, concord, and reciprocal affection,\nrecommended to the first Christians, must have been seductive to\ningenious minds: their submissive temper, their patience in indigence,\nobscurity, and distress, caused their infant sect to be looked upon as\nlittle dangerous in a government accustomed to tolerate all sects. Thus,\nthe founders of Christianity had many adherents among the people,2 and\ntheir opposers and enemies consisted chiefly of some idolatrous priests\nand Jews, whose interest it was to support the religion previously\nestablished. By little and little, this new system, covered with the\nclouds of mystery, took deep root, and became too strong and extensive\nto be suppressed. The Roman government saw too late the progress of an\nassociation it had despised. The Christians now become numerous,\ndared to brave the Pagan gods, even in their temples. The emperors and\nmagistrates, disquieted at such proceedings, endeavoured to extinguish\nthe sect which gave them umbrage. They persecuted such as they could\nnot reclaim by milder means, and whom their fanaticism had rendered\nobstinate. The feelings of mankind are ever interested in favour of\ndistress; and this persecution only served to increase the number of the\nfriends of the Christians. The fortitude and constancy with which they\nsuffered torment, appeared supernatural and divine in the eyes of those\nwho were witnesses to it; their enthusiasm communicated itself, and\nproduced new advocates for the sect, whose destruction was attempted.\n\n     1  The first Christians were, by way of contempt, called\n     Ebionites, which signifies beggars or mendicants. See Origen\n     contra Celsum, lib. ii. et Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c.\n     37. Ebion, in Hebrew, signifies poor. The word Ebion has\n     since been personified into the meaning of an heretic, or\n     the leader of a sect, who were excluded from sacred things,\n     and scarcely considered as men. It promised them that they\n     should one day have their turn, and that, in the other life,\n     they should be happier than their masters.\n\n\n     2  Le peuple.\n\n\nAfter this explanation, let Christians no longer boast the marvellous\nprogress of their religion. It was the religion of poverty; it announced\na God who was poor. It was preached by the poor, to the poor and\nignorant. It gave them consolation in their misery. Even its gloomy\nideas were analogous to the disposition of indigent and unhappy men. The\nunion and concord so much admired in the earlier Christians, is by no\nmeans surprising. An infant and oppressed sect naturally remain united,\nand dread a separation of interests. It is astonishing that, in\nthose early days, men who were themselves persecuted and treated as\nmalcontents, should presume to preach intolerance and persecution. The\ntyranny exercised against them wrought no change in their sentiments.\nTyranny only irritates the human mind, which is always invincible, when\nthose opinions are attacked to which it has attached its welfare. Such\nis the inevitable effect of persecution. Yet Christians, who ought to\nbe undeceived by the example of their own sect, have to this day been\nincapable of divesting themselves of the fury of persecution.\n\nThe Roman emperors, having themselves become Christians, that is to\nsay, carried away by a general torrent, which obliged them to avail\nthemselves of the support of a powerful sect, seated religion on the\nthrone. They protected the church and its ministers, and endeavoured to\ninspire their courtiers with their own ideas. They beheld with a jealous\neye those who retained their attachment to the ancient religion. They,\nat length, interdicted the exercise of it, and finished by forbidding it\nunder the pain of death. They persecuted without measure those who held\nto the worship of their ancestors. The Christians now repaid the Pagans,\nwith interest, the evils which they had before suffered from them. The\nRoman empire was shaken with convulsions, caused by the unbridled zeal\nof sovereigns and those pacific priests, who had just before preached\nnothing but mildness and toleration. The emperors, either from policy or\nsuperstition, loaded the priesthood with gifts and benefactions, which\nindeed were seldom repaid with gratitude. They established the\nauthority of the latter; and at length respected as divine what they had\nthemselves created. Priests were relieved from all civil functions, that\nnothing might divert their minds from their sacred ministry.1 Thus the\nleaders of a once insignificant and oppressed sect became independent.\nBeing at last more powerful than kings, they soon arrogated to\nthemselves the right of commanding them. These priests of a God of\npeace, almost continually at variance with each other, communicated the\nfury of their passions to their followers; and mankind were astonished\nto behold quarrels and miseries engendered, under the law of grace,\nwhich they had never experienced under the peaceful reign of the\nDivinities, who had formerly shared without dispute the adoration of\nmortals.\n\nSuch was the progress of a superstition, innocent in its origin, but\nwhich, in its course, far from producing happiness among mankind, became\na bone of contention, and a fruitful source of calamities.\n\n\n_Peace upon earth, and good will towards men._\n\nThus is the gospel announced, which has cost the human race more blood\nthan all other religions of the earth taken collectively.\n\n     1  See Tillemont's Life of Constantine. Vol. IV. Art. 32.\n\n\n_Love the Lord thy God with all thy strength, and thy neighbour as\nthyself._\n\nThis, according to the God and Legislator of the Christians, is the sum\nof their duties. Yet we see it is impossible for Christians to love that\nsevere and capricious God whom they worship. On the other hand, we see\nthem eternally busied in tormenting, persecuting, and destroying their\nneighbours and brethren.\n\nTo find an explanation of these contradictions, it is sufficient to cast\nour eyes upon the God which the Christians inherited from the Jews.\nNot contented with the shocking colours in which he was painted, the\nChristians have still more disfigured his portrait. The Legislator of\nthe Hebrews speaks only of the transient punishments of this life; the\nChristian represents his God as pouring out unbounded vengeance to all\neternity. In one word, Christian fanaticism feeds itself with the idea\nof an hell, where its God, transformed into a ferocious executioner, as\nunjust as implacable, shall bathe himself in the tears of his wretched\ncreatures, and perpetuate their existence, to render them eternally\nmiserable. There, clothed in vengeance, he shall mock at the torments\nof sinners, and listen with rapture to the groans with which they shall\nmake the brazen roofs of their prisons resound; not the smallest hope of\nsome distant termination of their pains shall give them an interval of\nimaginary relief.\n\nThe Christians in adopting the terrible God of the Jews, have sublimed\nhis cruelty. They represent him as the most capricious, wicked, and\ncruel tyrant which the human mind can conceive, and suppose him to treat\nhis subjects with a barbarity and injustice truly worthy of a demon. In\norder to be convinced of this truth, let us contemplate, for a moment,\na picture of the Jewish mythology, adopted and rendered still more\nextravagant by the Christians.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IV.--OF THE CHRISTIAN MYTHOLOGY,\n\nOR THE IDEAS OF GOD, AND HIS CONDUCT, GIVEN US BY THE CHRISTIAN\nRELIGION.\n\nGod, by an inconceivable act of his omnipotence, created the universe\nout of nothing.1 He made the earth for the residence of man, whom he\ncreated in his own image. Scarcely had this man, the prime object of\nthe labours of his God, seen the light, when his Creator set a snare for\nhim, into which he undoubtedly knew that he must fall. A serpent, who\nspeaks, seduces a woman, who is not at all surprised at the phenomenon.\nShe, being persuaded by the serpent, solicits her husband to eat of a\nfruit forbidden by God himself. Adam, the father of the human race,\nby this light fault, draws upon himself and his innocent posterity\ninnumerable evils, which are followed, but not terminated by death. By\nthe offence of only one man, the whole human race incurs the wrath of\nGod, and they are at length punished for involuntary faults with an\nuniversal deluge. God repents having peopled the earth, and he finds it\neasier to drown and destroy the human race, than to change their hearts.\n\nA small number of the just, however, escaped this destructive flood; but\nthe deluged earth, and the destruction of mankind, did not satiate the\nimplacable vengeance of their Creator. A new generation appeared, These,\nalthough descended from the friends of God, whom he had preserved in the\ngeneral shipwreck of the world, incense him by new crimes. The almighty\nis represented as having been incapable of rendering his creature such\nas he desired him. A new torrent of corruption carries away mankind; and\nwrath is again excited in the bosom of Jehovah.\n\n     1 Ex nihilo nihil fit, was considered as an axiom by ancient\n     philosophers. The creation, as admitted by the Christians of\n     the present day, that is to say, the eduction of all things\n     from nothing, is a theological invention, not, indeed, of\n     very remote date. The word Barah, which is used in Genesis,\n     signifies to compote, arranges to dispose matter already\n     existing.\n\n\nPartial in his affections and his preferences, he, at length, casts his\neyes on an idolatrous Assyrian. He enters into an alliance with this\nman, and covenants that his posterity shall be multiplied to the number\nof the stars of heaven, or the sands of the sea, and that they shall for\never enjoy the favour of God. To this chosen race he reveals his\nwill; for them, unmindful of his justice, he destroys whole nations.\nNevertheless, this favoured race is not the more happy or the more\nattached to their God. They fly to strange gods, from whom they seek\nsuccours, which are refused to them by their own. They frequently\ninsult the God who is able to exterminate them. Sometimes he punishes,\nsometimes consoles them; one while he hates them without cause, and\nanother caresses them with as little reason. At last, finding it\nimpossible to reclaim this perverse people, for whom he continues to\nfeel the warmest tenderness, he sends amongst them his own son. To this\nson they will not listen. What do I say? This beloved son, equal to God\nhis father, is put to an ignominious death by his favourite nation. His\nfather, at the same time, finds it impossible to save the human race,\nwithout the sacrifice of his own son. Thus an innocent God becomes\nthe victim of a just God, by whom he is beloved. Both consent to this\nstrange sacrifice, judged necessary by a God, who knows that it will\nbe useless to an hardened nation, which nothing can reclaim. We should\nexpect that the death of this God, being useless to Israel, must\nserve, at least, to expiate the sins of the rest of the human race.\nNotwithstanding the eternal alliance with the Hebrews, solemnly sworn to\nby the Most High, and so many times renewed, that favourite nation find\nthemselves at last deserted by their God, who could not reduce them\nto obedience. The merits of the sufferings and death of his Son, are\napplied to the nations before excluded from his bounty. These are\nreconciled to heaven, now become more just in regard to them, and return\nto grace. Yet, in spite of all the efforts of God, his favours are\nlavished in vain. Mankind continued to sin, enkindle the divine wrath,\nand render themselves worthy of the eternal punishments, previously\nprepared and destined for the greater part of the human race.\n\nSuch is the faithful history of the God, on whom the foundation of the\nChristian religion is laid. His conduct being so strange, cruel, and\nopposite to all reason, is it surprising to see the worshippers of this\nGod ignorant of their duties, destitute of humanity and justice,\nand striving to assimilate themselves to the model of that barbarous\ndivinity which they adore? What indulgence have mankind a right to\nexpect from a God, who spared not even his own son? What indulgence can\nthe Christian, who believes this fable, shew to his fellow-creature?\nOught he not to imagine that the surest means of pleasing his God, is to\nimitate his ferocity and cruelty? 1\n\n     1 The sacrifice of the Son of God is mentioned as a proof of\n     his  benevolence. Is it not rather a proof of his ferocity,\n     cruelty, and implacable vengeance? A good Christian, on his\n     death-bed said, \"he had never been able to conceive how a\n     good God could put an innocent God to death, to appease a\n     just God.\"\n\n\nIt is at least evident, that the sectaries of such a God must have a\nprecarious morality, founded on principles destitute of all firmness.\nThis God, in fact, is not always unjust and cruel; his conduct varies.\nSometimes he appears to have created all nature for man alone; at\nothers, he seems to have created man only as an object, whereon to\nexercise his arbitrary rage. Sometimes they are cherished by him,\nnotwithstanding all their faults; at others, the whole species is\ncondemned to eternal misery for an apple. This unchangeable God is\nalternately agitated by anger and love, revenge and pity, benevolence\nand fury. His conduct is continually destitute of that uniformity which\ncharacterises wisdom. Partial in his affections, he makes it the duty of\nhis favourite people to commit deliberately the most atrocious crimes.\nHe commands them to violate good faith, and contemn the rights of\nnations. He enjoins upon them the commission of robbery and murder.\nOn other occasions, we see him forbidding the same crimes, ordaining\njustice, and prescribing to mankind abstinence from whatever disturbs\nthe good order of society. This God, who is in turn styled the God of\nVengeance, the God of Mercies, the God of Arms, and the God of Peace, is\never at variance with himself. His subjects are consequently each one at\nliberty to copy that part of his conduct which he finds most congenial\nto his humour. Hence their morality becomes arbitrary. It is surprising,\nthat Christians have never yet been able to agree amongst themselves,\nwhether it would be most pleasing to their God to tolerate the various\nopinions of mankind, or to exterminate all who differ from themselves.\nIt is, in fact, a problem with them, whether it be most expedient to\npersecute and assassinate those who think not as they do, or to treat\nthem with humanity, and suffer them to live in peace.\n\nChristians, however, do not fail to justify the strange and often\niniquitous conduct attributed to their God in the Scriptures. This\nGod, say they, being of right the absolute master of his creatures, can\ndispose, of them at his pleasure, and for this no one can accuse him of\ninjustice, or demand an account of his conduct. His justice is not\nthe justice of mankind, and they have no right to censure any of his\nactions. It is easy to perceive the insufficiency of this answer.\nMankind in making justice an attribute of their God, can have no idea\nof this virtue, but by supposing that it resembles the justice of their\nfellow-creatures. If God have a justice, which in its essence differs\nfrom that of man, we know not what it is, and we attribute to him a\nquality of which we have no idea. If it be said, that God owes nothing\nto his creatures, he is supposed to be a tyrant, whose conduct has no\nrule but his own caprice, and who cannot continue to be a model for\nus, having no longer any relation with us, seeing all relations must\nbe reciprocal. If nothing be due from God to his creatures, how can any\nthing be due from them to him? If, as we are continually told, men are\nto God, as the clay in the hands of the potter, no moral relation can\nexist between them. It is, nevertheless, upon those relations that all\nreligion is founded. Therefore, to say that God has no duty towards his\ncreatures, and that his justice is different from that of mankind, is\nto sap the foundations of all religion and justice, which necessarily\nsuppose that punish them for doing evil.\n\nIn fine, how can the followers of the Christian system reconcile that\nbarbarous conduct, and those sanguinary commands, attributed to him in\nthe Scriptures, with his goodness or his wisdom? And how can goodness\nbe an attribute of a God, who has created most of the human race only to\ndamn them eternally? God ought to reward mankind for doing good.\n\nHere we shall be told that the conduct of God is, to us, an impenetrable\nmystery, that we have no right to scrutinize it, and that our feeble\nreason must be lost whenever it attempts to sound the depth of divine\nwisdom. We are informed that we must adore in silence, and tremblingly\nsubmit to the oracles of a God, who has himself sufficiently made known\nhis will in his holy Scriptures. This is what they call revelation, to\nwhich we proceed in the next chapter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.--OF REVELATION.\n\nHow can we know, without the aid of reason, that God hath spoken? But,\non the other side, is not reason proscribed by the Christian religion?\nIs not the use of reason forbidden, in the examination of the marvellous\ndogmas with which we are presented by this religion? Does it not\ncontinually exclaim against a profane reason, which it accuses of\ninsufficiency, and often regards as rebellious to heaven? In order to be\ncapable of judging of divine revelation, we must have a just idea of the\nDivinity. But seeing human reason is too weak and grovelling to exalt\nitself to an acquaintance with the Supreme Being, from what source shall\nwe derive that idea, beside revelation itself? Thus revelation itself is\nto become the proof of the authority of revelation.\n\nLet us pass on from this conjuror's circle, and open the sacred books,\ndestined to enlighten mankind, and before which reason must fall\nprostrate. Do they exhibit any precise ideas of the God, whose oracles\nthey announce? Can we draw from them any just conceptions of its\nattributes? Is not this God represented as a mass of extraordinary\nqualities, which form an inexplicable enigma? If this revelation be, as\nis supposed, an emanation from God himself, who can confide in him? Does\nhe not paint himself as false, unjust, deceitful, and Cruel; as setting\nsnares for mankind; seducing, hardening, and leading them astray? 1\n\n     1 By the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, God is\n     always represented as a seducer. He permits Eve to be\n     seduced by a serpent. He hardens the heart of Pharaoh.\n     Christ himself is a stone of stumbling. Such are the points\n     of view under which the Divinity is exhibited to us.\n\nThus the man, desirous of being assured of the truth of Christian\nrevelation, finds himself, at the first step of enquiry, plunged into\ndistrust and perplexity, which is increased by the indeterminable\ndisputes of his sacred guides, who have never been able to agree upon\nthe manner of understanding the oracles of a Divinity which they say has\nrevealed itself.\n\nThe hesitation and fear of the man who honestly examines the revelation\nadopted by Christians, must redouble, when he sees their God represented\nas revealing himself only to a few favourites of the human race,\nwhile he carefully conceals himself from the remainder, to whom,\nnotwithstanding this, revelation is equally necessary. He must be\nuncertain whether or not he is of the number, to whom this partial God\ndeigns to make himself known.\n\nMust not his heart be troubled at the sight of a God, who vouchsafes\nto discover himself, and announce his decrees, only to a number of\nmen, inconsiderable in comparison with the whole human race? Is he not\ntempted to accuse this God of a malevolence too dark, when he finds that\nfor want of revealing himself to so many millions of mankind, he has\ncaused their inevitable misery through an endless succession of ages?\nWhat ideas must he form to himself of a God who inflicts this punishment\nupon them for their ignorance of secret laws, which he has published by\nstealth in an obscure and unknown corner of Asia?\n\nThus Christians, even when they consult the Scriptures, find all things\nconspiring to put them on their guard against the God exhibited therein.\nEvery thing inspires distrust of his moral character. All things float\nin an uncertainty. This God, in concert with the pretended interpreters\nof his will, seems to have formed the design of redoubling the darkness\nof his ignorance. He is, however, told, in order to appease his doubts,\nthat the revealed will of God consists of mysteries; that is to say,\nthings inaccessible to human understanding. In this case what need was\nthere of having spoken? Ought a God to reveal himself to mankind for\nthe sole purpose of not being comprehended? Is not such conduct as\nridiculous as it is unreasonable? To say that God has revealed himself\nonly to announce mysteries, is to say that he has revealed himself in\norder to remain unknown, to conceal from us his views, embarrass our\nunderstandings, and augment our ignorance and uncertainty.\n\nA true revelation, proceeding from a just and good God, and necessary to\nall mankind, ought to be clear enough to be understood by all the human\nrace. But will the revelation, upon which Judaism and Christianity are\nfounded, bear the test of this criterion? The Elements of Euclid are\nintelligible to all who endeavour to understand them. This work excites\nno dispute among geometricians. Is it so with the Bible? and do its\nrevealed truths occasion no disputes among divines? By what fatality\nhave writings revealed by God himself still need of commentaries? and\nwhy do they demand additional lights from on high, before they can be\nbelieved or understood? Is it not astonishing, that what was intended as\na guide for mankind, should be wholly above their comprehending? Is\nit not cruel, that what is of most importance to them should be least\nknown? All is mystery, darkness, uncertainty, and matter of dispute, in\na religion intended by the Most High to enlighten the human race.\n\nFar from contenting themselves with the pretended mysteries contained in\nthe Scriptures, the priests of the Christian religion have, from age\nto age, invented new ones, which, though never mentioned by their God,\ntheir disciples are forced to believe. No Christian can entertain a\ndoubt concerning the mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the\nefficacy of sacraments; and yet Christ never explained these subjects.\nAmong Christians every thing seems to be abandoned to the imagination,\ncaprice, and arbitrary decision of priests, who arrogate to themselves\nthe right of fabricating mysteries and articles of faith, as their\ninterests occasionally require. Thus, this revelation perpetuates itself\nby means of the Church, which pretends to be inspired by God, and which,\nfar from enlightening the minds of her children, delights to confound,\nand plunges them in a sea of uncertainty!\n\nSuch are the effects of this revelation, which forms the basis of the\nChristian religion, and of the reality of which we are not permitted to\ndoubt. God, it is said, has spoken to mankind. But when has he spoken?\nThousands of years ago, by prophets and inspired men, whom he has chosen\nas organs of communication with mankind. But how can it be proved\nto have been God himself who spoke, except by having recourse to the\ntestimony of the very persons who pretend to have received his commands?\nThese interpreters of the divine will were then men; and are not men\nliable to be deceived themselves, and prone to deceive others? How then\ncan we discover what confidence is due to the testimony which these\norgans of heaven give in favour of their own mission? How shall we be\nmade sure that they have not been the dupes of some illusion, or an\noverheated imagination?\n\nAt this remote period, how can we be certain that Moses conversed with\nGod, and received from him the law which he communicated to the\nHebrews? What was the temperament of this Moses? Was he phlegmatic or\nenthusiastic, honest or knavish, ambitious or disinterested, a practiser\nof truths or of falsehood? What confidence can be placed in the\ntestimony of a man, who, after pretending to have performed so many\nmiracles, could not convert his people from idolatry; and who, after\nhaving caused forty-seven thousand Israelites to perish by the sword,\nhas the effrontery to assume the title of the meekest of mankind? Is it\ncertain that the books which are attributed to Moses, and report so many\nmiraculous circumstances, are perfectly authentic? In fine, what\nproof have we of his mission, except the testimony of a number of\nsuperstitious, ignorant, and credulous Israelites, who were probably the\ndupes of a ferocious legislator?\n\nWhat proofs does the Christian religion give us of the mission of Jesus\nChrist? Are we acquainted with his character and temperament? What\ndegree of confidence can we place in the testimony of his disciples,\nwho, by their own confession, were ignorant and unlearned men, and,\nconsequently, liable to be imposed upon by the artifices of a dexterous\nimpostor? Ought not the testimony of the most learned in Jerusalem\nto have greater weight with us, than that of the lowest vulgar, whose\nignorance always renders them the dupes of those who endeavour to\ndeceive them? These enquiries bring us to an examination of the proofs\nwhich are adduced in support of the Christian religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VI.--OF THE PROOFS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\nMIRACLES, PROPHECIES, AND MARTYRS.\n\nWe have seen, in the preceding chapters, what just reasons there are to\ndoubt the authenticity of the revelation of the Jews and Christians.\n\nAnd further, relative to this article, Christianity has no advantage\nover any other religion.\n\nAll the religions on earth, notwithstanding their discordance, declare\nthat they have emanated from God, and pretend to possess an exclusive\nright to his favours.\n\nThe Indian asserts, that the Brama himself is the author of his worship.\nThe Scandinavian derives his from the awful Odin. If the Jew and the\nChristian have received theirs from Jehovah by the ministry of Moses and\nJesus, the Mahometan affirms, that he has received his from his prophet,\ninspired by the same God. Thus, all religions pretend to a divine\norigin; and they all interdict the use of reason in the examination\nof their sacred titles. Each pretends to be the only true one, to the\nexclusion of all others. All menace with the wrath of heaven those who\nrefuse to submit to their authority, and all acquire the character of\nfalsehood by the palpable contradictions with which they are filled; by\nthe mis-shapen, obscure, and often odious ideas which they give of the\nGodhead; by the whimsical laws which they attribute to him, and by the\ndisputes which they generate among their sectaries. In fine, they all\nappear to be a mass of impostures and reveries, equally disgusting to\nreason. Thus, on the score of pretensions, the Christian religion has no\nadvantage over the other superstitions with which the world is infected;\nand its divine origin is contested by all others with as much propriety\nas theirs is denied by it.\n\nHow then shall we decide in its favour? How prove the validity of its\npretensions? Has it any superior qualities, by which it merits the\npreference? And if so, what are they? Does it, better than any other,\nmake us acquainted with the nature and essence of God? Alas! it only\nrenders them more incomprehensible. It represents him as a capricious\ntyrant, whose whimsies are sometimes favourable, but more commonly\ninjurious to mankind. Does it render mankind better? Alas! it arms them\nagainst each other, renders them intolerant, and forces them to butcher\ntheir brethren. Does it render empires flourishing and powerful?\nWherever it reigns, do we not see the people debased, destitute of\nenergy, and ignorant of true morality? What then are the proofs which\nare to establish the superiority of the Christian religion over all\nothers? We are answered, \"miracles, prophecies, and martyrs.\" But these\nare to be found in all religions of the earth. There are in all nations\nmen, who, being superior to the vulgar in science and cunning, deceive\nthem with imposture, and dazzle them with performances which are judged\nto be supernatural, by men ignorant of the secrets of nature and the\nresources of art.\n\nIf the Jew cite the miracles of Moses, I see them performed before a\npeople most ignorant, abject, and credulous, whose testimony has no\nweight with me.\n\nI may, also, suspect that these pretended miracles have been inserted in\nthe sacred books of the Hebrews long after the death of those who\nmight have testified the truth concerning them. If the Christians cite\nJerusalem, and the testimony of Gallilee, to prove the miracles of\nChrist, I see them attested only by an ignorant populace; or I demand\nhow it could be possible that an entire people, who had been witnesses\nto the miracles of Christ, should consent to his death, and even\nearnestly demand it? Would the people of London, or Paris, suffer a man\nwho had raised the dead, restored the blind to sight, and healed the\nlame and paralytic, to be put to death before their eyes? If the Jews\ndemanded the death of Jesus, all his miracles are at once annihilated in\nthe mind of every unprejudiced person.\n\nMay not we, also, oppose to the miracles of Moses, and Christ, those\nperformed by Mahomet in presence of all Mecca and Arabia assembled? The\neffect of his miracles was, at least, to convince the Arabians that\nhe was a divine person. The miracles of Jesus convinced nobody of his\nmission. Saint Paul himself, who afterwards became the most ardent of\nhis disciples, was not convinced by the miracles, of which, in his\ntime, there existed so many witnesses. A new one was necessary for\nhis conviction. And by what right do they at this day demand belief of\nmiracles; which could not convince even in the time of the Apostles;\nthat is to say, a short time after they were wrought?\n\nLet it not be said that the miracles of Christ are as well attested as\nany fact in profane history, and that to doubt them is as ridiculous as\nto doubt the existence, of Scipio or C\u00e6sar, which we believe only on the\nreport of the historians by whom they are mentioned. The existence of a\nman, of the general of an army, or an hero, is not improbable; neither\nis it a miracle.1 We believe the probable facts, whilst we reject,\nwith contempt, the miracles recounted by Titus Livius. The most stupid\ncredulity is often joined to the most distinguished talents. Of this,\nthe Christian religion furnishes us with innumerable examples. In\nmatters of religion, all testimony is liable to suspicion. The most\nenlightened men see but ill, when they are intoxicated with enthusiasm,\nand dazzled by the chimeras of a wild imagination. A miracle is a thing\nimpossible in the order of nature. If this be changed by God, he is not\nimmutable.\n\nIt will probably be said, that, without changing, the order of things,\nGod and his favourites could not find resources in nature unknown\nto mankind in general. But then their works would no longer be\nsupernatural, and would have nothing of the marvellous. A miracle is\nan effect contrary to the established laws of nature. God himself,\ntherefore, cannot perform miracles without counteracting the\ninstitutions, of his own wisdom A wise man, having seen a miracle, might\nwith propriety doubt the evidence of his own senses. He ought carefully\nto examine, whether, the extraordinary effect, which he does not\ncomprehend, proceeds not from some natural cause, whose manner of acting\nhe does not understand.\n\n     1 A supernatural event requires, in order to be believed,\n     much stronger proofs than a fact in no-wise contradictory to\n     probability. It is easy to believe, upon the testimony of\n     Philostrates, that Appollonius existed, because his\n     existence has nothing in it that shocks reason; but I will\n     not believe Philostrates, when he tells me, that Appollonius\n     performed miracles. I believe that Jesus Christ died; but I\n     do not believe that he arose from the dead.\n\n\nBut let us suppose, for a moment, that miracles may exist, and that\nthose of Christ were real, or, at least, that they were inserted in the\nGospels by persons who imagined they had seen them. Are the witnesses\nwho transmitted, or the Apostles who saw them, extremely deserving of\ncredit? And have we not a right to refuse their testimonies? Were\nthose witnesses very deserving men? By the confession of the Christians\nthemselves they were ignorant men, taken from the dregs of the people,\nand consequently credulous and incapable of investigation. Were those\nwitnesses disinterested? No; it was, undoubtedly, their chief interest\nto support those miracles, upon which were suspended the divinity of\ntheir master, and the truth of the religion they were endeavouring to\nestablish. Are those miracles confirmed by the testimony of cotemporary\nhistorians? Not one of them has mentioned those extraordinary facts. We\nfind not a single Jew or Pagan in the superstitious city of Jerusalem\nwho heard even a word of the most marvellous facts that ever were\nrecorded, and facts which happened in the midst of them. The miracles\nof Christ were ever attested by Christians only. We are requested to\nbelieve that, at the death of the Son of God, the earth quaked, the\nsun was darkened, and the dead arose. How does it happen that such\nextraordinary events have been noticed only by a handful of Christians?\nWere they the only persons who perceived them? We are told, also, that\nChrist arose from the dead; to prove which, they appeal to the testimony\nof his Apostles and followers. Would not one solemn apparition, in some\npublic place, have been more decisive than all those clandestine ones,\nmade to persons interested in the formation of a new sect? The Christian\nfaith, according to St. Paul, is founded on the resurrection of Christ.\nThis, then, ought to have been demonstrated to mankind, in the clearest\nand most indisputable manner.1\n\n     1 The Barilidians and Corinthians, heretics who lived in the\n     infancy of Christianity, maintained that Jesus was not dead,\n     and that Simon the Cyrenian was crucified in his place. See\n     Epiph. Haer. c. 28. Thus, there were men, from the birth of\n     the church, who doubted the crucifixion, and, consequently,\n     the resurrection of Christ; and yet we are exhorted to\n     believe them at the present day.\n\n\nHave we not room to accuse the Saviour of the world with want of\nbenevolence, in shewing himself only to his disciples and favourites? It\nseems that he did not desire that all the world should believe in him.\nThe Jews, it is said, deserve to be blinded for putting Christ to\ndeath. But, if this be the case, why did the apostles preach to them the\ngospel? Could it be expected that the Jews would believe the report of\nthe apostles, rather than their own eyes?\n\nMiracles appear to have been invented to supply the want of good\nreasons. Truth and evidence have no need of miracles to ensure their\nreception. Is it not very astonishing that God Almighty should find\nit easier to derange the order of nature, than to convince mankind of\ntruths the most evident, and calculated to force their assent? Miracles\nwere made to prove things which it is impossible to believe. There is\nno need of miracles when we talk of reason. Things incredible are here\nadduced in proof of incredible things. Almost all impostors who have\nfabricated religions, have announced incredibilities to mankind. They\nhave afterwards fabricated miracles in proof of those incredibilities.\n\"You cannot comprehend,\" said they, \"what I tell you; but I will clearly\nprove to you that I tell the truth, by doing things that you cannot\ncomprehend.\" People have in all ages been overcome by this brilliant\nreasoning. A passion for the marvellous has prevented enquiry. Mankind\nhave not perceived that miracles could neither prove impossibilities,\nnor change the essence of truth. Whatever wonders a man, or, if you\nplease, a God may perform, they can never prove that two and two are\nnot four, or that three are no more than one. They cannot prove that\nan immaterial being, destitute of organs, has spoken to man; or that\na good, wise, and just Being has commanded the execution of injustice,\nfolly, and cruelty. It appears, therefore, that miracles prove nothing,\nunless it be the address and impostures of those who are desirous of\nprofiting by the stupid credulity of mankind, and endeavour to seduce\nthem into a belief of the most extravagant falsehoods. Such men have\nalways began by falsely pretending to have an intimate commerce with\nGod, in order to prove which, they have performed wonders that they\nattribute to the Being by whom they say they were commissioned. Every\nman, who performs miracles, endeavours to establish, not truth, but\nfalsehood. Truth is simple and evident; the marvellous is ever to be\nsuspected. Nature is always true to herself; she acts by unvarying\nlaws. To say that God performs miracles, is to say that he contradicts\nhimself, and violates the laws which he has prescribed to nature. It is\nto say, that he renders useless human reason, of which he is the author.\nImpostors alone can pronounce it necessary to discredit experience and\nreject reason.\n\nThus, the pretended miracles of the Christian, as well as all other\nreligions, have no foundation, but the ignorance, credulity, and\nenthusiasm of mankind, and the cunning of impostors. The same may be\nsaid of prophecies. Mankind are ever anxious to pry into futurity;\nand there are always some kind individuals disposed to aid them in the\ngratification of this desire. There have been enchanters, diviners,\nand prophets, in all the nations of the earth. The Jews have not been\nhappier, in this respect, than others. Tartars, Negroes, and Indians\nhave their share of impostors, All societies will find deceivers enough,\nso long as they are willing to pay for deception.\n\nThese inspired men have not been ignorant, that their prophecies ought\nto be extremely vague and ambiguous, in order that they might not, in\nprocess of time, appear to have been falsehoods. We need not, therefore,\nbe surprised, that the Jewish prophecies are very dark, and of such a\nnature, that any thing may be found in them which interpreters think\nproper to seek. Those which are attributed to Christ, by his followers,\nare not considered in the same light by the Jews, who still expect\nthe Messiah, whom the former believe to have been on earth eighteen\ncenturies ago. The Jewish prophecies uniformly announce the deliverer of\na discontented and oppressed nation. Such a one was also expected by\nthe Romans, and almost all the nations of the earth. All mankind have a\nnatural propensity to hope for a termination of the evils they suffer,\nand believe that Providence cannot, in justice, fail to render them, one\nday, happy. The Jews, the most superstitious nation on earth, building\nupon the supposed promise of their God, have always expected the coming\nof a monarch or conqueror, who is to elevate them from disgrace,\nand crown them with triumph. It was impossible for them to see this\ndeliverer in the person of Jesus, who, instead of being the restorer of\nthe Hebrew nation, was its destroyer; and since whose coming, they seem\nto have lost all favour with God.\n\nIt is asserted, that the destruction of the Jewish nation, and the\ndispersion of the Jews, were themselves foretold, and that they furnish\na convincing proof of the truth of Christian prophecy. To this I answer,\nit was easy to foretel the dispersion and destruction of a restless,\nturbulent, and rebellious people, continually torn and convulsed by\nintestine divisions. Besides, this people was often conquered and\ndispersed. The temple destroyed by Titus, had previously suffered the\nsame fate from Nebuchadnezzar, who carried the captive tribes into\nAssyria, and spread them through his territories. The dispersion of the\nJews is more perceptible than that of other conquered nations, because\nthey have generally, after a certain time, become confounded with\ntheir conquerors; whereas the Jews refuse to intermingle, by domestic\nconnections, with the nations where they reside, and have religiously\nmaintained this distinction. It is not the same with the Cuebres or\nParsis, of Persia and Indostan, as well as the Armenians, who dwell\nin Mahometan countries. The Jews remain dispersed, because they are\nunsocial, intolerant, and blindly attached to their superstitions.1\n\nThus Christians have no reason to boast of the prophecies contained in\nthe books of the Jews, nor to make invidious applications of them to\nthat nation, because they detest its religion.\n\nJudea was always subjected to priests, who had great influence over\naffairs of state. They were always meddling with politics, and undertook\nto foretel the events, fortunate or unfortunate, which were to befal the\nnation. No country was ever more fertile in prophets.\n\nThis description of men instituted schools, where they initiated into\nthe mysteries of their art those who proved themselves worthy of that\nhonour, by discovering a wish to deceive a credulous people, and by such\nhonest means acquire riches and respect.2\n\nThe art of prophesying was then an actual profession, or an useful and\nprofitable branch of commerce in that miserable nation, which believed\nGod to be incessantly busied in their affairs. The great gains resulting\nfrom this traffic of imposture must have caused divisions among the\nJewish prophets. Accordingly, we find them crying down each other. Each\none treated his rivals as false prophets, inspired by evil spirits.\nThere have always been quarrels among impostors, to decide who should\nhave the exclusive right of deceiving mankind.\n\n     1 The Acts of the Apostles evidently prove, that, even\n     before the time of Jesus, the Jews began to be dispersed.\n     Jews came from Greece, Persia, Arabia, &c. to the feast of\n     Pentecost. Acts, c. ii. 8. So that, after Jesus, the\n     inhabitants of Judea only were dispersed by the Romans.\n\n     2  Saint Jerome says, that the Sadducees did not adopt the\n     prophets, but contented themselves with believing the five\n     books of Moses. Dodwell, De Jure Laicorum, asserts, that the\n     prophets prepared themselves to prophesy by drinking wine.\n     See page 259. It seems they were jugglers, poets, and\n     musicians, who had made themselves masters of their trades,\n     and knew how to exercise them profitably.\n\n\nIf we examine the conduct of the boasted prophets of the Old Testament,\nwe shall find them far from being virtuous persons. We see arrogant\npriests continually meddling with affairs of state, and interweaving\nthem with religion. We see in them seditious subjects, incessantly\ncaballing against all sovereigns, who were not sufficiently submissive\nto them. They cross their projects, excite their subjects to rebellion,\neffect their destruction, and thus accomplish the fatal predictions,\nwhich they had before made against them.1 Such is the character of most\nof the prophets, who have played a part in the history of the Jews.\n\nThe studied obscurity of the prophecies is such, that those which are\ncommonly applied to the Messiah, or the deliverer of Israel, are equally\napplicable to every enthusiast or prophet that appeared in Jerusalem or\nJudea. Christians, heated with the idea of Christ, think they meet him\nin all places, and pretend to see him in the darkest passages of the\nOld Testament. Deluding themselves by force of allegories, subtilties,\ncommentaries, and forced interpretations, they have discovered the most\nformal predictions in all the vague oracles and nonsensical trash of the\nprophets.2\n\n     1  The prophet Samuel, displeased with Saul, who refused to\n     second his cruelty, declared that he had forfeited the\n     crown, and raised up a rival to him in the person of David.\n     Elias appears to have been a seditious subject, who, finding\n     himself unable to succeed in his rebellious designs, thought\n     proper to escape due punishment by flight. Jeremiah himself\n     gives us to understand that he conspired with the Assyrians\n     against his besieged country. He seems to have employed\n     himself in depriving: his fellow-citizens of both the will\n     and the courage to defend themselves. He purchased a field\n     of his relations, at the very time when he informed his\n     countrymen that they were about to be dispersed, and led\n     away in captivity. The king of Assyria recommends this\n     prophet to his general, Nebuzaradan, whom he commands to\n     take great care of him.--See Jeremiah.\n\n\n     2  Any thing may be found in the Bible, if it be read with\n     the imagination of Saint Augustine, who pretended to see all\n     the New Testament in the Old. According to him, the death of\n     Abel is a type of that of Christ; the two wives of Abraham\n     are the synagogue and the church; a piece of red cloth held\n     up by an harlot, who betrayed Jericho, signifies the blood\n     of Christ; the lamb, goat, and lion, are figures of Jesus\n     Christ; the brazen serpent represents the sacrifice on the\n     cross. Even the mysteries of the Christian religion are\n     announced in the Old Testament. Manna represents the\n     Eucharist, &c. See S. Aug. Serm. 78. and Ep. 156. How can a\n     man, in his senses, see, in the Immanuel announced by\n     Isaiah, the Messiah, whose name is Jesus? Isaiah c. vii. v.\n     14. How discover, in an obscure and crucified Jew, a leader\n     who shall govern Israel? How see a royal deliverer and\n     restorer of the Jews, in one, who, far from delivering his\n     nation, came only to destroy their laws; and after whose\n     coming their land was desolated by the Romans? A man must\n     be sharp-sighted indeed to find the Messiah in their\n     predictions. Jesus himself does not seem to have been more\n     clear, or happy, in his prophecies. In the Gospel of Luke,\n     chap. xxi. he speaks of the last judgment: he mentions\n     angels, who, at the sound of the trumpet, assemble mankind\n     together before him. He adds, \"Verily I say unto you, this\n     generation shall not pass away, until these things are\n     accomplished.\" The world, however, still stands, and\n     Christians have been expecting the last judgment for\n     eighteen hundred years.\n\n\nMen are not scrupulous respecting things which accord with their\ndesires. When we examine, without prejudice, the prophecies of the\nHebrews, we find them to be a mis-shapen mass of rhapsodies, the\noffspring of fanaticism and delirium. We find them obscure and\nenigmatical, like the oracles of the Pagans. In fine, it is evident that\nthese pretended divine oracles are the vagaries and impostures of men,\nwho imposed on the credulity of a superstitious nation which believes in\ndreams, visions, apparitions, and sorceries, and received with avidity\nany deception, provided it were sufficiently decorated with the\nmarvellous. Wherever mankind are ignorant, there will be found prophets\nand workers of miracles, and these two branches of commerce will always\ndecay in the same proportion as mankind become enlightened.\n\nAmong the proofs of the authenticity of their religion, Christians\nenumerate a multitude of martyrs, who have sealed with their blood their\nbelief of the opinions they had embraced. There is no religion destitute\nof ardent defenders, who would sacrifice their lives for the opinions to\nwhich they believe their eternal happiness attached. Superstitious and\nignorant men are obstinate in their prejudices. Their credulity prevents\nthem from suspecting any deception in their spiritual guides. Their\nvanity persuades them that they are incapable of wavering; and if, in\nfine, their imaginations be strong enough to see the heavens open, and a\nrecompense prepared therein for their courage, there is no torment they\nwill not brave and endure. In their intoxication they will despise all\ntorments of short duration; they will smile upon their executioners; and\ntheir souls, alienated from earthly things, will become insensible to\npain. In such scenes, the hearts of spectators are softened; they admire\nthe astonishing firmness of the martyr; they catch his enthusiasm, and\nbelieve his cause just. His courage appearing to them supernatural and\ndivine, becomes an indubitable proof of the truth of his opinions.\n\nThus, by a sort of contagion, enthusiasm communicates itself. Men are\nalways interested in the fate of those who shew the greatest firmness;\nand tyranny always multiplies the friends of those whom it persecutes.\nThe constancy of the first Christians must, therefore, have produced\nproselytes, by a natural effect of their conduct. Martyrs prove nothing,\nunless it be the strength of the enthusiasm, error, and obstinacy\nproduced by superstition, and the barbarous folly of those who persecute\ntheir fellow-creatures for religious opinions.\n\nEvery violent passion has its martyrs. Pride, vanity, prejudice, love,\npatriotism, and even vice itself, produces martyrs; or, at least,\na contempt of every kind of danger. Is it, then, surprising, that\nenthusiasm and fanaticism, the strongest passions of mankind, have\nso often enabled men, inspired with the hopes they give, to face and\ndespise death? Besides, if Christians can boast a catalogue of martyrs,\nJews can do the same. The unfortunate Jews, condemned to the flames by\nthe Inquisition, were martyrs to their religion; and their fortitude\nproves as much in its favour, as that of the Christians can do in favour\nof Christianity. If martyrs demonstrate the truth of a religion, there\nis no religion or sect which may not be looked upon as true.\n\nIn fine, among the perhaps exaggerated number of martyrs, boasted by\nChristians, many were rather the victims of an inconsiderate zeal, a\nturbulent and seditious spirit, than a real love of religion. The church\nitself does not presume to justify some, who, transported by a volcanic\nzeal, have troubled the peace of the earth, and poured out flaming\ndestruction on all who differed in opinion from themselves; until\nmankind, consulting their own tranquillity and safety, have destroyed\nthem. If men of this description were to be considered as martyrs,\nevery disturber of society, when punished, would acquire a right to this\ntitle.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VII.--OF THE MYSTERIES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\n\nTo reveal any thing to a man, is to discover to him secrets of which\nhe was before ignorant. If we ask Christians what the secrets were, the\nimportance of which rendered it necessary that they should be revealed\nby God himself, we shall be told that the greatest of those secrets, and\nthe one most necessary to mankind, is the Unity of the Godhead; a secret\nwhich, say they, human wisdom could never have discovered, of itself.\nBut are we not at liberty to doubt the truth of this assertion? Moses,\nundoubtedly, declared an only God to the Hebrews, and did all in his\npower to render them enemies to the idolatry and polytheism of other\nsurrounding nations, whose belief and whose modes of worship he\nrepresented as abominable in the eyes of the celestial Monarch, who had\nbrought them out of the land of Egypt. But have not many wise men\namong the heathens discovered, without the assistance of the Jewish\nrevelation, one supreme God, superior to all others? Moreover, was not\nFate, to which all the other gods of the heathens were subordinate,\nan only God, to whose sovereign law all nature was subject? As to the\ncolours in which Moses paints his Godhead, neither Jews nor Christians\nhave a right to pride themselves therein. He is represented as\na capricious and irascible despot, full of cruelty, injustice,\npartiality, and malignity. What kind of being shall we contemplate, when\nwe add to this the ineffable attributes ascribed to him in the Christian\ntheology? Is the Godhead described when it is said that it is a spirit,\nan immaterial being, which resembles nothing presented to us by\nour senses? Is not human understanding confounded with the negative\nattributes of infinity, immensity, eternity, omnipotence, and\nomniscience, with which he has been decorated, only to render him still\nmore incomprehensible? How can the wisdom, the goodness, justice, and\nother moral qualities of this God, be reconciled with that strange and\noften atrocious conduct, which are attributed to him in almost every\npage of the Old and New Testament? Would it not have been better to have\nleft mankind in entire ignorance of the Godhead, than to reveal to him a\nGod made up of contradictions, which lead to eternal dispute, and serve\nonly to trouble his repose? To reveal such a God to mankind, is only to\ndiscover to them the means to embarrass and render themselves wretched,\nand quarrel with and injure one another.\n\nBut, be this as it may, is it true that Christianity admits but one God,\nthe same which was revealed by Moses? Do we not see Christians adore a\nthreefold divinity, under the name of the Trinity? The supreme God begat\nfrom all eternity a son equal to himself; from these two proceeds a\nthird equal to the two first; these three Gods, equal in perfection,\ndivinity, and power, form, nevertheless, only one God. To overturn this\nsystem, it seems sufficient only to shew its absurdity. Is it but to\nreveal such mysteries as these that the Godhead has taken pains to\ninstruct mankind? Have opinions more absurd and contrary to reason ever\nexisted among the most ignorant and savage nations?l In the mean time,\nhowever, the writings of Moses contain nothing that could authorise the\nconstruction of a system so wild. It is only by having recourse to the\nmost forced explanations, that the doctrine of the Trinity is pretended\nto be found in the Bible. As to the Jews, contented with the only God\nwhich their legislator has declared to them, they have never attempted\nto create a threefold one.\n\n     1 The dogma of the Trinity is evidently borrowed from the\n     reveries of Plato, or from the allegories under which that\n     romantic philosopher chose to conceal his doctrine. It\n     appears that to him the Christian religion is indebted for\n     the greater part of its dogmas. Plato admitted three\n     Hypostases, or modes of being in the Divinity. The first\n     constituted the supreme God; the second the Logos, Word, or\n     divine intelligence proceeding from the first; the third is\n     the Spirit, or Soul of the World. The early teachers of the\n     Christian religion appear to have been Platonics; their\n     enthusiasm probably found in Plato a doctrine analogous to\n     their feelings; had they been grateful, they would have\n     recorded him as a prophet, or, at least, as one of the\n     fathers of the church. The Jesuitical missionaries found a\n     Divinity, nearly similar to that of the Christians, at\n     Thibet. Among the Tartars, God is called Kon-cio-cik, the\n     only God, and Kon-cio-sum, the threefold God. They also give\n     him the titles On, Ha, Hum, intelligence, might, power or\n     words, heart, love. The number three was always revered\n     among the ancients; because Salom, which in the Oriental\n     languages signifies three, signifies also health, safety,\n     salvation.\n\n\nThe second of these Gods, or, according to the Christians, the second\nperson of the Trinity, having clad himself with human nature, and\nbecome incarnate in the womb of a virgin, he submitted himself to the\ninfirmities of our species, and even suffered an ignominious death to\nexpiate the sins of the earth. This is what Christians call the mystery\nof Incarnation. He must be indeed blind, who cannot see these absurd\nnotions are borrowed from the Egyptians, Indians, and Grecians, whose\nridiculous mythologies describe gods as possessing human forms, and\nsubject to infirmities, like mankind.1\n\n     1 The Egyptians appear to have been the first who pretended\n     that their gods had assumed material bodies. Foe, the God of\n     the Chinese, was born of a virgin, who was fecundated by a\n     ray of the sun. In Indostan nobody doubts the incarnations\n     of Vistnou. It seems that theologists of all nations,\n     despairing to exalt themselves to a level with God, have\n     endeavoured to debase him to a level with themselves.\n\n\nThus, we are commanded by Christianity to believe that a God having\nbecome man without doing injury to his divine nature, has suffered,\ndied, and offered himself a sacrifice to himself; and all this was\nabsolutely and indispensibly necessary to appease his own wrath. This\nis what Christians denominate the mystery of the redemption of the human\nrace.\n\nThis dead God, however, was resuscitated. Thus the Adonis of the\nPhenicians, the Osiris of the Egyptians, and the Atys of the Phrygians,\nare represented as periodically resigning and re-assuming life. The\nGod of the Christians rises again, re-animated, and bursts the tomb,\ntriumphant.\n\nSuch are the wondrous secrets, or sublime mysteries, that the Christian\nreligion unfolds to its disciples. So great, so abject, and so ever\nincomprehensible are the ideas it gives us of the divine Being. Such is\nthe illumination our minds receive from revelation! A revelation which\nonly serves to render still more impenetrable the clouds which veil the\ndivine essence from human eyes. God, we are told, is willing to render\nhimself inconsistent and ridiculous, to confound the curiosity of those\nwhom, we are at the same time informed, he desires to enlighten by\nhis special grace. What must we think of a revelation which, far from\nteaching us any thing, is calculated to darken and puzzle the clearest\nideas?\n\nThus, notwithstanding the boasted revelation of the Christians, they\nknow nothing of that Being whom they make the basis of their religion.\nOn the contrary, it only serves to obscure all the notions which might\notherwise be formed of him. In Holy Writ he is called an hidden God.\nDavid tells us, that he places his dwelling in darkness, that clouds\nand troubled waters form the pavilion with which he is covered. In fine,\nChristians, although enlightened, as they say, by God himself, have only\nridiculous and inconsistent ideas of him, which render his existence\ndoubtful, or even impossible, in the eyes of every man who consults his\nreason.\n\nWhat notions, indeed, can we form of a God, who, after having created\nthe world solely for the happiness of mankind, nevertheless suffers the\ngreater part of the human race to be miserable both in this world and\nthat which is to come? How can a God, who enjoys a supreme felicity, be\noffended with the actions of his creatures? This God is then susceptible\nof grief; his happiness can be disturbed; he is then dependent on man,\nwho can, at pleasure, delight or afflict him! How can a benevolent God\nbestow on his creatures a fatal liberty by the abuse of which they may\nincur his anger, and their own destruction? How can that Being, who is\nhimself the author of life and nature, suffer death? How can an only God\nbecome triple without injuring his unity? We shall be answered, that\nall these matters are mysteries; but such mysteries destroy even the\nexistence of God. It would be more reasonable to admit, with Zoroaster,\nor Manes, two principles or opposite powers in nature, than to believe,\nwith Christians, that there is an omnipotent God, who cannot prevent\nthe existence of evil; a God who is just, and yet partial; a God\nall-merciful, and yet so implacable, that he will punish through an\neternity the crimes of a moment; an only God, who is threefold; a God,\nthe chief of beings, who consents to die, being unable to satisfy by\nany other means his divine justice. If, in the same subject, contraries\ncannot subsist at the same time, either the existence of the God of the\nJews, or that of the Christians, must undoubtedly be impossible. Whence\nwe are forced to conclude, that the teachers of Christianity, by means\nof the attributes with which they have decorated, or rather disfigured\ntheir Godhead, have, in fact, annihilated the God of the Jews, or,\nat least, so transformed him, that he is no longer the same. Thus,\nrevelation, with all its fables and mysteries, has only embarrassed the\nreason of mankind, and rendered uncertain the simple notions which\nthey might form to themselves of that necessary Being, who governs the\nuniverse with immutable laws. Though the existence of a God cannot be\ndenied, it is yet certain that reason cannot admit the existence of\nthe one which the Christians adore, and whose conduct, commands, and\nqualities, their religion pretends to reveal. If they are Atheists,\nwho have no ideas of the Supreme Being, the Christian theology must be\nlooked upon as a project invented to destroy his existence.1\n\n     1 Divines have always disagreed among themselves respecting\n     the proofs of the existence of a God. They mutually style\n     each other Atheists, because their demonstrations have never\n     been the same. Few Christians have written on the existence\n     of God, without drawing upon themselves an accusation of\n     Atheism. Descartes, Clarke, Pascal, Arnauld; and Nicole,\n     have been considered as Atheists. The reason is plain. It is\n     impossible to prove the existence of a Being so inconsistent\n     as the God of the Christians. We shall be told that men have\n     no means for judging of the Divinity, and that our\n     understandings are too narrow to form any idea of him. Why\n     then do they dispute incessantly concerning him? Why assign\n     to him qualities which destroy each other? Why recount\n     fables concerning him? Why quarrel and cut each others\n     throats, because they are differently interpreted by\n     different persons?\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. VIII.--MYSTERIES AND DOGMAS OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n\nNot content with having enveloped their God in mysterious clouds and\nJudaic fables, the teachers of Christianity seen to be still busied\nin the multiplication of mysteries, and embarrassing more and more the\nreason of their disciples. Religion, designed to enlighten mankind,\nis only a tissue of enigmas; a labyrinth which sound sense can never\nexplore. That which ancient superstitions found most incomprehensible,\nseems not unaptly to be interwoven with a religious system, which\nimposes eternal silence on reason. The fatalism of the Grecians has been\ntransformed, in the hands of Christian priests, into predestination.\nAccording to this tyrannic dogma, the God of mercies has destined the\ngreatest part of mankind to eternal torments. He places them in this\nworld that they, by the abuse of their faculties and liberty, may render\nthemselves worthy of the implacable wrath of their Creator. A benevolent\nand prescient God gives to mankind a free will, of which he knows they\nwill make so perverse an use, as to merit eternal damnation. Thus,\ninstead of furnishing them with the propensities necessary to their\nhappiness, he permits them to act, only that he may have the pleasure of\nplunging them into hell. Nothing can be more horrid than the description\ngiven us by Christians of this place, destined to be the future\nresidence of almost all mankind. There a merciful God will, throughout\nan eternity, bathe himself in the tears of wretches, whom he created for\nmisery. Sinners, shut up in this awful dungeon, will be delivered up for\never to devouring flames. There shall be heard weeping, and wailing,\nand gnashing of teeth. The torments of this place shall, at the end of\nmillions of years, have only begun.\n\nThe consoling hope of a distant mitigation of pain shall be unknown. In\none word, God, by an act of his omnipotence, shall render man capable of\nmiseries uninterrupted, and interminable. His justice will punish finite\ncrimes, the effects of which are limited by time, by torments infinite\nin degree and duration. Such is the idea a Christian forms of the God\nthat demands his love. This tyrant, creates him only to render him\nmiserable; he gives him reason to deceive him, and propensities to lead\nhim astray. He gives him liberty, that he may incur eternal ruin. He\ngives him advantages above the beasts, that he may be subjected to\ntorments, which beasts, like inanimate substances, are incapable of\nsuffering. The dogma of predestination represents the lot of man as\nworse than that of brutes and stones.1\n\n     1 The doctrine of predestination was also a tenet of the\n     Jews. In the writings of Moses, a God is exhibited, who, in\n     his decrees, is partially fond of a chosen people, and\n     unjust to all others. The theology and history of the Greeks\n     represent men as punished for necessary crimes, foretold by\n     oracles. Of this Orestes, Oedipus, Ajax, &c. are examples.\n     Mankind have always described God as the most unjust of all\n     beings. According to the Jansenists, God bestows his grace\n     on whom he pleases, without any regard to merit. This is\n     much more conformable to the Christian, Pagan, and Jewish\n     fatalism, than the doctrine of the Molinists, who say that\n     God grants his grace to all who ask and deserve it. It is\n     certain that Christians in general are true fatalists. They\n     evade this accusation, by declaring that the designs of God\n     are mysteries. If so, why do they eternally dispute about\n     them?\n\n\nIt is true, the Christian religion promises a blissful residence to\nthose whom God shall have chosen to be objects of his love. But this\nplace is reserved only for a small number of elect, who, without any\nmerit in themselves, shall, nevertheless, have unbounded claims upon the\ngrace of God.\n\nThus, the Tartarus and Elysium of the heathen mythology, invented by\nimpostors to awe and seduce mankind, have been transplanted into the\nsystem of the Christians, who have given them the new appellation of\nHeaven and Hell.\n\nThe followers of the Christian religion believe in a race of invisible\nbeings, different from man and subordinate to God, part of whom is\nemployed in executing the wrath of God upon offenders; and part in\nwatching over his works, and particularly the preservation of man. The\nformer, being malevolent spirits, are called devils, demons, &c. the\nlatter, being benevolent spirits, are called angels. They are supposed\nto have the faculty of rendering themselves sensible, and taking the\nhuman form. Good angels are, in the imagination of Christians, what the\nNymphs, Lares, and Penates, were imagined to be by the heathens, and\nwhat the Fairies were with writers of romances. The sacred books of the\nJews and Christians are replete with these marvellous beings, whom God\nhas sent to his favourites to be their guides, protectors, and tutelar\ndeities.\n\nDevils are considered as the enemies and seducers of the human race, and\nperpetually busied in drawing them into sin. A power is attributed to\nthem of performing miracles, similar to those wrought by the Most High;\nand, above, a power that counteracts his, and renders all his projects\nabortive. In fact, the Christian religion does not formally allow\nthe same power to the devil as to God; nevertheless, it supposes that\nmalevolent being prevents mankind from entering into the enjoyment of\nthe felicity destined them by the goodness of God, and leads most of\nthem into eternal perdition. Christians, however, do virtually attribute\nto the devil an empire much more extensive than that of the Supreme\nBeing. The latter, with difficulty, saves a few elect; while the former\ncarries off, in spite of him, the greater part of mankind, who listen to\nhis destructive temptations, rather than the absolute commands of God.\nThis Satan, the cause of so much terror to Christians, was evidently\nborrowed from the doctrine of two principles, formerly admitted in Egypt\nand all the East. The Osyris and Typhon of the Egyptians, the Orosmades\nand Aharimanes of the Persians and Chaldeans, have undoubtedly given\nbirth to the continual war between the God of Christians and his\nformidable adversary. By this system mankind have endeavoured to account\nfor all the good and evil with which life is chequered. An Almighty\nDevil serves to justify the Supreme Being with respect to all necessary\nand unremitted evils which afflict the human race.\n\nSuch are the dreadful and mysterious doctrines upon which Christians\nin general are agreed. There are many others which are peculiar\nto different sects. Thus, a numerous sect of Christians admit an\nintermediate state between heaven and hell, where souls, too sinful for\nthe former and too innocent for the latter, are subjected for a time, in\norder to expiate by their sufferings the sin they commit in this life;\nafter undergoing this punishment, they are received into the abodes\nof eternal felicity. This doctrine, which was evidently drawn from\nthe reveries of Plato, has, in the hands of the Roman priests, been\nconverted into an inexhaustible source of riches. They have arrogated\nto themselves the power of opening the gates of purgatory, and pretend\nthat, by their prayers, they can mitigate the rigour of the divine\ndecrees, and abridge the torments of the souls, condemned to this place\nby a just God.1\n\n     1 It is evident that the Roman Catholics are indebted to\n     Plato for their purgatory. That great philosopher divided\n     souls into three classes: the pure, the curable, and the\n     incurable. The first returned, by refusion, to the universal\n     soul of the world, or the divinity, from which they had\n     emanated; the second went to hell, where they passed in\n     review every year before the judges of that dark empire, who\n     suffered them to return to light when they had sufficiently\n     expiated their faults; the incurables remained in Tartarus,\n     where they were to suffer eternal torment. Plato, as well\n     as, Christian casuists, described the crimes, faults, &c.\n     which merit those different degrees of punishment.\n\n\nProtestant divines, jealous probably of the riches of the Catholic\nclergy, have imprudently rejected the doctrine of a purgatory, whereby\nthey have much diminished their own credit. It would, perhaps, have been\nwiser to have rejected the doctrine of an hell, whence souls can never\nbe released, than that of purgatory, which is more reasonable, and from\nwhich the clergy can deliver souls by means of that all-powerful agent,\nmoney.\n\nThe preceding remarks shew, that the Christian religion has been often\ninculcated and spread by dint of terror. By striking mankind with\nhorror they render them submissive, and remove all his dependence on his\nreason.1\n\n     1 Mahomet perceived, as well as Christian divines, the\n     necessity of frightening mankind, in order to govern them.\n     \"Those,\" says the Koran, \"who do not believe, shall be\n     clothed in a garment of fire; boiling water shall be poured\n     on their heads; their skins and their entrails shall be\n     smitten with rods of iron. Whenever they shall strive to\n     escape from hell, and avoid its torments, they shall be\n     thrust again into it; and the devils say unto them, 'taste\n     the pain of burning'.\" See Alcoran, ch. viii.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. IX.--OF THE RITES AND MYSTERIOUS CEREMONIES\n\nOR THEURGY OF THE CHRISTIANS.\n\n\nIf the doctrines of the Christian religion be mysteries inaccessible\nto reason; if the God it announces be inconceivable, we ought not to be\nsurprised at seeing the rites and ceremonies of this religion mysterious\nand unintelligible. Concerning a God, who hath revealed himself only to\nconfound human reason, all things must necessarily be incomprehensible\nand unreasonable.\n\nThe most important ceremony of the Christian religion is called baptism.\nWithout this, no man, it is held, can be saved. It consists in pouring\nwater on the infant or adult, with an invocation on the name of the\nTrinity. By the mysterious virtue of this water, and the words by which\nit is accompanied, the person is spiritually regenerated. He is cleansed\nfrom the stains, transmitted through successive generations, from the\nfather of the human race. In a word, he becomes a child of God, and is\nprepared to enter into his glory at death. Now, it is said, that the\ndeath of man is the effect of the sin of Adam; and if, by baptism, sin\nbe effaced, why is man still subject to death? But here we are told,\nit is from the spiritual, not bodily death, that Christ has delivered\nmankind. Yet this spiritual death is only the death of sinfulness. In\nthis case, how does it happen that Christians continue to sin, as if\nthey had never been redeemed and delivered from sin? Whence it results,\nthat baptism is a mystery impenetrable to reason; and its efficacy is\ndisproved by experience.1\n\nIn some Christian sects, a bishop or pontiff, by pronouncing a few\nwords, and applying a few drops of oil to the forehead, causes the\nspirit to descend upon whom he pleases. By this ceremony the Christian\nis confirmed in the faith, and receives invisibly a profusion of graces\nfrom the Most High. Those who wandering farthest from reason, have\nentered most deeply into the spirit of the Christian religion, not\ncontented with the dark mysteries common to other sects, have invented\none still darker and more astonishing, which they denominate\ntransubstantiation. At the all-powerful command of a priest, the God of\nthe Universe is forced to descend from the habitation of his glory, and\ntransform himself into a piece of bread. This bread is afterwards\nworshipped by a people, who boast their detestation of idolatry.2\n\n     1 The ceremony of baptism was practised in the mysteries of\n     Mythias, and those initiated were thereby regenerated. This\n     Mythias was also a mediator. Although Christian divines\n     consider baptism necessary to salvation, we find Paul would\n     not suffer the Corinthians to be baptised. We also learn\n     that he circumcised Timotheos.\n\n     2 The Bramas of Indostan distribute a kind of grain in their\n     pagodas: this distribution is called Prajadnn, or\n     Eucharist. The Mexicans believe in a kind of\n     transubstantiation, which is mentioned by father Acosta. See\n     his Travels, chap. xxiv. The Protestants have had the\n     courage to reject transubstantiation, although it is\n     formally established by Christ, who says, \"Take, eat; this\n     is my body.\" Averoes said, \"Anima mea fit cum philosophie,\n     non vero cum Christianis, gente stolidissima, qui Deuni\n     faciunt et comedunt.\" The Peruvians have a religious\n     ceremony, in which after sacrificing a lamb, they mingle his\n     blood with flour, and distribute it amongst the people.--\n     Aluetanae Quest, lib. ii. cap. 20.\n\n\nIn the puerile ceremonies, so highly valued by Christians, we cannot\navoid seeing the plainest traces of the Theurgy practised among the\nOrientals, where the Divine Being, compelled by the magic power of\ncertain words and ceremonies uttered, by priests, or other persons\ninitiated into the necessary secret, descends to earth and performs\nmiracles. This sort of magic is also exercised among Christian priests.\nThey persuade their disciples that, by certain arbitrary actions, and\ncertain movements of the body, they can oblige the God of Nature to\nsuspend his laws, give himself up to their desires, and load them with\nevery favour they choose to demand. Thus, in this religion, the priest\nassumes the right of commanding God himself.\n\nOn this empire over their God, this real Theurgy, or mysterious commerce\nwith heaven, are founded those puerile and ridiculous ceremonies\nwhich Christians call sacraments. We have already seen this Theurgy\nin Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. We find it, also, in\npenitence, or the power which the priests of some sects arrogate to\nthemselves, of remitting, in the name of Heaven, all sins confessed\nto them. It is seen in orders, that is to say, in the ceremony which\nimpresses on certain men a sacred character, by which they are ever\nafter distinguished from profane mortals. It is seen in the rites and\nfunctions which torture the last moments of the dying. It is seen in\nmarriage, which natural union, it is supposed, cannot meet with the\napprobation of Heaven, unless the ceremony of a priest render it valid,\nand procure it the sanction of the Most High.1\n\n     1 The number of Roman Catholic sacraments, seven; a\n     cabalistic, magic, and mysterious number.\n\n\nWe see this Theurgy, or white magic, in the prayers, forms, liturgies,\nand, in short, in all the ceremonies of the Christians. We find it in\ntheir opinion, that words disposed in a certain manner can influence\nthe will of God, and oblige him to change his immutable decrees. Its\nefficacy is seen in exorcisms, that is, ceremonies, in which, by means\nof a magic water and some mysterious words, it is pretended that evil\nspirits which infest mankind can be expelled. Holy water, which has\ntaken the place of the _aqua lustralis_ of the Romans, is believed by\ncertain Christians to possess astonishing virtues. It renders sacred,\nplaces and things which were profane. In fine, the Christian Theurgy\nbeing employed by a pontiff in the consecration of a king, renders\nhim more respectable in the eyes of men, and stamps him with a divine\ncharacter.\n\nThus all is magic and mystery, all is incomprehensible, in a religion\nrevealed by God himself, to enlighten the darkened understanding of\nmankind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. X.--OF THE INSPIRED WRITINGS OF THE CHRISTIANS.\n\nChristians endeavour to prove the divine origin of their religion by\ncertain writings, which they believe to be sacred, and to have been\ninspired by God himself. Let us then see if these writings do really\nexhibit marks of that wisdom, omniscience, and perfection which we\nattribute to the Divinity.\n\nThe Bible, every word of which Christians believe to have been dictated\nby inspiration, is composed of an incongruous collection of the sacred\nwritings of the Hebrews, called the Old Testament; to which are added, a\nnumber of works, more recent indeed, but of equal inspiration, known by\nthe name of the New Testament. At the head of this collection are five\nbooks which are attributed to Moses, who was, it is said, in writing\nthem, the secretary of God. He therein goes back to the origin of\nthings. He attempts to initiate us into the mystery of the creation of\nthe world, of which he has only the most vague and confused ideas. He\nbetrays at every word a profound ignorance of the laws of Nature. God,\naccording to Moses, created the sun, which, in our planetary system, is\nthe source of light, several days after he had created the light. God,\nwho can be represented by no image, created man in his own image. He\ncreates him male and female; but, soon forgetting what he had done, he\ncreates woman from one of the ribs of the man. In one word, we see,\nat the very entrance of the Bible, nothing but ignorance and\ncontradiction.1 It appears, at once, that the cosmogony of the Hebrews\nis only a tissue of fables and allegories, incapable of giving any true\nidea of things, and calculated to please only a savage and ignorant\npeople, destitute of science, and unqualified for reasoning. In the rest\nof the writings of Moses, we see little but a string of marvellous and\nimprobable stories, and a mass of ridiculous and arbitrary laws. The\nauthor concludes with giving an account of his own death. The books\nposterior to Moses exhibit equal ignorance. Joshua stops the sun, which\ndid not move. Sampson, the Jewish Hercules, has strength to overthrow\na temple.--But we should never finish the enumeration of the fables and\nfalsehoods of these books, which are audaciously attributed to the Holy\nGhost. The story of the Hebrews presents us only with a mass of tales,\nunworthy the gravity of history and the majesty of Divinity ridiculous\nto reason, it appears to have been invented only to amuse the credulity\nof a stupid and infant people.\n\n     1 St. Augustin confesses that there is no way of preserving\n     the true sense of the three first chapters of Genesis\n     without wronging religion and attributing things to God\n     which are unworthy of him; and declares, that recourse must\n     be had to allegory. Aug. de Genesi, contra Machineos.\n     Origen, also, grants, if we take the history of the Bible\n     literally, it is absurd and contradictory.--Philos.  p. 12.\n\n\nThis strange compilation is intermingled with obscure, and unconnected\noracles, with which different prophets have, from time to time,\nenriched Jewish superstition. Every thing in the Old Testament breathes\nenthusiasm, fanaticism, and delirium, often decorated with pompous\nlanguage. There, every thing is to be found, except good sense, good\nlogic, and reason, which seems to be absolutely excluded from the books\nwhich guide the conduct of the Hebrews and Christians.\n\nWe have already mentioned the abject, and often absurd ideas of God,\nwhich are exhibited in the Bible. In this book, all his conduct appears\nridiculous. He blows hot and cold, and contradicts himself every moment.\nHe acts imprudently, and then repents of what he had done. He supports\nwith one hand, and destroys with the other. After having punished all\nthe human race with death, for the sins of man, he declares, by Ezekiel,\nthat he is just, and will not render children responsible for the\niniquities of their fathers. He commands the Hebrews, by the mouth of\nMoses, to rob the Egyptians. In the decalogue, published by Moses, theft\nand murder are forbidden. In short, Jehovah, ever in contradiction with\nhimself, varies with circumstances, preserves no uniformity of conduct,\nand is represented in the books, said to be inspired by his spirit, as a\ntyrant, which the most decided villain would blush to be.\n\nWhen we cast our eyes over the New Testament, there, also, we see\nnothing characteristic of that spirit of truth which is said to have\ndictated this work. Four historians, or fabulists, have written the\nmarvellous history of the Messiah. Seldom agreeing with respect to the\ncircumstances of his life, they sometimes contradict each other in the\nmost palpable manner. The genealogy of Christ, given us by Matthew,\ndiffers widely from that given us by Luke. One of the Evangelists says,\nthat Christ was carried into Egypt; whilst, by another, this event is\nnot even hinted at.\n\nOne makes the duration of his mission three years, while another\nrepresents it as only as many months. We do not find them at all better\naccord respecting the facts in general which they report. Mark says\nthat Christ died at the third hour, that is to say, nine o'clock in the\nmorning: John says that he died at the sixth hour, that is, at noon.\nAccording to Matthew and Mark, the women who, after the death of Jesus,\nwent to his sepulchre, saw only one angel; whereas, according to Luke\nand John, they saw two. These angels were, by some, said to be within\nthe tomb; by others, without. Several of the miracles of Jesus are also\ndifferently reported by the Evangelists. This is likewise the case with\nhis appearances after his resurrection. Ought not all these things to\nexcite a doubt of the infallibility of the Evangelists, and the reality\nof their divine inspirations? What shall we say of the false and forged\nprophecies, applied to Christ in the gospel? Matthew pretends that\nJeremy foretold that Christ should be betrayed for thirty pieces of\nsilver; yet no such prophecy is to be found in Jeremiah. Nothing is\nmore singular than the manner in which Christian divines evade these\ndifficulties. Their solutions are calculated to satisfy only those who\nconceive it their duty to remain in blindness.1\n\n     1 Jerome himself says, that the quotations of Matthew do not\n     agree with the Greek version of the Bible. Erasmus is\n     obliged to confess that the Holy Spirit permitted the\n     Apostles to go astray.\n\n\nEvery man of sense must feel, that all the industry and sophism on earth\ncan never reconcile such palpable contradictions; and the efforts of\ninterpreters serve only to shew the weakness of their cause. Is it,\nthen by subterfuges, subtilties, and falsehoods, that we are to render\nservice to God?\n\nWe find equal errors and contradictions in the pompous gasconade and\ndeclamatory bombast of St. Paul. The epistles and harangues of this man,\ninspired by the Spirit of God, appear to be the enthusiastic ravings of\na madman. The most laboured commentaries have, in vain, endeavoured to\nreconcile the contradictions with which his work are filled, and the\ninconsistency of his conduct, which sometimes favoured and sometimes\nopposed Judaism.1 We do not find ourselves more enlightened by the works\nattributed to the other Apostles. It seems as if these persons, inspired\nby the Holy Ghost, came on the earth only to prevent their disciples\nfrom comprehending what they had been sent to teach them.\n\n     1 St. Paul himself informs us, that he was ravished up to\n     the third heaven. Why was he transported thither, and what\n     did he learn by his journey? Things unspeakable, which no\n     man could, comprehend. What advantage are mankind to derive\n     from all this? St. Paul, in the Acts of the Apostles, is\n     guilty of a falsehood, in saying before the high-priest,\n     that he is persecuted, because he is a Pharisee, and on\n     account of the resurrection. Here: are two untruths. First,\n     because Paul was, at that time, the most zealous Apostle of\n     the Christian religion, and consequently a Christian.\n     Secondly, because the accusations brought against him did\n     not refer to his opinion on resurrection. If we know that\n     the Apostles sometimes wandered from the truth, how shall we\n     believe them at others? Further, we see this great Apostle\n     continually changing his counsels and conduct. At Jerusalem,\n     he point-blank opposes Peter, who favoured Judaism; whereas\n     he himself afterwards complied with Jewish rites. In fine,\n     he always accommodates himself to the circumstances of the\n     time, and becomes all things to all men. He seems to have\n     set an example to the Jesuits, of their conduct in the\n     Indies, with which they are reproached, where they unite the\n     worship of the Pagans to that of Christ.\n\n\nAt the foot of the collection, which forms the New Testament, we find\nthe mystic work known by the name of the Revelation of St. John. This is\nan unintelligible thing, in which the author has endeavoured to collect\nand concentrate all the gloomy and dreadful ideas contained in the rest\nof the Bible. It exhibits to the wretched race of Man the awful and\napproaching end of a perishing world. It is filled with horrid pictures,\nby gazing on which, the trembling Christian becomes petrified with\nfear and wonder, indifferent to life, and useless, or an incumbrance\nto society. Thus, in a manner not unworthy of itself, terminates this\ncompilation, so inestimable and adorable to Christians, so ridiculous\nand contemptible to the man of reason, so unworthy of a good and\nbounteous God; so detestable to him who contemplates the unparalleled\nevils it has occasioned on the earth.\n\nHaving taken for the rule of their conduct and opinions a book so full\nof blasphemous fables and striking, contradictions concerning God,\nChristians have never agreed in the interpretation of his will, or\nprecisely known what he exacted from them. Thus they have made this\nobscure work a bone of contention, an inexhaustible source of quarrels,\na common arsenal, where all contending parties have supplied themselves\nwith arms for mutual destruction. Geometricians dispute not concerning\nthe fundamental principles of their science. By what fatality does it\nhappen that Christian revelation, the foundation of a religion on which\ndepends the eternal felicity of man, should be unintelligible, subject\nto disputes, and often deluge the earth with blood? To judge by effects,\nsuch a revelation ought rather to be thought the work of a malign\nspirit, a genius of darkness and falsehood, than of a God desirous to\npreserve, enlighten, and beautify mankind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XI.--OF CHRISTIAN MORALITY.\n\n\nWere we to believe Christians, there could have been no true morality on\nearth before the coming of the founder of their sect. They represent\nthe world is having been plunged in darkness and vice at all times and\nplaces where Christ was unknown. Yet morality was always necessary to\nmankind; for, without it, no society can exist. We find, that before\nthe time of Christ, there were flourishing and virtuous nations, and\nenlightened philosophers, who continually reminded mankind of their\nduties. The precepts of Socrates, Confucius, and the Gymnosophists\nof India, are by no means inferior to those of the Messiah of the\nChristians. We find, amongst heathens, innumerable instances of equity,\nhumanity, temperance, disinterestedness, patience, and meekness, which\nflatly contradict the pretensions of the Christians, and prove that,\nbefore Christ was known on earth, virtues flourished, which were for\nmore real than those he came to teach to men.\n\nWas a supernatural revelation necessary to inform mankind that society\ncannot exist without virtue, and that, by the admission of vice,\nsocieties consent to their own destruction? Was it necessary that a God\nshould speak, to shew that they have need of mutual aid and mutual love?\nWas assistance from on High necessary to discover that revenge is an\nevil, and an outrage upon the laws, which, when they are just, assume to\nthemselves the right of retribution? Is not the forgiveness of injuries\nconnected with this principle? And is not hatred eternalized where\nimplacable revenge is exercised? Is not the pardoning of our enemies a\ngreatness of soul, which gives us an advantage over those who offend us?\nWhen we do good to our enemies does it not give us a superiority over\nthem? Is not such conduct calculated to multiply our friends? Does not\nevery man, who is desirous to live, perceive that vice, intemperance,\nand voluptuousness must shorten the period of life? Has not experience\ndemonstrated to every thinking being, that vice is injurious and\ndetestable, even to those who are not free from its empire, and that the\npractice of virtue is the only means, of acquiring real esteem and love?\nHowever little mankind may reflect on what they themselves, their true\ninterests, and the end of society are, they must feel what they ought\nto be to each other. Good laws will render them good; and where\nthese exist, there is no need of flying to heaven for rules for the\npreservation and happiness of society. Reason is sufficient to teach us\nour duties to our fellow-creatures. What assistance can it receive from\na religion by which it is continually contradicted and degraded?\n\nIt is said, that Christianity, far from counteracting morality, is its\nchief support, and renders its obligations more sacred, by giving them\nthe sanction of God. In my opinion, however, the Christian religion,\ninstead of supporting morality renders it weak and precarious. It cannot\npossibly have any solid foundation on the commands of a God, who is\nchanging, partial, and capricious; and ordains with the same mouth,\njustice and injustice, concord and carnage, toleration and persecution.\nIt is impossible to follow the precepts of a rational morality, under\nthe empire of a religion, which makes a merit of the most destructive\nzeal, enthusiasm, and fanaticism. A religion, which commands us to\nimitate the conduct of a despot who delights to ensnare his creatures,\nwho is implacable in his vengeance, and devotes to flaming destruction\nall who have the misfortune to displease him, is incompatible with all\nmorality. The innumerable crimes with which the Christian, more than any\nother religion, has stained itself, have always been committed under the\npretext of pleasing the ferocious God whom the Christians have inherited\nfrom the Jews. The moral character of this God, must, of necessity,\ngovern the moral conduct of those who adore him.\n\nHence arises the uncertainty of Christians, whether it be most\nconformable to the spirit of their religion to tolerate, or to\npersecute, those who differ from them in opinion. The two parties\nfind themselves equally authorised in modes of conduct which are\ndiametrically opposite. At one time, Jehovah declares his detestation\nof idolaters, and makes it a duty to exterminate them; at another time\nMoses forbids his people to speak ill of the God of nations. The Son of\nGod forbids persecution, after having said that men must be constrained\nto enter into his kingdom. Yet, as the idea of a severe and cruel\nGod makes a much deeper impression than that of a bounteous one, true\nChristians have generally thought it their duty to exert their zeal\nagainst those whom they have supposed to be enemies to their God. They\nhave imagined it impossible to offend him by espousing his cause\nwith too much ardour. Toleration has seldom been practised, except by\nindolent and phlegmatic Christians, of a temperament little analogous to\nthat of the God whom they serve.\n\nMust not a true Christian, to whose imitation the example of the saints\nand heroes of the Old Testament are proposed, become ferocious and\nsanguinary? Will he not find motives for cruelty in the conduct of\nMoses, who twice caused the blood of Israel to stream, and immolated to\nhis God more than forty thousand victims? To justify his own, will he\nnot appeal to the perfidious cruelty of Phineas, Jabel, and Judith? Will\nhe not see David to be a monster of barbarity, adultery, and rebellion,\nwhich nevertheless does not prevent his being a man after God's own\nheart? In short, the whole Bible informs the Christian that his God\nis delighted with a furious zeal in his service; and this zeal is\nsufficient to close his eyes on every species of crime.\n\nLet us not, then, be surprised to see Christians incessantly persecuting\neach other. If they are at any time tolerant, it is only when they are\nthemselves persecuted, or too weak to persecute others. Whenever they\nhave power they become the terror and destruction of each other.\nSince Christianity first appeared on earth, its different sects have\nincessantly quarrelled. They have mutually exercised the most refined\ncruelty. Sovereigns, in imitation of David, have espoused the quarrels\nof discordant priests, and served God by fire and sword. Kings\nthemselves have often perished the victims of religious fanaticism,\nwhich tramples on every moral duty in obedience to its God.\n\nIn a word, the religion, which boasts of having brought peace on earth,\nand good will towards men, has for eighteen centuries caused more\nravages, and greater effusions of blood, than all the superstitions of\nheathenism. It has raised walls of separation between the citizens of\nthe same state. It has abandoned concord and affection from families. It\nhas made a duty of injustice and inhumanity. The followers of a God, who\nwas unjustly offended at mankind, became as unjust as he. The servants\nof a jealous and vindictive God, conceived it their duty to enter into\nhis quarrels and avenge his injuries. Under a God of cruelty, it was\njudged meritorious to cause the earth to echo with groans, and float in\nblood.\n\nSuch are the important services which the Christian religion has\nrendered to morality. Let it not be said, that it is through a shameful\nabuse of this religion, that these horrors have happened. A spirit of\npersecution and intolerance is the spirit of a religion ordained by\na God, jealous of his power, a God who has formally commanded the\ncommission of murder; a God, who, in the excess of his anger, has not\nspared even his own Son! The servant of such a God is much surer to\nplease him by exterminating his enemies, than by permitting them to\noffend him in peace. Such a God must necessarily serve as a pretext to\nthe most destructive excesses. A zeal for his glory is used as a veil\nto conceal the passions of all impostors and fanatics who pretend to be\ninterpreters of the will of heaven; and the enthusiastic hopes to\nwash away the greatest crimes by bathing his hands in the blood of the\nenemies of his God.\n\nBy a natural consequence of the same principles, an intolerant religion\ncan be only conditionally submissive to the authority of temporal\nsovereigns. Jews and Christians cannot be obedient to a temporal\ngovernment, unless its laws be conformed to the arbitrary and often\nridiculous commands of their God. But who shall decide whether the laws,\nmost advantageous to society, are conformed to the will of this\nGod? Without doubt, his ministers, the confidants of his secrets and\ninterpreters of his oracles. Thus, in a Christian state, the citizens\nmust be subject rather to spiritual than temporal government, to\nthe priest rather than the magistrate. Hence must arise civil war,\nbloodshed, proscription, and all that inspires the human breast with\nhorror.\n\nSuch is the support afforded to morality by a religion, the first\nprinciple of which is to admit the God of the Jews, that is, a tyrant,\nwhose fantastic commands annihilate every rule necessary to the tranquil\nexistence of society. This God creates justice and injustice, his\nsupreme will changes good into bad, and vice into virtue. His caprice\noverturns the laws which he himself had given to nature. He destroys at\nhis pleasure the moral relations among mankind. In his own conduct he\ndispenses with all duties towards his creatures. He seems to authorise\nthem to follow no certain laws, except those prescribed to them, in\ndifferent circumstances, by the voice of his ministers and prophets.\nThese, when in power, preach nothing but submission. If an attempt be\nmade to abridge that power, they preach arms and rebellion. Are they\nweak? They preach toleration, patience, and meekness. Are they strong?\nThey preach persecution, revenge, rapine, And cruelty. They always find\nin Holy Writ arguments to authorise these different modes of conduct,\nThey find in the oracles of their just and immutable God, arguments\namply sufficient to justify actions diametrically opposite in their\nnature and offence. To lay the foundation of morality on such a God,\nor open books which contain laws so contradictory, is to give it an\nunstable base; it is to found it on the caprice of those who speak in\nthe name of God; it is to found it on the temperament of each one of his\nadorers.\n\nMorality should be founded upon invariable rules. A God who destroys\nthese rules destroys his own work. If God be the creator of man, if he\nintends their happiness and preservation, he would have them to be\njust, humane, and benevolent, and averse to injustice, fanaticism, and\ncruelty.\n\nFrom what has been said, we may see what we ought to think of those\ndivines who pretend that, without the Christian religion there could\nbe neither morality nor virtue among mankind. The converse of this\nproposition would much higher approach the truth; and it might be\nmaintained, that every Christian who imitates his God, and practises all\nhis commands, must necessarily be an immoral person. If it be said,\nthat those commands are not always unjust, and that the Scriptures often\nbreathe benevolence, harmony, and equity, I answer, Christians must have\nan inconstant morality, sometimes good and sometimes bad, according\nto interest and individuals. It appears that Christians must either be\nwholly destitute of true morality, Or vibrate continually from virtue to\nvice, and from vice to virtue.\n\nThe Christian religion is but a rotten prop to morality. It will not\nbear examination, and every man who discovers its defects will be ready\nto believe that the morality founded on such a basis can be only a\nchimera. Thus we often behold men, who have couched the neck beneath\nthe yoke of religion, break loose at once and abandon themselves to\ndebauchery, intemperance, and every kind of vice. Escaping from the\nslavery of superstition, they fly to complete anarchy, and disbelieve\nthe existence of all moral duties, because they have found religion to\nbe but a fable. Hence, among Christians, the words infidel and libertine\nhave become synonymous. All these inconveniences would be avoided if\nmankind, instead of being taught a theological, were taught a natural\nmorality. Instead of interdicting intemperance and vice, because\nthey are offensive to God and religion, they should be prevented, by\nconvincing man that they are destructive to his existence, and render\nhim contemptible in society: that they are disapproved and forbidden by\nreason and nature, who aim at his preservation, and direct him to take\nthe path that leads to permanent felicity. Whatever may be the will of\nGod, and independently of the future rewards and punishments announced\nby religion, it is easy to prove to every man that it is, in this world,\nhis interest to preserve his health, to respect virtue, acquire the\nesteem of his fellow-creatures, and, in fine, to be chaste, temperate,\nand virtuous. Those whose passions will not suffer them to attend to\nprinciples so clear and reasonable, will not be more docile to the voice\nof a religion, which they will cease to believe the moment it opposes\ntheir misguiding propensities.\n\nLet, then, the pretended advantages which the Christian religion lends\nmorality be no longer boasted. The principles drawn from revelation\ntend to its destruction. We have frequent examples of Christian nations,\nwhose morals are far more corrupted than those of people whom they\nstyle infidels and heathens. The former are, at least, most subject to\nreligious fanaticism, a passion calculated to banish justice and all the\nsocial virtues from society.\n\nChristianity creates intolerants and persecutors, who are much more\ninjurious to society than the most abandoned debauchees. It is, at\nleast, certain, that the most Christian nations of Europe, are not those\nwhere true morality is most felt and practised. In Spain, Portugal, and\nItaly, where the most superstitious sect of Christians has fixed its\nresidence, people live in the most shameful ignorance of their duties.\nRobbery, assassination, debauchery, and persecution, are there carried\nto their worst extreme; and yet all men are full of religion. Few\nvirtuous men exist in those countries. Religion itself there becomes an\naccomplice to vice, furnishes criminals with an asylum, and procures\nto them easy means of reconciliation with God. Presents, prayers, and\nceremonies, there furnish mankind with a dispensation from the practice\nof virtue. Amongst nations, who boast of possessing Christianity in\nall its purity, religion has so entirely absorbed the attention of its\nsectaries, that morality enters not into their thought; and they think\nthey fulfil all their duties by a scrupulous observation of the minutiae\nof superstitious ceremonies, whilst they are strangers to all social\naffections, and labour for the destruction of human happiness.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XII.--OF THE CHRISTIAN VIRTUES.\n\n\nWhat has been said is sufficient to shew what we ought to think of\nChristian morality. If we examine the virtues recommended in the\nChristian religion, we find them but ill calculated for mankind.\nThey lift him above his sphere, are useless to society, and often of\ndangerous consequence. In the boasted precepts, which Jesus Christ came\nto give mankind, we find little but extravagant maxims, the practice\nof which is impossible, and rules which, literally followed, must prove\ninjurious to society. In those of his precepts that are practicable,\nwe find nothing which was not as well or better known to the sages of\nantiquity, without the aid of Revelation.\n\nAccording to the Messiah, the whole duty of man consists in loving God\nabove all things, and his neighbour as himself. Is it possible to obey\nthis precept? Can man love a God above all things, who is represented\nas wrathful, capricious, unjust, and implacable? who is said to be cruel\nenough to damn his creatures eternally? Can man love, above all things,\nan object the most dreadful that human imagination could ever conceive?\nCan such an object excite in the human heart a sentiment of love? How\ncan we love that which we dread? How can we delight in the God under\nwhose rod we tremble? Do we not deceive ourselves, when we think we love\na being so terrible, and so calculated to excite nothing but horror?1\n\n     1 Seneca says, with much truth, that a man of sense cannot\n     fear the Gods, because no man can love what he fears. De\n     Benef. 4. The Bible says, the fear of the Lord is the\n     beginning of wisdom. I think it rather the beginning of\n     folly.\n\n\nIs it even practicable for mankind to love their neighbours as\nthemselves? Every man naturally loves himself in preference to all\nothers. He loves his fellow-creatures only in proportion as they\ncontribute to his happiness. He exercises virtue in doing good to his\nneighbour. He acts generously when he sacrifices his self love to his\nlove for another. Yet he will never love his fellow creatures but for\nthe useful qualities he finds in them. He can love them no farther than\nthey are known to him, and his love for them must ever be governed by\nthe good he receives from them.\n\nTo love one's enemies is then impossible. A man may abstain from doing\nevil to the person by whom he is injured; but love is an affection\nwhich can be excited in our hearts only by an object which we supposed\nfriendly to us. Politic nations, who have enacted just and wise\nlaws, have always forbidden individual to revenge, or do justice to\nthemselves, A sentiment of generosity, of greatness of soul, or heroism,\nmay induce mankind to do good to those from whom they suffer injuries.\nBy such means they exalt themselves above their enemies, and may even\nchange the disposition of their hearts. Thus, without having recourse\nto a supernatural morality, we feel that it is our interest to stifle\nin our hearts the lust of revenge. Christians may, therefore, cease to\nboast the forgiveness of injuries, as a precept that could be given\nonly by their God, and which proves the divine origin of their morality.\nPythagoras, long before the time of Christ, had said, let men revenge\nthemselves upon their enemies, only by labouring to convert them into\nfriends. Socrates taught that it was not lawful for a man, who had\nreceived an injury, to revenge it by doing another injury.\n\nChrist must have forgotten that he spoke to men, when, in order\nto conduct them to perfection, he commanded them to abandon their\npossessions to the avidity of the first who should demand them; to turn\nthe other cheek to receive a new insult; to oppose no resistance to\nthe most outrageous violence; to renounce the perishable riches of this\nworld; to forsake houses, possessions, relations, and friends to follow\nhim; and to reject even the most innocent pleasures. Who does not see,\nin these sublime precepts, the language of enthusiasm and hyperbole? Are\nnot they calculated to discourage man, and throw him into despair? If\nliterally practised, would they not prove ruinous to society?\n\nWhat shall we say of the morality, which commands the human heart to\ndetach itself from objects which reason commands it to love? When\nwe refuse the blessings offered us by nature, do we not despise the\nbenefactions of the One Supreme? What real good can result to society\nfrom the melancholy and ferocious virtues which Christians consider\nindispensible?\n\nCan a man continue useful to society, when his mind is perpetually\nagitated with imaginary terrors, gloomy ideas, and black inquietudes,\nwhich incapacitate him for the performance of his duties to his family,\nhis country, and mankind? If the Christian adhere strictly to\nthe gloomy principles of his religion, must he not become equally\ninsupportable to himself, and those by whom he is surrounded?\n\nIt cannot be said, that, in general, fanaticism and enthusiasm are the\nbases of the morality of Christ. The virtues which he recommends tend to\nrender men unsocial, to plunge them into melancholy, and often to render\nthem injurious to their fellow-creatures. Among human beings, human\nvirtues are necessary; Christian virtues are not calculated on the scale\nof real life. Society has need of real virtues, from which it may derive\nenergy, activity, and support. Vigilance, labour, and affection, are\nnecessary to families. A desire of enjoying lawful pleasures, and\naugmenting the sum of their happiness, is necessary to all mankind.\nThe Christian religion is perpetually busied in degrading mankind\nby threatening them with dismaying terrors, or diverting them with\nfrivolous hopes; sentiments equally proper to turn them from their true\nduties. If the Christian literally obey the precepts of his legislator,\nhe will ever be either an useless or injurious member of society.1\n\n     1 Notwithstanding the eulogies lavished by Christians on the\n     precepts of their divine master, some of them are wholly\n     contrary to equity and right reason. When Jesus says, make\n     to yourselves friends in heaven with the mammon of\n     unrighteousness, does he not plainly insinuate, that we may\n     take from others wherewithal to give alms to the poor?\n     Divines will say that he spoke in parables; these parables\n     are, however, easily unfolded. In the mean time, this\n     precept is but too well followed. Many Christians cheat and\n     swindle during all their lives, to have the pleasure of\n     making donations at their death to churches, monasteries,\n     &c. The Messiah, at another time, treated his mother, who\n     with parental solicitude was seeking him, extremely ill. He\n     commands his disciples to steal an ass. He drowns an herd of\n     swine, &c. It must be confessed, these things do not agree\n     extremely well with good morality.\n\n\nWhat real advantage can mankind derive from those ideal virtues, which\nChristians style evangelic, divine, &c. and which they prefer to the\nsocial, humane, and substantial virtues, and without which they pretend\nno man can please God, or enter into his glory? Let us examine those\nboasted virtues in detail. Let us see of what utility they are to\nsociety, and whether they truly merit the preference which is given\nthem, to those which are pointed out by reason as necessary to the\nwelfare of mankind.\n\nThe first of the Christian virtues is faith, which serves as a\nfoundation for all the others. It consists in an impossible conviction\nof the revealed doctrines and absurd fables which the Christian religion\ncommands its disciples to believe. Hence it appears that this virtue\nexacts a total renunciation of reason, and impracticable assent to\nimprobable facts; and a blind submission to the authority of priests,\nwho are the only guarantees of the truth of the doctrines and miracles\nthat every Christian must believe under penalty of damnation.\n\nThis virtue, although necessary to all mankind, is nevertheless, a gift\nof Heaven, and the effect of a special grace. It forbids all doubt and\nenquiry; and it deprives man of the liberty of exercising his reason\nand reflection. It reduces him to the passive acquiescence of beasts in\nmatters which he is, at the same time, told are of all things the most\nimportant to his happiness. Hence it is plain, that faith is a virtue\ninvented by men, who, shrinking from the light of reason, deceived their\nfellow-creatures, to subject them to their own authority, and degraded\nthem that they might exercise an empire over them. If faith be a virtue,\nit is certainly useful only to the spiritual guides of the Christians,\nfor they alone gather its fruits. It cannot but be injurious to other\nmen, who are taught by it to despise that reason, which distinguishes\nthem from brutes, and is their only faithful guide in this world.\nChristians, however, represent this reason as perverted, and as\nunfaithful guide; by which they seem to intimate that it was not made\nfor reasonable beings. May we not, however, ask them how far this\nrenunciation of reason ought to be carried? Do not they themselves, in\ncertain cases, have recourse to reason? Do they not appeal to reason,\nwhen they endeavour to prove the existence of their God?\n\nBe this as it may, it is an absurdity to say we believe that of which\nwe have no conception. What, then, are the motives of the Christian, for\npretending to such a belief? His confidence in his spiritual guides. But\nwhat is the foundation of this confidence? Revelation. On what, then, is\nRevelation itself founded? On the authority of spiritual guides. Such\nis the manner in which Christians reason. Their arguments in favour of\nfaith are comprised in the following sentence. To believe our religion\nit is necessary to have faith, and to have faith you must believe in our\nreligion. Or, it is necessary to have faith already, in order to believe\nin the necessity of faith.1\n\n     1 Many divines have maintained, that faith without works is\n     sufficient for salvation. This is the virtue which is, in\n     general, most cried up by them. It is, at least, the one\n     most necessary to their existence. It is not, therefore,\n     surprising that they have endeavoured to establish it by\n     fire and sword, it was for the support of faith that the\n     Inquisition burned heretics and Jews. Kings and priests\n     persecute for the establishment of faith. Christians have\n     destroyed those who were destitute of faith, in order to\n     demonstrate to them their error. O wondrous virtue, and\n     worthy of the God of mercies! His ministers punish mankind,\n     when he refuses them his grace!!!\n\n\nThe phantom Faith vanishes at the approach of the sun of Reason. It\ncan never sustain a calm examination. Hence it arises, that certain\nChristian divines are so much at enmity with science. The founder of\ntheir religion declared, that his law was made for ignorant men and\nchildren. Faith is the effect of a grace which God seldom grants to\nenlightened persons, who are accustomed to consult their reason. It\nis adapted only to the minds of men who are incapable of reflection,\ntendered insane by enthusiasm, or invincibly attached to the prejudices\nof Childhood. Science must ever be at enmity with this religion; for in\nproportion as either of them gains ground, the other must lose.\n\nAnother Christian virtue, proceeding from the former, is Hope. Founded\non the flattering promises given by this religion to those who render\nthemselves wretched in this life, it feeds their enthusiasm. It\ninduces them firmly to believe that God will reward, in heaven, their\ngloominess, inutility, indolence, prayers, and detestation of pleasures\non earth. How can a man, who, being intoxicated with these pompous\nhopes, becomes indifferent to his own happiness, concern himself with\nthat of his fellow-creatures? The Christian believes that he pleases his\nGod by rendering himself miserable in this life; and however flattering\nhis hopes may be for the future, they are here empoisoned by the idea of\na jealous God, who commands him to work out his own salvation with fear\nand trembling, and who will plunge him into eternal torture, if he for\na moment has the weakness to be a man. Another of the Christian virtues\nis Charity. It consists in loving God and our neighbour. We have always\nseen how difficult, not to say impossible, it is to feel sentiments of\ntenderness for any being whom we fear. It will, undoubtedly, be said,\nthat the fear of Christians is a filial fear. But words cannot change\nthe essence of things. Fear is a passion totally opposite to love. A\nson, who fears the anger, and dreads the caprices of a father, can never\nlove him sincerely. The love, therefore, of a Christian to his God can\nnever be true. In vain he endeavours to feel sentiments of tenderness\nfor a rigorous master, at whose idea his heart shrinks back in terror.\nHe can never love him but as a tyrant, to whom his mouth renders the\nhomage that his heart refuses. The devotee is not honest to himself,\nwhen he pretends to love his God. His affection is a dissembled homage,\nlike that which men are forced to render to certain inhuman despots,\nwho, while they tread their subjects in the dust, demand from them the\nexterior marks of attachment.\n\nIf some tender minds, by force of illusion, feel sentiments of divine\nlove, it is then a mystic and romantic passion, produced by a warm\ntemperament, and an ardent imagination, which present their God to them\ndressed in smiles, with all his imputed faults concealed.1 The love of\nGod is not the least incomprehensible mystery of this religion.\n\n     1 It is an ardent and tender temperament that produces\n     mystic devotion. Hysterical women are those who commonly\n     love God with most vivacity, they love him to distraction,\n     as they would love a man. In monasteries, particularly Ste.\n     Therese, Madeleine de Pazzy, Marie a la Coque, most of the\n     devotees are of this description. Their imagination grows\n     wild, and they give to their God, whom they paint in the\n     most captivating colours, that tenderness which they are not\n     permitted to bestow on beings of their own species. It\n     requires a strong imagination to be smitten with an object\n     unknown.\n\n\nCharity, considered as the love of mankind, is a virtuous and necessary\ndisposition. It then becomes no more than that tender humanity which\nattaches us to our fellows, and inclines us to love and assist them. But\nhow shall we reconcile this attachment with the commands of a jealous\nGod, who would have us to love none but himself, and who came to\nseparate the friend from the friend, and the son from the father?\nAccording to the precepts of the gospel, it would be criminal to offer\nGod a heart shared by an earthly object. It would be idolatry thus\nto confound the creature with the Creator. And further, how can the\nChristian love beings who continually offend his God? Beings who would\ncontinually betray himself into offence? How can he love sinners?\nExperience, teaches us that the devout, obliged by principle to hate\nthemselves, have very little more affection for others. If this be not\nthe case, they have not arrived, at the perfection of divine love. We do\nnot find that those who are supposed to love the Creator most ardently,\nshew much affection for his creatures. On the contrary, we see them fill\nwith bitterness all who surround them; they criticise with severity the\nfaults of others, and make it a crime to speak of human frailty with\nindulgence.1 A sincere love for God must be accompanied with zeal. A\ntrue Christian must be enraged when he sees his God offended. He must\naim himself with a just and holy severity to repress the offenders. He\nmust have an ardent desire to extend the empire of his religion. A zeal,\noriginating in this divine love, has been the source of the terrible\npersecutions of which Christians have so often been guilty. Zeal\nproduces murderers as well as martyrs. It is this zeal that prompts\nintolerant man to wrest the thunder from the hand of the Most High to\navenge him of his enemies. It is this zeal that causes members of the\nsame state, and the same family, to detest and torment each other for\nopinions, and puerile ceremonies, which they are led to esteem as of\nthe last importance. It is this zeal that has a thousand times, kindled\nthose religious wars so remarkable for their atrocity. Finally, it is\nthis zeal for religion which justifies calumny, treason, carnage,\nand, in short, the disorders most fatal to society. It has always\nbeen considered as lawful to employ artifice, falsehood, and force, in\nsupport of the cause of God. The most choleric and corrupted men are\ncommonly the most zealous. They hope that, for the sake of their\nzeal, Heaven will pardon the depravity of their manners, be it ever so\nexcessive.\n\n     1 Devotees are generally considered as scourges of society.\n     A devout woman has seldom the talent of conciliating the\n     love of her husband and his domestics. A gloomy and\n     melancholy religion cannot render its disciples very\n     amiable. A sad and sullen monarch must have sad and sullen\n     subjects: Christians have judiciously remarked, that Jesus\n     Christ wept, but never smiled.\n\n\nIt is from an effect of the same zeal that enthusiastic Christians fly\nover every sea, and Continent to extend the empire of their God and make\nnew proselytes. Stimulated by this zeal, missionaries go to trouble\nthe repose of what they call heathen nations, whilst they would\nbe astonished and enraged to find missionaries from those nations\nendeavouring to propagate a new religion in their country.1\n\nWhen these propagators of the faith have had power in their hands,\nthey have excited the most horrid rebellions; and have, in conquered\ncountries, exercised cruelties calculated only to render the God\ndetestable whom they pretended to serve. They have thought that men who\nhave so long been strangers to their God could be little better than\nbeasts; and, therefore, judged it lawful to exercise every kind of\nviolence over them. In the eyes of a Christian, an infidel is seldom\nworthier than a dog.\n\nIt is apparently in imitation of the Jews that Christian nations\nhave usurped the possessions of the inhabitants of the new world.\nThe Castilians and Portuguese had the same right to the possession of\nAmerica and Africa, that the Hebrews had to make themselves masters of\nthe land of Canaan, and exterminate its inhabitants, or reduce them\nto slavery. Have not Popes arrogated the right of disposing of distant\nempires to their favourite Monarchs in Europe? These manifest violations\nof the law of nature and of nations appeared just to those Christian\nPrinces, in favour of whom religion sanctified avarice, cruelty, and\nusurpation.2\n\n     1 Kambi, Emperor of China, asked the Jesuit missionaries at\n     Pekin, what they would say, if he should send missionaries\n     to their nation. The revolts excited by the Jesuits in Japan\n     and Ethiopia are well known. A holy missionary has been\n     heard to say, that without muskets, missionaries could never\n     make proselytes.\n\n     2 St. Augustin says, that of right divine, all things belong\n     to the just. A maxim which is founded on a passage in the\n     Psalms, which says, the just shall eat the fruit of the\n     labour of the unrighteous. It is known that the Pope, by a\n     bull given in favour of the kings of Castile, Arragon, and\n     Portugal, fixed the line of demarcation which was to rule\n     the conquests which each had gained over the infidels. After\n     such principles, is not the whole earth to become a prey to\n     Christian rapacity?\n\n\nHumility is, also, considered by Christians as a sublime virtue, and of\ninestimable value. No super-natural and divine revelations are necessary\nto teach us that pride does not become man, and that it renders him\ndisagreeable to others. All must be convinced, on a moment's reflection,\nthat arrogance, presumption, and vanity, are disgusting and contemptible\nqualities.\n\nBut Christian humility is carried to a more refined extreme. The\nChristian must renounce his reason, mistrust his virtues, refuse to do\njustice to his own good actions, and repress all self-esteem, however\nwell merited. Whence it appears, that this pretended virtue only\ndegrades and debases man in his own eyes, deprives him of all energy,\nand stifles in him every desire of rendering himself useful to society.\nTo forbid mankind to esteem themselves and merit the esteem of others,\nis to break the only powerful string that inclines them to study,\nindustry, and noble actions. This Christian virtue is calculated only\nto render them abject slaves, wholly useless to the world, and make\nall virtue give place in them, to a blind submission to their spiritual\nguides.\n\nLet us not be surprised, that a religion which boasts of being\nsupernatural should endeavour to unnaturalize man. This religion, in\nthe delirium of its enthusiasm, forbids mankind to love themselves. It\ncommands them to hate pleasures and court grief. It makes a merit of\nall voluntary evils they do unto themselves. Hence those austerities\nand penances so destructive to health; those extravagant mortifications,\ncruel privations, and gradual suicides, by which fanatic Christians\nthink they merit heaven. It must be confessed, all Christians do not\nfeel themselves capable of such marvellous perfections, but all believe\nthemselves more or less obliged to mortify the flesh, and renounce\nthe blessings prepared for them by a bounteous God, who, they suppose,\noffers his good things only that they may be refused, and would be\noffended should his creatures presume to touch them.\n\nReason cannot approve virtues which are destructive to ourselves, nor\nadmit a God who is delighted when mankind render themselves miserable,\nand voluntarily submit to torments. Reason and experience, without\nthe aid of superstition, are sufficient to prove, that passions and\npleasures, pushed to excess, destroy us; and that the abuse of the\nbest things becomes a real evil. Nature herself inculcates upon us the\nprivation of things which prove injurious to us. A being, solicitous\nfor his own preservation, must restrain irregular propensities, and fly\nwhatever tends to his destruction. It is plain, that by the Christian\nreligion, suicide is, at least, indirectly authorised.\n\nIt was in consequence of these fanatical ideas that, in the earliest\nages of Christianity, the forests and deserts were peopled with perfect\nChristians, who by flying from the world, left their families destitute\nof support, and their country of citizens, to abandon themselves to an\nidle and contemplative life. Hence those legions of monks and cenobites,\nwho, under the standards of different enthusiasts, have enrolled\nthemselves into a militia, burthensome and injurious to society. They\nthought to merit heaven, by burying talents, which might be serviceable\nto their fellow-citizens, and vowing a life of indolence and celibacy.\nThus, in nations which are the most faithful to Christianity, a\nmultitude of men render themselves useless and wretched all their lives.\nWhat heart is so hard as to refuse a tear to the lot of the hapless\nvictims taken from that enchanting sex which was destined to give\nhappiness to our own! Unfortunate dupes of youthful enthusiasm, or\nsacrificed to the ambitious views of imperious families, they are for\never exiled from the world! They are bound by rash oaths to unending\nslavery and misery. Engagements, contradicted by every precept of\nnature, force them to perpetual virginity. It is in vain that riper\nfeelings, sooner or later, warm their breasts, and make them groan\nunder the weight of their imprudent vows. They regret their voluntary\nsterility, and find themselves forgotten in society. Cut off from their\nfamilies, and subjected to troublesome and despotic gaolers, they sink\ninto a life of disgust, of bitterness, and tears. In fine, thus exiled\nfrom society, thus unrelated and unbeloved, there only remains for them\nthe shocking consolation of seducing other victims to share with them\nthe torments of their solitude and mortifications.\n\nThe Christian religion seems to have undertaken to combat nature and\nreason in every thing. If it admits some virtues, approved by reason,\nit always carries them to a vicious excess. It never observes that\njust mean, which is the point of perfection. All illicit and shameful\npleasures will be avoided by every man, who is desirous of his own\npreservation, and the esteem of his fellow-creatures. The heathens knew\nand taught this truth, notwithstanding the depravity of morals with\nwhich they are reproached by Christians.1 The church even recommends\ncelibacy as a state of perfection, and considers the natural tie of\nmarriage as an approach to sin. God, however, declares in Genesis,\nthat it is not good for man to be alone. He also formally commanded all\ncreatures to increase and multiply. His Son, in the gospel, comes\nto annul those laws. He teaches that, to attain to perfection, it is\nnecessary to avoid marriage, and resist the strongest desire with which\nthe breast of man is inspired--that of perpetuating his existence by a\nposterity, and providing supports for his old age and infirmities.\n\n     1 Aristotle and Epictetus recommend  chastity of speech.\n     Menander said, that a good man could never consent to\n     debauch a virgin or commit adultery. Tibullus said, casta\n     placent superis. Mark Anthony thanks the Gods, that he had\n     preserved his chastity in his youth. The Romans made laws\n     against adultery. Father Tachard informs us, that the\n     Siamans forbid not only dishonest actions, but also impure\n     thoughts and desires. Whence it appears, that chastity and\n     purity of manners were esteemed even before the Christian\n     religion existed.\n\n\nIf we consult reason, we find, that the pleasures of love are always\ninjurious when taken in excess; and that they are always criminal when\nthey prove injurious. We shall perceive, that to debauch a woman is\nto condemn her to distress and infamy, and annihilate to her all the\nadvantages of society; that adultery is destructive to the greatest\nfelicity of human life, conjugal union. Hence we shall be convinced,\nthat marriage, being the only means of satisfying our desire of\nincreasing the species and providing filial supports, is a state far\nmore respectable and sacred, than the destructive celibacy and voluntary\ncastration recommended as a virtue by the Christian religion.\n\nNature, or its author, invites man, by the attraction of pleasure,\nto multiply himself. He has unequivocally declared, that women are\nnecessary to men. Experience shews, that they are formed for society,\nnot solely for the purpose of a transient pleasure, but to give mutual\nassistance in the misfortunes of life, to produce and educate children,\nform them into citizens, and provide in them support for themselves in\nold age. In giving man superior strength, nature has pointed out his\nduty of labouring for the support of his family; the weaker organs\nof his companion are destined to functions less violent, but not less\nnecessary. In giving her a soul more soft and sensible, nature has, by\na tender sentiment, attached her more particularly to her children. Such\nare the sure bands which the Christian religion would tear asunder. Such\nthe blessings it would wrest from man, while it substitutes in their\nplace an unnatural celibacy, which renders man selfish and useless,\ndepopulates society, and which can be advantageous only to the\nodious policy of some Christian priests, who, separating from their\nfellow-citizens, have formed a destructive body, which eternalizes\nitself without posterity. _Gens oterna in qua nemo nascitur._\n\nIf this religion has permitted marriage to some sects, who have not the\ntemerity to soar to the highest pinnacle of perfection, it seems to\nhave sufficiently punished them for this indulgence, by the unnatural\nshackles it has fixed on the connubial state. Thus, among them, we see\ndivorce forbidden, and the most wretched unions indissoluble. Persons\nonce married, are forced to groan under the weight of wedlock, even\nwhen affection and esteem are dead, and the place of these essentials\nto conjugal happiness is supplied by hatred and contempt. Temporal laws\nalso conspiring with religion, forbid the wretched prisoners to break\ntheir chains. It seems as if the Christian religion exerted all its\npowers to make us view marriage with disgust, and give the preference to\na celibacy which is pregnant with debauchery, adultery, and dissolution.\nYet the God of the Hebrews made divorce lawful, and I know not by\nwhat right his Son, who came to accomplish the law of Moses, revoked an\nindulgence so reasonable.\n\nSuch are the perfections which Christianity inculcates on her children,\nand such the virtues she prefers to those which are contemptuously\nstyled human virtues. She even rejects these, and calls them false and\nsinful, because their possessors are, forsooth, not filled with faith.\nWhat! the virtues of Greece and Rome, so amiable, and so heroic, were\nthey not true virtues? If justice, humanity, generosity, temperance,\nand patience be not virtues, to what can the name be given? And are\nthe virtues less because professed by heathens? Are not the virtues of\nSocrates, Cato, Epictetus, and Antonine, real and preferable to the zeal\nof the Cyrills, the obstinacy of Athanasius, the uselessness of Anthony,\nthe rebellion of Chrysostom, the ferocity of Dominic, and the meanness\nof Francis?\n\nAll the virtues admitted by Christians, are either overstrained and\nfanatic, tending to render man useless, abject, and miserable; or\nobstinate, haughty, cruel, and destructive to society. Such are the\neffects of a religion, which contemning the earth, hesitates not to\noverwhelm it with trouble, provided it thereby heightens the triumph of\nits God over his enemies. No true morality can ever be compatible with\nsuch a religion.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIII.--OF THE PRACTICE AND DUTIES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\nIf the Christian virtues be destitute of solidity, and produce no effect\nwhich reason can approve, we shall find nothing more estimable in a\nmultitude of incommodious, useless, and often dangerous practices, which\nChristians consider as their sacred duties, and by means of which they\nare confident of obtaining the pardon and favour of God, and an eternal\nabode with him in unspeakable glory and felicity.\n\nThe first and most essential duty of Christians is prayer. To continual\nprayer their religion attaches its felicity. Their God, whom they\nsuppose to be overflowing with bounty, refuses to bestow his blessings\nunsolicited. He grants them only to importunity. Sensible to flattery,\nlike the kings of the earth, he exacts an etiquette, and hears no\npetitions unless they are presented in a certain form. What should we\nsay of a father who, knowing the wants of his children, should refuse to\ngive them necessary food, until wearied out with fervent supplications?\nBut in another view, does not it imply mistrust of the wisdom of God\nto prescribe rules for his conduct? Does it not imply a doubt of his\nimmutability, to believe he can be prevailed on by his creatures\nto alter his designs? If he knows all things, what need is there of\ncontinually informing him what are the dispositions and desires of\nhis subjects? If he is almighty, how can he be flattered with the\nsubmissions, adorations, and formalities with which Christians prostrate\nthemselves before him?\n\nIn one word, prayer supposes a capricious God, deficient in memory,\nvoracious of praise, fond of seeing his creatures abased in the dust,\nand anxious to receive at every instant the most abject marks of their\nsubmission.\n\nCan these ideas, borrowed from earthly princes, be with propriety\napplied to an omnipotent Being, who created the universe for man, and\ndesires only that he should be happy? Can it be supposed that such a\nBeing, without equal and without rival, should be jealous of his glory?\nCan the prayers of man add glory to a Being beyond comparison superior\nto all others? Cannot Christians see, that, in endeavouring to honour\nand exalt their God, they only degrade and debase him?\n\nIt is also the opinion of Christians, that the prayers of one man may\nbe serviceable to others. Partial to his favourites, God hears petitions\nonly from their lips. He listens not to his people, unless their\nprayers be offered up to him through his ministers. He becomes a sultan,\naccessible only to his ministers, vizirs, eunuchs, and the women of\nhis seraglio. Hence the millions of priests and cenobites, who have\nno business on earth but to raise their idle hands to Heaven, and pray\nnight and day for its blessings on society. Nations pay dearly for these\nimportant services, and these pious impostors live in splendour and\nease, while real merit, labour, and industry languish in misery.\n\nUnder the pretence of devoting himself to prayer and other ceremonies\nof his worship, the Christian, particularly in some of the more\nsuperstitious sects, is obliged to remain idle, and stand with arms\nacross during a great part of the year. He is persuaded that he honours\nGod by his inutility. Feasts and fasts, multiplied by the interests\nof priests and the credulity of the people, often suspended for long\nintervals the labours necessary to the subsistence of society. Men fly\nto temples to pray when they should stay at home and cultivate their\nfields. There their eyes are fed with childish ceremonies, and their\nears are filled with fables and doctrines, of which they can comprehend\nnothing. This tyrannical religion makes it a crime for the poor labourer\nto endeavour, during consecrated days, to procure subsistence for a\nnumerous and indigent family. And civil authority, in concert with\nreligion, punishes those who have the audacity to earn bread, instead of\npraying or being idle.\n\nCan reason subscribe to the ridiculous obligation of abstaining from\ncertain aliments and meats which is imposed by some sects of Christians?\nIn consequence of these laws, people, who live by their labour, are\nforced to content themselves, during long intervals', with dear and\nunwholesome provisions, more proper to generate disease than repair\nstrength.\n\nWhat abject and ridiculous ideas must they entertain of God, who believe\nhe can be offended by the quality of the food that enters into the\nstomachs of his creatures! Heaven, however, for a certain sum of money\nbecomes sometimes more accommodating. Priests have been continually\nbusied in straitening the path of their sectaries, that they might\ntransgress more frequently; and that the revenue arising from their\ntransgressions might thus become more ample. All things, even sin\nitself, among Christians, contribute to the profit of the priests.\n\nNo religion ever placed its sectaries in more complete and continual\ndependance on priests, than the Christian. Those harpies never lose\nsight of their prey. They take infallible measures for subjecting\nmankind, and making all contribute to their power, riches, and dominion.\nHaving assumed the office of mediator between the heavenly monarch and\nhis subjects, these priests were looked upon as courtiers in favour,\nministers commissioned to exercise power in his name, and favourites to\nwhom he could refuse nothing. Thus they became absolute masters of\nthe destiny of the Christians. They gained establishments and rendered\nthemselves necessary by the introduction of innumerable practices and\nduties, which, though puerile and ridiculous, they had the address\nto make their flocks look upon as indispensibly necessary to their\nsalvation. They represented the omission of these pretended duties as\na crime infinitely greater than an open violation of all the laws of\nmorality and reason.\n\nLet us not then be surprized, that, in the most zealous, that is to say\nthe most superstitious sects, we see mankind perpetually infested with\npriests. Scarcely are they born, when, under the pretext of washing\naway original sin, their priests impose on them a mercenary baptism, and\npretend to reconcile them with a God whom they have as yet been unable\nto offend. By means of a few words and magical ceremonies they are thus\nsnatched from the dominion of Satan. From the tenderest infancy their\neducation is frequently entrusted to priests, whose principal care is to\ninstil into them early the prejudices as necessary to the views of\nthe church. Terrors are now introduced into their minds which increase\nduring their whole lives. They are instructed in the fables, absurd\ndoctrines, and incomprehensible mysteries of a marvellous religion. In\none word, they are formed into superstitious Christians, and rendered\nincapable of being useful citizens or enlightened men. Only one thing is\nrepresented to them as necessary, which is to be in all things devoutly\nsubmissive to his religion. \"Be devout,\" say his teachers, \"be blind,\ndespise thy reason, attend to Heaven, and neglect earth; this is all thy\nGod demands to conduct thee to eternal felicity.\"\n\nTo maintain the abject and fanatic ideas with which the priest\nhas filled his pupils in their childhood, he commands them to come\nfrequently, and deposit in his bosom their hidden faults, their most\nsecret actions and thoughts. He obliges them to humiliate themselves at\nhis feet, and render homage to his power. He frightens the criminals,\nand afterwards, if they are judged worthy, he reconciles them to God,\nwho on the command of his ministers remits their sins. The Christian\nsects that admit this practice, boast of it as extremely useful\nin regulating the manners and restraining the passions of men; but\nexperience proves, that the countries in which this usage is most\nfaithfully observed, are distinguished rather for the dissolution than\nthe purity of their manners. By such easy expiations they are only\nemboldened in vice. The lives of Christians are circles of successive\noffences and concessions. The priesthood reap the profit of this\npractice, by means of which they exercise an absolute dominion over the\nconsciences of mankind. How great must be the power of an order of men,\nwho possess all the secrets of families, can kindle at pleasure the\ndestructive flame of fanaticism, and open or shut the gates of heaven!\n\nWithout the consent of his priests, the Christian cannot participate in\nthe knowledge of the mysteries of his religion, from which they have a\nright to exclude him entirely. This privation, however, he has no great\nreason to lament. But the anathemas or excommunications of the priests\ngenerally do a real mischief to mankind. These spiritual punishments\nproduce temporal effects, and every citizen who incurs the disgrace of\nthe church is in danger of that of the government, and becomes odious to\nhis fellow-citizens.\n\nWe have already remarked that priests have taken upon themselves the\nmanagement of marriages. Without their consent, a Christian cannot,\nbecome a father. He must first submit to the capricious formalities of\nhis religion, without which his children must be excluded from the rank\nof citizens.\n\nDuring all his life, the Christian is obliged to assist in the\nceremonies of worship under the direction of his priests. When he has\nperformed this important duty, he esteems himself the favourite of God,\nand persuades himself that he no longer owes any thing to society. Thus\nfrivolous practices take place of morality, which is always rendered\nsubordinate to religion.\n\nWhen death approaches, the Christian, stretched in agony on his bed, is\nstill assailed in those distressful moments by priests. In some sects\nreligion seems to have been invented to render the bitter death of man\nten thousand times more bitter. A malicious priest comes to the couch\nof the dying man, and holds before him the spectacle of his approaching\nend, arrayed in more than all its terrors. Although this custom is\ndestructive to citizens, it is extremely profitable to the priesthood,1\nwho owe much of their riches to legacies procured by it. Morality is\nnot quite so highly advantaged by it. Experience proves, that most\nChristians live in security and postpone till death their reconciliation\nwith God. By means of a late repentance, and largesses to the\npriesthood, their faults are expiated, and they are permitted to hope\nthat Heaven will forget the accumulated crimes of a long and wicked\nlife.\n\n     1 In Catholic countries.\n\n\nDeath itself does not terminate the empire of the priesthood in certain\nsects, which finds means to make money even out of the dead bodies\nof their followers. These, for a sufficient sum, are permitted to\nbe deposited in temples, where they have the privilege of spreading\ninfection and disease. The sacerdotal power extends still further. The\nprayers of the church are purchased at a dear rate, to deliver the souls\nof the dead from their pretended torments in the other world, inflicted\nfor their purification. Happy they who are rich in a religion, whose\npriests being favourites with God, can be hired to prevail on him\nto remit the punishments which his immutable justice had intended to\ninflict!\n\nSuch are the principal duties recommended by the Christians; and upon\nthe observation of these they believe their salvation to depend. Such\nare the arbitrary, ridiculous, and hurtful practices substituted for the\nreal duties of morality. We shall not combat the different superstitious\npractices, admitted by some sects and rejected by others; such as the\nhonours rendered to the memory of those pious fanatics and obscure\ncontemplators whom Roman pontiffs have ranked among the saints. We say\nnothing of those pilgrimages which superstition has so often produced,\nnor those indulgences by means of which sins are remitted. We shall only\nobserve, that these things are commonly' more respected where they are\nadmitted, than the duties of morality, which in those places frequently,\nare wholly unknown. Mankind find their natural propensities much\nless thwarted by such rites, ceremonies, and practices, than by being\nvirtuous. A good Christian is a man who conforms exactly to all that his\npriests exact from him; these substitute blindness and submission in the\nplace of all virtues.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XIV.--OF THE POLITICAL EFFECTS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\n\nAfter having seen the inutility and even danger of the perfections,\nvirtues, and duties proposed by the Christian religion, let us enquire\nwhether its political influences be more happy, and whether it can in\nreality promote the welfare of nations among whom it is established and\nfaithfully observed. We at once find, that wherever this religion is\nadmitted, two opposite legislations, ever at variance with each other,\nestablish themselves. Although this religion preaches love and peace, it\nsoon annihilates the effects of those precepts by the divisions which\nit necessarily sows among its sectaries, who unavoidably interpret\ndiversely the ambiguous oracles announced in Holy Writ. We find,\nthat from the infancy of religion the most acrimonious disputes\nhave continually taken place among divines. The successive ages of\nChristianity have been stained with schisms, heresies, persecutions,\nand contests, widely discordant from its boasted spirit of peace and\nconcord; which is in fact incompatible with a religion whose precepts\nare so dark and equivocal. In all religious disputes, each party\nbelieves that God is on its side, and consequently they are obstinate.\nIndeed, how can it be otherwise, when they confound the cause of God\nwith that of their own vanity? Thus, mutually averse to concession, they\nquarrel and fight until force has decided a contest in which they never\nappeal to reason, in fact, political authorities have ever been forced\nto interfere in all the dissensions which have arisen among Christians.\nGovernments have always taken in the frivolous disputes of priests, and\nfoolishly considered them as objects of the last importance. They have\nconceived, that in a religion established by God himself there could\nbe nothing of a trifling nature. Thus, princes have armed themselves\nagainst their own subjects, whose opinions differed from theirs. The way\nof thinking at court has decided the creed and the faith of subjects.\nOpinions supported by kings and priests have been the only true\nones. Their creatures have been the guardians of orthodoxy, and were\ncommissioned to exterminate all whom they chose to denominate heretics\nand rebels.\n\nThe prejudices of princes or their false policy, have caused them\nto look upon those of their subjects, who differ from themselves in\nreligious opinions, as bad citizens, dangerous to the state, and enemies\nto their power. If, leaving to priests the business of finishing their\nown impertinent disputes, they had not assisted their quarrels and\npersecutions, they would have died away of themselves, and never\nhave disturbed the peace of nations. If those kings had impartially\nrecompensed the good and punished the bad, without regard to their\nworship, ceremonies, and speculative opinions, they would not have made\nmany of their subjects such enemies to that power, by which they found\nthemselves oppressed. Christians have always attempted to reclaim\nheretics by injustice, violence, and persecution. Ought not they to have\nperceived, that this conduct was calculated only to produce hypocrites\nand hidden enemies, of open rebellions? But these reflections are not\ndesigned for princes, who from their infancy, have been filled with\nfanaticism and prejudices; They, instead of being actuated by virtuous\nmotives, have formed obstinate attachments to frivolities, and impetuous\nardour for doctrines foreign to the welfare of their states, and\na boundless wrath against all who refuse to bend to their despotic\nopinions. Such sovereigns find it a shorter way to destroy mankind than\nreclaim them by mild means. Their haughty despotism will not condescend\nto reason. Religion assures them that tyranny is lawful, and cruelty\nmeritorious when they are employed in the cause of heaven.\n\nThe Christian religion, in fact, always makes despots and tyrants of all\nthe sovereigns by whom it is adopted. It represents them as gods upon\nearth; it causes their very caprices to be respected as the will of\nheaven itself. It delivers mankind into their hands as an herd of\nslaves, of whom they may dispose at their pleasure. In return for their\nzeal for religion, all the outrages upon justice that they can commit\nare forgiven, and their subjects are commanded, under pain of the wrath\nof the Most High, to submit without a murmur to the sword that strikes\ninstead of protecting themselves. It is not, therefore, matter of\nsurprise, that since the establishment of this religion, we see so\nmany nations groaning under devout tyrants, who, although obstinately\nattached to religion, have been unjust, licentious, and cruel. Whatever\nwere the oppressions and ravages of these religious or hypocritical\nprinces, the priests have not failed to preach submission to their\nsubjects: On the other hand, let us not be surprised to see so many weak\nand wicked princes, support in their turns the interest of a religion,\nwhich their false policy judged necessary to the maintenance of their\nauthority. If kings were enlightened, just and virtuous, and knew and\npractised their real duties, they would have had no need of the aid of\nsuperstition in governing nations. But as it is more easy to conform to\nrites than to acquire talents or practise virtue, this religion has,\nin princes, too often found support for itself, and destruction for its\nenemies.\n\nThe ministers of religion have not had the same complaisance for\nprinces, who refused to make a common cause with them, espouse their\nquarrels, and become subservient to their passions. They have arisen\nagainst those who have thwarted their views, punished their excesses,\ntouched their immunities, endeavoured to subject them to reason, or\nrepress their ambitious designs. The priests on such occasions, cry out,\nImpiety! Sacrilege! Then they pretend that the sovereign puts his hand\nto the censor, and usurps the rights granted them by God himself. Then\nthey endeavour to excite nations to rebellion. They arm fanatics against\nsovereigns, whom they declare tyrants, for having been wanting in\nsubmission to the church. Heaven is always ready to revenge any\ninjustice done to its ministers. They are themselves submissive, and\npreach submission to others, only when they are permitted to share the\nauthority, or are too feeble to resist it. This is the reason why the\napostles, in the infancy of Christianity, being destitute of power,\npreached subordination. No sooner had this religion gained sufficient\nstrength, than it preached resistance and rebellion; dethroning some\nkings and assassinating others.\n\nIn every political body, where this religion is established, there are\ntwo rival powers, which, by incessant contention, convulse and wound the\nstate. The citizens divide into opposite parties, each of which\nfights, or thinks it fights, for God. These contests at different times\nterminate differently, but the triumphant party is always in the right.\nBy attentive examination of such events, we shall escape the dominion of\nfanaticism. It is by stimulating mankind to enquiry, that they must be\nfreed from the shackles of superstition. Let mankind think till they\nhave thrown aside their prejudices, and they will think justly. The\nreign of the priesthood will cease when men cease to be ignorant and\ncredulous. Credulity is the offspring of ignorance, and superstition is\nthe child of credulity.\n\nBut most kings dread that mankind should be enlightened. Accomplices\nwith the priesthood, they have formed a league with them to stifle\nreason, and persecute all who confide in its guidance. Blind to their\nown interests, and those of their subjects, they wish only to command\nslaves, forgetting those slaves are always at the disposal of the\npriests. Thus we see science neglected, and ignorance triumphant, in\nthose countries where this religion holds the most absolute dominion.\nArts and sciences are the children of liberty, and separated from\ntheir parent they languish and die. Among Christian nations, the least\nsuperstitious are the most free, powerful, and happy. In countries where\nspiritual and temporal despotism are leagued, the people grovel in the\nmost shameful ignorance and lethargic inactivity. The European nations,\nwho boast of possessing the purest faith, are not surely the most\nflourishing and powerful. Their kings, enslaved themselves by priests,\nhave not energy and courage enough to make a single struggle for their\nown welfare or that of their subjects. Priests, in such states, are the\nonly order of men who are rich; other citizens languish in' the deepest\nindigence. But of what importance are the power and happiness of nations\nto the sectaries of a religion who seek not for happiness in this world,\nwho believe riches injurious, preach a God of poverty, and recommend\nabasement to the soul, and mortification of the flesh? It is without\ndoubt to oblige people to practise these maxims, that the clergy, in\nmany Christian states, have taken possession of most of the riches, and\nlive in splendour, while their fellow-citizens are set forward in the\nroad to heaven, unincumbered with any burthen of earthly wealth.\n\nSuch are the advantages political society derives from the Christian\nreligion. It forms an independent state within a state. It renders the\npeople slaves.\n\nWhen sovereigns are obedient to it, it favours their tyranny. When they\nare disobedient, it renders their subjects fanatic and rebellious. When\nit accords with political power, it convulses, debases, and impoverishes\nnations; when not, it makes citizens unsocial, turbulent, intolerant,\nand mutinous.\n\nIf we examine in detail the precepts of this religion, and the maxims\nwhich flow from its principles, we shall find it interdicts every thing\nthat can make a nation flourish. We have already seen the ideas of\nimperfection that it attaches to marriage, and its esteem of celibacy.\nThese notions are highly unfavourable to population, which is,\nincontrovertibly, the first source of power in a state.\n\nCommerce is not less contradictory to the spirit of a religion, the\nfounder of which pronounced an anathema against riches, and excluded\nthem from his kingdom. All industry is interdicted to perfect\nChristians; they live a provisory life on earth, and never concern\nthemselves with the morrow.\n\nMust it not be a great temerity and sin for a Christian to serve in war?\nIs not the man, who has never the right to believe himself absolutely\nin a state of grace, extremely rash when he exposes himself to eternal\ndamnation? Is not the Christian, who ought to have charity for all men,\nand love even his enemies, guilty of an enormous crime, when he kills\na man of whose dispositions he is ignorant, and whom he, perhaps,\nprecipitates at once into hell? A Christian soldier is a monster;\nunless, indeed, he fights in the cause of religion. Then, if he dies,\n\"he dies a blessed martyr.\"\n\nThe Christian religion has always declared war against science and all\nhuman knowledge. These have been looked upon as obstacles to salvation.\nNeither reason nor study are necessary to men, who are to submit\ntheir reason to the yoke of faith. From the confession of Christians\nthemselves, the founders of their religion were simple and ignorant men.\nTheir disciples must be as little enlightened as they were to admit the\nfables and reveries they have received from them. It has always been\nremarked, that the most enlightened men seldom make the best Christians.\nScience is apt to embarrass faith; and it moreover turns the attention\nfrom the great work of salvation, which is represented as the only\nnecessary one. If science be serviceable to political society, ignorance\nis much more so to religion and its ministers.. Those ages, destitute of\nscience and industry, were the garden age of the church of Christ. Then\nwere kings dutifully submissive to priests; then the coffers of priests\nheld all the riches of society. The priests of a very numerous sect\nhave kept from the eyes of their followers even the sacred pages which\ncontain the laws of their religion. This conduct is, undoubtedly, very\ndiscreet. Reading the Bible is the surest of all means to prevent its\nbeing respected.\n\nIn one word, if the maxims of the Christian religion were rigorously\nand universally followed, no political society could subsist. If this\nassertion be doubted, listen to what was said by the earliest doctors of\nthe church, and it will be acknowledged, that their precepts are wholly\nincompatible with the power and preservation of states. According to\nLactantius, no Christian can become a soldier. According, to St. Justin,\nno Christian can be a magistrate. According to St. Chrysostom, no\nChristian can meddle with commerce. And, according to a great number, no\nman ought to study. In fine, join these maxims to those of Christ, apply\nthem in practice, and the result will be a perfect Christian, useless to\nhis family, his country, and mankind; an idle contemplator, unconcerned\nin the interests of this world, and occupied entirely with the other,\nwhither it is his most important business to go.\n\nLet us look into Eusebius, and see if the Christian be not a real\nfanatic, from whom society can derive no advantage. \"The manner of\nlife,\" says he, \"in the Christian church, surpasses our present nature,\nand the ordinary life of man. There they seek neither marriages,\nchildren, nor riches. In fact, it is wholly foreign to the human manner\nof living. The church is given up to an immense love of heavenly things.\nThe members, detached from earthly existence, and leaving only their\nbodies below, transfer their souls to heaven, where they already dwell\nas pure and celestial intelligences, and despise the life of other men.\"\nA man strongly persuaded of the truth of Christianity cannot, in fact,\nattach himself to any thing below. Every thing here is to him a cause\nof stumbling, and calls away his attention from the great work of\nhis salvation. If Christians were not, fortunately, inconsistent\nwith themselves, and wandered not incessantly from their fanatical\nperfections and sublime speculations, no Christian society could\nsubsist, and the nations illuminated by the gospel would return to their\npristine barbarity. We should see only wild beings, broken loose from\nevery social tie, and wandering in solitude through this vale of tears,\nwhose only employment would be to groan, to weep, and pray, and render\nthemselves and others wretched, in order to merit heaven.\n\nIn fine, a religion whose maxims tend to render mankind in general\nintolerant, to make kings persecutors, and their subjects slaves or\nrebels; a religion, the obscure doctrines of which give birth to eternal\ndisputes; a religion which debases mankind, and turns them aside from\ntheir true interests; such a religion, I say, is destructive to every\nsociety.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XV.--OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, OR PRIESTHOOD.\n\n\nThere have been, in all ages, men who know how to profit by the errors\nof mankind. Priests of all religions, have laid the foundations of their\ngreatness, power, and riches, on the fears of the vulgar. No religion\nhas, however, had so many reasons as the Christian, for subjecting\npeople to the priesthood. The first preachers of the gospel, the\nApostles, are represented as divine men, inspired by God, and sharing\nhis omnipotence. If each individual among their successors has not\nenjoyed the same privileges in the opinion of all Christians, yet the\nbody of priests, or Church, is never abandoned by the Holy Ghost, but\nalways illuminated thereby. They collectively, at all times, possess\ninfallibility, and consequently their decisions become perpetual\nrevelations, equally sacred with those of God himself.\n\nSuch being the attributes of the priesthood, this body must in virtue\nof the prerogatives they hold from Christ himself have a right to\nunconditional submission from men and nations. The enormous power they\nhave so long exercised is not, therefore, surprising. It should be\nunlimited, since it is founded on the authority of the Almighty. It\nshould be despotic, because men have no right to resist divine power. It\nmust degenerate into abuse, for the priesthood is exercised by men whom\nimpunity always renders licentious and corrupt.\n\nIn the infancy of Christianity, the Apostles, commissioned by Jesus\nChrist, preached the gospel to Jews and Gentiles. The novelty of their\ndoctrine, as we have already seen, procured them many proselytes among\nthe vulgar. The new Christians, inflamed with ardour for their new\nopinions, formed in every city particular congregations, under the\ngovernment of men appointed by the Apostles. The latter having received\nthe faith at first hand, retained the inspection and direction of the\ndifferent Christian societies they had formed. Such appears to have been\nthe origin of Bishops or inspectors, which are perpetuated in the Church\nto this day;1 an origin in which the princes of modern Christianity\nsufficiently pride themselves. It is known that, in this infant sect,\nthe associates held, their goods in common. This duty appears to have\nbeen rigorously exacted; for, by the command of St. Peter, two new\nChristians were smitten to death, for having withheld some part of\ntheir own property. The funds resulting from this practice, were at the\ndisposal of the Apostles; to this, commission the Bishops, inspectors,\nor priests succeeded, when they became successors of the Apostles; and\nas the priests must live by the altar, we may suppose that they paid\nthemselves, and not illiberally, for their instructions, out of the\npublic treasury. Those who attempted new spiritual conquests were,\nprobably, obliged to content themselves with the voluntary contributions\nof their converts. However this may be, the treasures accumulated,\nthrough the credulous piety of the faithful, became an object of the\navarice of priests, and begat discord among them. Each one wished to\ngovern, and have the disposal of the riches of the community. Hence the\ncabals and factions which we find growing up with the church of God.\nThe priests were always first to wander from the principles of\ntheir religion. Their own ambition and avarice always contradict the\ndisinterested maxims they teach to others.\n\n     1 Saint Jerome highly disapproved the distinction of bishops\n     and priests or curates. He pretends, that priests and\n     bishops were according to St. Paul, the same thing, before,\n     says he, by the instigation of the Devil, there were\n     destinations in religion. At this day, bishops, who do\n     nothing, enjoy great revenues; while innumerable curates,\n     who labour, are dying with hunger.\n\n\nSo long as the Christian: religion was much depressed and persecuted,\ndiscordant Bishops and priests combated in secret, and the noise of\ntheir quarrels did not spread far abroad. But when Constantine wished\nto secure to himself a party, the obscurity of which had favoured its\nincrease, until now become very numerous, the face of every thing in\nthe church was changed. Christian leaders, transformed to courtiers; and\nseduced by authority, fought openly. They engaged sovereigns in their\nquarrels, and persecuted their rivals. Laden by degrees with riches and\nhonours; they would no longer be recognized as the successors of the\npoor and humble Apostles, sent by Christ to preach his doctrine.. They\nbecame princes, and, supported, by the strongest arms, opinions, they\nfound themselves able to give laws to nations, and put the world in\nconfusion.\n\nUnder Constantine the Pontificate had been by a shameful imprudence\nseparated from the empire. The Emperors soon found they had cause to\nrepent this oversight. The Bishop of Rome, that former mistress of the\nworld, whose name still sounded awful in the ears of nations, knew how\nto make a skilful advantage of the troubles of the empire, invaded by\nbarbarians, and the weakness of Emperors, too remote to watch over his\nconduct. By dint of plots and intrigues, the Roman pontiff at length\nseated himself on the throne of the C\u00e6sars. It was for him that Emilius\nand Scipio had fought. He was, in fine, looked upon in the west, as the\nmonarch of the Church, the universal Bishop, the Vicar of Jesus. Christ\nupon earth, and the infallible organ of God. Although these haughty\ntitles were rejected in the East, the Roman, pontiff reigned, without\ncontest, in the greater part of the Christian world. He was a God\nupon earth; through the imbecility of kings, he became arbiter of\ntheir destinies, and founded a theocracy or divine government, of which\nhimself was chief, and they were his lieutenants. When they had the\naudacity to become disobedient to him, he dethroned them, or excited\ntheir subjects to rebellion. In a word, his spiritual arms were, through\na long succession of ages, stronger than the temporal ones of his\nopponents. Nations had the stupidity to obey him, and the distribution\nof crowns was in his power. To secure his dominion over princes, he\nsowed divisions among them; and his empire would still retain its extent\nand vigour, if a gradual increase of knowledge had not, in spite of\nreligious opposition, made its way among mankind, and kings, acting\ninconsistently with their religion, listened to ambition rather than\nduty. If the ministers of the church have received their power from\nChrist himself, to resist these his representatives is, in feet,\nto revolt against him. Kings, as well as subjects, cannot throw off\nallegiance to God without a crime. The spiritual authority proceeding\nfrom God, must, of right, have jurisdiction over temporal authority\nproceeding from man. A prince, who is a true Christian, must become a\nservant of the church, and, at best, the first slave of the clergy.\n\nLet us not, then, be surprized, that, in the ages of ignorance, priests,\nbeing most readily obeyed by people, more attached to heavenly than\nearthly interests, were more powerful than kings. Among superstitious\nnations the pretended voice of God and his interests is more listened\nto than that of duty, justice, and reason. A good Christian, piously\nsubmissive to the church, must be blind and unreasonable, whenever the\nchurch commands him to be so. The power that has a right to render us\nabsurd, has the right to render us criminal.\n\nBesides, those that derive their power from God can be subject to no\nother power. Thus, the independence of the Christian clergy is founded\nupon the principles of their religion. Of this circumstance, they have\ntaken care to profit, and impressed with this idea, they, after being\nenriched by the generosity of kings and people, have always proved\nungrateful to the true sources of their own opulence and privileges.\nWhat had been given this body, through surprize or impudence, it was\nfound impossible to recover from their hands. They foresaw, that future\ngenerations, breaking loose from the fetters of prejudice, might tear\nfrom them the donations they had gained by the extortions of terror,\nand the evils of imposture. They, therefore, persuaded mankind that they\nheld from God alone what had been given them by their fellow-mortals:\nand by a miracle of credulity, they were believed on their word.\n\nThus the interests of the clergy became separated from those of society.\nMen devoted to God, and chosen to be his ministers, were no longer\nconfounded with the profane. Laws and civil tribunals renounced all\npower over them. They could be judged only by members of their own body.\nHence the greatest excesses were often committed by them with impunity;\nand their persons, at the disposal of God alone, were sacred and\ninviolable. Their possessions, although they contributed nothing to\npublic charges, or, at least, no more than they pleased; were defended\nand enlarged by fanatic sovereigns, who hoped thereby to conciliate the\nfavour of Heaven. In fact, those reverend wolves in shepherds' clothing,\nunder pretence of feeding with instruction, devoured with avarice,\nand, secure in their disguise, fattened on the blood of their flocks,\nunpunished and unsuspected. From their instructions for eighteen hundred\nyears past, what advantages have nations derived? Have these infallible\nmen found it possible to agree among themselves, on the most essential\npoints of a religion, revealed by God himself? Strange, indeed, is that\nrevelation, which needs continual commentaries, and interpretations.\nWhat must be thought of these divine writings, which every sect\nunderstands so differently? Those who are incessantly fed with the\ngospel, do not understand these matters better, nor are they more\nvirtuous than others. They are commanded to obey the Church, and the\nChurch is never at accord with itself. She is eternally busied in\nreforming, explaining, pulling down, and building up her holy doctrines.\nHer ministers have, at will, created new doctrines unknown to Christ and\nthe Apostles. Every age has brought forth new mysteries, new ceremonies,\nand new articles of faith. Notwithstanding the inspirations of the Holy\nGhost, this religion has never attained to that clearness, simplicity,\nand consistency, which are the only indubitable proofs of a good system.\nNeither councils, nor canons, nor the mass of decrees and laws, which\nform the code of the Church, have ever yet been able to fix the objects\nof her belief.\n\nWere a sensible heathen desirous of embracing Christianity, he would be,\nat the first step, thrown into perplexity, at the sight of the numerous\nvariety of sects, each of which pretends to conform precisely to the\nword of God, and travel in the only sure road to salvation. When he\nfinds that these different-sects regard each other with horror that\nthey all deal out damnation: to all whose opinions differ from their\nown; that they all unite their efforts to banish peace-from society;\nthat always, when power is in their hands, they persecute and inflict\nthe most refined cruelties on each other, for which shall he determine?\nFor, let us not be deceived--Christians, not satisfied with enforcing\nby violence an exterior submission to the ceremonies of their religion,\nhave invented an art unknown to heathen superstitions, that of\ntormenting the conscience, and exercising a tyranny over the mind\nitself. The zeal of the ministers of the church is not limited to\nexteriors; they steal into the foldings of the heart, and insolently\nviolate the most secret sanctuaries of thought.1 And-for this sacrilege,\ntheir justification is a pretended interest in the salvation of souls.\n\n     1 Spoken of the Romish clergy.\n\n\nSuch are the effects which necessarily result from the principles of a\nreligion, which teaches mankind that involuntary error is a crime that\nmerits the wrath of God. It is in consequence of such ideas, that\nin certain countries, priests, with the permission of the civil\ngovernments, pretend to a commission for maintaining the faith in its\npurity. Judges in their own cause, they condemn to the flames all whose\nopinions appear to them dangerous.1 Served by innumerable spies, they\nwatch the minutest actions of the people, and inhumanly sacrifice all\nthat have the misfortune to give them the smallest umbrage. To excite\nsuspicions in their minds, is to rush upon inevitable destruction. Such\nare the blessings which the Holy Inquisition, all mild and gentle, pours\nupon mankind.\n\n     1 Civil tribunals, when they are just, have a maxim to look\n     for every thing that can contribute to the defence of the\n     accused. In the Inquisition a method directly opposite has\n     been adopted. The accused is neither told the cause of his\n     detention nor confronted with his accuser. He is ignorant of\n     his crime, yet he is commanded to confess. Such are the\n     maxims of Christian priests. The Inquisition, however,\n     condemns nobody to die. Priests cannot themselves shed\n     blood. That function is reserved for the secular arm; and\n     they have even the effrontery to intercede for criminals,\n     sure, however, of not being heard. Indeed, it is probable,\n     they would make no small clamour, should the magistrate take\n     them at their word. This conduct becomes men in whom\n     Almighty interest stifles humanity, sincerity, and modesty.\n\n\nSuch are the principles of this sanguinary tribunal which perpetuates\nthe ignorance and infatuation of the people wherever the false policy of\ngovernments permits its horrors to be exercised.\n\nThe disputes between Christian priests have been sources of animosity,\nhatred, and heresy. We find these to have existed from the infancy of\nthe church. A religion founded on wonders, fables, and obscure oracles,\ncould only be a fruitful source of quarrels. Priests attended to\nridiculous doctrines instead of useful knowledge; and when they should\nhave studied true morality, and taught mankind their real duties,\nthey only strove to gain adherents. They busied themselves in useless\nspeculations in a barbarous and enigmatical science, which, under the\npompous title of the science of God, or theology, excited in the vulgar\na reverential awe. They invented a system, bigoted, presumptuous,\nridiculous, and as incomprehensible as the God whom they affected to\nworship. Hence arose disputes on disputes concerning puerile subtilties,\nodious questions, and arbitrary opinions, which far from being useful,\nonly served to poison the peace of society. In these bickerings we find\nprofound geniuses busied; and we are forced to reject the prostitution\nof talents worthy a better cause. The vulgar, ever fond of riot, entered\ninto quarrels they could not understand. Princes undertook the defence\nof the priests they wished to favour, and orthodoxy was decided by the\nlongest sword. Their assistance the church never hesitated to receive in\ntime of danger; for on such occasions the church relies rather on human\nassistance than the promise of God, who declared that the sceptre of the\nwicked should not rest upon the lot of the righteous. The heroes, found\nin the annals of the church, have been obstinate fanatics, factious\nrebels, or furious persecutors. They were monsters of madness, faction,\nand cruelty.\n\nThe world in the days of our ancestors, was depopulated in defence of\nextravagancies which excite laughter in a posterity, not indeed much\nwiser than they were.\n\nIn almost all ages complaints have been made of abuses in the church,\nand reformation has been talked of. Notwithstanding this pretended\nreform, in the head, and in the members of the church, it has always\nbeen corrupted. Avaricious, turbulent, and seditious priests have made\nnations to groan under the weight of their vices, while princes were too\nweak to reclaim them to reason. The divisions and quarrels which took\nplace among those ecclesiastical tyrants did indeed at length diminish\nthe weight of the yoke they had imposed on kings and nations. The empire\nof the Roman pontiff, which endured many ages, was at last shaken by\nirritated enthusiasts, and rebellious subjects, who presumed to examine\nthe rights of this formidable despot. Some princes, weary of their\nslavery and poverty, readily embraced opinions which would authorise\nthem to enrich themselves with the spoils of the clergy. Thus the unity\nof the church was destroyed, sects were multiplied, and each fought for\nthe defence of his own system.\n\nThese founders of these new sects were treated by the Roman pontiff as\ninnovators, heretics, and blasphemers. They, it is true, renounced some\nof their old opinions; but content with having made a few steps towards\nreason, they dared not to shake off entirely the yoke of superstition.\nThey continued to respect the sacred writ of the Christian, which they\nstill looked upon as the only faithful guide. Upon them they pretended\nto found all their opinions. In fine, these books, in which every man\nmay find what he pleases, as they became more common from time to time,\nproduced new sects. Men were lost in a dark labyrinth, where each one\ngroped his way in error, and yet judged all but himself to be wrong.\n\nThe leaders of these sects, the pretended reformers of the church,\ngained but a glimpse at the truth, and attended to nothing but minutiae.\nThey continued to respect the sacred oracles of the Christians,\nand believe in their cruel and capricious God. They admitted their\nextravagant mythology, and most of their unreasonable doctrines. In\nfine, although they rejected some mysteries that were incomprehensible,\nthey admitted others not less so. Let us not be surprized, therefore,\nthat, notwithstanding these reforms, fanaticism, controversy,\npersecution, and war, continued to rage throughout Europe. The reveries\nof innovators only served to plunge nations into new misfortunes. Blood\ncontinued to stream, and people grew neither more reasonable nor more\nhappy. Priests of all sects have ever wished to govern mankind and\nimpose on them their decisions as infallible and sacred. They were\nalways persecutors when in power, involved nations in their fury, and\nshook the world by their fatal opinions. The spirit of intolerance and\npersecution will ever be the essence of every sect founded on the Bible.\nA mild and humane religion can never belong to a partial and cruel God?\nwhom the opinion of men can fill with wrath. Wherever Christian sects\nexist, priests will exercise a power which may prove fatal to the state,\nand bodies of fanatical enthusiasts will be formed, always ready to rush\nto slaughter, when their spiritual guides cry, the church or the cause\nof God is in danger.\n\nThus, in Christian countries, we see the temporal power servilely\nsubmissive to the clergy, executing their commands, exterminating their\nenemies, and supporting their rights, riches, and immunities. In\nalmost all nations where the church prevails, the most idle, useless,\nseditious, and dangerous men are most liberally honoured and rewarded.\nSuperstition thinks she can never do enough for the ministers of her\ngods. These sentiments are the same in all sects.1 Priests every\nwhere endeavour to instil them into kings, and to make policy bend to\nreligion, in doing which they often oppose the best institutions. They\nin all places aim at the superintendance of education, and they fill\ntheir adherents with their fatal prejudices from their infancy.\n\n     1 Except the Quaker.\n\nIt is, however, in places that remained subject to the Roman pontiff,\nthat the clergy have wallowed in the greatest profusion of riches and\npower. Credulity has even enlisted kings among their subjects, and\ndebased them into mere executioners of their will. They were in\nreadiness to unsheath the sword whenever the priest commanded it. The\nmonarchs of the Roman sect, blinder than all others, had an unbounded\nconfidence in the clergy of their church that generally rendered them\nmere tools of that body. This sect, by means of furious intoleration\nand atrocious persecutions, became more numerous than any other one; and\ntheir turbulent and cruel temper has justly rendered them odious to the\nmost reasonable, that is to say, least Christian nations.\n\nThe Romish system was, in fact, invented to throw all the power into\nthe hands of the clergy. Its priests have had the address to identify\nthemselves with God. Their cause was always his; their glory became the\nglory of God. Their decisions were divine oracles; their possessions\nappertained to the kingdom of heaven. Their pride, avarice, and cruelty,\nwere rendered lawful, because they were never actuated by other motives\nthan the interest of their heavenly master. In this sect, the priest saw\nhis king at his feet, humbly confessing his sins, and beseeching the\nholy man that he might be reconciled to his God. Seldom was the priest\nknown to render his sacred ministry subservient to the good of mankind.\nHe thought not of reproaching monarchs with the abuse of their power,\nthe misery of their subjects, and the tears of the oppressed. Too timid,\nor too much of a courtier to thunder truth in their ears, he mentioned\nnot to them the insupportable oppressions, the galling tyranny, and\nuseless wars under which their subjects groaned. But such objects never\ninterest the church, which might indeed be of some utility, if its\ninfluence were exercised in bridling the excesses of superstitious\ntyrants. The terrors of the other world would not be unpardonable\nfalsehoods, could they make the herd of wicked kings to tremble. This,\nhowever, has not been the object of the ministers of religion. They\nnever stickled for the interest of mankind. They always burned incense\nat the altar of tyranny, looked upon its crimes with indulgence, and\ndevised for them easy means of expiation. Tyrants were sure of the\npardon and favour of heaven, if they entered warmly into the quarrels\nof the clergy. Thus, among the Catholics, priests governed kings, and\nconsequently all their subjects. Superstition and despotism formed an\ninternal alliance, and united their efforts, to plunge mankind into\nslavery and wretchedness. Priests frightened nations with religious\nterror, that they might be preyed upon by their sovereigns at leisure;\nand, in return, those sovereigns loaded the priests with opulence and\npower, and undertook, from time to time, to exterminate their enemies.\n\nWhat shall we say of those subtle geniuses which Christians call\ncasuists, those pretended moralists who have computed the number of sins\nagainst God which a man can commit without risking his salvation?\nThese men of profound wisdom have enriched Christian morality with a\nridiculous tarif of sins; they know precisely the degree of wrath which\neach excites in the breast of the Almighty. True morality has but one\ncriterion for judging the sins of man; the greatest are those that\ninjure society most. The conduct which injures ourselves is imprudent\nand unreasonable. That which injures others is unjust and criminal.\n\nEvery thing, even to idleness itself, is rewarded in Christian priests.\nMultitudes of these drones are maintained in ease and affluence, while,\ninstead of serving society, they only prey upon it. They are paid with\nprofusion for useless prayers which they make with negligence. And while\nmonks and lazy priests, those blood-suckers of society, wallow in an\nabundance shameful to the states by whom they are tolerated, the man\nof talents, the man of science, and the brave soldier are suffered to\nlanguish in indigence, and poorly exist on the mere necessaries of life.\n\nIn a word, Christianity makes nations accomplices in all the evils which\nare heaped upon them by the Clergy. Neither the uselessness of their\nprayers demonstrated by the experience of so many ages, the bloody\neffects of their fatal controversies, nor even their licentious\nexcesses, have yet been sufficient to convince mankind how shamefully\nthey are duped by that infallible Church, to the existence of which,\nthey have had the simplicity to believe, their salvation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. XVI.--CONCLUSION.\n\n\nAll which has hitherto been said, demonstrates, in the clearest manner,\nthat the Christian religion is contrary to true policy, and the welfare\nof mankind. It can be advantageous only to ignorant and vicious princes,\nwho are desirous to reign over slaves, and who, in order to strip and\ntyrannize over them with impunity, form a league with the priesthood,\nwhose function it has ever been to deceive in the name of heaven. But\nsuch imprudent princes should remember, that, in order to succeed\nin their projects, they must themselves become the slaves of the\npriesthood, who (should the former fail in due submission, or refuse to\nbe subservient to their passions) will infallibly turn their sacred arms\nagainst their royal heads.\n\nWe have seen, above, that the Christian religion is not, on account of\nits fanatic virtues, blind zeal, and pretended perfections, the less\ninjurious to sound morality, right reason, the happiness of individuals,\nand domestic harmony. It is easy to perceive that a Christian, who\nproposes to himself as a model, a gloomy and suffering God, must take\npains to afflict and render himself wretched. If this world be only a\npassage, if this life be only a pilgrimage, it must be ridiculous for\na man to attach himself to any thing here below. If his God be offended\nwith either the actions or opinions of his fellow-creatures, he must do\nevery thing in his power to punish them with severity, or be wanting in\nzeal and affection to his God. A good Christian must fly the world, or\nbecome a torment to himself and others.\n\nThese reflections are sufficient to answer those who pretend that the\nChristian religion is the foundation of true policy and morality, and\nthat where it is not professed, there can be neither good men nor good\ncitizens. The converse of this proposition is undoubtedly much truer;\nfor we may assert, that a perfect Christian, who conforms to all the\nprinciples of his religion, who faithfully imitates the divine men\nproposed to him as a model, and practises their austerities in solitude,\nor carries their fanatic enthusiasm and bigotry into society, must be\neither useless to mankind, or a troublesome and dangerous citizen.1\n\n     1 The clergy incessantly cry out against unbelievers and\n     philosophers, whom they style dangerous subjects. Yet, if we\n     open history, we do not find that philosophers are those who\n     have embroiled states and empires; but that such events'\n     have generally been produced by the religious. The\n     Dominican, who poisoned the emperor Henry XI. James Clement,\n     and Ruvaillac, were not unbelievers. They were not\n     philosophers, but fanatic Christians.\n\n\nWere we to believe the advocates of the Christian religion, it\nwould appear, that no morality can exist where this religion is not\nestablished. Yet we may perceive, at a single glance, that there are\nvirtues in every corner of the earth. No political society could exist\nwithout them. Among the Chinese, the Indians, and the Mahometans, there\nare, undoubtedly, good citizens, tender fathers, affectionate husbands,\nand dutiful children. And good people there, as well as with us, would\nbe more numerous, if they were governed by a wise policy, which, instead\nof causing children to be taught a senseless religion, should give\nthem equitable laws, teach them a pure morality uncontaminated with\nfanaticism, deter them from vice by suitable punishments, and invite\nthem to the practice of virtue by proper rewards.\n\nIn truth, it seems (I repeat it) that religion has been invented to\nrelieve governments from the care of being just, and reigning over\nequitable laws. Religion is the art of inspiring mankind with an\nenthusiasm, which is designed to divert their attention from the evils\nwith which they are overwhelmed by those who govern them. By means of\nthe invisible powers with which they are threatened, they are forced to\nsuffer in silence the miseries with which they are afflicted by visible\nones. They are taught to hope that, if they consent to become miserable\nin this world, they will for that reason be happy in the next.\n\nThus religion has become the most powerful support of a shameful and\niniquitous policy, which holds it necessary to deceive mankind, that\nthey may the more easily be governed. Far from enlightened and virtuous\ngovernments be resources so base! Let them learn their true interests,\nand know that these cannot be separated from that of the people. Let\nthem know that no state can be truly potent, except the citizens who\ncompose it be courageous, active, industrious, virtuous, and attached\nto their government. Let governments know, that the attachment of their\nconstituents can have no other foundation than the happiness which the\nformer procures the latter. If governments were penetrated with these\nimportant truths, they would need the aid of neither religion nor\npriests. Let them be just and equitable---let them be careful to reward\ntalents and virtue, to discourage inutility and punish vice, and their\nstates will soon be filled with worthy and sensible citizens, who\nwill feel it their own interest to serve and defend their country, and\nsupport the government which is the instrument of their felicity. They\nwill do their duties, without the influence of revelation, or mysteries\nof paradise or hell.\n\nMorality will be preached in vain, if it is not supported by the example\nof influential characters. It belongs to magistrates to teach morality,\nby practising it, by inciting to virtue, and repressing vice in every\nform. Their power is weakened the moment they suffer a power to arise,\nin the state, whose influence is exerted to render morality subservient\nto superstition and fanaticism. In states where education is entrusted\nto a fanatic, enthusiastic clergy, we find citizens overwhelmed with\nsuperstition, and destitute of every virtue, except a blind faith, a\nferocious zeal, a ridiculous submission to puerile ceremonies, and,\nin one word, fantastic notions, which never render them better men.\nNotwithstanding the happy influences attributed to the Christian\nreligion, do we find more virtues in those who profess it, than in those\nwho are strangers to it? Are the men, redeemed by the blood of even a\nDeity, more honest than others? Among Christians, impressed with\ntheir religion, one would imagine we should search in vain for rapine,\nfornication, adultery, and oppression. Among the orthodox courtiers, who\nsurround Christian thrones, do we see intrigues, calumny, or perfidy?\nAmong the clergy, who announce to others such redoubtable dogmas, and\nsuch terrible chastisements, do we find crimes that shun the day, and\nevery species of iniquity? All these men are Christians, who, unbridled\nby their religion, continually violate the plainest duties of morality,\nand knowingly offend a God, whom they are conscious of having irritated.\nYet they flatter themselves that they shall be able, by a tardy\nrepentance at death, to appease that divine justice which they have\ninsulted during the whole course of their lives.\n\nIn the mean time, we shall not deny, that the Christian religion\nsometimes proves a restraint to timorous minds, which are incapable of\nthat fanaticism, and destitute of that destructive energy, which lead\nto the commission of great crimes. But such minds would have been honest\nand harmless without this restraint. The fear of rendering themselves\nodious to mankind, of incurring contempt, and losing their reputation,\nwould have been a chain of equal strength, on the actions of such men.\nThose who are so blind as to tread these considerations under foot,\nwould never be deterred from it by the menaces of religion.\n\nEvery man, who has received a proper education, experiences within\nhimself a painful sentiment of mingled shame and fear, whenever he soils\nhimself with the guilt of a dishonest action. He even condemns himself\nfrequently, with greater severity than others do. He dreads, and shuns\nthe eyes of his fellow-creatures; he even wishes to fly from himself.\nThis is what constitutes remorse.\n\nIn a word, Christianity puts no restraint upon the passions of mankind,\nwhich might not be more efficaciously applied to them by reason,\neducation, and sound morality. If the wicked were sure of being\npunished, as often as they think of committing dishonest actions, they\nwould be forced to desist. In a society well constituted, contempt\nwill always follow vice, and crimes will produce punishment. Education,\nguided only by the good of society, ought ever to teach mankind to\nesteem themselves, to dread the contempt of others, and fear infamy more\nthan death itself. But this kind of morality can never be consistent\nwith a religion which commands men to despise themselves, avoid the\nesteem of others, and attempt to please only a God, whose conduct is\ninexplicable.\n\nIn fine, if the Christian religion be, as is pretended, a restraint to\nthe crimes of men, if it produces salutary effects on some individuals;\ncan these advantages, so rare, so weak and doubtful, be compared with\nthe evident and immense evils which this religion has produced on the\nearth? Can some few trifling crimes prevented, some conversions useless\nto society, some sterile and tardy repentances, enter into the balance\nagainst the continual dissensions, bloody wars, horrid massacres,\npersecutions, and cruelties, of which the Christian religion has been a\ncontinual cause and pretext? For one secret sinful thought suppressed by\nit, there are even whole nations armed for reciprocal destruction; the\nhearts of millions of fanatics are inflamed; families and states are\nplunged into confusion; and the earth is bedewed with tears and blood.1\nAfter this, let common sense decide the magnitude of the advantages\nwhich mankind derive; from the glad tidings which Christians pretend to\nhave received from their God.\n\n     1 Witness, even in this enlightened age, the Holy Crusade\n     against France, for the purpose of restoring the Christian\n     religion.\n\n\nMany honest people, although not ignorant of the ills produced among\nmankind by this religion, nevertheless consider it a necessary evil,\nand think it dangerous to attempt to uproot it. Mankind, say they, are\nnaturally superstitious; they must be amused, with chimeras, and\nbecome outrageous when deprived of them. But, I answer, mankind are\nsuperstitious only because, in infancy, every thing contributes to\nrender them so. He is led to expect his happiness, from, chimeras,\nbecause he is forbidden to seek for it from realities.\n\nIn fine, it is for philosophers and for magistrates to conduct mankind\nback, to reason. The former will obtain the confidence and love of\nthe latter, when they endeavour to promote the public good. Undeceived\nthemselves, they may undeceive others by degrees. Governments will\nprevent superstition from doing harm, when they despise it and stand\naloof from its ridiculous disputes. When they tolerate all sects, and\nside with none, those sects, after quarrelling awhile, will drop their\nmasks, and become contemptible even to themselves. Superstition falls\nbeneath its own weight when, freedom of conscience being restored to\nmankind, reason is at liberty to attack their follies. True toleration\nand freedom of thought are the most proper instruments for the\ndestruction of religious fanaticism. Imposture is in nature timid, and\nwhen she finds herself confronted with truth, her arms fall from her\nhands.\n\nIf a criminal and undiscerning policy has, hitherto, in almost all parts\nof the earth, had recourse to the aid of religion, to enslave mankind\nand render them miserable, let a virtuous and more enlightened policy\nhereafter destroy it by little and little to render them happy. If\neducation has hitherto formed enthusiasts and fanatics, let it be\nhereafter calculated to form good citizens. If a morality founded on\nmiracles, and looking to futurity, has been unable to restrain the\npassions of mankind, let a morality established upon their present and\nreal wants demonstrate that, in a well constituted society, happiness\nis always the reward of virtue: shame, contempt, and punishment the\ncompanions of vice, and the wages of sin.\n\nIf error be an evil, to it let truth be opposed. If enthusiasm produce\ndisorders in society, let it be suppressed.\n\nLet us leave to Asia a religion begotten by the ardent imaginations of\nthe orientals. Let our milder climates be more reasonable, more free,\nand more happy. Let us make them the residence of honesty, activity,\nindustry, social affections, and exalted minds. May not reason be\npermitted to hope, that she shall one day re-assume the power so long\nusurped from her by error, illusion, and deceit?\n\nWhen will nations renounce chimerical hopes, to contemplate their true\ninterests? Will they never shake off the yokes of those hypocritical\ntyrants, who are interested only in the errors of mankind? Let us hope\nit. Truth must at last triumph over falsehood.--Mankind, fatigued with\ntheir own credulity, will return to her arms.--Reason will break their\nchains--Reason, which was created to reign, with undivided empire, over\nall intelligent beings.\n\nAMEN.","title":"Christianity Unveiled: Being an Examination of the Principles and Effects of the Christian Religion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":39188}