{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_64858/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_64858","id":"gutenberg_64858","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64858","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Controversial literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: French Literature","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Rationalism","Religion -- Controversial literature","Toleration -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"TOLERATION\n AND OTHER ESSAYS\n\n BY\n VOLTAIRE\n\n TRANSLATED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION, BY\n Joseph McCabe\n\n G. P. PUTNAM\u2019S SONS\n NEW YORK AND LONDON\n The Knickerbocker Press\n 1912\n\n\n\n\n The Knickerbocker Press, New York\n\n\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n\nIt seems useful, in presenting to English readers this selection of\nthe works of Voltaire, to recall the position and personality of the\nwriter and the circumstances in which the works were written. It is\ntoo lightly assumed, even by many who enjoy the freedom which he,\nmore than any, won for Europe, and who may surpass him in scepticism,\nthat Voltaire is a figure to be left in a discreetly remote niche\nof memory. \u201cOther times, other manners\u201d is one of the phrases he\ncontributed to modern literature. Let us genially acknowledge that he\nplayed a great part in dispelling the last mists of the Middle Ages,\nand politely attribute to the papal perversity and the lingering\nvulgarity of his age the more effective features of his work. Thus\nhas Voltaire become a mere name to modern rationalists; a name of\nfading brilliance, a monumental name, but nothing more.\n\nThis sentiment is at once the effect and the cause of a very general\nignorance concerning Voltaire; and it is a reproach to us. We\nhave time, amid increasing knowledge, to recover the most obscure\npersonalities of the Middle Ages and of antiquity; we trace the\nmost elementary contributors to modern culture; and we neglect\none of the mightiest forces that made the development of modern\nculture possible. I do not speak of Voltaire the historian, who, a\ndistinguished writer says, introduced history for the first time into\nthe realm of letters; Voltaire the dramatist, whose name is inscribed\nfor ever in the temple of the tragic muse; Voltaire the physicist,\nwho drove the old Cartesianism out of France, and imposed on it the\nfertile principles of Newton; Voltaire the social reformer, who\ntalked to eighteenth-century kings of the rights of man, and scourged\nevery judicial criminal of his aristocratic age; Voltaire the\ncosmopolitan, who boldly set up England\u2019s ensign of liberty in feudal\nFrance. All these things were done by the \u201cflippant Voltaire\u201d of the\nflippant modern preacher. But he can be considered here only as one\nof the few who, in an age of profound inequality, used the privilege\nof his enlightenment to enlighten his fellows; one of those who won\nfor us that liberty to think rationally, and to speak freely, on\nreligious matters which we too airily attribute to our new goddess,\nEvolution.\n\nThe position of Voltaire in the development of religious thought in\nEurope is unique. Even if his words had no application in our age,\nit merits the most grateful consideration. Trace to its sources the\nspirit that has led modern France and modern Portugal to raise civic\nideals above creeds, and that will, within a few decades, find the\nsame expression in Spain, Italy, Belgium, and half of America. You\nfind yourself in the first half of the nineteenth century, when, in\nall those countries, a few hundred men, and some women, maintained\na superb struggle with restored monarchs and restored Jesuits for\nthe liberty that had been wrested from them; and you find that the\nvast majority of them were disciples of Voltaire. Go back to the very\nbeginning of the anti-clerical movement; seek the generators of that\nintellectual and emotional electricity which, gathering insensibly\nin the atmosphere of Europe in the second half of the eighteenth\ncentury, burst at last in the lurid flashes and the rolling thunders\nof the Great Revolution. On the religious side, with which alone I\nam concerned here, that devastating storm was overwhelmingly due to\nthe writings of Voltaire. Rousseau, it is true, gave to the world his\nsimple Deistic creed, and with sweet reasonableness lodged it in the\nminds of many; Diderot and d\u2019Holbach and La Mettrie impressed their\ndeeper scepticism with a weight of learning. But Voltaire was the\noracle of Europe. \u201cI have no sceptre, but I have a pen,\u201d he once said\nto Frederick the Great. And when, in his later years, he poured out\nfrom his remote ch\u00e2teau on the Swiss frontier the flood of satires,\nstories, sermons, dialogues, pamphlets, and treatises which ate deep\ninto the fabric of old Europe, his pen proved mightier than all the\nsceptres of its kings. To ignore Voltaire is to ignore history.\n\nMy object, however, in introducing to English readers these few\ncharacteristic specimens of his anti-clerical work is not solely to\nbespeak some gratefulness for the toleration and freedom which he\nenforced on a reluctant world, or to gratify a simple curiosity as\nto the character of his power. These are not dead words, not ashes\nof an extinct fire, which we disinter; for the world is not dead at\nwhich they were flung. If they cause resentment in the minds of some,\nthe publication will be the more justified. But before I explain this\nparadox, let me show how the works came to be written, and written in\nsuch a way.\n\nThe life of Voltaire, which some conceive as a prolonged adolescence,\nhas a very clear and instructive division into adolescence, manhood,\nand ripe age. All the works given in this volume belong to the\nlast part, but we must glance at the others. Fran\u00e7ois Marie Arouet\nwas born, in the very comfortable _bourgeois_ family of a staid\nParisian notary, in 1694. He became a precocious, sharp-eared boy.\nHis godfather was an _abb\u00e9_, a kind of ecclesiastic--not usually\na priest--in the France of the time who drew his income from the\nChurch, and therefore felt more entitled than the ordinary layman\nto scoff at its dogmas and ignore its morals. He could plead the\nexample of his bishops. Several of these _abb\u00e9s_ visited the\nhome of the Arouets, and gave little \u201cZozo\u201d his first lessons in\nBiblical criticism. In the great college of the Jesuits he learned\nto articulate his scepticism. In his seventeenth year he set out on\nthe career of letters. The kindly _abb\u00e9_, who, having answered to\nGod for him at the baptismal font, felt bound to guide his fortunes,\nintroduced him to one of the most brilliant and dissolute circles\nin Paris. It was a kind of club of _abb\u00e9s_, nobles, writers, etc.,\nand in it he would rapidly attain that large and peculiar knowledge\nof the Old Testament which appears in his writings. He sparkled so\nmuch at the suppers of the Epicureans, and earned such reputation,\nthat he was put in the Bastille for certain naughty epigrams, which\nhe had not written; and he was exiled for another epigram, on a\ndistinguished sinner, which he had written. In the pensive solitude\nof the Bastille he changed his name to Voltaire.[1] He emerged bolder\nthan ever, wrote tragedies and poems and epigrams, was welcomed in\nthe smartest salons of Paris, and behaved as a young gentleman of the\ntime was expected to behave, until his thirty-first year.\n\nIn 1726 he was, through the despotic and most unjust action of a\npowerful noble, again put in the Bastille, and was then allowed to\nexchange that fortress for the fogs of London. Up to this time he\nhad no idea of attacking Church or State. He had, in 1722, written a\nletter on religion--in the vein, apparently, of some of Swinburne\u2019s\nunpublished juvenilia--which a distinguished writer of the time,\nto whom he read it, described as \u201cmaking his hair stand on end\u201d;\nit was, however, not intended for circulation. But experience of\nEngland, for which he contracted a passionate admiration, and which\n(as Mr. Churton Collins has shown) he studied profoundly, sobered him\nwith a high and serious purpose. He met all the brilliant writers\nof that age in England, and took a great interest in the religious\ncontroversy which raged over Anthony Collins\u2019s _Discourse_. He\nreturned to France in 1729, vowing to win for it the liberty and\nenlightenment he had enjoyed in England. The splendid _English\nLetters_ which he wrote with that aim, and was afraid to publish,\nleaked out in 1734. The book was burned by the hangman, and he had to\nretire once more, for letting France know how enlightened England was\nin the days of George I.\n\nI pass over twenty years of his strenuous and brilliant career. He\nwrote his most famous tragedies and histories; he made an ardent\nstudy of, and introduced to France, the new science of Isaac Newton,\nwhose funeral he had witnessed in London; he was banished from his\ncountry for smiling at Adam and Eve; he deserted France for Germany,\nand then quarrelled with Frederick the Great; he tried liberal\nSwitzerland, and found that it gave you liberty only to attack other\npeople\u2019s dogmas; and in 1760 he settled at Ferney, since the shrine\nof Continental Rationalism, on the frontier, so that he could talk\nto Calvinists from the French side, and cross the border, if need\nwere, to talk to France. But France was at his feet. For eighteen\nyears more he showered his rain of publications on it. Even in those\nilliterate days some of his publications sold 300,000 copies. And\nwhen at last, in 1778, he was tempted to revisit Paris, the roar of\ndelight, of esteem, of abject worship, overwhelmed him, and he died\nin a flood of glory.\n\nTo those last twenty years of his life belong the anti-Christian\nworks reproduced in this volume. He was now a man of mature judgment,\nvast erudition, and grave humanitarian purpose. The common notion in\nEngland of Voltaire\u2019s works, as superficial gibes thrown out by the\nway in a brilliant career, is sheer nonsense. His command of history\nwas remarkable; and he had, for the time, a thorough grasp of science\nand philosophy. His arguments for the existence of God will compare\nwith those of the ablest lay or clerical theologians of his time.\nHis knowledge was defective and inaccurate because all knowledge was\ndefective and inaccurate in the eighteenth century, when research\nwas only just beginning to recover from its long ecclesiastical\nparalysis. No man in France had a larger command of such knowledge\nas the time afforded, and the use he made of it was serious and\nhigh-purposed. It is only the superficial who cannot see the depth\nbelow that sparkling surface; only the insensible who cannot feel the\nstrong, steady beat of a human heart behind the rippling laughter.\n\n_\u00c9crasez l\u2019infame_--\u201cCrush the infamous thing\u201d--the battle-cry\nwhich he sent over Europe from the Swiss frontier, was but a fiery\nexpression of his love of men, of liberty, of enlightenment, and of\nprogress. Read the stories of brutality in the guise of religion that\nare told in these pages--stories which ran into Voltaire\u2019s day--the\nstories of \u201creligious\u201d processions and relics and superstitions, the\nstory of how this ignorant credulity had been imposed on Europe, and\nhow it was maintained by sceptical priests, and say, if you dare,\nthat the phrase was not a cry of truth, sincerity, and humanity.\nThere was even a profoundly religious impulse in his work. A clerical\nfriend once confided to me that he found a use in Voltaire. It\nseemed that, when inspiration for the Sunday sermon failed, he fell\nupon my \u201catheistic friends,\u201d Voltaire and Rousseau, and the French\nRevolution they brought about. He was amazed to hear that they\nbelieved in God as firmly as, and much more reasonably than, he and\nhis colleagues did. Voltaire\u2019s aim was a sincere effort to rid pure\nreligion of its morbid and abominable overgrowths.\n\nVery good, you say; but why not have set about it more politely? For\ntwo plain reasons. First, because the character of his opponents\nfully justified him in directing his most scathing wit upon\nthem. The Jesuits, whom he chiefly lashed, were in his own time\nignominiously expelled by nearly every Catholic Power in Europe, and\nwere suppressed by the Pope. The other clergy were deeply tainted\nwith scepticism in the cities, and befogged with dense ignorance in\nthe provinces. One incident will suffice to justify his disdain.\nHis latest English biographer, S. G. Tallentyre, who is not biassed\nin his favour, says that it is most probable, if not certain, that\nwhile the Catholic authorities were burning his books in Paris, and\nshuddering at his infidelity, they were secretly tempting him, with\nthe prospect of a cardinal\u2019s hat, to join the clergy. It is certain\nthat they invited him to do religious work, and that, at the height\nof his anti-clerical work, he received direct from the Pope certain\nrelics to put in a chapel he had built for his poor neighbours. Could\na prince of irony restrain himself in such circumstances? The other\nreason is the character of the dogmas and practices he assailed. Read\nthem in the following pages.\n\nIt is true that there are passages in Voltaire which none of us\nwould, if we could, write to-day. The taste of the eighteenth\ncentury, still fouled by the Middle Ages, is not the taste of the\ntwentieth. Besides some longer passages which have been omitted from\nthe _Treatise on Toleration_, as will be explained, a few lines\nhave been struck out or modified here and there in one or two of\nthe works in this selection. Let me not be misunderstood, however.\nThey are mainly words of the Old Testament, and comments inspired\nonly by those words, that have been omitted. In the eighteenth\ncentury one could quote and comment in public on these grossnesses.\nIndeed, by some singular mental process, which Voltaire alone could\ncharacterise, the books containing these crudely sexual passages are\nstill thrust into the hands of children and of confined criminals by\nthe joint authority of Church and State in England; and grave bishops\nand gentle women say that they are the Word of God.\n\nAnd this brings me to the last point that I desire to touch before\nI introduce, one by one, the works contained in this volume. Why\nreproduce at all, in the twentieth century, these fitting scourges of\nthe superstitions of the eighteenth? I have said that they deserve\nto be reproduced for their historical interest and for the great\npart they have played in the history of Europe; but there is another\nreason. I have an idea that, if Voltaire were alive in England\nto-day, he would write with more scathing irony than ever. I imagine\nhim gazing with profound admiration at that marvellous picture of\nthe past which science and arch\u00e6ology have given us, and then asking\nat what date in the nineteenth century we ceased to dispute about\nconsubstantiality and transubstantiation, took the gilt off our Old\nTestament, and elevated our bishops to the rank of citizens. I then\nfancy him peeping into the fine schools of London or Manchester, and\nlearning that the first educational authorities in England still set\nchildren to learn about Adam and Eve, the Deluge, the Plagues of\nEgypt, and the remarkable proceedings of Joshua and David and the\nrest. I try to conceive him studying the faces of learned judges and\nprofessors, as they listen gravely to the reading of the Bible and\nthe creeds in church on Sundays, or reverently handle the book in\ncourt. I picture his amazement as he learns that this England, which\nhe thought so enlightened, still, at the dictation of its bishops,\nretains the most abominable divorce law in the civilised world; or\nhears preachers and social students seriously expressing concern\nfor the future of Europe on account of the decay of docility to the\nclergy. What would he have written on such a situation?\n\nThe satire of Voltaire is not out of place in modern England. As long\nas the Bible is, however insincerely, pressed on us as the Word of\nGod, and retained in our schools, we are compelled to point out in\nit features which make such claims ludicrous. As long as the clergy\nmaintain that their rule in the past was a benefit to civilisation,\nand therefore its decay may be a menace to civilisation, we are\nbound to tell the ugly truth in regard to the past. As long as\neducated men and women among us profess a belief in the magic of\ntransubstantiation and auricular confession and miracles, and the\nuneducated are encouraged to believe these things literally, the\nirony of Voltaire is legitimate. Christian bodies have, of late\nyears, made repeated attempts to induce our leaders of culture to\nprofess the Christian faith. The issue has been to make it clear that\nthe great majority of our professors, distinguished writers, and\nartists hold either the simple theism of Voltaire or discard even\nthat. The doctrines attacked here by Voltaire are wholly discredited.\nYet they are still the official teaching of the Churches (except\nof the Congregationalists); they are largely enforced on innocent\nchildren, and they are literally accepted by some millions of our\npeople. I see no reason to refrain from letting the irony of Voltaire\nfall on them once more.\n\nThe reader must not, however, conclude at once that the following\npages are so many red-hot charges into the tottering ranks of\nmedi\u00e6val dogmas. My aim has been to illustrate the versatility of\nVoltaire\u2019s genius, and to exhibit his own sincere creed no less than\nhis most penetrating scourges of what most educated men in his time\nand ours regard as utterly antiquated delusions. There are pages here\nthat might receive a place of honour in the most orthodox religious\njournals of England; other pages in which the irony is so subtle and\nthe temper so polite that, without the terrible name, they would\npuzzle many a clergyman. In the _Questions of Zapata_, however, and\nin parts of one or two other essays, I have given specimens of the\nVoltaire who was likened to Antichrist.\n\nThe selection opens with the _Treatise on Toleration_, which has\na mainly historical interest, and illustrates the finest side\nof Voltaire\u2019s work and character. It shows him as a profound\nhumanitarian, putting aside, in his seventieth year, his laughter and\nhis comfort to take up the cause of an obscure sufferer, and shaking\nFrance, as Zola did in our time, with his denunciation of a judicial\ncrime. The story of the crime is told in the essay itself; but it is\nnot told, or in any way conveyed, that, but for the action of the\naged rationalist, not a single effort would have been made to secure\nredress. His splendid action on that and a few similar occasions has\nbeen held by critical students of his career to atone for all his\nerrors. Many Protestants who scoff at \u201cVoltaire the scoffer\u201d may\nlearn with surprise that his noble and impassioned struggle earned\nfor them the right to live in Southern France. The treatise was\npublished in 1763. I have omitted a number of lengthy and learned\nnotes and one or two chapters which are incidental to the argument\nand of little interest to-day.\n\nThe three Homilies--those _On Superstition_, _On the Interpretation\nof the Old Testament_, and _On the Interpretation of the New\nTestament_--are selected from five which Voltaire wrote in 1767,\nwith the literary pretence that they had been delivered before some\nliberal congregation at London in 1765. The second of these Homilies\nis one of the most effective indictments of the Old Testament,\nconsidered as an inspired book. Nowhere in rationalistic literature\nis there an exposure of the essential humanity of the Old Testament\nso condensed yet so fluent, so original in form, comprehensive\nin range, and unanswerable in argument. It was published, it is\nbelieved, in 1767, though the first edition is marked 1766. Its\nhumour is malicious from the first line, as the \u201cDr. Tamponet\u201d\nwhose name is put to it was really an orthodox champion of the\nSorbonne. It is in this short diatribe that I have chiefly made the\nmodifications of which I have spoken. It was Voltaire\u2019s aim to show\nthat the coarseness of many passages of the Old Testament is quite\nas inconsistent with inspiration as its colossal inaccuracy and its\nchildlike superstition. An English translation, similarly modified,\nof the _Questions of Zapata_ was made by an anonymous lady, and\npublished by Hetherington, in 1840. In the present translation some\nof the paragraphs are omitted, and the numbering is therefore altered.\n\nThe _Epistle to the Romans_, another specimen of Voltaire\u2019s most\ndeadly polemic, is a just and masterly indictment of the papal\nsystem. It was issued in 1768, and very promptly put on the Index by\nthe outraged Vatican. But it penetrated educated Italy, and had no\nsmall share in the enlightenment which has ended in the emancipation\nof the country. The exquisite imitations of sermons which follow\ncontain some of Voltaire\u2019s most insidious and delicate irony. The\n_Sermon of the Fifty_ was written and published in 1762.\n\nThe volume closes with the famous poem which Voltaire wrote, in the\nyear 1755, when he heard that an earthquake had destroyed between\n30,000 and 40,000 people in Portugal. It was one of the chief\nfestivals of the Catholic year, the Feast of All Saints (November 1),\nand the crowded churches were in the very act of worship, when the\nground shook. In a few minutes 16,000 men, women, and children were\nslain, and as many more perished in the subsequent fires and horrors.\nVoltaire was at Geneva, and the horrible news threw him into the\ndeepest distress. The poem into which he condensed his pain and his\ndoubts is not a leisurely and polished piece of art. It has technical\ndefects, and is unequal in inspiration. Should we admire it if it\nwere otherwise? But it is a fine monument to his sincerity and just\nhuman passion, and it contains some phrases that became proverbial\nand some passages of great beauty. I have altered the structure of\nthe verse--the original is in rhymed hexameters--only in order that\nI could more faithfully convey to those who read only English the\nsentiments and, as far as possible, the phrasing of Voltaire. One\nallusion that recurs throughout needs some explanation. Browning\u2019s\n\u201cAll\u2019s right with the world\u201d was a very familiar cry in the\neighteenth century. The English Deists, and J. J. Rousseau in France,\nheld obstinately to this most singular optimism. Although Rousseau\nmade a feeble and friendly reply to the poem, it proved a deadly blow\nto his somewhat fantastic teaching on that point.\n\nImmediately preceding this poem I have given a translation of\nVoltaire\u2019s philosophical essay, _Il faut choisir_. This was written\nby him in 1772, six years before his death, and is the most succinct\nexpression of his mature religious views. It is really directed\nagainst his atheistic friends at Paris, such as d\u2019Holbach. Condorcet\nsaid of it that it contained the most powerful argumentation for the\nexistence of God that had yet been advanced. Its remarkable lucidity\nand terseness enable us to identify his views at once. He did not\nbelieve in the spirituality or immortality of the soul, but he had an\nunshakable conviction of the existence of God. It is sometimes said\nthat the Lisbon earthquake shook his theism. This is inaccurate, as\na careful comparison of the two works will show. He never believed\nthat the supreme intelligence was infinite in power, and the haunting\nproblem of evil always made him hesitate to ascribe more than\nlimited moral attributes to his deity. His one unwavering dogma--it\ndoes not waver for an instant in the poem--is that the world was\ndesigned by a supreme intelligence and is moved by a supreme power.\nHad he lived one hundred years later, when evolution began to throw\nits magical illumination upon the order of the universe and the\nwonderful adaptation of its parts, his position would clearly have\nbeen modified. As it was, he, with constant sincerity, avowed that he\ncould not understand the world without a great architect and a prime\nmover of all moving things. In all his works the uglier features of\nthe world, which, unlike many theists, he steadfastly confronted,\nforbid him to add any other and warmer attributes to this bleak\nintelligence and mysterious power.\n\n J. M.\n\n October, 1911.\n\n\n\n\n CONTENTS\n\n\n PAGE\n\n INTRODUCTION iii\n\n IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEATH OF JEAN CALAS 1\n\n ON SUPERSTITION 88\n\n ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 102\n\n ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 118\n\n EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 126\n\n THE SERMON OF THE FIFTY 160\n\n THE QUESTIONS OF ZAPATA 183\n\n WE MUST TAKE SIDES; OR, THE PRINCIPAL OF ACTION 206\n\n POEM ON THE LISBON DISASTER 255\n\n\n\n\n On Toleration\n\n In Connection with the Death of\n Jean Calas\n\n\n SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE DEATH OF JEAN CALAS\n\nThe murder of Calas, which was perpetrated with the sword of justice\nat Toulouse on March 9, 1762, is one of the most singular events that\ndeserve the attention of our own and of later ages. We quickly forget\nthe long list of the dead who have perished in our battles. It is the\ninevitable fate of war; those who die by the sword might themselves\nhave inflicted death on their enemies, and did not die without the\nmeans of defending themselves. When the risk and the advantage are\nequal astonishment ceases, and even pity is enfeebled. But when\nan innocent father is given into the hands of error, of passion,\nor of fanaticism; when the accused has no defence but his virtue;\nwhen those who dispose of his life run no risk but that of making a\nmistake; when they can slay with impunity by a legal decree--then the\nvoice of the general public is heard, and each fears for himself.\nThey see that no man\u2019s life is safe before a court that has been set\nup to guard the welfare of citizens, and every voice is raised in a\ndemand of vengeance.\n\nIn this strange incident we have to deal with religion, suicide,\nand parricide. The question was, Whether a father and mother had\nstrangled their son to please God, a brother had strangled his\nbrother, and a friend had strangled his friend; or whether the judges\nhad incurred the reproach of breaking on the wheel an innocent\nfather, or of sparing a guilty mother, brother, and friend.\n\nJean Calas, a man of sixty-eight years, had been engaged in commerce\nat Toulouse for more than forty years, and was recognised by all who\nknew him as a good father. He was a Protestant, as were also his wife\nand family, except one son, who had abjured the heresy, and was in\nreceipt of a small allowance from his father. He seemed to be so far\nremoved from the absurd fanaticism that breaks the bonds of society\nthat he had approved the conversion of his son [Louis Calas], and had\nhad in his service for thirty years a zealous Catholic woman, who had\nreared all his children.\n\nOne of the sons of Jean Calas, named Marc Antoine, was a man of\nletters. He was regarded as of a restless, sombre, and violent\ncharacter. This young man, failing to enter the commercial world,\nfor which he was unfitted, or the legal world, because he could\nnot obtain the necessary certificate that he was a Catholic,\ndetermined to end his life, and informed a friend of his intention.\nHe strengthened his resolution by reading all that has ever been\nwritten on suicide.\n\nHaving one day lost his money in gambling, he determined to carry\nout his plan on that very day. A personal friend and friend of the\nfamily, named Lavaisse, a young man of nineteen, well known for\nhis candid and kindly ways, the son of a distinguished lawyer at\nToulouse, had come from Bordeaux on the previous day, October 12,\n1761. He happened to sup with the Calas family. The father, mother,\nMarc Antoine, the elder son, and Pierre, the second son, were\npresent. After supper they withdrew to a small room. Marc Antoine\ndisappeared, and when young Lavaisse was ready to go, and he and\nPierre Calas had gone down-stairs, they found, near the shop below,\nMarc Antoine in his shirt, hanging from a door, his coat folded under\nthe counter. His shirt was unruffled, his hair was neatly combed, and\nhe had no wound or mark on the body.\n\nWe will omit the details which were given in court, and the grief and\ndespair of his parents; their cries were heard by the neighbours.\nLavaisse and Pierre, beside themselves, ran for surgeons and the\npolice.\n\nWhile they were doing this, and the father and mother sobbed and\nwept, the people of Toulouse gathered round the house. They are\nsuperstitious and impulsive people; they regard as monsters their\nbrothers who do not share their religion. It was at Toulouse that\nsolemn thanks were offered to God for the death of Henry III.,\nand that an oath was taken to kill any man who should propose to\nrecognise the great and good Henry IV. This city still celebrates\nevery year, by a procession and fireworks, the day on which it\nmassacred four thousand heretical citizens two hundred years ago. Six\ndecrees of the Council have been passed in vain for the suppression\nof this odious festival; the people of Toulouse celebrate it still\nlike a floral festival.[2]\n\nSome fanatic in the crowd cried out that Jean Calas had hanged his\nson Marc Antoine. The cry was soon repeated on all sides; some\nadding that the deceased was to have abjured Protestantism on the\nfollowing day, and that the family and young Lavaisse had strangled\nhim out of hatred of the Catholic religion. In a moment all doubt\nhad disappeared. The whole town was persuaded that it is a point of\nreligion with the Protestants for a father and mother to kill their\nchildren when they wish to change their faith.\n\nThe agitation could not end here. It was imagined that the\nProtestants of Languedoc had held a meeting the night before; that\nthey had, by a majority of votes, chosen an executioner for the\nsect; that the choice had fallen on young Lavaisse; and that, in the\nspace of twenty-four hours, the young man had received the news of\nhis appointment, and had come from Bordeaux to help Jean Calas, his\nwife, and their son Pierre to strangle a friend, son, and brother.\n\nThe captain of Toulouse, David, excited by these rumours and wishing\nto give effect to them by a prompt execution, took a step which\nis against the laws and regulations. He put the Calas family, the\nCatholic servant, and Lavaisse in irons.\n\nA report not less vicious than his procedure was published. He even\nwent further. Marc Antoine Calas had died a Calvinist; and, if he had\ntaken his own life, his body was supposed to be dragged on a hurdle.\nInstead of this, he was buried with great pomp in the church of St.\nStephen, although the priest protested against this profanation.\n\nThere are in Languedoc four confraternities of penitents--the\nwhite, the blue, the grey, and the black. Their members wear a long\nhood, with a cloth mask, pierced with two holes for the eyes. They\nendeavoured to induce the Duke of Fitz-James, the governor of the\nprovince, to enter their ranks, but he refused. The white penitents\nheld a solemn service over Marc Antoine Calas, as over a martyr.\nNo church ever celebrated the feast of a martyr with more pomp;\nbut it was a terrible pomp. They had raised above a magnificent\nbier a skeleton, which was made to move its bones. It represented\nMarc Antoine Calas holding a palm in one hand, and in the other the\npen with which he was to sign his abjuration of heresy. This pen,\nin-point of fact, signed the death-sentence of his father.\n\nThe only thing that remained for the poor devil who had taken his\nlife was canonisation. Everybody regarded him as a saint; some\ninvoked him, others went to pray at his tomb, others sought miracles\nof him, and others, again, related the miracles he had wrought. A\nmonk extracted some of his teeth, to have permanent relics of him.\nA pious woman, who was rather deaf, told how she heard the sound of\nbells. An apoplectic priest was cured, after taking an emetic. Legal\ndeclarations of these prodigies were drawn up. The writer of this\naccount has in his possession the attestation that a young man of\nToulouse went mad because he had prayed for several nights at the\ntomb of the new saint, and could not obtain the miracle he sought.\n\nSome of the magistrates belonged to the confraternity of white\npenitents. From that moment the death of Jean Calas seemed inevitable.\n\nWhat contributed most to his fate was the approach of that singular\nfestival which the people of Toulouse hold every year in memory\nof the massacre of four thousand Huguenots. The year 1762 was the\nbicentenary of the event. The city was decorated with all the\ntrappings of the ceremony, and the heated imagination of the people\nwas still further excited. It was stated publicly that the scaffold\non which the Calas were to be executed would be the chief ornament\nof the festival; it was said that Providence itself provided these\nvictims for sacrifice in honour of our holy religion. A score of\npeople heard these, and even more violent things. And this in our\ndays--in an age when philosophy has made so much progress, and a\nhundred academies are writing for the improvement of our morals! It\nwould seem that fanaticism is angry at the success of reason, and\ncombats it more furiously.\n\nThirteen judges met daily to bring the trial to a close. There was\nnot, and could not be, any evidence against the family; but a deluded\nreligion took the place of proof. Six of the judges long persisted\nin condemning Jean Calas, his son, and Lavaisse to the wheel, and\nthe wife of Jean Calas to the stake. The other seven, more moderate,\nwished at least to make an inquiry. The discussions were long and\nfrequent. One of the judges, convinced that the accused were innocent\nand the crime was impossible, spoke strongly on their behalf. He\nopposed a zeal for humanity to the zeal for severity, and became the\npublic pleader for the Calas in Toulouse, where the incessant cries\nof outraged religion demanded the blood of the accused. Another\njudge, known for his violent temper, spoke against the Calas with the\nsame spirit. At last, amid great excitement, they both threw up the\ncase and retired to the country.\n\nBut by a singular misfortune the judge who was favourable to the\nCalas had the delicacy to persist in his resignation, and the other\nreturned to condemn those whom he could not judge. His voice it was\nthat drew up the condemnation to the wheel. There were now eight\nvotes to five, as one of the six opposing judges had passed to the\nmore severe party after considerable discussion.\n\nIt seems that in a case of parricide, when a father is to be\ncondemned to the most frightful death, the verdict ought to be\nunanimous, as the evidence for so rare a crime ought to be such as\nto convince everybody.[3] The slightest doubt in such a case should\nintimidate a judge who is to sign the death-sentence. The weakness of\nour reason and its inadequacy are shown daily; and what greater proof\nof it can we have than when we find a citizen condemned to the wheel\nby a majority of one vote? In ancient Athens there had to be fifty\nvotes above the half to secure a sentence of death. It shows us, most\nunprofitably, that the Greeks were wiser and more humane than we.\n\nIt seemed impossible that Jean Calas, an old man of sixty-eight\nyears, whose limbs had long been swollen and weak, had been able\nto strangle and hang a young man in his twenty-eighth year, above\nthe average in strength. It seemed certain that he must have been\nassisted in the murder by his wife, his son Pierre, Lavaisse, and\nthe servant. They had not left each other\u2019s company for an instant\non the evening of the fatal event. But this supposition was just\nas absurd as the other. How could a zealous Catholic servant allow\nHuguenots to kill a young man, reared by herself, to punish him for\nembracing her own religion? How could Lavaisse have come expressly\nfrom Bordeaux to strangle his friend, whose conversion was unknown to\nhim? How could a tender mother lay hands on her son? How could the\nwhole of them together strangle a young man who was stronger than all\nof them without a long and violent struggle, without cries that would\nhave aroused the neighbours, without repeated blows and torn garments?\n\nIt was evident that, if there had been any crime, all the accused\nwere equally guilty, as they had never left each other for a moment;\nit was evident that they were not all guilty; and it was evident that\nthe father alone could not have done it. Nevertheless, the father\nalone was condemned to the wheel.\n\nThe reason of the sentence was as inconceivable as all the rest. The\njudges, who were bent on executing Jean Calas, persuaded the others\nthat the weak old man could not endure the torture, and would on the\nscaffold confess his crime and accuse his accomplices. They were\nconfounded when the old man, expiring on the wheel, prayed God to\nwitness his innocence, and begged him to pardon his judges.\n\nThey were compelled to pass a second sentence in contradiction of\nthe first, and to set free the mother, the son Pierre, the young\nLavaisse, and the servant; but one of the councillors pointing\nout that this verdict gave the lie to the other, that they were\ncondemning themselves, and that, as the accused were all together\nat the supposed hour of the crime, the acquittal of the survivors\nnecessarily proved the innocence of the dead father, they decided to\nbanish Pierre Calas. This banishment seemed as illogical and absurd\nas all the rest. Pierre Calas was either guilty or innocent. If he\nwas guilty, he should be broken on the wheel like his father; if he\nwas innocent, they had no right to banish him. However, the judges,\nterrified by the execution of the father and the touching piety of\nhis end, thought they were saving their honour by affecting to pardon\nthe son, as if it were not a fresh prevarication to pardon him; and\nthey thought that the banishment of this poor and helpless young man\nwas not a great injustice after that they had already committed.\n\nThey began with threatening Pierre Calas, in his dungeon, that he\nwould suffer like his father if he did not renounce his religion. The\nyoung man attests this on oath: \u201cA Dominican monk came to my cell and\nthreatened me with the same kind of death if I did not give up my\nreligion.\u201d\n\nPierre Calas, on leaving the city, met a priest, who compelled him\nto return to Toulouse. They confined him in a Dominican convent, and\nforced him to perform Catholic functions. It was part of what they\nwanted. It was the price of his father\u2019s blood, and religion seemed\nto be avenged.\n\nThe daughters were taken from the mother and put in a convent. The\nmother, almost sprinkled with the blood of her husband, her eldest\nson dead, the younger banished, deprived of her daughters and all her\nproperty, was alone in the world, without bread, without hope, dying\nof the intolerable misery. Certain persons, having carefully examined\nthe circumstances of this horrible adventure, were so impressed\nthat they urged the widow, who had retired into solitude, to go and\ndemand justice at the feet of the throne.[4] At the time she shrank\nfrom publicity; moreover, being English by birth, and having been\ntransplanted into a French province in early youth, the name of Paris\nterrified her. She imagined that the capital of the kingdom would be\nstill more barbaric than the capital of Languedoc. At length the duty\nof clearing the memory of her husband prevailed over her weakness.\nShe reached Paris almost at the point of death. She was astonished at\nher reception, at the help and the tears that were given to her.[5]\n\nAt Paris reason dominates fanaticism, however powerful it be; in the\nprovinces fanaticism almost always overcomes reason.\n\nM. de Beaumont, the famous advocate of the Parlement de Paris,\nundertook to defend her, and drew up a memorial signed by fifteen\nother advocates. M. Loiseau, not less eloquent, drew up a memoir on\nbehalf of the family. M. Mariette, an advocate of the Council, drew\nup a judicial inquiry which brought conviction to every mind. These\nthree generous defenders of the laws of innocence gave to the widow\nthe profit on the sale of their memoirs. Paris and the whole of\nEurope were moved with pity, and demanded justice for the unfortunate\nwoman. The verdict was given by the public long before it was signed\nby the Council.\n\nThe spirit of pity penetrated the ministry, in spite of the torrent\nof business that so often shuts out pity, and in spite of that\ndaily sight of misery that does even more to harden the heart. The\ndaughters were restored to their mother. As they sat, clothed in\ncrape and bathed in tears, their judges were seen to weep.\n\nThey had still enemies, however, for it was a question of religion.\nMany of those people who are known in France as \u201cdevout\u201d[6] said\nopenly that it was much better to let an innocent old Calvinist be\nslain than to compel eight Councillors of Languedoc to admit that\nthey were wrong. One even heard such phrases as \u201cThere are more\nmagistrates than Calas\u201d; and it was inferred that the Calas family\nought to be sacrificed to the honour of the magistrates. They did not\nreflect that the honour of judges, like that of other men, consists\nin repairing their blunders. It is not believed in France that the\nPope is infallible, even with the assistance of his cardinals[7];\nwe might just as well admit that eight judges of Toulouse are not.\nAll other people, more reasonable and disinterested, said that the\nToulouse verdict would be reversed all over Europe, even if special\nconsiderations prevented it from being reversed by the Council.\n\nSuch was the position of this astonishing adventure when it moved\ncertain impartial and reasonable persons to submit to the public a\nfew reflections on the subject of toleration, indulgence, and pity,\nwhich the Abb\u00e9 Houteville calls \u201ca monstrous dogma,\u201d in his garbled\nversion of the facts, and which reason calls an \u201cappanage of nature.\u201d\n\nEither the judges of Toulouse, swept away by the fanaticism of\nthe people, have broken on the wheel an innocent man, which is\nunprecedented; or the father and his wife strangled their elder son,\nwith the assistance of another son and a friend, which is unnatural.\nIn either case the abuse of religion has led to a great crime. It is,\ntherefore, of interest to the race to inquire whether religion ought\nto be charitable or barbaric.\n\n\n CONSEQUENCES OF THE EXECUTION OF JEAN CALAS\n\nIf the white penitents were the cause of the execution of an innocent\nman, the utter ruin of a family, and the dispersal and humiliation\nthat attach to an execution, though they should punish only\ninjustice; if the haste of the white penitents to commemorate as a\nsaint one who, according to our barbaric customs, should have been\ndragged on a hurdle, led to the execution of a virtuous parent; they\nought indeed to be penitents for the rest of their lives. They and\nthe judges should weep, but not in a long white robe, and with no\nmask to hide their tears.\n\nWe respect all confraternities; they are edifying. But can whatever\ngood they may do the State outweigh this appalling evil that they\nhave done? It seems that they have been established by the zeal\nwhich in Languedoc fires the Catholics against those whom we call\nHuguenots. One would say that they had taken vows to hate their\nbrothers; for we have religion enough left to hate and to persecute,\nand we have enough to love and to help. What would happen if these\nconfraternities were controlled by enthusiasts, as were once certain\ncongregations of artisans and \u201cgentlemen,\u201d among whom, as one of our\nmost eloquent and learned magistrates said, the seeing of visions was\nreduced to a fine art? What would happen if these confraternities set\nup again those dark chambers, called \u201cmeditation rooms,\u201d on which\nwere painted devils armed with horns and claws, gulfs of flame,\ncrosses and daggers, with the holy name of Jesus surmounting the\npicture?[8] What a spectacle for eyes that are already fascinated,\nand imaginations that are as inflamed as they are submissive to their\nconfessors!\n\nThere have been times when, as we know only too well,\nconfraternities were dangerous. The Fratelli and the Flagellants gave\ntrouble enough. The League[9] began with associations of that kind.\nWhy should they distinguish themselves thus from other citizens? Did\nthey think themselves more perfect? The very claim is an insult to\nthe rest of the nation. Did they wish all Christians to enter their\nconfraternity? What a sight it would be to have all Europe in hoods\nand masks, with two little round holes in front of the eyes! Do they\nseriously think that God prefers this costume to that of ordinary\nfolk? Further, this garment is the uniform of controversialists,\nwarning their opponents to get to arms. It may excite a kind of civil\nwar of minds, and would perhaps end in fatal excesses, unless the\nking and his ministers were as wise as the fanatics were demented.\n\nWe know well what the price has been ever since Christians began to\ndispute about dogmas. Blood has flowed, on scaffolds and in battles,\nfrom the fourth century to our own days.[10] We will restrict\nourselves here to the wars and horrors which the Reformation struggle\ncaused, and see what was the source of them in France. Possibly a\nshort and faithful account of those calamities will open the eyes of\nthe uninformed and touch the hearts of the humane.\n\n\n THE IDEA OF THE REFORMATION\n\nWhen enlightenment spread, with the renaissance of letters in the\nfifteenth century, there was a very general complaint of abuses, and\neverybody agrees that the complaint was just.\n\nPope Alexander VI. had openly bought the papal tiara, and his five\nbastards shared its advantages. His son, the cardinal-duke of Borgia,\nmade an end, in concert with his father, of Vitelli, Urbino, Gravina,\nOliveretto, and a hundred other nobles, in order to seize their\nlands. Julius II., animated by the same spirit, excommunicated Louis\nXII. and gave his kingdom to the first occupant; while he himself,\nhelmet on head and cuirass on back, spread blood and fire over part\nof Italy. Leo X., to pay for his pleasures, sold indulgences, as the\ntaxes are sold in the open market. They who revolted against this\nbrigandage were, at least, not wrong from the moral point of view.\nLet us see if they were wrong in politics.\n\nThey said that, since Jesus Christ had never exacted fees, nor sold\ndispensations for this world or indulgences for the next, one might\nrefuse to pay a foreign prince the price of these things. Supposing\nthat our fees to Rome and the dispensations which we still buy[11]\ndid not cost us more than five hundred thousand francs a year, it is\nclear that, since the time of Francis I., we should have paid, in\ntwo hundred and fifty years, a hundred and twenty million francs;\nallowing for the change of value in money, we may say about two\nhundred and fifty millions [\u00a310,000,000]. One may, therefore,\nwithout blasphemy, admit that the heretics, in proposing to abolish\nthese singular taxes, which will astonish a later age, did not do\na very grave wrong to the kingdom, and that they were rather good\nfinanciers than bad subjects. Let us add that they alone knew Greek,\nand were acquainted with antiquity. Let us grant that, in spite of\ntheir errors, we owe to them the development of the human mind, so\nlong buried in the densest barbarism.\n\nBut, as they denied the existence of Purgatory, which it is not\npermitted to doubt, and which brought a considerable income to\nthe monks; and as they did not venerate relics, which ought to be\nvenerated, and which are a source of even greater profit--in fine,\nas they assailed much-respected dogmas, the only answer to them\nat first was to burn them. The king, who protected and subsidised\nthem in Germany, walked at the head of a procession in Paris, and\nat the close a number of the wretches were executed. This was the\nmanner of execution. They were hung at the end of a long beam, which\nwas balanced, like a see-saw, across a tree. A big fire was lit\nunderneath, and they were alternately sunk into it and raised out.\nTheir torments were thus protracted, until death relieved them from a\nmore hideous punishment than any barbarian had ever invented.\n\nShortly before the death of Francis I. certain members of the\nParlement de Provence, instigated by their clergy against the\ninhabitants of Merindol and Cabri\u00e8res, asked the king for troops\nto support the execution of nineteen persons of the district whom\nthey had condemned. They had six thousand slain, without regard to\nsex or age or infancy, and they reduced thirty towns to ashes. These\npeople, who had not hitherto been heard of, were, no doubt, in the\nwrong to have been born Waldensians; but that was their only crime.\nThey had been settled for three hundred years in the deserts and on\nthe mountains, which they had, with incredible labour, made fertile.\nTheir quiet, pastoral life represented the supposed innocence of the\nfirst ages of men. They knew the neighbouring towns only by selling\nfruit to them. They had no law-courts and never warred; they did\nnot defend themselves. They were slain as one slays animals in an\nenclosure.\n\nAfter the death of Francis I.--a prince who is better known for his\namours and misfortunes than his cruelty--the execution of a thousand\nheretics, especially of the Councillor of the Parlement, Dubourg, and\nthe massacre of Vassy, caused the persecuted sect to take to arms.\nThey had increased in the light of the flames and under the sword of\nthe executioner, and substituted fury for patience. They imitated\nthe cruelties of their enemies. Nine civil wars filled France with\ncarnage; and a peace more fatal than war led to the massacre of St.\nBartholomew, which is without precedent in the annals of crime.\n\nThe [Catholic] League assassinated Henry III. and Henry IV. by the\nhands of a Dominican monk, and of a monster who had belonged to\nthe order of St. Bernard. There are those who say that humanity,\nindulgence, and liberty of conscience are horrible things. Candidly,\ncould they have brought about calamities such as these?\n\n\n WHETHER TOLERATION IS DANGEROUS, AND AMONG\n WHAT PEOPLES IT IS FOUND\n\nThere are some who say that, if we treated with paternal indulgence\nthose erring brethren who pray to God in bad French [instead of bad\nLatin], we should be putting weapons in their hands, and would once\nmore witness the battles of Jarnac, Moncontour, Coutras, Dreux, and\nSt. Denis. I do not know anything about this, as I am not a prophet;\nbut it seems to me an illogical piece of reasoning to say: \u201cThese men\nrebelled when I treated them ill, therefore they will rebel when I\ntreat them well.\u201d\n\nI would venture to take the liberty to invite those who are at\nthe head of the government, and those who are destined for high\npositions, to reflect carefully whether one really has ground to fear\nthat kindness will lead to the same revolts as cruelty; whether what\nhappened in certain circumstances is sure to happen in different\ncircumstances; if the times, public opinion, and morals are unchanged.\n\nThe Huguenots, it is true, have been as inebriated with fanaticism\nand stained with blood as we. But are this generation as barbaric as\ntheir fathers? Have not time, the progress of reason, good books, and\nthe humanising influence of society had an effect on the leaders of\nthese people? And do we not perceive that the aspect of nearly the\nwhole of Europe has been changed within the last fifty years?\n\nGovernment is stronger everywhere, and morals have improved. The\nordinary police, supported by numerous standing armies, gives us some\nsecurity against a return to that age of anarchy in which Calvinistic\npeasants fought Catholic peasants, hastily enrolled between the\nsowing and the harvest.\n\nDifferent times have different needs. It would be absurd to\ndecimate the Sorbonne to-day because it once presented a demand for\nthe burning of the Maid of Orleans, declared that Henry III. had\nforfeited his kingdom, excommunicated him, and proscribed the great\nHenry IV. We will not think of inquiring into the other bodies in the\nkingdom who committed the same excesses in those frenzied days. It\nwould not only be unjust, but would be as stupid as to purge all the\ninhabitants of Marseilles because they had the plague in 1720.\n\nShall we go and sack Rome, as the troops of Charles V. did, because\nSixtus V. in 1585 granted an indulgence of nine years to all\nFrenchmen who would take up arms against their sovereign? Is it not\nenough to prevent Rome for ever from reverting to such excesses?\n\nThe rage that is inspired by the dogmatic spirit and the abuse of\nthe Christian religion, wrongly conceived, has shed as much blood\nand led to as many disasters in Germany, England, and even Holland,\nas in France. Yet religious difference causes no trouble to-day in\nthose States. The Jew, the Catholic, the Greek, the Lutheran, the\nCalvinist, the Anabaptist, the Socinian, the Memnonist, the Moravian,\nand so many others, live like brothers in these countries, and\ncontribute alike to the good of the social body.\n\nThey fear no longer in Holland that disputes about predestination\nwill end in heads being cut off. They fear no longer at London that\nthe quarrels of Presbyterians and Episcopalians about liturgies\nand surplices will lead to the death of a king on the scaffold.\nA populous and wealthier Ireland will no longer see its Catholic\ncitizens sacrifice its Protestant citizens to God during two months,\nbury them alive, hang their mothers to gibbets, tie the girls to\nthe necks of their mothers, and see them expire together; or put\nswords in the hands of their prisoners and guide their hands to\nthe bosoms of their wives, their fathers, their mothers, and their\ndaughters, thinking to make parricides of them, and damn them as\nwell as exterminate them.[12] Such is the account given by Rapin\nThoyras, an officer in Ireland, and almost a contemporary; so we\nfind in all the annals and histories of England. It will never be\nrepeated. Philosophy, the sister of religion, has disarmed the hands\nthat superstition had so long stained with blood; and the human mind,\nawakening from its intoxication, is amazed at the excesses into which\nfanaticism had led it.\n\nWe have in France a rich province in which the Lutherans outnumber\nthe Catholics. The University of Alsace is in the hands of the\nLutherans. They occupy some of the municipal offices; yet not the\nleast religious quarrel has disturbed this province since it came\ninto the possession of our kings. Why? Because no one has ever been\npersecuted in it. Seek not to vex the hearts of men, and they are\nyours.\n\nI do not say that all who are not of the same religion as the prince\nshould share the positions and honours of those who follow the\ndominant religion. In England the Catholics, who are regarded as\nattached to the party of the Pretender, are not admitted to office.\nThey even pay double taxes. In other respects, however, they have all\nthe rights of citizens.\n\nSome of the French bishops have been suspected of holding that it\nredounds neither to their honour nor their profit to have Calvinists\nin their dioceses. This is said to be one of the greatest obstacles\nto toleration. I cannot believe it. The episcopal body in France\nis composed of gentlemen, who think and act with the nobility that\nbefits their birth. They are charitable and generous; so much justice\nmust be done them. They must think that their fugitive subjects\nwill assuredly not be converted in foreign countries, and that,\nwhen they return to their pastors, they may be enlightened by their\ninstructions and touched by their example. There would be honour in\nconverting them, and their material interests would not suffer. The\nmore citizens there were, the larger would be the income from the\nprelate\u2019s estates.\n\nA Polish bishop had an Anabaptist for farmer and a Socinian for\nsteward. It was suggested that he ought to discharge and prosecute\nthe latter because he did not believe in consubstantiality, and the\nformer because he did not baptise his child until it was fifteen\nyears old. He replied that they would be damned for ever in the next\nworld, but that they were very useful to him in this.\n\nLet us get out of our grooves and study the rest of the globe. The\nSultan governs in peace twenty million people of different religions;\ntwo hundred thousand Greeks live in security at Constantinople;\nthe _muphti_ himself nominates and presents to the emperor the\nGreek patriarch, and they also admit a Latin patriarch. The Sultan\nnominates Latin bishops for some of the Greek islands, using the\nfollowing formula: \u201cI command him to go and reside as bishop in\nthe island of Chios, according to their ancient usage and their\nvain ceremonies.\u201d The empire is full of Jacobites, Nestorians, and\nMonothelites; it contains Copts, Christians of St. John, Jews, and\nHindoos. The annals of Turkey do not record any revolt instigated by\nany of these religions.\n\nGo to India, Persia, or Tartary, and you will find the same\ntoleration and tranquillity. Peter the Great patronised all the cults\nin his vast empire. Commerce and agriculture profited by it, and the\nbody politic never suffered from it.\n\nThe government of China has not, during the four thousand years of\nits known history, had any cult but the simple worship of one God.\nNevertheless, it tolerates the superstitions of Fo, and permits a\nlarge number of bronzes, who would be dangerous if the prudence of\nthe courts did not restrain them.\n\nIt is true that the great Emperor Yang-Chin, perhaps the wisest and\nmost magnanimous emperor that China ever had, expelled the Jesuits.\nBut it was not because he was intolerant; it was because the Jesuits\nwere. They themselves give, in their curious letters, the words of\nthe good prince to them: \u201cI know that your religion is intolerant; I\nknow what you have done in Manila and Japan. You deceived my father;\nthink not to deceive me.\u201d If you read the whole of his speech to\nthem, you will see that he was one of the wisest and most clement of\nmen. How could he retain European physicians who, under pretence of\nshowing thermometers and \u00e6olipiles at court, had carried off a prince\nof the blood? What would he have said if he had read our history and\nwas acquainted with the days of our League and of the Gunpowder Plot?\n\nIt was enough for him to be informed of the indecent quarrels of the\nJesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, and secular priests sent into his\nState from the ends of the earth. They came to preach the truth,\nand fell to anathematising each other. Hence the emperor was bound\nto expel the foreign disturbers. But how kindly he dismissed them!\nWhat paternal care did he not devote to their journey, and in order\nto protect them from insult on the way? Their very banishment was a\nlesson in toleration and humanity.\n\nThe Japanese were the most tolerant of all men. A dozen peaceful\nreligions throve in their empire, when the Jesuits came with a\nthirteenth. As they soon showed that they would tolerate no other,\nthere arose a civil war, even more frightful than that of the League,\nand the land was desolated. In the end the Christian religion was\ndrowned in blood; the Japanese closed their empire, and regarded\nus only as wild beasts, like those which the English have cleared\nout of their island. The minister Colbert, knowing how we need the\nJapanese, who have no need of us, tried in vain to reopen commerce\nwith their empire. He found them inflexible.\n\nThus the whole of our continent shows us that we must neither preach\nnor practise intolerance.\n\nTurn your eyes to the other hemisphere. Study Carolina, of which the\nwise Locke was the legislator. Seven fathers of families sufficed to\nset up a public cult approved by the law; and this liberty gave rise\nto no disorder. Heaven preserve us from quoting this as an example\nfor France to follow! We quote it only to show that the greatest\nexcess of toleration was not followed by the slightest dissension.\nBut what is good and useful in a young colony is not suitable for a\nlong-established kingdom.\n\nWhat shall we say of the primitive people who have been derisively\ncalled Quakers, but who, however ridiculous their customs may be,\nhave been so virtuous and given so useful a lesson of peace to other\nmen? There are a hundred thousand of them in Pennsylvania. Discord\nand controversy are unknown in the happy country they have made for\nthemselves; and the very name of their chief town, Philadelphia,\nwhich unceasingly reminds them that all men are brothers, is an\nexample and a shame to nations that are yet ignorant of toleration.\n\nToleration, in fine, never led to civil war; intolerance has covered\nthe earth with carnage. Choose, then, between these rivals--between\nthe mother who would have her son slain and the mother who yields,\nprovided his life be spared.\n\nI speak here only of the interest of nations. While respecting\ntheology, as I do, I regard in this article only the physical and\nmoral well-being of society. I beg every impartial reader to weigh\nthese truths, verify them, and add to them. Attentive readers, who\nrestrain not their thoughts, always go farther than the author.\n\n\n HOW TOLERATION MAY BE ADMITTED\n\nI venture to think that some enlightened and magnanimous minister,\nsome humane and wise prelate, some prince who puts his interest in\nthe number of his subjects and his glory in their welfare, may deign\nto glance at this inartistic and defective paper. He will supply\nits defects and say to himself: What do I risk in seeing my land\ncultivated and enriched by a larger number of industrious workers,\nthe revenue increased, the State more flourishing?\n\nGermany would be a desert strewn with the bones of Catholics,\nProtestants, and Anabaptists, slain by each other, if the peace of\nWestphalia had not at length brought freedom of conscience.\n\nWe have Jews at Bordeaux and Metz and in Alsace; we have Lutherans,\nMolinists, and Jansenists; can we not suffer and control Calvinists\non much the same terms as those on which Catholics are tolerated\nat London? The more sects there are, the less danger in each.\nMultiplicity enfeebles them. They are all restrained by just laws\nwhich forbid disorderly meetings, insults, and sedition, and are ever\nenforced by the community.\n\nWe know that many fathers of families, who have made large fortunes\nin foreign lands, are ready to return to their country. They ask\nonly the protection of natural law, the validity of their marriages,\nsecurity as to the condition of their children, the right to inherit\nfrom their fathers, and the enfranchisement of their persons. They\nask not for public chapels, or the right to municipal offices and\ndignities. Catholics have not these things in England and other\ncountries. It is not a question of giving immense privileges and\nsecure positions to a faction, but of allowing a peaceful people to\nlive, and of moderating the laws once, but no longer, necessary. It\nis not our place to tell the ministry what is to be done; we do but\nask consideration for the unfortunate.\n\nHow many ways there are of making them useful, and preventing them\nfrom ever being dangerous! The prudence of the ministry and the\nCouncil, supported as it is by force, will easily discover these\nmeans, which are already happily employed by other nations.\n\nThere are still fanatics among the Calvinistic populace; but it is\ncertain that there are far more among the convulsionary [bigoted\nCatholic] populace. The dregs of the fanatical worshippers of St.\nM\u00e9dard count as nothing in the nation; the dregs of the Calvinistic\nprophets are annihilated. The great means to reduce the number of\nfanatics, if any remain, is to submit that disease of the mind to\nthe treatment of reason, which slowly, but infallibly, enlightens\nmen. Reason is gentle and humane. It inspires liberality, suppresses\ndiscord, and strengthens virtue; it has more power to make obedience\nto the laws attractive than force has to compel it. And shall we take\nno account of the ridicule that attaches to-day to the enthusiasm of\nthese good people? Ridicule is a strong barrier to the extravagance\nof all sectarians. The past is as if it had never been. We must\nalways start from the present--from the point which nations have\nalready reached.\n\nThere was a time when it was thought necessary to issue decrees\nagainst those who taught a doctrine at variance with the categories\nof Aristotle, the abhorrence of a vacuum, the quiddities, the\nuniversal apart from the object. We have in Europe more than\na hundred volumes of jurisprudence on sorcery and the way to\ndistinguish between false and real sorcerers. The excommunication of\ngrasshoppers and harmful insects has been much practised, and still\nsurvives in certain rituals. But the practice is over; Aristotle and\nthe sorcerers and grasshoppers are left in peace. There are countless\ninstances of this folly, once thought so important. Other follies\narise from time to time; but they have their day and are abandoned.\nWhat would happen to-day if a man were minded to call himself a\nCarpocratian, a Eutychian, a Monothelite, a Monophysist, a Nestorian,\nor a Manich\u00e6an? We should laugh at him, as at a man dressed in the\ngarb of former days.\n\nThe nation was beginning to open its eyes when the Jesuits Le Tellier\nand Doucin fabricated the bull _Unigenitus_ and sent it to Rome. They\nthought that they still lived in those ignorant times when the most\nabsurd statements were accepted without inquiry. They ventured even\nto condemn the proposition, a truth of all times and all places: \u201cThe\nfear of unjust excommunication should not prevent one from doing\none\u2019s duty.\u201d It was a proscription of reason, of the liberties of\nthe Gallican Church, and of the fundamental principle of morals. It\nwas to say to men: God commands you never to do your duty if you\nfear injustice. Never was common-sense more outrageously challenged!\nThe counsellors of Rome were not on their guard. The papal court was\npersuaded that the bull was necessary, and that the nation desired\nit; it was signed, sealed, and dispatched. You know the results;\nassuredly, if they had been foreseen, the bull would have been\nmodified. There were angry quarrels, which the prudence and goodness\nof the king have settled.\n\nSo it is in regard to a number of the points which divide the\nProtestants and ourselves. Some are of no consequence; some are more\nserious; but on these points the fury of the controversy has so far\nabated that the Protestants themselves no longer enter into disputes\nin their churches.\n\nIt is a time of disgust, of satiety, or, rather, of reason, that may\nbe used as an epoch and guarantee of public tranquillity. Controversy\nis an epidemic disease that nears its end, and what is now needed\nis gentle treatment. It is to the interest of the State that its\nexpatriated children should return modestly to the homes of their\nfathers. Humanity demands it, reason counsels it, and politics need\nnot fear it.\n\n\n WHETHER INTOLERANCE IS OF NATURAL AND\n HUMAN LAW\n\nNatural law is that indicated to men by nature. You have reared a\nchild; he owes you respect as a father, gratitude as a benefactor.\nYou have a right to the products of the soil that you have cultivated\nwith your own hands. You have given or received a promise; it must be\nkept.\n\nHuman law must in every case be based on natural law. All over the\nearth the great principle of both is: Do not unto others what you\nwould that they do not unto you. Now, in virtue of this principle,\none man cannot say to another: \u201cBelieve what I believe, and what\nthou canst not believe, or thou shalt perish.\u201d Thus do men speak\nin Portugal, Spain, and Goa. In some other countries they are now\ncontent to say: \u201cBelieve, or I detest thee; believe, or I will do\nthee all the harm I can. Monster, thou sharest not my religion, and\ntherefore hast no religion; thou shalt be a thing of horror to thy\nneighbours, thy city, and thy province.\u201d\n\nIf it were a point of human law to behave thus, the Japanese should\ndetest the Chinese, who should abhor the Siamese; the Siamese, in\nturn, should persecute the Thibetans, who should fall upon the\nHindoos. A Mogul should tear out the heart of the first Malabarian he\nmet; the Malabarian should slay the Persian, who might massacre the\nTurk; and all of them should fling themselves against the Christians,\nwho have so long devoured each other.\n\nThe supposed right of intolerance is absurd and barbaric. It is the\nright of the tiger; nay, it is far worse, for tigers do but tear in\norder to have food, while we rend each other for paragraphs.\n\n\n WHETHER INTOLERANCE WAS KNOWN TO THE GREEKS\n\nThe peoples of whom history has given us some slight knowledge\nregarded their different religions as links that bound them together;\nit was an association of the human race. There was a kind of right\nto hospitality among the gods, just as there was among men. When a\nstranger reached a town, his first act was to worship the gods of\nthe country; even the gods of enemies were strictly venerated. The\nTrojans offered prayers to the gods who fought for the Greeks.\n\nAlexander, in the deserts of Libya, went to consult the god Ammon,\nwhom the Greeks called Zeus and the Latins Jupiter, though they both\nhad their own Zeus or Jupiter at home. When a town was besieged,\nsacrifices and prayers were offered to the gods of the town to secure\ntheir favour. Thus in the very midst of war religion united men and\nmoderated their fury, though at times it enjoined on them inhuman and\nhorrible deeds.\n\nI may be wrong, but it seems to me that not one of the ancient\ncivilised nations restricted the freedom of thought.[13] Each of them\nhad a religion, but it seems to me that they used it in regard to men\nas they did in regard to their gods. All of them recognised a supreme\nGod, but they associated with him a prodigious number of lesser\ndivinities. They had only one cult, but they permitted numbers of\nspecial systems.\n\nThe Greeks, for instance, however religious they were, allowed the\nEpicureans to deny providence and the existence of the soul. I need\nnot speak of the other sects which all offended against the sound\nidea of the creative being, yet were all tolerated.\n\nSocrates, who approached nearest to a knowledge of the Creator, is\nsaid to have paid for it, and died a martyr to the Deity; he is the\nonly man whom the Greeks put to death for his opinions. If that was\nreally the cause of his condemnation, however, it is not to the\ncredit of intolerance, since they punished only the man who alone\ngave glory to God, and honoured those who held unworthy views of the\nDeity. The enemies of toleration would, I think, be ill advised to\nquote the odious example of the judges of Socrates.\n\nIt is evident, moreover, that he was the victim of a furious party,\nangered against him. He had made irreconcilable enemies of the\nsophists, orators, and poets who taught in the schools, and of all\nthe teachers in charge of the children of distinguished men. He\nhimself admits, in his discourse given to us by Plato, that he went\nfrom house to house proving to the teachers that they were ignorant.\nSuch conduct was hardly worthy of one whom an oracle had declared\nto be the wisest of men. A priest and a councillor of the Five\nHundred were put forward to accuse him. I must confess that I do\nnot know what the precise accusation was; I find only vagueness in\nhis apology. He is made to say, in general, that he was accused of\ninstilling into young men sentiments in opposition to the religion\nand government. It is the usual method of calumniators, but a court\nwould demand accredited facts and precise charges. Of these there is\nno trace in the trial of Socrates. We know only that at first there\nwere two hundred and twenty votes in his favour. From this we may\ninfer that the court of the Five Hundred included two hundred and\ntwenty philosophers; I doubt if so many could be found elsewhere.\nThe majority at length condemned him to drink the hemlock; but let\nus remember that, when the Athenians returned to their senses,\nthey regarded both the accusers and the judges with horror; that\nMelitus, the chief author of the sentence, was condemned to death\nfor his injustice; and that the others were banished, and a temple\nwas erected to Socrates. Never was philosophy so much avenged and\nhonoured. The case of Socrates is really the most terrible argument\nthat can be used against intolerance. The Athenians had an altar\ndedicated to foreign gods--the gods they knew not. Could there be a\nstronger proof, not merely of their indulgence to all nations, but\neven of respect for their cults?\n\nA French writer, in attempting to justify the massacre of St.\nBartholomew, quotes the war of the Phoc\u00e6ans, known as \u201cthe sacred\nwar,\u201d as if this war had been inspired by cult, or dogma, or\ntheological argument. Nay, it was a question only of determining to\nwhom a certain field belonged; it is the subject of all wars. Beards\nof corn are not a symbol of faith; no Greek town ever went to war\nfor opinions. What, indeed, would this gentleman have? Would he have\nus enter upon a \u201csacred war\u201d?\n\n\n WHETHER THE ROMANS WERE TOLERANT\n\nAmong the ancient Romans you will not find, from Romulus until the\ndays when the Christians disputed with the priests of the empire,\na single man persecuted on account of his opinions. Cicero doubted\neverything; Lucretius denied everything; yet they incurred not\nthe least reproach. Indeed, license went so far that Pliny, the\nnaturalist, began his book by saying that there is no god, or that,\nif there is, it is the sun. Cicero, speaking of the lower regions,\nsays: \u201cThere is no old woman so stupid as to believe in them (_Non\nest anus tam excors qu\u00e6 credat_).\u201d Juvenal says: \u201cEven the children\ndo not believe (_Nec pueri credunt_).\u201d They sang in the theatre at\nRome: \u201cThere is nothing after death, and death is nothing (_Post\nmortem nihil est, ipsaque mors nihil_).\u201d We may abhor these maxims,\nor, at the most, forgive a people whom the light of the gospel had\nnot reached; but we must conclude that the Romans were very tolerant,\nsince they did not excite a single murmur.\n\nThe great principle of the Senate and people of Rome was, \u201cOffences\nagainst the gods are the business of the gods (_Deorum offensa diis\ncur\u00e6_).\u201d They dreamed only of conquering, governing, and civilising\nthe world. They were our legislators and our conquerors; and C\u00e6sar,\nwho gave us roads, laws, and games, never attempted to compel us to\nabandon our druids for him, great pontiff as he was of our sovereign\nnation.\n\nThe Romans did not profess all cults, or assign public functions to\nall, but they permitted all. They had no material object of worship\nunder Numa, no pictures or statues; though they presently erected\nstatues to \u201cthe gods of the great nations,\u201d whom they learned from\nthe Greeks. The law of the Twelve Tables, _Deos peregrinos ne\ncolunto_ [\u201cForeign gods shall not be worshipped\u201d], means only that\npublic cult shall be given only to the superior divinities approved\nby the Senate. Isis had a temple at Rome until Tiberius destroyed it.\nThe Jews were engaged in commerce there since the time of the Punic\nwar, and had synagogues there in the days of Augustus. They kept them\nalmost always, as in modern Rome. Can there be a clearer proof that\ntoleration was regarded by the Romans as the most sacred line of the\nlaw of nations?\n\nWe are told that, as soon as the Christians appeared, they were\npersecuted by the Romans, who persecuted nobody. It seems to me that\nthe statement is entirely false, and I need only quote St. Paul\nhimself in disproof of it. In the _Acts of the Apostles_ (xxv. 16)\nwe read that, when Paul was dragged before the Roman Governor by the\nJews in some religious quarrel, Festus said: \u201cIt is not the manner of\nthe Romans to deliver any man to die before that he which is accused\nhave the accusers face to face, and have license to answer for\nhimself.\u201d These words are the more remarkable for a Roman magistrate,\nbecause he seems to have had nothing but contempt for Paul. Deceived\nby the false light of his reason, he took Paul for a fool, and\nsaid: \u201cMuch learning doth make thee mad.\u201d He was, therefore, having\nregard only to the equity of Roman law in giving his protection to a\nstranger for whom he had no esteem.\n\nThus the Holy Spirit, in inspiring _Acts_, testifies that the Romans\nwere just, and did not persecute. It was not the Romans who fell upon\nPaul, but the Jews. St. James, the brother of Jesus, was stoned by\nthe order of a Jewish Sadducee, not of a Roman. The Jews alone stoned\nSt. Stephen; and St. Paul, in holding the cloaks of the executioners,\ncertainly did not act as a Roman citizen.[14]\n\nThe first Christians had, no doubt, no cause of quarrel with the\nRomans; their only enemies were the Jews, from whom they were\nbeginning to separate. We know the fierce hatred that sectarians\nalways have for those who leave the sect. There were probably\ndisturbances in the synagogues at Rome. Suetonius says, in his life\nof Claudius: \u201cJud\u00e6os impulsore Christo assidue tumultuantes Roma\nexpulit.\u201d[15] He was wrong in saying that they were instigated by\nChrist, and was not likely to be well informed in detail about\na people so much despised at Rome as the Jews were; but he was\nnot mistaken as to the subject of the quarrels. Suetonius wrote\nunder Hadrian, in the second century, when the Christians were\nnot distinct from the Jews in Roman eyes. His words show that the\nRomans, instead of oppressing the first Christians, rather coerced\nthe Jews who persecuted them. They wished the Roman synagogue to\ndeal as indulgently with their separated brethren as the Senate did.\nThe banished Jews returned soon afterwards, and even attained high\npositions, in spite of the laws which excluded them, as Dio Cassius\nand Ulpian tell us. Is it possible that, after the ruin of Jerusalem,\nthe emperors should lavish honours on the Jews, and persecute, and\nhand over to the executioner or the beasts, Christians, who were\nregarded as a Jewish sect?\n\nIt is said that Nero persecuted them. Tacitus tells us that they were\naccused of setting fire to Rome, and were abandoned to the fury of\nthe people. Was that on account of their religious belief? Certainly\nnot. Shall we say that the Chinese who were slain by the Dutch a\nfew years ago in the suburbs of Batavia were sacrificed on account\nof religion? However much a man may wish to deceive himself, it is\nimpossible to ascribe to intolerance the disaster that befell a few\nhalf-Jewish, half-Christian men and women at Rome under Nero.[16]\n\n\n THE MARTYRS\n\nThere were Christian martyrs in later years. It is very difficult\nto discover the precise grounds on which they were condemned; but I\nventure to think that none of them were put to death on religious\ngrounds under the earlier emperors. All religions were tolerated,\nand there is no reason to suppose that the Romans would seek out and\npersecute certain obscure men, with a peculiar cult, at a time when\nthey permitted all other religions.\n\nTitus, Trajan, the Antonines, and Decius were not barbarians. How\ncan we suppose that they deprived the Christians alone of a liberty\nwhich the whole empire enjoyed? How could they venture to charge the\nChristians with their secret mysteries when the mysteries of Isis,\nMithra, and the Syrian goddess, all alien to the Roman cult, were\nfreely permitted? There must have been other reasons for persecution.\nPossibly certain special animosities, supported by reasons of State,\nled to the shedding of Christian blood.\n\nFor instance, when St. Lawrence refused to give to the Roman prefect,\nCornelius Secularis, the money of the Christians which he held, the\nprefect and emperor would naturally be irritated. They did not know\nthat St. Lawrence had distributed the money to the poor, and done a\ncharitable and holy act. They regarded him as rebellious, and had him\nput to death.[17]\n\nConsider the martyrdom of St. Polyeuctes. Was he condemned on the\nground of religion alone? He enters the temple, in which thanks are\nbeing given to the gods for the victory of the Emperor Decius. He\ninsults the sacrificing priests, and overturns and breaks the altars\nand statues. In what country in the world would such an outrage be\noverlooked? The Christian who in public tore down the edict of the\nEmperor Diocletian, and drew the great persecution upon his brethren\nin the last two years of the reign of that emperor, had more zeal\nthan discretion, and, unhappily, brought a great disaster on the body\nto which he belonged. This unthinking zeal, which often broke out,\nand was condemned even by some of the fathers of the Church, was\nprobably the cause of all the persecutions.\n\nI do not, of course, compare the early Protestants with the early\nChristians; one cannot put error by the side of truth. But it is a\nfact that Forel, the predecessor of Calvin, did at Arles the same\nthing that St. Polyeuctes had done in Armenia. The statue of St.\nAntony the Hermit was being carried in procession, and Forel and\nsome of his companions fell on the monks who carried it, beat and\nscattered them, and threw St. Antony in the river. He deserved\nthe death which he managed to evade by flight.[18] If he had been\ncontent to call out to the monks that he did not believe that a crow\nbrought half a loaf to St. Antony the Hermit, or that St. Antony\nconversed with centaurs and satyrs, he would merely have merited a\nstern rebuke for disturbing public order; and if, the evening after\nthe procession, he had calmly studied the story of the crow, the\ncentaurs, and the satyrs, they would have had no reproach to make him.\n\nYou think that the Romans would have suffered the infamous\nAntinous[19] to be raised to the rank of the secondary gods, and\nwould have rent and given to the beasts those whose only reproach\nwas to have quietly worshipped one just God! You imagine that they\nwould have recognised a supreme and sovereign God, master of all the\nsecondary gods, as we see in their formula, _Deus optimus maximus_,\nyet persecuted those who worshipped one sole God!\n\nIt is incredible that there was any inquisition against the\nChristians--that men were sent among them to interrogate them on\ntheir beliefs--under the emperors. On that point they never troubled\neither Jew, Syrian, Egyptian, Druid, or philosopher. The martyrs\nwere men who made an outcry against what they called false gods. It\nwas a very wise and pious thing to refuse to believe in them; but,\nafter all, if, not content with worshipping God in spirit and in\ntruth, they broke out violently against the established cult, however\nabsurd it was, we are compelled to admit that they were themselves\nintolerant.[20]\n\nTertullian admits in his _Apology_ (ch. xxxix.) that the Christians\nwere regarded as seditious. The charge was unjust, but it shows that\nit was not merely their religion which stimulated the zeal of the\nmagistrates. He admits that the Christians refused to decorate their\ndoors with laurel branches in the public rejoicings for the victories\nof the emperors; such an affectation might easily be turned into the\ncrime of treason.\n\nThe first period of juridical severity against the Christians was\nunder Domitian, but it was generally restricted to a banishment that\ndid not last a year. \u201cFacile coeptum repressit, restitutis quos\nipse relegaverat,\u201d says Tertullian [\u201cHe quickly repressed the work,\nrestoring those whom he had banished\u201d]. Lactantius, whose style is so\nvehement, agrees that the Church was peaceful and flourishing from\nDomitian to Decius [96-250 A.D.].[21] This long peace, he says, was\nbroken when \u201cthat execrable animal Decius began to vex the Church.\u201d\n\nWe need not discuss here the opinion of the learned Dodwell that\nthe martyrs were few in number; but if the Romans persecuted the\nChristian religion, if the Senate had put to death so many innocent\nmen with unusual tortures--plunging Christians in boiling oil and\nexposing girls naked to the beasts in the circus--how is it that they\nleft untouched all the earlier bishops of Rome? St. Iren\u00e6us can count\namong them only one martyr, Telesphorus, in the year 139 A.D.; and we\nhave no proof that Telesphorus was put to death. Zepherinus governed\nthe flock at Rome for twenty-eight years, and died peacefully in\n219. It is true that nearly all the popes are inscribed in the early\nmartyrologies, but the word \u201cmartyr\u201d was then taken in its literal\nsense, as \u201cwitness,\u201d not as one put to death.\n\nIt is difficult to reconcile this persecuting fury with the freedom\nwhich the Christians had to hold the fifty-six Councils which\necclesiastical writers count in the first three centuries.\n\nThere were persecutions; but if they were as violent as we are told,\nit is probable that Tertullian, who wrote so vigorously against the\nestablished cult, would not have died in his bed. We know, of course,\nthat the emperors would not read his _Apology_--an obscure work,\ncomposed in Africa, would hardly reach those who were ruling the\nworld. But it must have been known to those who were in touch with\nthe proconsul of Africa, and ought to have brought a good deal of\nill-feeling on its author. He did not, however, suffer martyrdom.\n\nOrigen taught publicly at Alexandria, and was not put to death.\nThis same Origen, who spoke so freely to both pagans and\nChristians--announcing Jesus to the former and denying a God in three\npersons to the latter--says expressly, in the third book of his\n_Contra Celsum_, that \u201cthere have been few martyrs, and those at long\nintervals\u201d; although, he says, \u201cthe Christians do all in their power\nto make everybody embrace their religion, running about the towns and\nvillages.\u201d\n\nIt is clear that a seditious complexion might be put by the hostile\npriests on all this running about, yet the missions were tolerated,\nin spite of the constant and cowardly disorders of the Egyptian\npeople, who killed a Roman for slaying a cat, and were always\ncontemptible.[22]\n\nWho did more to bring upon him the priests and the government than\nSt. Gregory Thaumaturgus, a pupil of Origen? Gregory saw, during\nthe night, an old man, sent by God, and a woman shining with light;\nthe woman was the Virgin, and the man St. John the Evangelist. John\ndictated to him a creed, which Gregory went out to preach. In going\nto Neoc\u00e6sarea he passed by a temple in which oracles were given, and\nthe rain compelled him to spend the night in it, after making many\nsigns of the cross. The following day the sacrificing priest was\nastonished to find that the demons who were wont to answer him would\ndo so no longer. When he called, they said that they would come no\nmore, and could not live in the temple, because Gregory had spent the\nnight in it and made the sign of the cross in it.\n\nThe priest had Gregory seized, and Gregory said: \u201cI can expel the\ndemons from wherever I like, and drive them into wherever I like.\u201d\n\u201cSend them back into my temple, then,\u201d said the priest. So Gregory\ntore off a piece from a book he had in his hand and wrote on it:\n\u201cGregory to Satan: I order thee to return to this temple.\u201d The\nmessage was placed on the altar, and the demons obeyed, and gave the\noracles as before.\n\nSt. Gregory of Nyssa tells us these facts in his _Life of St. Gregory\nThaumaturgus_. The priests in charge of the idols must have been\nincensed against Gregory, and wished, in their blindness, to denounce\nhim to the magistrates. But their greatest enemy never suffered\npersecution.\n\nIt is said that St. Cyprian was the first bishop of Carthage to be\ncondemned to death, in the year 258. During a very long period,\ntherefore, no bishop of Carthage suffered for his religion. History\ndoes not tell us what charges were made against St. Cyprian, what\nenemies he had, and why the proconsul of Africa was angry with him.\nSt. Cyprian writes to Cornelius, bishop of Rome: \u201cThere was, a short\ntime ago, some popular disturbance at Carthage, and the cry was twice\nraised that I ought to be cast to the lions.\u201d It is very probable\nthat the excitement of the passionate populace of Carthage was the\ncause of the death of Cyprian; it is, at all events, certain that the\nEmperor Gallus did not condemn him on the ground of religion from\ndistant Rome, since he left untouched Cornelius, who lived under his\neyes.\n\nSo many hidden causes are associated at times with the apparent\ncause, so many unknown springs may be at work in the persecution of\na man, that it is impossible, centuries afterwards, to discover the\nhidden source of the misfortunes even of distinguished men; it is\nstill more difficult to explain the persecution of an individual who\nmust have been known only to those of his own party.\n\nObserve that St. Gregory Thaumaturgus and St. Denis, bishop of\nAlexandria, who were not put to death, lived at the same time as\nSt. Cyprian. How is it that they were left in peace, since they\nwere, at least, as well known as the bishop of Carthage? And why was\nCyprian put to death? Does it not seem as if the latter fell a victim\nto personal and powerful enemies, under the pretext of calumny or\nreasons of State, which are so often associated with religion, and\nthat the former were fortunate enough to escape the malice of men?\n\nIt is impossible that the mere charge of being a Christian led to\nthe death of St. Ignatius under the clement and just Trajan, since\nthe Christians were allowed to accompany and console him during his\nvoyage to Rome. Seditions were common at Antioch, always a turbulent\ncity, where Ignatius was secret bishop of the Christians. Possibly\nthese seditions were imputed to the Christians, and brought the\nauthorities upon them.\n\nSt. Simeon, for instance, was charged before Sapor with being a Roman\nspy. The story of his martyrdom tells that King Sapor ordered him to\nworship the sun, but we know that the Persians did not worship the\nsun; they regarded it as an emblem of the good principle Ormuzd, the\ngod whom they recognised.\n\nHowever tolerant we may be, we cannot help being indignant with the\nrhetoricians who accuse Diocletian of persecuting the Christians as\nsoon as he ascended the throne. Let us consult Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea,\nthe favourite and panegyrist of Constantine, the violent enemy of\npreceding emperors. He says (_Ecclesiastical History_, Bk. VIII.):\n\u201cThe emperors for a long time gave the Christians proof of their\ngoodwill. They entrusted provinces to them; several Christians lived\nin the palace; they even married Christians. Diocletian married\nPrisca, whose daughter was the wife of Maximianus Galerius.\u201d\n\nWe may well suspect that the persecution set afoot by Galerius, after\na clement and benevolent reign of twenty-nine years, was due to some\nintrigue that is unknown to us.[23]\n\nThe story of the massacre of the Theban Legion on religious grounds\nis absurd. It is ridiculous to say that the legion came from Asia\nby the great St. Bernard Pass; it is impossible that it should be\nbrought from Asia at all to quell a sedition in Gaul--a year after\nthe sedition broke out, moreover; it is not less incredible that\nsix thousand infantry and seven hundred cavalry could be slain in a\npass in which two hundred men could hold at bay a whole army. The\naccount of this supposed butchery begins with an evident imposture:\n\u201cWhen the earth groaned under the tyranny of Diocletian, heaven was\npeopled with saints.\u201d Now, this episode is supposed to have taken\nplace in 286, a time when Diocletian favoured the Christians, and the\nempire flourished.[24] Finally--a point which might dispense us from\ndiscussion altogether--there never was a Theban Legion. The Romans\nhad too much pride and common-sense to make up a legion of Egyptians,\nwho served only as slaves at Rome; one might as well talk of a Jewish\nLegion. We have the names of the thirty-two legions which represented\nthe chief strength of the Roman Empire, and there is no Theban\nLegion among them. We must relegate the fable to the same category\nas the acrostic verses of the Sibyls, which foretold the miracles of\nChrist, and so many other forgeries with which a false zeal duped the\ncredulous.\n\n\n OF THE DANGER OF FALSE LEGENDS, AND OF PERSECUTION\n\nUntruth has imposed on men too long; it is time to pick out the few\ntruths that we can trace amid the clouds of legends which brood over\nRoman history after Tacitus and Suetonius, and have almost always\nenveloped the annals of other nations.\n\nHow can we believe, for instance, that the Romans, whose laws\nexhibit to us a people of grave and severe character, exposed to\nprostitution Christian virgins and young women of rank? It is a gross\nmisunderstanding of the austere dignity of the makers of our laws,\nwho punished so rigorously the frailties of their vestal virgins. The\n\u201cSincere Acts\u201d of Ruinart describe these indignities; but are we to\nput the \u201cActs\u201d of Ruinart on a level with the _Acts of the Apostles_?\nThese \u201cSincere Acts\u201d say, according to the Bollandists, that there\nwere in the town of Ancyra seven Christian virgins, each about\nseventy years old; that the governor Theodectes condemned them to be\nhanded over to the young men of the town; and that he changed the\nsentence, as was proper, and compelled them to assist, naked, in the\nmysteries of Diana--at which none ever assisted without a veil. St.\nTheodotus--who, to tell the truth, kept a public-house, but was not\nless zealous on that account--prayed ardently to God to take these\nholy maidens out of life, lest they should succumb to temptation. God\nheard him. The governor then had them thrown into a lake, with stones\nround their necks, and they at once appeared to Theodotus and begged\nhim to see that their bodies were not eaten by fishes.\n\nThe holy publican and his companions went during the night to the\nshore of the lake, which was guarded by soldiers. A heavenly torch\nwent before them, and when they came to the spot where the guards\nwere, a heavenly cavalier, armed from top to toe, chased the guards,\nlance in hand. St. Theodotus drew from the lake the bodies of the\nvirgins. He was brought before the governor--and the celestial\ncavalier did not prevent the soldiers from cutting off his head.\nWe repeat that we venerate the real martyrs, but it is not easy to\nbelieve this story of the Bollandists and Ruinart.\n\nShall we tell the story of the young St. Romanus? He was cast into\nthe flames, says Eusebius, and certain Jews who were present insulted\nJesus Christ for allowing his followers to be burned, whereas God had\nwithdrawn Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace.\nHardly had the Jews spoken when Romanus emerged in triumph from the\nflames. The emperor ordered that he should be pardoned, saying to the\njudge that he did not want to fall foul of God. Curious words for\nDiocletian! The judge, in spite of the emperor\u2019s pardon, ordered the\ntongue of Romanus to be cut out; and, although he had executioners,\nhe had this operation performed by a physician. The young Romanus,\nwho had stuttered from birth, spoke volubly as soon as his tongue was\ncut out. The physician, to show that the operation had been properly\nperformed, took a man who was passing and cut off just as much of\nhis tongue as he had done in the case of Romanus, and the man died.\n\u201cAnatomy teaches us,\u201d says the author, learnedly, \u201cthat a man cannot\nlive without a tongue.\u201d If Eusebius really wrote this nonsense, and\nthe passage is not an interpolation, it is difficult to take his\nhistory seriously.\n\nThen there is the martyrdom of St. Felicitas and her seven children,\nsent to death, it is said, by the wise and pius Antoninus. In\nthis case it seems probable that some writer with more zeal than\ntruthfulness has imitated the story of the Maccabees. The narrative\nbegins: \u201cSt. Felicitas was a Roman, and lived in the reign of\nAntoninus.\u201d From these words it is clear that the author was not a\ncontemporary of St. Felicitas. He says that the pr\u00e6tor sat to judge\nthem in the Campus Martius. The forgery is exposed by this statement.\nThe Campus Martius, which had once been used for the elections, then\nserved for reviews of the troops and for military games. Again, it is\nsaid that after the trial the emperor entrusted the execution of the\nsentence to various judges; which is quite opposed to all procedure\nat that time or in our own.\n\nThen there is a St. Hippolytus, who is supposed to have been dragged\nby horses, like Hippolytus the son of Theseus. This punishment was\nquite unknown to the Romans, and it is merely the similarity of name\nthat has led to the invention of the legend.\n\nYou will observe in these accounts of the martyrs, which were\ncomposed entirely by the Christians themselves, that crowds of\nChristians always go freely to the prison of the condemned, follow\nhim to the scaffold, receive his blood, bury his body, and work\nmiracles with his relics. If it were the religion alone that was\npersecuted, would not the authorities have arrested these declared\nChristians who assisted their condemned brethren, and who were\naccused of performing magic with the martyred bodies? Would they not\nhave been treated as we treated the Waldensians, the Albigenses,\nthe Hussites, and the various sects of Protestants? We slew them\nand burned them in crowds, without distinction of age or sex. Is\nthere, in any reliable account of the ancient persecutions, any\nsingle feature that approaches our massacre of St. Bartholomew or the\nIrish massacres? Is there a single one with any resemblance to the\nannual festival that is still held at Toulouse--a cruel and damnable\nfestival, in which a whole people thanks God and congratulates itself\nthat it slew four thousand of its fellow-citizens two hundred years\nago?\n\nI say it with a shudder, but it is true; it is we Christians who have\nbeen the persecutors, the executioners, the assassins. And who were\nour victims? Our brothers. It is we who have destroyed a hundred\ntowns, the crucifix or Bible in our hands, and have incessantly shed\nblood and lit flames from the reign of Constantine to the fury of the\ncannibals of the C\u00e9v\u00e8nes.\n\nWe still occasionally send to the gibbet a few poor folk of Poitou,\nVivarais, Valence, or Montauban. Since 1745 [a period of seven years]\nwe have hanged eight of those men who are known as \u201cpreachers\u201d or\n\u201cministers of the gospel,\u201d whose only crime was to have prayed God\nfor the king in their native dialect and given a drop of wine and a\nmorsel of leavened bread to a few silly peasants. These things are\nnot done at Paris, where pleasure is the only thing of consequence,\nand people are ignorant of what is done in the provinces and abroad.\nThese trials are over in an hour; they are shorter than the trial of\na deserter. If the king were aware of them, he would put an end to\nthem.\n\nCatholic priests are not treated thus in any Protestant country.\nThere are more than a hundred Catholic priests in England and\nIreland; they are known, and were untouched during the late war.\n\nShall we always be the last to embrace the wholesome ideas of other\nnations? They have amended their ways; when shall we amend ours? It\ntook us sixty years to admit what Newton had demonstrated; we are\nhardly beginning to save the lives of our children by inoculation;\nand it is only recently that we have begun to act on sound principles\nof agriculture. When shall we begin to act on sound principles of\nhumanity? How can we have the audacity to reproach the pagans with\nmaking martyrs when we have been guilty of the same cruelty in the\nsame circumstances?\n\nSuppose we grant that the Romans put to death numbers of Christians\non purely religious grounds. In that case the Romans were very\nmuch to blame. Why should we be similarly unjust? Would we become\npersecutors at the very time when we reproach them with persecuting?\n\nIf any man were so wanting in good faith, or so fanatical, as to say\nto me: \u201cWhy do you come to expose our blunders and faults? Why do\nyou destroy our false miracles and false legends? They nourish the\npiety of many people; there are such things as necessary errors;\ndo not tear out of the body an incurable ulcer if it would entail\nthe destruction of the body\u201d; I should reply to this man: All these\nfalse miracles by which you shake the trust that should be given\nto real ones, all these absurd legends which you add to the truths\nof the gospels, extinguish religion in the hearts of men. Too many\npeople who long for instruction, and have not the time to instruct\nthemselves, say: \u201cThe heads of my religion have deceived me,\ntherefore there is no religion. It is better to cast oneself into the\narms of nature than into those of error; I would rather depend on the\nlaw of nature than on the inventions of men.\u201d Some are so unfortunate\nas to go even farther. They see that imposture put a curb on them,\nand they will not have even the curb of truth. They lean to atheism.\nThey become depraved, because others have been false and cruel.\n\nThese, assuredly, are the consequences of all the pious frauds and\nall the superstitions. The reasoning of men is, as a rule, only\nhalf-reasoning. It is a very poor argument to say: \u201cVoragin\u00e9, the\nauthor of the _Golden Legend_, and the Jesuit Ribadeneira, compiler\nof the _Flowers of the Saints_, wrote sheer nonsense; therefore there\nis no God. The Catholics have murdered a certain number of Huguenots,\nand the Huguenots have murdered a certain number of Catholics;\ntherefore there is no God. Men have made use of confession,\ncommunion, and all the other sacraments, to commit the most horrible\ncrimes: therefore there is no God.\u201d I should conclude, on the\ncontrary: Therefore there is a God who, after this transitory life,\nin which we have known him so little, and committed so many crimes\nin his name, will vouchsafe to console us for our misfortunes. For,\nconsidering the wars of religion, the forty papal schisms (nearly\nall of which were bloody), the impostures which have nearly all been\npernicious, the irreconcilable hatreds lit by differences of opinion,\nand all the evils that false zeal has brought upon them, men have\nlong suffered hell in this world.\n\n\n ABUSES OF INTOLERANCE\n\nDo I propose, then, that every citizen shall be free to follow his\nown reason, and believe whatever this enlightened or deluded reason\nshall dictate to him? Certainly, provided he does not disturb the\npublic order. It does not depend on man to believe or not to believe;\nbut it depends on him to respect the usages of his country. If you\ninsist that it is a crime to disbelieve in the dominant religion, you\ncondemn the first Christians, your fathers, and you justify those\nwhom you reproach with persecuting them.\n\nYou say that there is a great difference; that all other religions\nare the work of man, and the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church\nalone is the work of God. But, surely, the fact that our religion\nis divine does not imply that it should rule by hatred, fury,\nexile, the confiscation of goods, imprisonment, torture, murder,\nand thanksgiving to God for murder? The more divine the Christian\nreligion is, the less it is the place of man to command it; if God is\nits author, he will maintain it without your aid. You know well that\nintolerance begets only hypocrites or rebels. Fearful alternative!\nWould you, indeed, sustain by executioners the religion of a God who\nfell into the hands of executioners, and who preached only gentleness\nand patience?\n\nReflect on the frightful consequences of the right of intolerance.\nIf it were allowed to despoil, cast in prison, and put to death a\ncitizen who, at a certain degree of latitude, would not profess the\nreligion generally admitted at that degree, how could we except the\nleaders of the State from those penalties? Religion equally binds\nthe monarch and the beggar; hence more than fifty doctors or monks\nhave made the monstrous assertion that it was lawful to depose or\nslay any sovereign who dissented from the dominant religion, and the\nParliaments of our kingdom have repeatedly condemned these abominable\ndecisions of abominable theologians.[25]\n\nThe blood of Henry the Great [IV.] was still warm when the Parlement\nde Paris issued a decree making the independence of the Crown a\nfundamental law. Cardinal Duperron, who owed his position to Henry\nthe Great, arose in the States of 1614 against the decree of the\nParlement, and had it suppressed. All the journals of the time record\nthe terms which Duperron used in his discourse: \u201cIf a prince became\nan Arian,\u201d he said, \u201cwe should be obliged to depose him.\u201d\n\nLet us be allowed to say that every citizen is entitled to inherit\nhis father\u2019s property, and that we do not see why he should be\ndeprived of it, and dragged to the gibbet, because he takes sides\nwith one theologian against another.\n\nWe know that our dogmas were not always clearly explained and\nuniversally received in the Church. Christ not having said in what\nmanner the Holy Ghost proceeded, the Latin Church long believed\nwith the Greek that he proceeded from the Father only; after a time\nit added, in the Creed, that he also proceeded from the Son. I ask\nwhether, the day after this decision, any citizen who preferred\nto keep to the old formula deserved to be put to death? But is it\nless unjust and cruel to punish to-day the man who thinks as people\nthought in former times? Were men guilty in the days of Honorius I.\nbecause they did not believe that Jesus had two wills?\n\nIt is not long since the Immaculate Conception began to be generally\naccepted; the Dominicans still refuse to believe it.[26] At what\nparticular date will these Dominicans incur the penalties of heresy\nin this world and the next?\n\nIf we need a lesson how to behave in these interminable disputes, we\nshould look to the apostles and evangelists. There was ground for a\nviolent schism between Peter and Paul, and Paul withstood Peter to\nthe face, but the controversy was peacefully settled. The evangelists\nin turn had a great field of combat, if they had resembled modern\nwriters. They contradict each other frequently; yet we find no\ndissension among their followers over these contradictions, and they\nare neatly reconciled by the fathers of the Church. St. Paul, in his\nepistle to a few Jews at Rome who had been converted to Christianity,\nsays at the end of the third chapter that faith alone glorifies, and\nworks justify no one. St. James, on the contrary, in his epistle (ch.\nii.) says constantly that one cannot be saved without works. Here\nis a point that has separated two great sects among us, yet made no\ndivision among the apostles.\n\nIf the persecution of those with whom we dispute were a holy action,\nthe man who had killed most heretics would be the greatest saint in\nParadise. What a poor figure the man who had been content to despoil\nand imprison his brothers would cut by the side of the zealot who had\nslain hundreds of them on St. Bartholomew\u2019s day! Here is a proof of\nit. The successor of St. Peter and his consistory cannot err. They\napproved, acclaimed, and consecrated the massacre of St. Bartholomew.\nTherefore this deed was holy; and therefore of two assassins who were\nequal in piety one who had killed twenty-four Huguenot women would\nhave double the glory of the man who had killed only a dozen. By the\nsame reasoning the fanatics of C\u00e9v\u00e8nes would have ground to believe\nthat they would be elevated in glory in proportion to the number of\npriests, monks, and Catholic women they had slain. It is a strange\ntitle to glory in heaven.\n\n\n WHETHER INTOLERANCE WAS OF DIVINE RIGHT IN JUDAISM,\n AND WHETHER IT WAS ALWAYS PRACTISED.[27]\n\nDivine right means, I believe, the precepts which God himself has\ngiven. He ordered that the Jews should eat a lamb cooked with\nlettuces, and that the eaters should stand, with a stick in their\nhands, in commemoration of the Passover; he commanded that in the\nconsecration of the high-priest blood should be applied to his right\near, right hand, and right foot. They seem curious customs to us, but\nthey were not to antiquity. He ordered them to put the iniquities of\nthe people on the goat _hazazel_, and forbade them to eat scaleless\nfishes, hares, hedgehogs, owls, griffins, etc. He instituted feasts\nand ceremonies.\n\nAll these things, which seem arbitrary to other nations, and a matter\nof positive law and usage, being ordered by God himself, became a\ndivine law to the Jews, just as whatever Christ ordered is a divine\nlaw for us. Let us not inquire why God substituted a new law for that\nwhich he gave to Moses, and why he laid more commandments on Moses\nthan on Abraham, and more on Abraham than on Noah. It seems that he\ndeigns to accommodate himself to the times and the state of the human\nrace. It is a kind of paternal gradation. But these abysses are too\ndeep for our feeble sight. Let us keep to our subject, and see first\nwhat intolerance was among the Jews.\n\nIt is true that in _Exodus_, _Numbers_, _Leviticus_, and\n_Deuteronomy_ there are very severe laws, and even more severe\npunishments, in connection with religion. Many commentators find\na difficulty in reconciling the words of Moses with the words of\nJeremiah and Amos, and those of the celebrated speech of St. Stephen\nin _Acts_. Amos says that in the deserts the Jews worshipped Moloch,\nRempham, and Kium. Jeremiah says explicitly (vii., 12) that God\nasked no sacrifice of their fathers when they came out of Egypt.\nSt. Stephen says in his speech to the Jews (_Acts_ vii., 42): \u201cThen\nGod turned and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is\nwritten in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye\noffered to me slain beasts and sacrifices for the space of forty\nyears in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch,\nand the star of your god Rempham.\u201d\n\nOther critics infer that these gods were tolerated by Moses, and they\nquote these words of _Deuteronomy_ (xii., 8): \u201cWhen ye are in the\nland of Canaan, ye shall not do all the things that we do here this\nday, where every man does what he pleases.\u201d They find encouragement\nin the fact that nothing is said of any religious act of the people\nin the desert, and there is no mention of Passover, Pentecost,\nFeast of Tabernacles, or public prayer in any shape. Circumcision,\nmoreover, the seal of the covenant, was not practised.\n\nIt is enough, it seems to me, that it is proved by Holy Scripture\nthat, in spite of the extraordinary punishment inflicted on the Jews\non account of the cult of Apis, they had complete liberty for a long\ntime. Possibly the massacre of twenty-three thousand men by Moses\nfor worshipping the golden calf set up by his brother led him to\nappreciate that nothing was gained by severity, and induced him to\nclose his eyes to the people\u2019s passion for strange gods.\n\nSometimes he seems to transgress his own law. He forbade the making\nof images, yet set up a brazen serpent. We find another deviation\nfrom the law in the temple of Solomon. He had twelve oxen carved to\nsustain the great basin of the temple, and in the ark were placed\ncherubim with the heads of eagles and calves. It seems to have\nbeen this calf-head, badly made, and found in the temple by Roman\nsoldiers, which led to the belief that the Jews worshipped an ass.\n\nThe worship of foreign gods was vainly prohibited. Solomon was quite\nat his ease in idolatry. Jeroboam, to whom God had given ten parts\nof the kingdom, set up two golden calves, and ruled for twenty-two\nyears, uniting in his person the dignities of monarch and pontiff.\nThe little kingdom of Judah under Rehoboam raised altars and statues\nto foreign gods. The holy king Asa did not destroy the high places.\nThe high-priest Urijah erects in the temple, in the place of the\naltar of holocausts, an altar to the king of Syria (2 _Kings_,\nxvi.). In a word, there seems to be no real restraint in matters of\nreligion. I know that the majority of the Jewish kings murdered each\nother, but that was always to further a material interest, not on\naccount of belief.[28]\n\nIt is true that some of the prophets secured the interest of heaven\nin their vengeance. Elias brought down fire from heaven to consume\nthe priests of Baal. Elisha caused forty-two bears to devour the\nchildren who commented on his baldness. But these are rare miracles,\nand facts that it would be rather hard to wish to imitate.\n\nIt is also objected that the Jewish people were very ignorant and\nbarbaric. In the war with the Midianites Moses ordered that all\nthe male children and their mothers should be slain and the booty\ndivided. Some commentators even argue that thirty-two girls were\nsacrificed to the Lord: \u201cThe Lord\u2019s tribute was thirty and two\npersons [virgins]\u201d (_Numbers_ xxxii., 40). That the Jews did offer\nhuman sacrifices is seen in the story of Jephthah [_Judges_ xi., 39],\nand the cutting-up of King Agag by the priest Samuel. Ezekiel even\npromises that they will eat human flesh: \u201cYe shall eat the horse and\nthe rider; ye shall drink the blood of princes.\u201d Some commentators\napply two verses of this prophecy to the Jews themselves, and the\nothers to the carnivorous beasts. We do not find in the whole history\nof this people any mark of generosity, magnanimity, or beneficence;\nyet some ray of toleration escapes always from the cloud of their\nlong and frightful barbarism.\n\nThe story of Micah and the Levite, told in chapters xvii. and xviii.\nof _Judges_, is another incontestable proof of the great liberty\nand toleration that prevailed among the Jews. Micah\u2019s wife, a rich\nEphraimite woman, had lost eleven hundred pieces of silver. Her\nson restored them to her, and she devoted them to the Lord, making\nimages of him, and built a small chapel. A Levite served the chapel,\nreceiving ten pieces of silver, a tunic, and a cloak every year,\nbesides his food; and Micah said: \u201cNow know I the Lord will do me\ngood, seeing I have a Levite to my priest\u201d (xvii., 13).\n\nHowever, six hundred men of the tribe of Dan, who wanted to seize\nsome village of the district to settle in, and had no priest-Levite\nto secure the favour of God for their enterprise, went to Micah\u2019s\nhouse, and took the ephod, idols, and Levite, in spite of the\nremonstrances of the priest and the cries of Micah and his mother.\nThey then proceeded with confidence to attack the village of Lais,\nand put everything in it to fire and sword, as was their custom.\nThey gave the name of Dan to Lais in honour of their victory, and\nset Micah\u2019s idol on an altar; and, what is still more remarkable,\nJonathan, grandson of Moses, was the high priest of this temple, in\nwhich the God of Israel and Micah\u2019s idol were worshipped.\n\nAfter the death of Gideon the Hebrews worshipped Baal-berith for\nnearly twenty years, and gave up the cult of Adonai; and no leader or\njudge or priest cried for vengeance. Their crime was great, I admit;\nbut if such idolatry was tolerated, how much the more easily should\nwe tolerate differences within the proper cult.\n\nSome allege as a proof of intolerance that, when the Lord himself\nhad allowed his ark to be taken by the Philistines in a battle, the\nonly punishment he inflicted on the Philistines was a secret disease,\nresembling hemorrhoids, the overthrowing of the statue of Dagon, and\nthe sending of a number of rats into their country. And when the\nPhilistines, to appease his anger, had sent back the ark, drawn by\ntwo cows, which had calves, and offered to God five golden rats and\nfive golden anuses, the Lord slew seventy elders of Israel and fifty\nthousand of the people for looking at the ark. The answer is plain,\ntherefore: the Lord\u2019s chastisement is not connected with belief, or\ndifference of cult, or idolatry.\n\nHad the Lord wished to punish idolatry, he would have slain all the\nPhilistines who dared to take his ark, and who worshipped Dagon; but\nhe slew instead fifty thousand and seventy men of his own people\nmerely because they looked at an ark at which they ought not to have\nlooked. So different are the laws, the morals, and the economy of the\nJews from anything that we know to-day; so far are the inscrutable\nways of God above our own! However, God is not punishing a foreign\ncult, but a profanation of his own, an indiscreet curiosity, an act\nof disobedience, possibly a spirit of revolt. We realise that such\nchastisements belong to God only in the Jewish theocracy. We cannot\nrepeat too often that these times and ways have no relation to our\nown.\n\nAgain, when in later years the idolatrous Naaman asked Elisha if\nhe were allowed to accompany his king to the temple of Rimmon, and\nworship with him, Elisha--the man who caused children to be devoured\nby bears--merely said, \u201cGo in peace.\u201d More remarkable still is the\nfact that the Lord orders Jeremiah to put cords and yokes round his\nneck, and send them to the kings of Moab, Ammon, Edom, Tyre, and\nSidon, saying, on the part of the Lord: \u201cI have given all your lands\nto Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, my servant.\u201d Here we have an\nidolatrous king declared to be the servant and favourite of God.\n\nThe same Jeremiah, whom the petty king of the Jews, Zedekiah, had put\nin prison and then pardoned, advises the king, on the part of God,\nto surrender to the king of Babylon. Thus God takes the part of an\nidolatrous king. He gives him possession of the ark, the mere sight\nof which had cost fifty thousand and seventy Jews their lives, the\nholy of holies, and the rest of the temple, the building of which\nhad cost a hundred and eight thousand gold talents, a million and\nseventeen thousand silver talents, and ten thousand gold drachmas,\nleft by David and his officers for the construction of the house of\nthe Lord; which, without counting the funds used by Solomon, amounts\nto nineteen thousand and sixty-two million francs, or thereabouts,\nof our money [more than \u00a3750,000,000]. Never was idolatry so signally\nrewarded! I am aware that the figure is exaggerated, and may be due\nto a copyist; but if you reduce the sum by half, or to a fourth or\nan eighth, it is still astonishing. One is hardly less surprised at\nthe wealth which Herodotus says he saw in the temple of Ephesus. But\ntreasures are nothing in the eyes of God; the title of his \u201cservant,\u201d\nwhich is given to Nebuchadnezzar, is the only real treasure.\n\nGod is equally favourable to Kir, or Koresh, or Kosroes, whom we call\nCyrus. He calls him \u201chis Christ,\u201d \u201chis Anointed,\u201d although he was not\nanointed in the ordinary meaning of the word, and he followed the\nreligion of Zoroaster; he calls him his \u201cshepherd,\u201d though he was a\nusurper in the eyes of men. There is no greater mark of predilection\nin the whole of Scripture.\n\nYou read in _Malachi_ that \u201cfrom the east to the west the name of God\nis great among the nations, and pure oblations are everywhere offered\nto him.\u201d God takes as much care of the idolatrous Ninevites as of the\nJews; he threatens and pardons them. Melchizedech, who was not a Jew,\nsacrificed to God. The idolatrous Balaam was a prophet. Scripture\nshows, therefore, that God not only tolerated other peoples, but took\na paternal care of them. And we dare to be intolerant!\n\n\n EXTREME TOLERANCE OF THE JEWS\n\nHence both under Moses, the judges, and the kings you find constant\ninstances of toleration. Moses says several times (_Exodus_ xx.)\nthat \u201cGod punishes the fathers in the children, down to the fourth\ngeneration\u201d; and it was necessary thus to threaten a people to whom\nGod had not revealed the immortality of the soul, or the punishments\nand rewards of another life. These truths were not made known either\nin the Decalogue or any part of _Leviticus_ or _Deuteronomy_. They\nwere dogmas of the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and\nCretans; but they by no means formed part of the Jewish religion.\nMoses does not say: \u201cHonour thy father and thy mother if thou\nwouldst go to heaven\u201d; but: \u201cHonour thy father and thy mother, that\nthou mayst live long on the earth.\u201d He threatens the Jews only with\nbodily maladies and other material evils. Nowhere does he tell\nthem that their immortal souls will be tortured after death or be\nrewarded. God, who himself led his people, punished or rewarded them\nat once for their good or bad actions. Everything was temporal.\nThose who ignorantly maintain that Moses taught the immortality of\nthe soul strip the New Testament of one of its greatest advantages\nover the Old Testament. It is certain that the law of Moses spoke\nonly of temporal chastisement, down to the fourth generation.\nHowever, in spite of the precise formulation of this law and the\nexpress declaration of God that he would punish down to the fourth\ngeneration, Ezekiel announces the very opposite to the Jews. He says\n(xviii., 20) that the son will not bear the iniquity of his father;\nand he even goes so far as to make God say that he had given them\n\u201cstatutes that were not good\u201d (xx., 25).\n\nThe book of _Ezekiel_ was nevertheless inserted in the canon of\ninspired writers. It is true that the synagogue did not allow any one\nto read it until he was thirty years old, as St. Jerome tells us;\nbut that was in order that young men might not make evil use of the\ntoo candid pictures of vice in chapters xvi. and xxiii. The book was\nalways received, in spite of the fact that it expressly contradicted\nMoses.\n\nWhen the immortality of the soul was at length admitted, which\nprobably began about the time of the Babylonian captivity, the\nSadducees continued to believe that there were no punishments and\nrewards after death, and that the power of feeling and thinking\nperished with us, like the power of walking and digesting. They\ndenied the existence of angels. They differed from the other Jews\nmuch more than Protestants differ from Catholics, yet they remained\nin the communion of their brethren. Some of their sect even became\nhigh-priests.\n\nThe Pharisees believed in fatalism and metempsychosis. The Essenians\nthought that the souls of the just went to the Fortunate Islands,\nand those of the wicked into a kind of Tartarus. They offered no\nsacrifices, and met in a special synagogue. Thus, when we look\nclosely into Judaism, we are astonished to find the greatest\ntoleration in the midst of the most barbaric horrors. It is a\ncontradiction, we must admit; nearly all nations have been ruled by\ncontradictions. Happy the contradiction that brings gentler ways into\na people with bloody laws.\n\n\n WHETHER INTOLERANCE WAS TAUGHT BY CHRIST\n\nLet us now see whether Jesus Christ set up sanguinary laws, enjoined\nintolerance, ordered the building of dungeons of the inquisition, or\ninstituted bodies of executioners.\n\nThere are, if I am not mistaken, few passages in the gospels from\nwhich the persecuting spirit might deduce that intolerance and\nconstraint are lawful. One is the parable in which the kingdom\nof heaven is compared to a king who invites his friends to the\nwedding-feast of his son (_Matthew_ xxii.). The king says to them,\nby means of his servants: \u201cMy oxen and my fatlings are killed, and\nall things are ready. Come unto the marriage.\u201d Some go off to their\ncountry houses, without taking any notice of the invitation; others\ngo about their business; others assault and slay the king\u2019s servants.\nThe king sends his army against the murderers, and destroys their\ntown. He then sends out on the high road to bring in to the feast all\nwho can be found. One of these sits at table without a wedding dress,\nand is put in irons and cast into outer darkness.\n\nIt is clear that, as this allegory concerns only the kingdom of\nheaven, it certainly does not give a man the right to strangle or\nput in jail a neighbour who comes to sup with him not wearing a\nfestive garment. I do not remember reading anywhere in history of\na prince who had a courtier arrested on that ground. It is hardly\nmore probable that, if an emperor sent his pages to tell the princes\nof his empire that he had killed his fatlings and invited them to\nsupper, the princes would kill the pages. The invitation to the\nfeast means selection for salvation; the murder of the king\u2019s envoys\nrepresents the persecution of those who preach wisdom and virtue.\n\nThe other parable (_Luke_ xiv.) tells of a man who invites his\nfriends to a grand supper. When he is ready to sit at table, he sends\nhis servant to inform them. One pleads that he has bought an estate,\nand must go to visit it; as one does not usually go to see an estate\nduring the night, the excuse does not hold. Another says that he has\nbought five pairs of oxen, and must try them; his excuse is as weak\nas the preceding--one does not try oxen during the night. A third\nreplies that he has just married; and that, assuredly, is a good\nexcuse. Then the holder of the banquet angrily summons the blind and\nthe lame to the feast, and, seeing that there are still empty places,\nsays to his valet: \u201cGo out into the highways and hedges, and compel\nthem to come in.\u201d\n\nIt is true that this parable is not expressly said to be a figure\nof the kingdom of heaven. There has, unhappily, been too much abuse\nof these words, \u201cCompel them to come in\u201d; but it is obvious that a\nsingle valet could not forcibly compel all the people he meets to\ncome and sup with his master. Moreover, compulsory guests of this\nsort would not make the dinner very agreeable. According to the\nweightiest commentators, \u201cCompel them to come in\u201d merely means \u201cBeg,\nentreat, and press them to come in.\u201d What, I ask you, have this\nentreaty and supper to do with persecution?\n\nIf you want to take things literally, will you say that a man must\nbe blind and lame, and compelled by force, to be in the bosom of the\nChurch? Jesus says in the same parable: \u201cWhen thou makest a dinner\nor a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy\nkinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours.\u201d Has any one ever inferred from\nthis that we must not dine with our kinsmen and friends when they\nhave acquired a little money?\n\nAfter the parable of the feast Christ says (_Luke_ xiv. 26): \u201cIf any\nman come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and\nchildren, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,\nhe cannot be my disciple.... For which of you, intending to build\na tower, sitteth not down first and counteth the cost?\u201d Is there\nanybody in the world so unnatural as to conclude that one must hate\none\u2019s father and mother? Is it not clear that the meaning is: Do not\nhesitate between me and your dearest affections?\n\nThe passage in _Matthew_ (xviii., 17) is quoted: \u201cIf he neglect\nto hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a\npublican.\u201d That does not absolutely say that we must persecute pagans\nand the farmers of the king\u2019s taxes; they are cursed, it is true,\nbut they are not handed over to the secular arm. Instead of the\nprerogatives of citizenship being taken from these farmers of taxes,\nthey have received the greatest privileges. It is the only profession\nthat is condemned in Scripture, and the one most in favour with\ngovernments. Why, then, should we not be as indulgent to our erring\nbrethren as to the tax-gatherers?\n\nThe persecuting spirit further seeks a justification of itself in\nthe driving of the merchants from the temple and the sending of a\nlegion of demons from the body of a possessed man into the bodies of\ntwo thousand unclean animals. But who can fail to see that these are\ninstances of the justice which God deigns to render to himself for\nthe contravention of his law? It was a lack of respect for the house\nof the Lord to change its purview into a merchant\u2019s shop. It is no\nuse saying that the Sanhedrim and the priests permitted this only\nfor the sake of the sacrifices. The God to whom the sacrifices were\nmade might assuredly destroy this profanation, though he was hidden\nin a human form; he might also punish those who introduced into the\ncountry such enormous herds of animals forbidden by a law which he\ndeigned to observe himself. These cases have no relation whatever to\npersecution on account of dogma. The spirit of intolerance must be\nvery poor in argument to appeal to such foolish pretexts.\n\nNearly all the rest of the words and actions of Christ breathe\ngentleness, patience, and indulgence. He does not even break out\nagainst Judas, who must betray him; he commands Peter never to use\nthe sword; he reproaches the children of Zebedee, who, after the\nexample of Elias, wanted to bring fire from heaven on a town that\nrefused them shelter.\n\nIn the end Christ succumbed to the wicked. If one may venture to\ncompare the sacred with the profane--God with a man--his death,\nhumanly speaking, had some resemblance to the death of Socrates.\nThe Greek philosopher was a victim to the hatred of the sophists,\npriests, and leaders of the people; the legislator of the Christians\nwas destroyed by the Scribes, Pharisees, and priests. Socrates might\nhave escaped death, and would not; Jesus Christ offered himself\nvoluntarily. The Greek philosopher not only pardoned his calumniators\nand his wicked judges, but begged them to treat his children in the\nsame way if they should ever be so fortunate as, like himself, to\nincur their hatred; the legislator of the Christians, infinitely\nsuperior, begged his father to forgive his enemies.\n\nIf it be objected that, while Socrates was calm, Jesus Christ seemed\nto fear death, and suffered such extreme anguish that he sweated\nblood--the strongest and rarest symptom of fear--this was because\nhe deigned to stoop to all the weakness of the human body that he\nhad put on. His body trembled--his soul was invincible. He taught us\nthat true strength and grandeur consist in supporting the evils under\nwhich our nature succumbs. It is a splendid act of courage to meet\ndeath while you fear it.\n\nSocrates had treated the sophists as ignorant men, and convinced them\nof bad faith; Jesus, using his divine rights, treated the Scribes and\nPharisees as hypocrites, fools, blind and wicked men, serpents, and\nvipers.\n\nNeed I now ask whether it is tolerance or intolerance that is of\ndivine right? If you wish to follow Jesus Christ, be martyrs, not\nexecutioners.\n\n\n THE ONLY CASES IN WHICH INTOLERANCE IS HUMANLY LAWFUL\n\nFor a government to have the right to punish the errors of men it\nis necessary that their errors must take the form of crime; they\ndo not take the form of crime unless they disturbed society; they\ndisturb society when they engender fanaticism; hence men must avoid\nfanaticism in order to deserve toleration.\n\nIf a few young Jesuits, knowing that the Church has condemned the\nJansenists, proceed to burn a house of the Oratorian priests because\nthe Oratorian Quesnel was a Jansenist, it is clear that these Jesuits\nought to be punished.\n\nAgain, if the Jesuits have acted upon improper maxims, and their\ninstitute is contrary to the laws of the kingdom, their society must\nbe dissolved, and the Jesuits must be abolished and turned into\ncitizens. The evil done to them is imaginary--the good is real. What\nhardship is there in wearing a short coat instead of a long black\nrobe, and being free instead of being a slave?\n\nIf the Franciscan monks, carried away by a holy zeal for the Virgin\nMary, go and destroy a Dominican convent, because the Dominicans\nbelieve that Mary was born in original sin, it will be necessary to\ntreat the Franciscans in much the same way as the Jesuits.\n\nWe may say the same of the Lutherans and Calvinists. It is useless\nfor them to say that they follow the promptings of their consciences,\nthat it is better to obey God than men, or that they are the true\nflock, and must exterminate the wolves. In such cases they are wolves\nthemselves.\n\nOne of the most remarkable examples of fanaticism is found in a\nsmall Danish sect, whose principle was excellent. They desired to\nsecure eternal salvation for their brethren; but the consequences\nof the principle were peculiar. They knew that all infants which die\nunbaptised are damned, and that those which are so fortunate as to\ndie immediately after baptism enjoy eternal glory. They therefore\nproceeded to kill all the newly-baptised boys and girls that they\ncould find. No doubt this was a way of securing for them the highest\nconceivable happiness and preserving them from the sin and misery of\nthis life. But these charitable folk forgot that it is not lawful\nto do a little evil that a great good may follow; that they had no\nright to the lives of these children; that the majority of parents\nare carnal enough to prefer to keep their children rather than see\nthem slain in order to enter paradise; and that the magistrate has to\npunish homicide, even when it is done with a good intention.\n\nThe Jews would seem to have a better right than any to rob and kill\nus. Though there are a hundred instances of toleration in the Old\nTestament, there are also some instances and laws of severity. God\nhas at times commanded them to kill idolaters, and reserve only the\nmarriageable girls. Now they regard us as idolaters, and, although we\ntolerate them to-day, it is possible that, if they became masters,\nthey would suffer only our girls to live.\n\nThey would, at least, be absolutely compelled to slay all the Turks,\nbecause the Turks occupy the lands of the Hittites, Jebusites,\nAmorrh\u00e6ans, Jersens\u00e6ans, Hev\u00e6ans, Arac\u00e6ans, Cin\u00e6ans, Hamat\u00e6ans, and\nSamaritans. All these peoples were anathematised, and their country,\nwhich was more than seventy-five miles long, was given to the\nJews in several consecutive covenants. They ought to regain their\npossessions, which the Mohammedans have usurped for the last thousand\nyears.\n\nIf the Jews were now to reason in this way, it is clear that the only\nreply we should make would be to put them in the galleys.\n\nThese are almost the only cases in which intolerance seems reasonable.\n\n\n ACCOUNT OF A CONTROVERSIAL DISPUTE IN CHINA\n\nIn the early years of the reign of the great Emperor Kam-hi a\nmandarin of the city of Canton heard from his house a great noise,\nwhich proceeded from the next house. He inquired if anybody was\nbeing killed, and was told that the almoner of the Danish missionary\nsociety, a chaplain from Batavia, and a Jesuit were disputing. He had\nthem brought to his house, put tea and sweets before them, and asked\nwhy they quarrelled.\n\nThe Jesuit replied that it was very painful for him, since he was\nalways right, to have to do with men who were always wrong; that he\nhad at first argued with the greatest restraint, but had at length\nlost patience.\n\nThe mandarin, with the utmost discretion, reminded them that\npoliteness was needed in all discussion, told them that in China men\nnever became angry, and asked the cause of the dispute.\n\nThe Jesuit answered: \u201cMy lord, I leave it to you to decide. These two\ngentlemen refuse to submit to the decrees of the Council of Trent.\u201d\n\n\u201cI am astonished,\u201d said the mandarin. Then, turning to the\nrefractory pair, he said: \u201cGentlemen, you ought to respect the\nopinions of a large gathering. I do not know what the Council of\nTrent is, but a number of men are always better informed than a\nsingle one. No one ought to imagine that he is better than others,\nand has a monopoly of reason. So our great Confucius teaches; and,\nbelieve me, you will do well to submit to the Council of Trent.\u201d\n\nThe Dane then spoke. \u201cMy lord speaks with the greatest wisdom,\u201d he\nsaid; \u201cwe respect great councils, as is proper, and therefore we are\nin entire agreement with several that were held before the Council of\nTrent.\u201d\n\n\u201cOh, if that is the case,\u201d said the mandarin, \u201cI beg your pardon.\nYou may be right. So you and this Dutchman are of the same opinion,\nagainst this poor Jesuit.\u201d\n\n\u201cNot a bit,\u201d said the Dutchman. \u201cThis fellow\u2019s opinions are almost\nas extravagant as those of the Jesuit yonder, who has been so very\namiable to you. I can\u2019t bear them.\u201d\n\n\u201cI don\u2019t understand,\u201d said the mandarin. \u201cAre you not all three\nChristians? Have you not all three come to teach Christianity in our\nempire? Ought you not, therefore, to hold the same dogmas?\u201d\n\n\u201cIt is this way, my lord,\u201d said the Jesuit; \u201cthese two are mortal\nenemies, and are both against me. Hence it is clear that they are\nboth wrong, and I am right.\u201d\n\n\u201cThat is not quite clear,\u201d said the mandarin; \u201cstrictly speaking, all\nthree of you may be wrong. I should like to hear you all, one after\nthe other.\u201d\n\nThe Jesuit then made a rather long speech, during which the Dane\nand the Dutchman shrugged their shoulders. The mandarin did not\nunderstand a word of it. Then the Dane spoke; the two opponents\nregarded each other with pity, and the mandarin again failed to\nunderstand. The Dutchman had the same effect. In the end they all\nspoke together and abused each other roundly. The good mandarin\nsecured silence with great difficulty, and said: \u201cIf you want us\nto tolerate your teaching here, begin by being yourselves neither\nintolerant nor intolerable.\u201d\n\nWhen they went out the Jesuit met a Dominican friar, and told him\nthat he had won, adding that truth always triumphed. The Dominican\nsaid: \u201cHad I been there, you would not have won; I should have\nconvicted you of lying and idolatry.\u201d The quarrel became warm, and\nthe Jesuit and Dominican took to pulling each other\u2019s hair. The\nmandarin, on hearing of the scandal, sent them both to prison. A\nsub-mandarin said to the judge: \u201cHow long does your excellency wish\nthem to be kept in prison?\u201d \u201cUntil they agree,\u201d said the judge.\n\u201cThen,\u201d said the sub-mandarin, \u201cthey are in prison for life.\u201d \u201cIn\nthat case,\u201d said the judge, \u201cuntil they forgive each other.\u201d \u201cThey\nwill never forgive each other,\u201d said the other; \u201cI know them.\u201d\n\u201cThen,\u201d said the mandarin, \u201clet them stop there until they pretend to\nforgive each other.\u201d\n\n\n WHETHER IT IS USEFUL TO MAINTAIN THE PEOPLE IN SUPERSTITION\n\nSuch is the weakness, such the perversity, of the human race that\nit is better, no doubt, for it to be subject to all conceivable\nsuperstitions, provided they be not murderous, than to live\nwithout religion. Man has always needed a curb; and, although it\nwas ridiculous to sacrifice to fauns or naiads, it was much more\nreasonable and useful to worship these fantastic images of the deity\nthan to sink into atheism. A violent atheist would be as great a\nplague as a violent superstitious man.\n\nWhen men have not sound ideas of the divinity, false ideas will take\ntheir place; just as, in ages of impoverishment, when there is not\nsound money, people use bad coin. The pagan feared to commit a crime\nlest he should be punished by his false gods; the Asiatic fears the\nchastisement of his pagoda. Religion is necessary wherever there is a\nsettled society. The laws take care of known crimes; religion watches\nsecret crime.\n\nBut once men have come to embrace a pure and holy religion,\nsuperstition becomes, not merely useless, but dangerous. We must not\nfeed on acorns those to whom God offers bread.\n\nSuperstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy--the mad\ndaughter of a wise mother. These daughters have too long dominated\nthe earth.\n\nWhen, in our ages of barbarism, there were scarcely two feudal lords\nwho had a New Testament in their homes, it might be pardonable to\npress fables on the vulgar; that is to say, on these feudal lords,\ntheir weak-minded wives, and their brutal vassals. They were led to\nbelieve that St. Christopher had carried the infant Jesus across\na river; they were fed with stories of sorcery and diabolical\npossession; they readily believed that St. Genou healed gout, and\nSt. Claire sore eyes. The children believed in the werewolf, and\ntheir parents in the girdle of St. Francis. The number of relics was\nincalculable.\n\nThe sediment of these superstitions remained among the people even\nwhen religion had been purified. We know that when M. de Noailles,\nBishop of Chalons, removed and threw in the fire the pretended\nrelic of the sacred navel of Jesus Christ the town of Chalons took\nproceedings against him. But his courage was equal to his piety, and\nhe succeeded in convincing the people that they could worship Jesus\nChrist in spirit and truth without having his navel in their church.\n\nThe Jansenists contributed not a little gradually to root out from\nthe mind of the nation the false ideas that dishonoured the Christian\nreligion. People ceased to believe that it sufficed to pray for\nthirty days to the Virgin to obtain all that they wished, and sin\nwith impunity.\n\nIn the end the citizens began to suspect that it was not really St.\nGenevieve who gave or withheld rain, but God himself who disposed of\nthe elements. The monks were astonished to see that their saints no\nlonger worked miracles. If the writers of the life of St. Francis\nXavier returned to this world, they would not dare to say that the\nsaint raised nine people from the dead, that he was in two places at\nthe same time, and that, when his crucifix fell into the sea, a crab\nrestored it to him.\n\nIt is the same with excommunication. Historians tell us that when\nKing Robert had been excommunicated by Pope Gregory V., for marrying\nhis godmother, the Princess Bertha, his servants threw out of the\nwindow the meat served up to the king, and Queen Bertha was delivered\nof a goose in punishment of the incestuous marriage. I doubt if\nin our time the waiters of the king of France would, if he were\nexcommunicated, throw his dinner out of the window, and whether the\nqueen would give birth to a gosling.\n\nThere remain, it is true, a few bigoted fanatics in the suburbs; but\nthe disease, like vermin, attacks only the lowest of the populace.\nEvery day reason penetrates farther into France, into the shops of\nmerchants as well as the mansions of lords. We must cultivate the\nfruits of reason, the more willingly since it is now impossible to\nprevent them from developing. France, enlightened by Pascal, Nicole,\nArnaud, Bossuet, Descartes, Gassendi, Bayle, Fontenelle, etc., cannot\nbe ruled as it was ruled in earlier times.\n\nIf the masters of error--the grand masters--so long paid and honoured\nfor brutalising the human species, ordered us to-day to believe\nthat the seed must die in order to germinate; that the earth stands\nmotionless on its foundations--that it does not travel round the sun;\nthat the tides are not a natural effect of gravitation; that the\nrainbow is not due to the refraction and reflection of light, etc.,\nand based their decrees on ill-understood passages of Scripture, we\nknow how they would be regarded by educated men. Would it be too\nmuch to call them fools? And if these masters employed force and\npersecution to secure the ascendancy of their insolent ignorance,\nwould it be improper to speak of them as wild beasts?\n\nThe more the superstitions of the monks are despised, the more\nthe bishops and priests are respected; while they do good, the\nmonkish superstitions from Rome do nothing but evil. And of all\nthese superstitions, is not the most dangerous that of hating one\u2019s\nneighbour on account of his opinions? And is it not evident that it\nwould be even more reasonable to worship the sacred navel, the sacred\nprepuce, and the milk and dress of the Virgin Mary, than to detest\nand persecute one\u2019s brother?\n\n\n VIRTUE BETTER THAN SCIENCE\n\nThe less we have of dogma, the less dispute; the less we have of\ndispute, the less misery. If that is not true, I am wrong.\n\nReligion was instituted to make us happy in this world and the next.\nWhat must we do to be happy in the next world? Be just.[29] What must\nwe do to be happy in this world, as far as the misery of our nature\nallows? Be indulgent.\n\nIt would be the height of folly to pretend to bring all men to have\nthe same thoughts in metaphysics. It would be easier to subdue the\nwhole universe by arms than to subdue all the minds in a single city.\n\nEuclid easily persuaded all men of the truths of geometry. How?\nBecause every single one of them is a corollary of the axiom, \u201cTwo\nand two make four.\u201d It is not exactly the same in the mixture of\nmetaphysics and theology.\n\nWhen Bishop Alexander and the priest Arius began [in the fourth\ncentury] to dispute as to the way in which the Logos emanated from\nthe Father, the Emperor Constantine at first wrote to them as follows\n(as we find in Eusebius and Socrates): \u201cYou are great fools to\ndispute about things you do not understand.\u201d\n\nIf the two parties had been wise enough to perceive that the emperor\nwas right, the Christian world would not have been stained with blood\nfor three hundred years.\n\nWhat, indeed, can be more stupid and more horrible than to say to\nmen: \u201cMy friends, it is not enough to be loyal subjects, submissive\nchildren, tender fathers, just neighbours, and to practise every\nvirtue, cultivate friendship, avoid ingratitude, and worship\nChrist in peace; you must, in addition, know how one is engendered\nfrom all eternity, and how to distinguish the _homoousion_ in the\n_hypostasis_, or we shall condemn you to be burned for ever, and will\nmeantime put you to death\u201d?\n\nHad such a proposition been made to Archimedes, or Poseidonius, or\nVarro, or Cato, or Cicero, what would he have said?\n\nConstantine did not persevere in his resolution to impose silence\non the contending parties. He might have invited the leaders of the\npious frenzy to his palace and asked them what authority they had to\ndisturb the world: \u201cHave you the title-deeds of the divine family?\nWhat does it matter to you whether the Logos was made or engendered,\nprovided men are loyal to him, preach a sound morality, and practise\nit as far as they can? I have done many wrong things in my time,\nand so have you. You are ambitious, so am I. The empire has cost me\nmuch knavery and cruelty; I have murdered nearly all my relatives. I\nrepent, and would expiate my crimes by restoring peace to the Roman\nEmpire. Do not prevent me from doing the only good that can efface\nmy earlier barbarity. Help me to end my days in peace.\u201d Possibly he\nwould have had no influence on the disputants; possibly he would have\nbeen flattered to find himself, in long red robe, his head covered\nwith jewels, presiding at a council.\n\nYet this it was that opened the gate to all the plagues that came\nfrom Asia upon the West. From every disputed verse of Scripture there\nissued a fury, armed with a sophism and a sword, that goaded men to\nmadness and cruelty. The marauding Huns and Goths and Vandals did\ninfinitely less harm; and the greatest harm they did was to join\nthemselves in these fatal disputes.\n\n\n OF UNIVERSAL TOLERATION\n\nOne does not need great art and skilful eloquence to prove that\nChristians ought to tolerate each other--nay, even to regard all\nmen as brothers. Why, you say, is the Turk, the Chinese, or the Jew\nmy brother? Assuredly; are we not all children of the same father,\ncreatures of the same God?\n\nBut these people despise us and treat us as idolaters. Very well; I\nwill tell them that they are quite wrong. It seems to me that I might\nastonish, at least, the stubborn pride of a Mohammedan or a Buddhist\npriest if I spoke to them somewhat as follows:\n\nThis little globe, which is but a point, travels in space like many\nother globes; we are lost in the immensity. Man, about five feet\nhigh, is certainly a small thing in the universe. One of these\nimperceptible beings says to some of his neighbours, in Arabia or\nSouth Africa: \u201cListen to me, for the God of all these worlds has\nenlightened me. There are nine hundred million little ants like us on\nthe earth, but my ant-hole alone is dear to God. All the others are\neternally reprobated by him. Mine alone will be happy.\u201d\n\nThey would then interrupt me, and ask who was the fool that talked\nall this nonsense. I should be obliged to tell them that it was\nthemselves. I would then try to appease them, which would be\ndifficult.\n\nI would next address myself to the Christians, and would venture\nto say to, for instance, a Dominican friar--an inquisitor of the\nfaith: \u201cBrother, you are aware that each province in Italy has its\nown dialect, and that people do not speak at Venice and Bergamo as\nthey do at Florence. The Academy of La Crusca has fixed the language.\nIts dictionary is a rule that has to be followed, and the grammar of\nMatei is an infallible guide. But do you think that the consul of\nthe Academy, or Matei in his absence, could in conscience cut out\nthe tongues of all the Venetians and the Bergamese who persisted in\nspeaking their own dialect?\u201d\n\nThe inquisitor replies: \u201cThe two cases are very different. In our\ncase it is a question of your eternal salvation. It is for your good\nthat the heads of the inquisition direct that you shall be seized\non the information of any one person, however infamous or criminal;\nthat you shall have no advocate to defend you; that the name of your\naccuser shall not be made known to you; that the inquisitor shall\npromise you pardon and then condemn you; and that you shall then be\nsubjected to five kinds of torture, and afterwards either flogged or\nsent to the galleys or ceremoniously burned. On this Father Ivonet,\nDoctor Chucalon, Zanchinus, Campegius, Royas, Telinus, Gomarus,\nDiabarus, and Gemelinus are explicit, and this pious practice admits\nof no exception.\u201d[30]\n\nI would take the liberty of replying: \u201cBrother, possibly you are\nright. I am convinced that you wish to do me good. But could I not be\nsaved without all that?\u201d\n\nIt is true that these absurd horrors do not stain the face of the\nearth every day; but they have often done so, and the record of them\nwould make up a volume much larger than the gospels which condemn\nthem. Not only is it cruel to persecute, in this brief life, those\nwho differ from us, but I am not sure if it is not too bold to\ndeclare that they are damned eternally. It seems to me that it is\nnot the place of the atoms of a moment, such as we are, thus to\nanticipate the decrees of the Creator. Far be it from me to question\nthe principle, \u201cOut of the Church there is no salvation.\u201d I respect\nit, and all that it teaches; but do we really know all the ways of\nGod, and the full range of his mercies? May we not hope in him as\nmuch as fear him? It is not enough to be loyal to the Church? Must\neach individual usurp the rights of the Deity, and decide, before he\ndoes, the eternal lot of all men?\n\nWhen we wear mourning for a king of Sweden, Denmark, England, or\nPrussia, do we say that we wear mourning for one who burns eternally\nin hell? There are in Europe forty million people who are not of the\nChurch of Rome. Shall we say to each of them: \u201cSir, seeing that you\nare infallibly damned, I will neither eat, nor deal, nor speak with\nyou\u201d?\n\nWhat ambassador of France, presented in audience to the Sultan,\nwould say in the depths of his heart: \u201cHis Highness will undoubtedly\nburn for all eternity because he has been circumcised\u201d? If he really\nbelieved that the Sultan is the mortal enemy of God, the object of\nhis vengeance, could he speak to him? Ought he to be sent to him?\nWith whom could we have intercourse? What duty of civil life could\nwe ever fulfil if we were really convinced that we were dealing with\ndamned souls?\n\nFollowers of a merciful God, if you were cruel of heart; if, in\nworshipping him whose whole law consisted in loving one\u2019s neighbour\nas oneself, you had burdened this pure and holy law with sophistry\nand unintelligible disputes; if you had lit the fires of discord\nfor the sake of a new word or a single letter of the alphabet; if\nyou had attached eternal torment to the omission of a few words or\nceremonies that other peoples could not know, I should say to you:\n\n\u201cTransport yourselves with me to the day on which all men will be\njudged, when God will deal with each according to his works. I see\nall the dead of former ages and of our own stand in his presence.\nAre you sure that our Creator and Father will say to the wise\nand virtuous Confucius, to the lawgiver Solon, to Pythagoras, to\nZaleucus, to Socrates, to Plato, to the divine Antonines, to the\ngood Trajan, to Titus, the delight of the human race, to Epictetus,\nand to so many other model men: \u201cGo, monsters, go and submit to a\nchastisement infinite in its intensity and duration; your torment\nshall be as eternal as I. And you, my beloved, Jean Chatel,\nRavaillac, Damiens, Cartouche, etc. [assassins in the cause of the\nChurch], who have died with the prescribed formul\u00e6, come and share my\nempire and felicity for ever.\u201d[31]\n\nYou shrink with horror from such sentiments; and, now that they have\nescaped me, I have no more to say to you.\n\n\n\n\n ON SUPERSTITION\n\n\nMY BRETHREN:\n\nYou are aware that all prominent nations have set up a public cult.\nMen have at all times assembled to deal with their interests and\ncommunicate their needs, and it was quite natural that they should\nopen these meetings with some expression of the respect and love\nwhich they owe to the author of their lives. This homage has been\ncompared to the respect which children pay to their father, and\nsubjects to their sovereign. These are but feeble images of the\nworship of God. The relations of man to man have no proportion to the\nrelation of the creature to the Supreme Being; there is no affinity\nbetween them. It would even be blasphemy to render homage to God in\nthe form of a monarch. A ruler of the whole earth--if there could\nbe such a person, and all men were so unhappy as to be subject to\none man--would be but a worm of the earth, commanding other worms\nof the earth; he would still be infinitely lower than the Deity.\nIn republics, moreover, which are unquestionably earlier than any\nmonarchy, how could God be conceived in the shape of a king? If it\nbe necessary to represent God in any sensible form, the idea of a\nfather, defective as it is, would seem to be the best fitted to our\nweakness.\n\nBut emblems of the Deity were one of the first sources of\nsuperstition. As soon as we made God in our own image, the divine\ncult was perverted. Having dared to represent God in the form of a\nman, our wretched imagination, which never halts, ascribed to him all\nthe vices of a man. We regarded him only as a powerful master, and we\ncharged him with abuse of power; we described him as proud, jealous,\nangry, vindictive, maleficent, capricious, pitilessly destructive,\na despoiler of some to enrich others, with no other reason but his\nwill. Our ideas are confined to the things about us; we conceive\nhardly anything except by similitudes; and so, when the earth was\ncovered with tyrants, God was regarded as the first of tyrants. It\nwas much worse when the Deity was presented in emblems taken from\nanimals and plants. God became an ox, serpent, crocodile, ape, cat,\nor lamb; bellowing, hissing, devouring, and being devoured.\n\nThe superstition of almost all nations has been so horrible that, did\nnot the monuments of it survive, it would be impossible to believe\nthe accounts of it. The history of the world is the history of\nfanaticism.\n\nHave there been innocent superstitions among the monstrous forms that\nhave covered the earth? Can we not distinguish between poisons which\nhave been used as remedies and poisons which have retained their\nmurderous nature? If I mistake not, here is an inquiry worth the\nclose attention of reasonable men.\n\nA man does good to his fellows and brothers. One man destroys\ncarnivorous beasts; another invents arts by the force of his genius.\nThey are, on that account, regarded as higher in the favour of\nGod than other men, as children of God; they become demi-gods, or\nsecondary gods, when they die. They are proposed to other men, not\nmerely as models, but as objects of worship. He who worships Hercules\nand Perseus is incited to imitate them. Altars are the reward of\ngenius and courage. I see in that only an error which leads to good.\nIn that case they are deceived to their own advantage. How could\nwe reproach the ancient Romans if they had raised to the rank of\nsecondary gods only such men as Scipio, Titus, Trajan, and Marcus\nAurelius?\n\nThere is an infinite distance between God and man. We agree; but\nif, in the system of the ancients, the human soul was regarded as a\nfinite portion of the infinite intelligence, sinking back into the\ngreat whole without adding to it; if it be supposed that God dwelt in\nthe soul of Marcus Aurelius, since his soul was superior to others in\nvirtue during life; why may we not suppose that it is still superior\nwhen it is separated from its mortal body?\n\nOur brothers of the Roman Catholic Church (for all men are brothers)\nhave filled heaven with demi-gods, which they call \u201csaints.\u201d Had\nthey always chosen them wisely, we may candidly allow that their\nerror would have been of service to human nature. We pour on them\nour disdain only because they honour an Ignatius, the knight of the\nVirgin, a Dominic, the persecutor, or a Francis, fanatical to the\npitch of madness, who goes naked, speaks to animals, catechises a\nwolf, and makes himself a wife of snow. We cannot forgive Jerome,\nthe learned but faulty translator of the Jewish books, for having, in\nhis history of the fathers of the desert, demanded our respect for a\nSt. Pacomius, who paid his visits on the back of a crocodile. We are\nespecially angered when we see that Rome has canonised Gregory VII.,\nthe incendiary of Europe.\n\nIt is otherwise with the cult that is paid in France to King Louis\nIX., who was just and courageous. If it is too much to invoke him,\nit is not too much to revere him. It is but to say to other princes:\nImitate his virtues.\n\nI go farther. Suppose there had been placed in some church the statue\nof Henry IV., who won his kingdom with the valour of Alexander and\nthe clemency of Titus, who was good and compassionate, chose the best\nministers and was his own first minister; suppose that, in spite of\nhis weaknesses, he received a homage beyond the respect which we owe\nto great men. What harm would be done? It would assuredly be better\nto bend the knee before him than before this crowd of unknown saints,\nwhose very names have become a subject of opprobrium and ridicule. I\nagree that it would be a superstition, but a superstition that could\ndo no harm; a patriotic enthusiasm, not a pernicious fanaticism. If\nman is born to error, let us wish him virtuous errors.\n\nThe superstition that we must drive from the earth is that which,\nmaking a tyrant of God, invites men to become tyrants. He who was the\nfirst to say that we must detest the wicked put a sword in the hands\nof all who dared to think themselves faithful. He who was the first\nto forbid communication with those who were not of his opinion rang\nthe tocsin of civil war throughout the earth.\n\nI believe what seems to reason impossible--in other words, I believe\nwhat I do not believe--and therefore I must hate those who boast that\nthey believe an absurdity opposed to mine. Such is the logic--such,\nrather, is the madness--of the superstitious. To worship, love, and\nserve the Supreme Being, and to be of use to men, is nothing; it is\nindeed, according to some, a false virtue, a \u201csplendid sin,\u201d as they\ncall it. Ever since men made it a sacred duty to dispute about what\nthey cannot understand, and made virtue consist in the pronunciation\nof certain unintelligible words, which every one attempted to\nexplain, Christian countries have been a theatre of discord and\ncarnage.\n\nYou will tell me that this universal pestilence should be imputed\nto the fury of ambition rather than to that of fanaticism. I answer\nthat it is due to both. The thirst for domination has been assuaged\nwith the blood of fools. I do not aspire to heal men of power of this\nfurious passion to subject the minds of others; it is an incurable\ndisease. Every man would like to see others hastening to serve him;\nand, that he may be the better served, he will, if he can, make them\nbelieve that their duty and their happiness are to be slaves. Find me\na man with an income of a hundred thousand pounds a year, and with\nfour or five hundred thousand subjects throughout Europe, who cost\nhim nothing, besides his soldiers, and tell him that Christ, of whom\nhe is the vicar and imitator, lived in poverty and humility. He will\nreply that the times are changed, and to prove it he will condemn\nyou to perish in the flames. You will neither correct this man [the\nPope] nor a Cardinal de Lorraine, the simultaneous possessor of\nseven bishoprics. What can one do, then? Appeal to the people, and,\nbrutalised as they are, they listen and half open their eyes. They\npartly throw off the most humiliating yoke that has ever been borne.\nThey rid themselves of some of their errors, and win back a part of\ntheir freedom, that appanage or essence of man of which they had been\nrobbed. We cannot cure the powerful of ambition, but we can cure the\npeople of superstition. We can, by speech and pen, make men more\nenlightened and better.\n\nIt is easy to make them see what they have suffered during fifteen\nhundred years. Few people read, but all may listen. Listen, then,\nmy brethren, and hear the calamities which have fallen on earlier\ngenerations.\n\nHardly had the Christians, breathing freely under Constantine, dipped\ntheir hands in the blood of the virtuous Valeria,[32] daughter,\nwife, and mother of the C\u00e6sars, and in the blood of her young son\nCandidian, the hope of the Empire; hardly had they put to death the\nson of the Emperor Maximin, in his eighth year, and his daughter\nin her seventh year; hardly had these men, who are described as so\npatient for two centuries, betrayed their fury at the beginning of\nthe fourth century, than controversy gave birth to those civil\ndiscords which, succeeding each other without a moment of relaxation,\nstill agitate Europe. What are the subjects of these bloody quarrels?\nSubtilties, my brethren, of which not a trace is to be found in the\nGospel. They would know whether the Son was engendered or made;\nwhether he was engendered in time or before time; whether he is\nconsubstantial with, or like, the Father; whether the divine \u201cmonad,\u201d\nas Athanasius puts it, is threefold in three hypostases; whether the\nHoly Ghost was engendered, or proceeded; whether he proceeds from the\nFather only, or the Father and the Son; whether Jesus had one will or\ntwo, or two natures, or one or two persons.\n\nIn a word, from \u201cconsubstantiality\u201d to \u201ctransubstantiation\u201d--terms\nequally difficult to pronounce and to understand--everything has been\na matter of dispute, and every dispute has caused torrents of blood\nto flow.\n\nYou know how much was shed by our superstitious Mary, daughter of\nthe tyrant Henry VIII., and worthy spouse of the Spanish tyrant\nPhilip II. The throne of Charles I. became a scaffold; he perished\nignominiously, after more than two hundred thousand men had been\nslaughtered for a liturgy.\n\nYou know the civil wars of France. A troop of fanatical theologians,\ncalled the Sorbonne, declare Henry III. to have forfeited the throne,\nand at once a theological apprentice assassinates him. The Sorbonne\ndeclares the great Henry IV., our ally, incapable of ruling, and\ntwenty murderers rise in succession; until at last, on the mere\nannouncement that the hero is about to protect his former allies\nagainst the Pope\u2019s followers, a monk--a schoolmaster--plunges a knife\nin the heart of the most valiant of kings and best of men in the\nmidst of his capital, under the eyes of his people, and in the arms\nof his friends. And, by an inconceivable contradiction, his memory\nis revered for ever, and the troop of the Sorbonne which proscribed\nand excommunicated him and his faithful subjects, and has no right to\nexcommunicate anybody, still survives, to the shame of France.\n\nIt is not the ordinary people, my brethren, not the agricultural\nworkers and the ignorant and peaceful artisans, who have raised these\nridiculous and fatal quarrels, the sources of so many horrors and\nparricides. There is, unhappily, not one of them that is not due to\nthe theologians. Men fed by your labours in a comfortable idleness,\nenriched by your sweat and your misery, struggled for partisans and\nslaves; they inspired you with a destructive fanaticism, that they\nmight be your masters; they made you superstitious, not that you\nmight fear God the more, but that you might fear them.\n\nThe gospel did not say to James, Peter, or Bartholomew: \u201cLive in\nopulence; deck yourselves with honours; walk amid a retinue of\nguards.\u201d It did not say to them: \u201cDisturb the world with your\nincomprehensible questions.\u201d Jesus, my brethren, touched none of\nthese questions. Would you be better theologians than he whom you\nrecognise as your one master? What! He said to you: \u201cAll consists in\nloving God and your neighbour\u201d; yet you would seek something else.\n\nIs there any one among you, is there any one on the whole earth, who\ncan think that God will examine him on points of theology, not judge\nhim by his deeds?\n\nWhat is a theological opinion? It is an idea that may be true or\nfalse; but morality has no interest in it. It is clear that you\nshould be virtuous, whether the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father\nby spiration, or from the Father and the Son. It is not less clear\nthat you will never understand any proposition of this nature. You\nwill never have the least idea how Jesus could have two natures and\ntwo wills in one person. If he had wished you to know it, he would\nhave told you of it. I choose these examples among a hundred others,\nand I pass in silence over other controversies in order that I may\nnot reopen wounds that still bleed.\n\nGod has given you understanding; he cannot wish that you should\npervert it. How could a proposition of which you can never have an\nidea be necessary to you? It is a fact of daily experience that God,\nwho gives everything, has given one man more light and more talent\nthan another. It does not offend our good sense that he has chosen to\nlink one man more closely to himself than others; that he has made\nhim a model of reason or virtue. No one can deny that it is possible\nfor God to shower his finest gifts on one of his works. We may,\ntherefore, believe in Jesus as one who taught and practised virtue;\nbut let us take care that in wishing to go too far beyond that, we do\nnot overturn the whole structure.\n\nThe superstitious man puts poison in the most wholesome food; he is\nan enemy to himself and others. He believes himself the object of\neternal vengeance if he eats meat on a certain day; he believes that\na long, grey robe, with a pointed hood and a long beard, is much more\nagreeable to God than a shaven face and a head that retains its hair;\nhe imagines that his salvation is bound up with certain Latin formul\u00e6\nwhich he does not understand. He has educated his daughter in these\nprinciples. She buries herself in a dungeon as soon as she reaches a\nmarriageable age; she betrays posterity to please God--more guilty,\nin regard to the human race, than the Hindoo widow, who casts herself\non her husband\u2019s pyre after bearing him children.\n\nMonks of the southern parts of Europe, self-condemned to a life\nthat is as abject as it is frightful, do not compare yourselves to\nthe penitents of the banks of the Ganges; your austerities do not\napproach their voluntary sufferings. And think not that God approves\nin you what you say he condemns in them.\n\nThe superstitious man is his own executioner; and he is the\nexecutioner of all who do not agree with him. The most infamous\ninforming he calls \u201cfraternal correction.\u201d He accuses the simple\ninnocence that is not on its guard, and, in the candour of its heart,\nhas not set a seal upon its lips. He denounces it to those tyrants of\nsouls who laugh alike at the accused and the accuser.\n\nLastly, the superstitious man becomes a fanatic, and then his zeal\nbecomes capable of all crimes in the name of the Lord.\n\nWe live no longer, it is true, in those abominable days when\nrelatives and friends slaughtered each other, when a hundred battles\ncovered the earth with corpses for the sake of some argument of the\nschool; but a few sparks spring every day from the ashes of these\nvast conflagrations. Princes no longer march to the field at the\nvoice of priests and monks; but citizens persecute each other still\nin the heart of the towns, and private life is often poisoned with\nsuperstition. What would you say of a family whose members were ever\nready to fight each other in order to settle in what way their father\nmust be saluted? My friends, the great thing is to love him; you may\nsalute him as you will. Are you brothers only to be divided? Must\nthat which should unite you be always a thing to separate you?\n\nI know not of a single civil war among the Turks on the ground\nof religion. I say \u201ccivil war\u201d; but history tells of no sedition\nor trouble among them that was due to controversy. Is it because\nthey have fewer pretexts for disputes? Is it because they are by\nbirth less restless and wiser than we? They ask not to what sect\nyou belong, provided that you pay regularly the slight tax. Latin\nChristians and Greek Christians, Jacobites, Monothelites, Copts, or\nProtestants--all are welcome to them; whereas there are not three\nChristian nations that practise this humanity.\n\nJesus, my brethren, was not superstitious or intolerant; he said not\na single word against the cult of the Romans, who surrounded his\ncountry. Let us imitate his indulgence, and deserve to experience it\nfrom others.\n\nLet us not be disturbed by the barbaric argument that is often used.\nI will give it in its full strength:\n\n\u201cYou believe that a good man may find favour in the eyes of the\nbeing of beings, the God of justice and mercy, at any time, in any\nplace, in whatever religion he has spent his short life. We, on the\ncontrary, say that a man cannot please God unless he be born among\nus, or taught by us. It is proved to us that we are the only persons\nin the world who are right. We know that, although God came upon the\nearth and died for all men, he will nevertheless show pity only to\nour little gathering, and that even among us there are very few who\nwill escape eternal torment. Adopt the safer side, then. Enter our\nlittle body, and strive to be one of the elect among us.\u201d\n\nLet us thank our brethren who use this language. Let us congratulate\nthem on being so sure that all in the world are damned except a few\nof themselves; and let us conclude that our sect is better than\ntheirs by the very fact that it is more reasonable and humane. The\nman who says to me, \u201cBelieve as I do, or God will damn thee,\u201d will\npresently say, \u201cBelieve as I do, or I shall assassinate thee.\u201d Let\nus pray God to soften these atrocious hearts and inspire all his\nchildren with a feeling of brotherhood. We live in an island in\nwhich the episcopal sect dominates from Dover to the Tweed.[33] From\nthere to the last of the Orkneys presbyterianism holds the field,\nand beside these dominant religions are ten or a dozen others. Go to\nItaly, and you will find papal despotism on the throne. In France it\nis otherwise; France is already regarded by Rome as half-heretical.\nPass to Switzerland and Germany. You sleep to-night in a Calvinistic\ntown, to-morrow night in a Papist town, and the following night in a\nLutheran. You go on to Russia, and find nothing of all this. It is\na different sect. The court is illumined by an empress-philosopher.\nThe august Catherine has put reason on the throne, with magnificence\nand generosity: but the people of her provinces detest alike the\nLutherans, Calvinists, and Papists. They would not eat, nor drink\nin the same glass, with any of them. I ask you, my brethren, what\nwould happen if, in an assembly of all these sectaries, each thought\nhimself authorised by the divine spirit to secure the triumph of his\nopinions? See you not the swords drawn, the gibbets raised, the fires\nlit, from one end of Europe to the other? Who is right in this chaos\nof disputes? Surely the tolerant and beneficent. Do not say that in\npreaching tolerance we preach indifference. No, my brethren, he who\nworships God and serves men is not indifferent. The name is more\nfitting for the superstitious who thinks that God will be pleased\nwith him for uttering unintelligible formul\u00e6, while he is really\nvery indifferent to the lot of his brother, whom he leaves to perish\nwithout aid, or abandons in disgrace, or flatters in prosperity, or\npersecutes if he is of another sect, unsupported and unprotected.\nThe more the superstitious man concentrates upon absurd beliefs\nand practices, the more indifferent he becomes to the real needs\nof humanity. Let us remember one of our charitable compatriots.\nHe founded a hospital for old men in his province. He was asked if\nit was for Papists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Quakers, Socinians,\nAnabaptists, Methodists, or Memnonists? He answered: For men.\n\nO God, keep from us the error of atheism which denies thy existence,\nand deliver us from the superstition that outrages thy existence and\nfills ours with horror.\n\n\n\n\n ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\n\nMY BRETHREN:\n\nBooks rule the world, or, at least, those nations in it which\nhave written language; the others do not count. The Zend Avesta,\nattributed to the first Zoroaster, was the law of the Persians. The\nVeda and the Shastabad are the law of the Brahmans. The Egyptians\nwere ruled by the books of Thot, who has been called \u201cthe first\nMercury.\u201d The Koran holds sway to-day over Africa, Egypt, Arabia,\nIndia, part of Tartary, the whole of Persia, Scythia, Asia Minor,\nSyria, Thrace, Thessaly, and the whole of Greece as far as the strait\nwhich separates Naples and the Empire.[34] The Pentateuch controls\nthe Jews; and, by a singular dispensation of Providence, it rules us\nto-day. It is, therefore, our duty to read this work together, since\nit is the foundation of our faith.\n\nWhen we read the early chapters of the Pentateuch, we must remember\nthat, in speaking thus to the Jews, God deigned to accommodate\nhimself to their intelligence, which was still very crude. It is\nwell known to-day that our earth is but a point in comparison with\nthe space which we, improperly, call the heavens, in which shine a\nprodigious number of stars, with planets far superior to ours. We\nknow that light was not made before the day, and that it comes to us\nfrom the sun. We know that the supposed solid expanse between the\nupper and the lower waters, which is called the \u201cfirmament,\u201d[35] is\nan error of ancient physics, adopted by the Greeks. But as God was\nspeaking to the Jews, he deigned to stoop low enough to adopt their\nlanguage. Certainly no one would have understood him in the desert\nof Horeb if he had said: \u201cI have put the sun in the centre of your\nworld; the little globe of the earth revolves, with other planets,\nround this great star, which illumines the planets; and the moon\nturns round the earth in the course of a month. Those other stars\nwhich you see are so many suns, presiding over other worlds.\u201d\n\nIf the eternal geometrician had spoken thus, he would indeed have\nspoken worthily, as a master who knows his own work; but no Jew would\nhave understood a word of such sublime truths. The Jewish people were\nstiff of neck and hard of understanding. It was necessary to give\ncoarse food to a coarse people, which could find sustenance only\nin such food. It seems that this first chapter of _Genesis_ was an\nallegory presented to them by the Holy Spirit, to be interpreted some\nday by those whom God would deign to fill with his light. That, at\nleast, was the idea of the leading Jews, since it was forbidden to\nread this book before reaching one\u2019s twenty-fifth year, in order that\nthe mind of young folk might be prepared by masters to read it with\nmore intelligence and respect.\n\nThese doctors taught that, in the literal sense, the Nile, Euphrates,\nTigris, and Araxes did not really rise in the terrestrial paradise;\nbut that the four rivers, which watered it, evidently meant four\nvirtues necessary to man. It was, according to them, clear that the\nformation of woman from the rib of man was a most striking allegory\nof the unvarying harmony that ought to be found in marriage; that\nthe souls of married people ought to be united like their bodies. It\nis a symbol of the peace and fidelity that ought to rule in conjugal\nsociety.\n\nThe serpent that seduced Eve, and was the most cunning of all animals\non the earth, is, if we are to believe Philo and other writers, a\nfigurative expression of our corrupt desires. The use of speech,\nwhich Scripture assigns to it, is the voice of our passions speaking\nto our hearts. God used the allegory of the serpent because it was\nvery common in the East. The serpent was considered subtle because\nit quickly escapes those who pursue it, and skilfully falls on those\nwho attack it. Its change of skin was the symbol of immortality.\nThe Egyptians carried a silver serpent in their processions. The\nPh\u0153nicians, who were neighbours of the Hebrews, had long had an\nallegorical fable of a serpent that had made war on God and man. In\nfine, the serpent which tempted Eve has been recognised as the devil,\nwho is ever seeking to tempt and undo us.\n\nIt is true that the idea of a devil falling from heaven and becoming\nthe enemy of the human race was known to the Jews only in the course\nof time; but the divine author, who knew that this idea would spread\nsome day, deigned to plant the seed of it in the early chapters of\n_Genesis_.\n\nWe really know nothing of the fall of the wicked angels except from\nthese few words in the Epistle of St. Jude: \u201cWandering stars, to\nwhom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever, of whom Enoch\nalso, the seventh from Adam, prophesied.\u201d It has been thought that\nthese wandering stars were the angels transformed into malevolent\ndemons, and we supply the place of the prophecies of Enoch, the\nseventh man after Adam, which we no longer have. But no matter into\nwhat labyrinth learned men may wander, in trying to explain these\nincomprehensible things, we must always understand in an edifying\nsense whatever we cannot understand literally.\n\nThe ancient Brahmans, as we said, had this theology many centuries\nbefore the Jewish nation came into existence. The ancient Persians\nhad given names to the devils long before the Jews did so. You are\naware that in the Pentateuch we do not find the name of any angel,\ngood or bad. There is no mention of Gabriel, or Raphael, or Satan, or\nAsmodeus in the Jewish books until long afterwards, when the little\npeople had learned their names during the Babylonian captivity [or\nthe Persian domination]. That shows, at least, that the doctrine\nof celestial and infernal beings was common to all great nations.\nYou will find it in the book of _Job_, a precious monument of\nantiquity. Job is an Arabic character; if the allegory was written\nin Arabic. There are still, in the Hebrew translation, purely Arabic\nphrases.[36] Here, then, we have the Hindoos, Persians, Arabs, and\nJews successively adopting much the same theology. It is therefore\nentitled to close attention.\n\nBut what is even more clearly entitled to our attention is the\nmorality that ought to result from all this ancient theology. Men,\nwho are not born to be murderers, since God has not armed them like\nlions and tigers; who are not born to be imposed upon, since they all\nnecessarily love truth; who are not born to be marauding brigands,\nsince God has given equally to them all the fruits of the earth and\nthe wool of the sheep; but who have, nevertheless, become marauders,\nperjurers, and murderers, are really angels transformed into demons.\n\nLet us, my brethren, always seek in Holy Writ what morality, not what\nphysics, teaches.\n\nLet the ingenious Father Calmet employ his profound sagacity and\npenetrating logic in discovering the place of the earthly paradise;\nwe may be content to deserve, if we can, the heavenly paradise by the\npractice of justice, toleration, and kindliness.\n\n\u201cBut of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not\neat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely\ndie\u201d (_Gen._, ii., 17).\n\nInterpreters admit that we do not know of any tree that gives\nknowledge. Adam did not die on the day on which he ate of it; he\nlived for nine hundred and thirty years afterwards, the Scripture\nsays. But, alas, what are nine hundred years between two eternities!\nThey are not to be compared with a moment of time, and our days pass\nlike the shadow. Does not this allegory, however, clearly teach us\nthat knowledge, wrongly understood, is able to undo us? The tree of\nknowledge bears, no doubt, very bitter fruit, since so many learned\ntheologians have been persecutors or persecuted, and many have died\na dreadful death. Ah, my brethren, the Holy Spirit wished to show us\nhow dangerous false science is, how it puffs up the heart, and how\nabsurd a learned doctor often is.\n\nIt is from this passage that St. Augustine gathered the guilt of all\nmen on account of the disobedience of the first man. He it is who\ndeveloped the doctrine of original sin. Whether the stain of this sin\ncorrupted our bodies, or steeped the souls which enter them, is an\nentirely incomprehensible mystery; it warns us at least not to live\nin crime, if we were born in crime.\n\n\u201cAnd the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill\nhim\u201d (_Gen._ iv.).\n\nHere, especially, my brethren, the fathers are opposed to each other.\nThe family of Adam was not yet numerous; Scripture gives him no other\nchildren than Abel and Cain, at the time when the former was murdered\nby his brother. Why is God forced to give Cain a safeguard against\nany who may find him? Let us be content to observe that God pardons\nCain, no doubt after filling him with remorse. Let us profit by the\nlesson, and not condemn our brethren to frightful torments for small\ncauses. When God is so merciful as to forgive an abominable murder,\nwe may imitate him. The objection is raised that the same God who\npardons a cruel murderer damns all men for ever for the transgression\nof Adam, whose only crime was to eat the forbidden fruit. To our\nfeeble human reason it seems unjust for God to punish eternally all\nthe children of the guilty, not indeed to atone for a murder, but\nto expiate what seems an excusable act of disobedience. This is\nsaid to be an intolerable contradiction, which we cannot admit in\nan infinitely good being; but it is only an apparent contradiction.\nGod hands us over, with our parents and children, to the flames for\nthe disobedience of Adam; but four thousand years afterwards he\nsends Jesus Christ to deliver us, and he preserves the life of Cain\nin order to people the earth: thus he remains in all things the God\nof justice and mercy. St. Augustine calls Adam\u2019s sin a \u201cfortunate\nfault\u201d; but that of Cain was still more fortunate, since God took\ncare himself to put a mark of his protection on him.\n\n\u201cA window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou\nfinish it above,\u201d etc. (_Gen._ vi. 16).\n\nHere we reach the greatest of all miracles, before which reason\nmust humble itself and the heart must break. We know with what bold\ncontempt the incredulous rise against the prodigy of a universal\ndeluge.\n\nIt is fruitless for them to object that in the wettest years we do\nnot get thirty inches of rain; that even in such a year there are as\nmany regions without rain as there are flooded regions; that the\nlaw of gravity prevents the ocean from overflowing its bounds; that\nif it covered the earth it would leave its bed dry; that, even if it\ncovered the earth, it could not rise fifteen cubits above the highest\nmountains; that the animals could not reach the ark from America and\nsouthern lands; that seven pairs of clean animals and two pairs of\nunclean could not have been put in twenty arks; that these twenty\narks would not have sufficed to hold the fodder they needed, not\nmerely for ten months, but for the following year, in which the earth\nwould be too sodden to produce; that the carnivorous animals would\nhave died of starvation; that the eight persons in the ark would not\nhave been able to give the animals their food every day. There is\nno end to their difficulties. But the whole of them are solved by\npointing out that this great event was a miracle--that puts an end to\nall dispute.\n\n\u201cAnd they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose\ntop may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be\nscattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth\u201d (_Gen._ xi. 4).\n\nUnbelievers declare that it is possible to make a name, yet be\nscattered abroad. They ask if men have ever been so stupid as to wish\nto build a tower as high as the heavens. They say that such a tower\nwould rise into the atmosphere, and that, if you call the atmosphere\nthe heavens, the tower will necessarily be in the heavens if it were\nno more than twenty feet high; and that, if all men then spoke the\nsame tongue, the wisest thing they could do would be to gather in a\ncommon city and prevent a corruption of their tongue. Apparently\nthey were all in their own country, since they were all agreed to\nbuild therein. To drive them from their country is tyrannical; to\nmake them suddenly speak new tongues is absurd. Hence, they say,\nwe can only regard the story of the tower of Babel as an oriental\nromance.\n\nI reply to this blasphemy that, since the miracle is described by\nan author who has recorded so many other miracles, it ought to be\nbelieved, like the others. The works of God cannot be expected to\nresemble the works of man in any way. The ages of the patriarchs\nand prophets can have no relation to the ages of ordinary men. God\nnow comes upon the earth no more; but in those days he often came\ndown to carry out his work in person. It is a tradition of all the\ngreat nations of antiquity. The Greeks, who had no knowledge of the\nJewish books until long after they had been translated into Greek\nat Alexandria by Hellenising Jews, had believed, before Homer and\nHesiod, that the great Zeus and all the other gods came down from\nthe upper air to visit the earth. What lesson may we derive from the\ngeneral acceptance of this idea? That we are always in the presence\nof God, and that we must engage in no deed or thought that is not in\naccord with his justice. In a word, the tower of Babel is no more\nextraordinary than all the rest. The book is equally authentic in all\nits parts; we cannot deny one fact without denying all the others. We\nmust bring our proud reason into subjection, whether we regard the\nstory as literally true or as a figure.\n\n\u201cIn the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying: Unto\nthy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the\ngreat river, the river Euphrates\u201d (_Gen._ xv., 18).\n\nUnbelievers exclaim triumphantly that the Jews have never owned\nmore than a part of what God promised them. They even think it\nunjust that the Lord gave them this part. They say that the Jews had\nnot the least right to it; that the former journey of a Chald\u00e6an\ninto a barbaric country could not possibly be a legitimate pretext\nfor invading the country; and that any man who declared himself a\ndescendant of St. Patrick, and came on that account to sack Ireland,\nsaying that he had God\u2019s order to do so, would meet with a warm\nreception. But let us always remember that the times have changed.\nLet us respect the books of the Jews, and take care not to imitate\nthe Jews. God enjoins no longer what he once commanded.\n\nThey ask who this Abraham is, and why the Jewish people is traced\nto the Chald\u00e6an son of an idolatrous potter, who had no relation to\nthe people of the land of Canaan, and could not understand their\nlanguage. This Chald\u00e6an, accompanied by a wife who bends under the\nweight of years, but is still good, reaches Memphis. Why do the\ncouple pass from Memphis to the desert of Gerar? How comes there to\nbe a king in this horrible desert? How is it that the king of Egypt\nand the king of Gerar both fall in love with the aged[37] spouse of\nAbraham? These are but historical difficulties; the great thing is\nto obey God. Holy Scripture always represents Abraham as unreservedly\nsubmissive to the will of the Most High. Let us imitate him, and not\ndispute so much.\n\n\u201cAnd there came two angels to Sodom at even,\u201d etc. (_Gen._ xix.).\n\nHere is a stumbling-block for all readers who listen only to their\nown reason. Two angels--that is to say, two spiritual creatures, two\nheavenly ministers of God--have earthly bodies, and inspire a whole\ntown, even its old men, with infamous desires; a father of a family\nprostitutes his two daughters to save the honour of the two angels;\na town is changed into a lake of fire; a woman is transformed into\na salt statue; two girls deceive and intoxicate their father in\norder to commit incest with him, lest, they say, their race should\nperish, while they have all the inhabitants of the town of Zoar to\nchoose from! All these events, taken together, make up a revolting\npicture. But if we are reasonable we shall agree with St. Clement of\nAlexandria and the fathers who have followed him that the whole is\nallegorical.\n\nLet us remember that that was the way of writing in the East.\nParables were so constantly used that even the author of all truth\nspoke to the Jews only in parables when he came on earth.\n\nParables make up the whole of the profane theology of antiquity.\nSaturn devouring his children is evidently time destroying its own\nworks. Minerva is wisdom; she is formed in the head of the master\nof the gods. The arrows and bandage of Cupid are obvious figures.\nThe fall of Pha\u00ebthon is an admirable symbol of ambition. All is not\nallegory, either in the pagan theology or in the sacred history of\nthe Jewish people. The fathers distinguish between what is purely\nhistorical and purely parabolical, and what partakes of the nature of\neach. It is, I grant, difficult to walk on these slippery paths; but\nif we walk in the way of virtue, why need we concern ourselves about\nthat of science?\n\nThe crime that God punishes here is horrible; let that suffice us.\nLot\u2019s wife was changed into a salt statue for looking behind her. Let\nus curb the impulses of curiosity; in a word, let the stories of Holy\nWrit serve to make us better, if they do not make us more enlightened.\n\nThere are, it seems to me, my brethren, two kinds of figurative and\nmystic interpretation of the Scriptures. The first, and incomparably\nthe better, is to gather from all facts counsels for the conduct\nof life. If Jacob cruelly wrongs his brother Esau and deceives his\nfather-in-law Laban, let us keep peace in our families and act\njustly towards our relatives. If the patriarch Reuben dishonours his\nfather\u2019s bed, let us regard the incest with horror. If the patriarch\nJudah commits a still more odious incest with his daughter-in-law\nThamar, let us all the more detest these iniquities. When David\nravishes the wife of Uriah, and has the husband slain; when Solomon\nmurders his brother; when we find that nearly all the petty kings\nof the Jews are murderous barbarians, let us mend our ways as we\nread this awful list of crimes. Let us read the whole Bible in this\nspirit. It discomposes the man who would be learned; it consoles the\nman who is content to be good.\n\nThe other way to detect the hidden meaning of the Scriptures is to\nregard each event as an historical and physical emblem. That was the\nmethod followed by St. Clement, the great Origen, the respectable St.\nAugustine, and so many other fathers. According to them, the piece of\nred cloth which the harlot Rahab hung from her window is the blood\nof Jesus Christ. Moses spreading out his arms foreshadows the sign\nof the cross. Judah tying his ass to a vine prefigures the entrance\nof Christ into Jerusalem. St. Augustine compares the ark of Noah to\nJesus. St. Ambrose, in the seventh book of his _De Arca_, says that\nthe making of the little door in the side of the ark signifies, or\nmay be regarded as signifying, a part of the human body. Even if all\nthese interpretations were true, what profit should we derive from\nthem? Will men be juster from knowing what the little door of the ark\nmeans? This way of interpreting the Holy Scripture is but a subtlety\nof the mind, and it may injure the innocence of the heart.\n\nLet us set aside all the subjects of contention which divide\nnations, and fill ourselves with the sentiments which unite them.\nSubmission to God, resignation, justice, kindness, compassion, and\ntolerance--those are the great principles. May all the theologians\nof the earth live together as men of business do. Asking not of\nwhat country a man is, nor in what practices he was reared, they\nobserve towards each other the inviolable rules of equity, fidelity,\nand mutual confidence; and by these principles they bind nations\ntogether. But those who know only their own opinions, and condemn\nall others; those who think that the light shines for them alone,\nand all other men walk in darkness; those who scruple to communicate\nwith foreign religions, should surely be entitled enemies of the\nhuman race.\n\nI will not conceal from you that the most learned men affirm that\nthe Pentateuch was not written by Moses. The great Newton, who alone\ndiscovered the first principle of nature and the nature of light,\nthe astounding genius who penetrated so deep into ancient history,\nattributes the Pentateuch to Samuel. Other distinguished scholars\nthink that it was written in the time of Osias by the scribe Saphan;\nothers believe that Esdras wrote it, on returning from the Captivity.\nAll are agreed, together with certain modern Jews, that the work was\nnot written by Moses.\n\nThis great objection is not as formidable as it seems. We assuredly\nrespect the Decalogue, from whatever hand it came. We dispute about\nthe date of several laws which some attribute to Edward III., others\nto Edward II.; but we do not hesitate to adopt the laws, because we\nperceive that they are just and useful. Even if those statements in\nthe preamble that are called in question are rejected, we do not\nreject the law.\n\nLet us always distinguish between dogma and history, and between\ndogma and that eternal morality which all legislators have taught and\nall peoples received.\n\nO holy morality! O God who has created it! I will not confine you\nwithin the bounds of a province. You reign over all thinking and\nsentient beings. You are the God of Jacob; but you are the God of\nthe universe.\n\nI cannot end this discourse, my dear brethren, without speaking to\nyou of the prophets. This is one of the large subjects on which our\nenemies think to confound us. They say that in ancient times every\npeople had its prophets, diviners, or seers. But does it follow that\nbecause the Egyptians, for instance, formerly had false prophets\nthe Jews may not have had true prophets? It is said that they had\nno mission, no rank, no legal authorisation. That is true; but may\nthey not have been authorised by God? They anathematised each other,\nand treated each other as rogues and fools; the prophet Zedekiah\neven dared to strike the prophet Michah in the presence of King\nJosaphat. We do not deny it; the Paralipomena record the fact. But is\na ministry less holy because the ministers disgrace it? Have not our\npriests done things a hundred times worse than the giving of blows?\n\nThe commandments of God to the prophets Ezekiel and Hosea scandalise\nthose who think themselves wise. Will they not be wiser if they see\nthat these are allegories, types, parables, in accordance with the\nways of the Israelites? And that we have no more right to ask of God\nan account of the orders he gives in accordance with these ways than\nto ask the people why they have them? No doubt God could not order a\nprophet to commit debauch and adultery; but he wished to let us see\nthat he disapproved the crimes and adulteries of his chosen people.\nIf we did not read the Bible in this spirit, we should, alas, be\nfilled with horror and indignation at every page.\n\nLet us find edification in what scandalises others; let us find\nwholesome food in their poison. When the proper and literal meaning\nof a passage seems to be in accord with reason, let us keep to it.\nWhen it seems to be contrary to the truth or to sound morals, let us\nseek a hidden meaning that may reconcile truth and sound morals with\nHoly Scripture. Thus have all the fathers of the Church proceeded;\nthus do we proceed daily in the commerce of life. We always interpret\nfavourably the discourses of our friends and partisans. Would we\ntreat more harshly the sacred books of the Jews, which are the object\nof our faith? Let us, in fine, read the Jews\u2019 books that we may be\nChristians; and if they make us not more wise, let them at least make\nus better.\n\n\n\n\n ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\n\n\nMY BRETHREN:\n\nThere are in the New Testament, as there are in the Old, depths that\nwe cannot sound, and sublimities that our poor reason can never\nattain. I do not propose here either to reconcile the gospels,\nwhich seem to contradict each other at times, or to explain\nmysteries which, by the very fact that they are mysteries, must be\ninexplicable. Let those who are more learned than I discuss whether\nthe Holy Family betook itself to Egypt after the massacre of the\nchildren at Bethlehem, as Matthew says, or remained in Jud\u00e6a, as Luke\nsays; let them seek if the father of Joseph was named Jacob, his\ngrandfather Matthan, and his great-grandfather Eleazar, or if his\ngreat-grandfather was Levi, his grandfather Matthat, and his father\nHeli. Let them settle this genealogical tree according to their\nlight; it is a study that I respect. I know not if it would enlighten\nmy mind, but I do know that it cannot speak to my heart. Paul the\nApostle tells us himself, in his first epistle to Timothy, that we\nmust not trouble ourselves about genealogies. We will not be any\nthe better for knowing precisely who were the ancestors of Joseph,\nin what year Jesus was born, and whether James was his brother or\nhis cousin. What will it profit us to consult what remains of the\nRoman annals to see if Augustus really did order a census of all the\npeoples of the earth when Mary was pregnant with Jesus, Quirinus\ngovernor of Syria, and Herod king of Jud\u00e6a? Quirinus, whom Luke calls\nCyrenius, was (the learned say) not governor in the time of Herod,\nbut of Archelaus, ten years later; and Augustus never ordered a\ncensus of the Roman Empire.\n\nWe are told that the _Epistle to the Hebrews_, attributed to Paul,\nwas not written by Paul; that neither _Revelation_ nor the _Gospel\nof John_ was written by John; that the first chapter of this gospel\nwas evidently written by a Greek Platonist; that the book could not\npossibly come from a Jew; and that no Jew could ever have made Jesus\nsay: \u201cI give you a new commandment: that you love each other.\u201d This\ncommandment, they say, was certainly not new. It is given expressly,\nand in even stronger terms, in the laws of _Leviticus_: \u201cThou shalt\nlove thy God above all things, and thy neighbour as thyself.\u201d Such\na man as Jesus Christ--a man learned in the law, who confounded the\ndoctors at the age of twelve, and was ever speaking of the law--could\nnot be ignorant of the law; and his beloved disciple could not\npossibly have charged him with so palpable a mistake.\n\nLet us not be troubled, my brethren. Let us remember that Jesus\nspoke a dialect, half Syrian and half Ph\u0153nician, that was hardly\nintelligible to Greeks; that we have the _Gospel of John_ only in\nGreek; that this gospel was written more than fifty years after\nthe death of Jesus; that the copyists may easily have altered the\ntext; and that it is more probable that the text ran, \u201cI give you a\ncommandment that is not new,\u201d than that it said: \u201cI give you a new\ncommandment.\u201d Let us return to our great principle. The precept is\ngood; it is our duty to fulfil it as well as we may, whether or no\nZoroaster was the first to announce it, and Moses copied it, and\nJesus renewed it.\n\nShall we penetrate into the thickest darkness of antiquity to learn\nwhether the darkness which covered the whole earth at the death\nof Jesus was due to an eclipse of the sun at a time of full moon,\nwhether an astronomer named Phlegon, whom we have no longer, spoke\nof this phenomenon, or if any one ever saw the star of the three\nwise men? These are difficulties that may very well interest an\nantiquarian; but he will not have spent in good works the precious\ntime he devotes to the clearing-up of this chaos; and he will end\nwith more doubt than piety. My brethren, the man who shares his bread\nwith the poor is better than he who has compared the Hebrew text with\nthe Greek, and both of them with the Samaritan.\n\nAll that relates to history only gives rise to a thousand disputes;\nwhat concerns our duties gives rise to none. You will never\nunderstand how the devil took God into the desert; how he tempted\nhim for forty days; or how he carried him to the top of a hill from\nwhich he could see all the kingdoms of the world. The devil offering\nall these things to God will greatly shock you. You will seek the\nmystery that is hidden in these things, and so many others, and your\nmind will be fatigued in vain. Every word will plunge you into\nuncertainty, and the anguish of a restless curiosity which can never\nbe satisfied. But if you confine your attention to morals the storm\nwill pass, and you will rest in the bosom of virtue.\n\nI venture to flatter myself, my brethren, that if the greatest\nenemies of the Christian religion were to listen to us in this\nsecluded temple, in which the love of virtue brings us together; if\nLord Herbert, Lord Shaftesbury, Lord Bolingbroke, Tindal, Toland,\nCollins, Whiston, Trenchard, Gordon, and Swift were to witness our\ngentle and innocent simplicity, they would have less disdain and\nrepugnance for us. They cease not to reproach us with an absurd\nfanaticism. We are not fanatical in belonging to the religion of\nJesus. He worshipped one God, as we do; he despised empty ceremonies,\nas we do. No gospel has said that his mother was the mother of God,\nor that he was consubstantial with God. In no gospel will you find\nthat the disciples of Jesus should arrogate the title of \u201cHoly\nFather,\u201d or \u201cMy Lord,\u201d or that a priest who lives at Lambeth should\nhave an income of two thousand a year while so many useful tillers\nof the soil have hardly the seed for the three or four acres they\nwater with their tears. The gospel did not say to the bishops of\nRome: Forge a donation of Constantine in order to seize the city of\nthe Scipios and C\u00e6sars and become sovereigns of Naples. It did not\nurge the bishops of Germany to profit by a time of anarchy to invade\nhalf of Germany. Jesus was a poor man preaching to the poor. What\nshould we say of the followers of Penn and Fox, those enemies of\npomp and friends of peace, if they bore golden mitres on their heads\nand were surrounded by soldiers; if they grasped the substance of the\npeoples; if they would give orders to kings; if their satellites,\nwith executioners in their train, were to cry out at the top of their\nvoices, \u201cFoolish nations, believe in Fox and Penn, or you will die in\ntorment\u201d?\n\nYou know better than I what a fatal contrast the ages have witnessed\nbetween the humility of Jesus and the pride of those who have assumed\nhis name; between their avarice and his poverty, their debauches and\nhis chastity, his submissiveness and their bloody tyranny.\n\nI confess, my brethren, that no word of his has made such an\nimpression on me as that which he spoke to those who were so brutal\nas to strike him before he was led to execution: \u201cIf I have spoken\nwell, why do you strike me?\u201d That is what ought to be said to all\npersecutors. If my opinion differs from yours on things that it is\nimpossible to understand; if I see the mercy of God where you would\nsee only his power; if I have said that all the disciples of Jesus\nwere equal, while you have thought it your duty to trample on them;\nif I have worshipped God alone while you have given him associates;\nif I have spoken ill in differing from you, bear witness of the evil;\nand if I have spoken well, why do you heap on me your insults and\nepithets? Why do you persecute me, cast me in irons, deliver me to\ntorture and flames, and insult me even after my death? If, indeed, I\nhad spoken ill, it was yours only to pity and instruct me. You are\nconfident that you are infallible, that your opinion is divine, that\nthe gates of hell will never prevail against it, that the whole world\nwill one day embrace your opinion, that the world will be subject to\nyou, and that you will rule from Mount Atlas to the islands of Japan.\nHow, then, can my opinion hurt you? You do not fear me, and you\npersecute me! You despise me, and do away with me!\n\nWhat reply can we make, my brethren, to these modest and forceful\nreproaches? Only the reply of the wolf to the lamb, \u201cYou have\ndisturbed the water that I drink.\u201d Thus have men treated each\nother--the gospel in one hand and sword in the other; preaching\ndisinterestedness and accumulating treasures, praising humility and\nwalking on the heads of prostrate princes, recommending mercy and\nshedding human blood.\n\nIf these barbarians find in the gospel any parable that may be\ndistorted in their favour by fraudulent interpretation, they fasten\nupon it as an anvil on which they may forge their murderous weapons.\n\nIs there a word about two swords hung above a wall? They arm\nthemselves at once with a hundred swords. It is said that a king has\nkilled his fatted beasts, compelled the blind and the lame to come\nto his feast, and cast into outer darkness him who had no wedding\ngarment; is that, my brethren, a reason that justifies them in\nputting you in prison like this guest, tearing your limbs asunder on\nthe rack, plucking out your eyes to make you blind like those who\nwere dragged to the feast, or slaying you as the king slew his fatted\nbeasts? Yet it is to such equivocal passages that men have so often\nappealed for the right to desolate a large part of the earth.\n\nThose terrible words, \u201cNot peace, but a sword, I bring unto you,\u201d\nhave caused more Christians to perish than ambition has ever\nsacrificed.\n\nThe scattered and unhappy Jews are consoled in their wretchedness\nwhen they see us always fighting each other from the earliest days\nof Christianity, always at war in public or in secret, persecuted or\npersecuting, oppressed or oppressing. They are united, and they laugh\nat our interminable quarrels. It seems that we have been concerned\nonly in avenging them.\n\nWretches that we are, we insult the pagans, yet they never knew our\ntheological quarrels; they have never shed a drop of blood for the\ninterpretation of a dogma, and we have flooded the earth with it.\nIn the bitterness of my heart I say to you: Jesus was persecuted,\nand whoever shares his thoughts will be persecuted. What was Jesus\nin the eyes of men, who could assuredly have no suspicion of his\ndivinity? A good man who, having been born in poverty, spoke to the\npoor in opposition to the superstitions of the rich Pharisees and the\ninsolent priests--the Socrates of Galilee. You know how he said to\nthese Pharisees, \u201cWoe unto you, ye blind guides, which strain at a\ngnat and swallow a camel! Woe unto you, for ye make clean the outside\nof the cup and of the platter, but within you are full of extortion\nand excess\u201d (_Matthew_ xxiii.).\n\nHe often calls them \u201cwhitened sepulchres\u201d and \u201crace of vipers.\u201d They\nwere, nevertheless, men of some dignity, and they avenged themselves\nby his death. Arnold of Brescia, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague\nsaid much less than this to the pontiffs of their time, and they,\ntoo, were put to death. Never tilt against the ruling superstition,\nunless you be powerful enough to withstand it, or clever enough\nto escape its pursuit. The fable of Our Lady of Loretto is more\nextravagant than all Ovid\u2019s metamorphoses, it is true; the miracle\nof St. Januarius at Naples is more ridiculous than the miracle of\nEgnatia, mentioned by Horace, I agree. But say aloud at Naples or\nLoretto what you think of these absurdities, and it will cost you\nyour life. It is not so among certain enlightened nations. There the\npeople have their errors, though they are less gross; and the least\nsuperstitious people are always the most tolerant.\n\nCast off all superstition, and be more humane. But when you speak\nagainst fanaticism, anger not the fanatics; they are delirious\ninvalids, who would assault their physicians. Let us make their ways\nmore gentle, not aggravate them. And let us instil, drop by drop,\ninto their souls that divine balm of tolerance which they would\nreject with horror if offered to them in full.\n\n\n\n\n EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS\n\n (TRANSLATED FROM THE ITALIAN OF COUNT DE CORBERA)\n\n\n ARTICLE I.\n\nIllustrious Romans, it is not the Apostle Paul who has the honour of\naddressing you. It is not that worthy Jew who was born at Tarsus,\naccording to the _Acts of the Apostles_, and at Giscala according\nto Jerome and other fathers; a dispute that has led some to believe\nthat one may be born in two different places at the same time, just\nas there are among you certain bodies which are created by a few\nLatin words, and are found in a hundred thousand places at the same\ntime.[38]\n\nIt is not the bald, hot-headed man, with long and broad nose,\nblack eyebrows, thick and continuous, and broad shoulders and\ncrooked legs,[39] who, having carried off the daughter of his\nmaster Gamaliel, and being subsequently dissatisfied with her,\ndivorced her[40]; and, in pique, if we may believe contemporary\nJewish writers, put himself at the head of the nascent body of the\nChristians.\n\nIt is not that St. Paul who, when he was a servant of Gamaliel, had\nthe good Stephen, the patron of deacons and of those who are stoned,\nslain with stones, and who, while it was done, took care of the\ncloaks of the murderers--a fitting employment for a priest\u2019s valet.\nIt is not he who fell from his horse, blinded in midday by a heavenly\nlight, and to whom God said in the air, as he says every day to so\nmany others: \u201cWhy persecutest thou me?\u201d It is not he who wrote to\nthe half-Jewish, half-Christian shopkeepers of Corinth: \u201cHave we not\npower to eat and to drink ... and to lead about a sister or a wife?\nWho goeth to war any time at his own charge?\u201d[41] By those fine words\nthe Reverend Father Menou, Jesuit and apostle of Lorraine, profited\nso well that they brought him, at Nancy, eighty thousand francs a\nyear, a palace, and more than one handsome woman.\n\nIt is not he who wrote to the little flock in Thessalonica that the\nuniverse was about to be destroyed, and on that account it was not\nworth while keeping money about one. As Paul said: \u201cFor the Lord\nhimself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the\narchangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall\nrise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up\ntogether with them.\u201d[42]\n\nObserve, generous Romans, that St. Paul did but announce these\npleasant things to the tailors and grocers of Thessalonica in virtue\nof the express prophecy of Luke (ch. xxi.), who had publicly--that\nis, to some fifteen or sixteen chosen souls among the people--averred\nthat this generation would not pass away before the son of man came\non the clouds with great power and glory. It is true, O Romans,\nthat Jesus came not on the clouds with a great power; but at least\nthe popes have had this great power, and thus are the prophecies\nfulfilled.\n\nHe who writes this epistle to the Romans is, again, not that St.\nPaul, half Jew, half Christian, who, having preached Jesus and\nannounced the destruction of the Mosaic law, not only went to Judaise\nin the temple of Hershalaim, which the vulgar call Jerusalem, but,\non the advice of his friend James, observed there certain rigorous\npractices which the Holy Inquisition now punishes with death.[43]\n\nHe who writes to you has been neither priest\u2019s valet, nor murderer,\nnor keeper of cloaks, nor apostate, nor maker of tents, nor buried in\nthe depths of the sea, like Jonah, for twenty-four hours, nor caught\nup to the third heaven, like Elias, without learning what the third\nheaven is.\n\nHe who writes to you is more a citizen than this Saul Paul, who, it\nis said, boasted of being one, and assuredly was not. For Tarsus, if\nhe came from there, was not made a Roman colony until the time of\nCaracalla [211-217 A.D.]; and Giscala in Galilee, from which it is\nmore probable that he came, since he was of the tribe of Benjamin,\nwas certainly not a Roman town. Roman citizenship was not bestowed\non Jews at Tarsus or anywhere else. The author of the _Acts of the\nApostles_ (xvi., 37) asserts that this Jew Paul and another Jew named\nSilas were arrested by the authorities in the town of Philippi in\nMacedonia (a town founded by the father of Alexander, near which the\nbattle between Cassius and Brutus, on the one side, and Antony and\nOctavian, on the other, decided the fate of your empire). Paul and\nSilas were scourged for stirring up the populace, and Paul said to\nthe officers: \u201cThey have beaten us, being Romans\u201d (_Acts_ xvi., 37).\nCommentators freely admit that Silas was not a Roman citizen. They do\nnot say that the author of _Acts_ lied, but they agree that what he\nsays is untrue; and I am sorry for the Holy Spirit, who, no doubt,\ndictated the _Acts of the Apostles_.\n\nIn fine, he who now writes to the descendants of Marcellus, the\nScipios, the Catos, Cicero, Titus, and the Antonines, is a Roman\ngentleman of an ancient and transplanted family, one who cherishes\nhis venerable country, bemoans her condition, and has left his heart\nin her Capitol.\n\nRomans, listen to your fellow-citizen; listen to Rome and your\nancient valour.\n\n_L\u2019Italico valor non \u00e8 ancor morto._\n\n\n ARTICLE II.\n\nWhen I travelled among you, I wept to see the Zocolanti occupying\nthat very Capitol to which Paulus Emilus led King Perseus, the\ndescendant of Alexander, chained to his triumphal car; that temple\nto which the Scipios had brought the spoils of Carthage, and in\nwhich Pompey triumphed over Asia, Africa, and Europe. But even more\nbitter were my tears when I recalled the feast that C\u00e6sar spread for\nour ancestors on twenty-two thousand tables, and when I compared\nthe _congiaria_, that immense free distribution of corn, with the\nscanty and poor bread that you eat to-day, sold to you at so high a\nprice by the apostolic chamber. Alas! you cannot even sow your soil\nwithout the permission of these apostles; and, indeed, what have you\nwith which to sow it? There is not a citizen among you, save a few\nthat live in the Trastevere quarter, who has a plough. Your God fed\nfive thousand men, to say nothing of the women and children, with\nfive loaves and two gudgeons, according to St. John; four thousand\nmen, according to Matthew.[44] You, Romans, are made to swallow the\ngudgeon[45] without receiving any bread. The successors of Lucullus\nare reduced to the holy practice of fasting.\n\nYour climate has never changed, whatever be said to the contrary.\nWho, then, has so greatly changed your soil, your fortunes, and your\nspirit? Whence comes it that the whole country from the gates of\nRome to Ostia is inhabited only by reptiles? Why do we find that,\nfrom Montefiascone to Viterbo, and in the whole region through which\nthe Appian Way still leads to Naples, a vast desert has replaced the\nsmiling land that was once covered with palaces, gardens, harvests,\nand countless numbers of citizens? I sought the Forum Romanum of\nTrajan, that square once paved with reticulated marble, surrounded by\na colonnaded peristyle and adorned with a hundred statues; and what I\nfound was the Campo Vacino, the cattle-market, a market of lean and\nmilkless cows. And I asked myself: Where are those two million Romans\nwho once peopled this capital? I found that on the average only 3500\nchildren are now born annually in Rome. Setting aside Jews, priests,\nand foreigners, Rome cannot have one hundred thousand inhabitants.\nI asked of them: Whose is this splendid building that I see, girt\nabout with ruins? It belongs to the monks, they said. Here once was\nthe house of Augustus; there Cicero dwelt, and there Pompey. On their\nruins have arisen convents.\n\nI wept, Romans; and I think highly enough of you to believe that you\nweep with me.\n\n\n ARTICLE III.\n\nIt was explained to me that an aged priest, who has been appointed\npope by other priests, cannot find either the time or the will to\nrelieve your misery. He can think only of living. What interest\nshould he take in Romans? He is himself rarely a Roman. What care\nshould he take of an estate that will not pass to his children?\nRome is not his patrimony, as it was that of the C\u00e6sars. It is\nan ecclesiastical benefice; the papacy is a kind of commendatory\nabbey,[46] which each abbot ruins while he lives. The C\u00e6sars had\na real interest in seeing Rome flourish; the patricians, under\nthe Republic, had an even greater interest. No dignities could be\nobtained unless the people were won with benefits, cajoled by the\nappearance of virtue, or fired by great victories. A pope shuts\nhimself up with his money and his unleavened bread, and gives only\nhis blessing to the people that was once known as \u201cthe People King.\u201d\n\nYour misfortunes began with the transfer of the Empire of Rome to\nthe bounds of Thrace. Constantine, chosen emperor by a few barbaric\ncohorts in distant England, triumphed over the Maxentius chosen\nby you. Maxentius was drowned in the Tiber in the rout, and left\nthe Empire to his rival. But the conqueror went to hide himself\non the shores of the Black Sea; he could not have done more if he\nhad been beaten. Stained with debauch and crime, murderer of his\nfather-in-law, brother-in-law, nephew, son, and wife, abhorred by\nthe Romans, he abandoned the ancient religion under which they had\nconquered so many States, and cast himself into the arms of the\nChristians who had found the money to which he owed his crown.[47]\nHe thus betrayed the Empire as soon as he obtained it, and, in\ntransplanting to the Bosphorus the great tree that had sheltered\nEurope, Africa, and Asia Minor, he did fatal injury to its roots.\n\nYour next misfortune was this ecclesiastical maxim, quoted in a\ncelebrated French poem, \u201cLe Lutrin,\u201d and very gravely true: \u201cRuin\nthe world, if need be; it is the spirit of the Church.\u201d The Church\nfought the ancient religion of the Empire, and tore its own entrails\nin the struggle, dividing, with equal fury and imprudence, on a\nhundred incomprehensible questions of which none had ever heard\nbefore. The Christian sects, hounding each other with fire and sword\nfor metaphysical chim\u00e6ras and sophisms of the school, united to seize\nthe spoils of the priesthood founded by Numa. They did not rest until\nthey had destroyed the altar of Victory at Rome.\n\nSt. Ambrose, passing from the bar to the bishopric of Milan without\nbeing a deacon, and your Damasus, whom a schism made bishop of\nRome, profited by this fatal success. They secured the destruction\nof the altar of Victory, which had been set up on the Capitol[48]\nnearly eight hundred years before--a monument of the courage of your\nancestors, destined to maintain their valour in their descendants.\nThe emblematic figure of Victory was no object of idolatry, like\nyour statues of Antony of Padua (who \u201chears those whom God will not\nhear\u201d), of Francis of Assisi (who is represented over the door of a\nchurch at Rheims with this inscription: \u201cTo Francis and Jesus, both\ncrucified\u201d), of St. Crepin, St. Barbe, and so many others; or like\nthe blood of a score of saints (headed by your patron Januarius,\nwhom the rest of the earth knows not) that is liquefied at Naples on\ncertain days, or the prepuce and navel of Jesus, or the milk, and\nhair, and shift, and petticoat of his mother. These are idolatries,\nas disgusting as they are accredited. But this Victory, surmounting a\nglobe, with outspread wings, a sword in hand, and head crowned with\nlaurels, was merely the noble device of the Roman Empire, the symbol\nof virtue. Fanaticism robbed you of the pledge of your glory.\n\nWith what effrontery did these new enthusiasts dare to substitute\ntheir Rochs, and Fiacres, and Eustaces, and Ursulas, and Scholasticas\nfor Neptune, the ruler of the seas; Mars, the god of war; and Juno,\nthe ruler of the air, under the sovereignty of the great Zeus, the\neternal Demiourgos, master of the elements, the gods, and men! A\nthousand times more idolatrous than your ancestors, these maniacs\nbade you worship the bones of the dead. These plagiarists of\nantiquity borrowed the lustral water of the Romans and Greeks, their\nprocession, the confession that was made in the mysteries of Ceres\nand Isis, their incense, libations, hymns, and the very garments of\ntheir priests. They spoiled the old religion, and clad themselves in\nits vesture. Even to-day they bow down before the statues of unknown\nmen, while they heap reproaches on a Pericles, a Solon, a Miltiades,\na Cicero, a Scipio, or a Cato for bending the knee before these\nemblems of divinity.\n\nNay, is there a single episode in the Old or the New Testament that\nhas not been copied from the ancient mythologies of India, Chald\u00e6a,\nEgypt, and Greece? Is not the sacrifice of Idomene the plain source\nof that of Jephtha? Is not the roe of Iphigenia the ram of Isaac? Do\nyou not recognise Eurydice in Edith, the wife of Lot? Minerva and the\nwinged horse Pegasus drew fountains from the rocks when they struck\nthem; the same prodigy is ascribed to Moses. Bacchus had crossed the\nRed Sea dry-shod before he did, and he had caused the sun and moon\nto stand still before Joshua. We have the same legends, the same\nextravagances, on every side.\n\nThere is not a single miraculous action in the gospels that you will\nnot find in much earlier writers. The goat Amalth\u00e6a had a horn of\nplenty long before it was said that Jesus had fed five thousand men,\nnot to speak of the women, with two fishes. The daughters of Anius\nhad changed water into wine and oil before there was any question\nof the marriage-feast of Cana. Athalide, Hippolytus, Alcestis,\nPelops, and Heres had returned to life long before men spoke of\nthe resurrection of Jesus; and Romulus was born of a vestal virgin\nmore than seven hundred years before Jesus began to be regarded as\nvirgin-born. Compare, and judge for yourselves.\n\n\n ARTICLE IV.\n\nWhen your altar of Victory had been destroyed, the barbarians came\nand finished the work of the priests. Rome became the prey and the\nsport of nations that it had so long ruled, if not repressed.\n\nIt is true that you still had consuls, a senate, municipal laws; but\nthe popes have robbed you of what the Huns and Goths had left you.\n\nIt was in earlier times unheard of that a priest should set up royal\nrights in any city of the Empire. It is well known all over Europe,\nexcept in your chancellery, that, until the time of Gregory VII.,\nyour pope was but a metropolitan bishop, subject to the Greek, then\nthe Frankish, emperors, and then to the house of Saxony; receiving\ninvestiture from them, compelled to send a profession of faith to\nthe bishops of Ravenna and Milan, as we read expressly in your\n_Diarium Romanum_. His title of \u201cpatriarch of the west\u201d gave him much\nprestige, but no sovereign rights. A priest-king was a blasphemy\nin a religion of which the founder expressly says in the gospels:\n\u201cThere shall be no first and last among you.\u201d Weigh well, Romans,\nthese other words that are put in the mouth of Jesus: \u201cTo sit on my\nright hand and on my left it is not mine to give, but for whom it is\nprepared of my father.\u201d[49] Know, moreover, that the Jews meant, and\nstill mean, by \u201cson of God\u201d a just man. Inquire of the eight thousand\nJews who sell old clothes, as they ever have done, in your city, and\npay close attention to the following words: \u201cWhosoever will be great\namong you, let him be your minister. The Son of Man came not to be\nministered unto, but to minister.\u201d[50]\n\nDo these clear and precise words mean that Boniface VIII. was bound\nto crush the Colonna family; that Alexander VI. was bound to poison\nso many Roman barons; or that the bishop of Rome received from God,\nin a time of anarchy, the duchy of Rome, Ferrara, Bologna, the March\nof Ancona, Castro, and Ronciglione, and all the country from Viterbo\nto Terracina, which have been wrested from their lawful owners? Think\nyou, Romans, that Jesus was sent on earth by God solely for the\nRezzonico?\n\n\n ARTICLE V.\n\nYou will ask me by what means this strange revolution of all divine\nand human laws was brought about. I am about to tell you; and I defy\nthe most zealous fanatic in whom there is still a spark of reason,\nand the most determined rogue who has still a trace of decency in his\nsoul, to resist the force of the truth, if he reads this important\ninquiry with the attention it deserves.\n\nIt is certain and undoubted that the earliest societies of the\nGalil\u00e6ans, afterwards called Christians, remained in obscurity, in\nthe mud of the cities; and it is certain that, when these Christians\nbegan to write, they entrusted their books only to those who had\nbeen initiated into their mysteries. They were not even given to the\ncatechumens, much less to partisans of the imperial religion. No\nRoman before the time of Trajan [98-117 A.D.] knew that the gospels\nexisted; no Greek or Latin writer has ever quoted the word \u201cgospel\u201d;\nPlutarch, Lucian, Petronius, and Apuleius, who speak of everything,\nare entirely ignorant of the existence of gospels. This proof, with\na hundred others, shows the absurdity of those authors who now hold,\nor pretend to hold, that the disciples of Jesus died for the truth\nof these gospels, of which the Romans did not hear a word during two\nhundred years. The half-Jew, half-Christian Galil\u00e6ans, separated from\nthe disciples of John, and from the Therapeuts, Essenians, Judaites,\nHerodians, Sadducees, and Pharisees, recruited their little flock\namong the lowest of the people, not, indeed, by means of books, but\nof speech, by catechising the women and girls (_Acts_ xvi., 13 and\n14) and children, and passing from town to town; in a word, like all\nother sects.\n\nTell me frankly, Romans, what your ancestors would have said if\nSt. Paul, or Simon Barjona, or Matthias, or Matthew, or Luke, had\nappeared in the Senate and said: \u201cOur God, Jesus, who passed as\nthe son of a carpenter during life, was born in the year 752 from\nthe foundation of Rome, under the governorship of Cyrenius (_Luke_\nii., 2), in a Jewish village called Bethlehem, to which his father\nJoseph and his mother Mariah had gone to be included in the census\nwhich Augustus had ordered. This God was born in a stable, between\nan ox and an ass.[51] The angels came down from heaven and informed\nthe peasants of his birth; a new star appeared in the heavens, and\nled to him three kings or wise men from the east, who brought him a\ntribute of incense, myrrh, and gold; but in spite of this gold he was\npoor throughout life. Herod, who was then dying, and whom you had\nmade king, having learned that the new-born child was king of the\nJews, had fourteen thousand new-born infants of the district put to\ndeath, to make sure that the king was included (_Matthew_ ii., 16).\nHowever, one of our writers inspired by God says that the God-king\nchild fled to Egypt; and another writer, equally inspired by God,\nsays that the child remained at Bethlehem (_Luke_ ii., 39). One of\nthese sacred and infallible writers draws up a royal genealogy for\nhim; another composes for him an entirely different royal genealogy.\nJesus preaches to the peasants, and turns water into wine for them at\na marriage feast. Jesus is taken by the devil up into a mountain. He\ndrives out devils, and sends them into the body of two thousand pigs\nin Galilee, where there never were any pigs. He greatly insulted the\nmagistrates, and the pr\u00e6tor Pontius had him executed. When he had\nbeen executed, he manifested his divinity. The earth trembled; the\ndead left their graves, and walked about in the city before the eyes\nof Pontius. There was an eclipse of the sun at midday, at a time of\nfull moon, although that is impossible. He rose again secretly, went\nup to heaven, and sent down another god, who fell on the heads of his\ndisciples in tongues of fire. May these same tongues fall on your\nheads, conscript fathers; become Christians.\u201d\n\nIf the lowest official in the Senate had condescended to answer this\ndiscourse, he would have said: \u201cYou are weak-minded rogues, and ought\nto be put in the asylum for the insane. You lie when you say that\nyour God was born in the year of Rome 752, under the governorship of\nCyrenius, the proconsul of Syria. Cyrenius did not govern Syria until\nmore than ten years afterwards, as our registers prove. Quintilius\nVarus was at that time proconsul of Syria.\n\n\u201cYou lie when you say that Augustus ordered a census of \u2018all the\nworld.\u2019 You must be very ignorant not to know that Augustus was\nmaster only of one tenth of the world. If by \u2018all the world\u2019 you\nmean the Roman Empire, know that neither Augustus nor anybody else\never undertook such a census. Know that there was but one single\nenumeration of the citizens of Rome and its territory under Augustus,\nand that the number amounted to four million citizens; and unless\nyour carpenter Joseph and his wife Mariah brought forth your God in\na suburb of Rome, and this Jewish carpenter was a Roman citizen, he\ncannot possibly have been included.\n\n\u201cYou are telling a ridiculous untruth with your three kings and new\nstar, and the little massacred children, and the dead rising again\nand walking in the streets under the eyes of Pontius Pilate, who\nnever wrote us a word about it, etc., etc.\n\n\u201cYou are lying when you speak of an eclipse of the sun at a time of\nfull moon. Our pr\u00e6tor Pontius Pilate would have written to us about\nit, and we, together with all the nations of the earth, would have\nwitnessed this eclipse. Return to your work, you fanatical peasants,\nand thank the Senate that it has too much disdain to punish you.\u201d\n\n\n ARTICLE VI.\n\nIt is clear that the first half-Jewish Christians took care not to\naddress themselves to the Roman Senators, nor to any man of position\nor any one above the lowest level of the people. It is well known\nthat they appealed only to the lowest class. To these they boasted\nof healing nervous diseases, epilepsy, and uterine convulsions,\nwhich ignorant folk, among the Romans as well as among the Jews,\nEgyptians, Greeks, and Syrians, regarded as the work of charms or\ndiabolical possession. There must assuredly have been some cases of\nhealing. Some were cured in the name of Esculapius, and we have since\ndiscovered at Rome a monument of a miracle of Esculapius, with the\nnames of the witnesses. Others were healed in the name of Isis, or\nof the Syrian goddess; others in the name of Jesus, etc. The common\npeople healed in one of these names believed in those who propagated\nit.\n\n\n ARTICLE VII.\n\nThus the Christians made progress among the people by a device that\ninvariably seduces ignorant folk. But they had a still more powerful\nmeans. They declaimed against the rich. They preached community of\ngoods; in their secret meetings they enjoined their neophytes to give\nthem the little money they had earned; and they quoted the alleged\ninstance of Sapphira and Ananias (_Acts_ v., 1-11), whom Simon\nBarjona, called Cephas, which means Peter, caused to die suddenly\nbecause they had kept a crown to themselves--the first and most\ndetestable example of priestly covetousness.\n\nBut they would not have succeeded in extorting the money of their\nneophytes if they had not preached the doctrine of the cynic\nphilosophers--the idea of voluntary poverty. Even this, however, was\nnot enough to form a new flock. The end of the world had been long\nannounced. You will find it in Epicurus and Lucretius, his chief\ndisciple. Ovid had said, in the days of Augustus:\n\n Esse quoque in fatis meminisceret adfore tempus,\n Quo mare, quo tellus, correptaque regio coeli\n Ardeat, et mundi moles operosa laboret.[52]\n\nAccording to others, the world had been made by a fortuitous\nconcourse of atoms, and would be destroyed by another fortuitous\nconcourse, as we find in the poems of Lucretius.\n\nThis idea came originally from the Brahmans of India. Many Jews had\nadopted it by the time of Herod. It is formally stated in the gospel\nof Luke, as you have seen; it is in Paul\u2019s epistles; and it is in all\nthose who are known as fathers of the Church. The world was about\nto be destroyed, it was thought; and the Christians announced a new\nJerusalem, which was seen in the air by night.[53] The Jews talked of\nnothing but a new kingdom of heaven; it was the system of John the\nBaptist, who had introduced on the Jordan the ancient Hindoo practice\nof baptism in the Ganges. Baptism was practised by the Egyptians, and\nadopted by the Jews. This new kingdom of heaven, to which the poor\nalone would be admitted, was preached by Jesus and his followers.\nThey threatened with eternal torment those who would not believe in\nthe new heaven. This hell, invented by the first Zoroaster, became\none of the chief points of Egyptian theology.[54] From the latter\ncame the barque of Charon, Cerberus, the river Lethe, Tartarus, and\nthe Furies. From Egypt the idea passed to Greece, and from there to\nthe Romans; the Jews were unacquainted with it until the time when\nthe Pharisees preached it, shortly before the reign of Herod. It was\none of their contradictions to admit both hell and metempsychosis\n(transmigration of souls); but who would look for reasoning among the\nJews? Their powers in that direction are confined to money matters.\nThe Sadducees and Samaritans rejected the immortality of the soul,\nbecause it is not found anywhere in the Mosaic law.\n\nThis was the great spring which the early Christians, all\nhalf-Jewish, relied upon to put the new machinery in action:\ncommunity of goods, secret meals, hidden mysteries, gospels read to\nthe initiated only, paradise for the poor, hell for the rich, and\nexorcisms by charlatans. Here, in strict truth, we have the first\nfoundations of the Christian sect. If I deceive you--or, rather, if\nI deliberately deceive you--I pray the God of the universe, the God\nof all men, to wither the hand that writes this, to shatter with his\nlightning a head that is convinced of the existence of a good and\njust God, and to tear out from me a heart that worships him.\n\n\n ARTICLE VIII.\n\nLet us now, Romans, consider the artifices, roguery, and forgery\nto which the Christians themselves have given the name of \u201cpious\nfrauds\u201d; frauds that have cost you your liberty and your goods, and\nhave brought down the conquerors of Europe to a most lamentable\nslavery. I again take God to witness that I will say no word that\nis not amply proved. If I wished to use all the arms of reason\nagainst fanaticism, all the piercing darts of truth against error, I\nshould speak to you first of that prodigious number of contradictory\ngospels which your popes themselves now recognise to be false. They\nshow, at least, that there were forgers among the first Christians.\nThis, however, is very well known. I have to tell you of impostures\nthat are not generally known, and are a thousand times more\npernicious.\n\n\n _First Imposture_\n\nIt is a very ancient superstition that the last words of the dying\nare prophetic, or are, at least, sacred maxims and venerable\nprecepts. It was believed that the soul, about to dissolve the union\nwith the body and already half united to the Deity, had a cloudless\nvision of the future and of truth. Following this prejudice, the\nJud\u00e6o-Christians forge, in the first century of the Church, the\n_Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs_, written in Greek, to serve as\na prediction or a preparation for the new kingdom of Jesus. In the\ntestament of Reuben we find these words: \u201cAdore his seed, for he will\ndie for you, in wars visible and invisible, and he will be your king\nfor ever.\u201d This prophecy is applied to Jesus, in the usual way of\nthose who wrote fifty-four gospels in various places, and who nearly\nall endeavoured to find in Jewish writers, especially those who were\ncalled prophets, passages that could be twisted in favour of Jesus.\nThey even added some that are clearly recognised as false. The author\nof the _Testament of the Patriarchs_ is one of the most impudent and\nclumsy forgers that ever spoiled good parchment. His book was written\nin Alexandria, in the school of a certain Mark.\n\n\n _Second Chief Imposture_\n\nThey forged letters from the king of Edessa to Jesus, and from Jesus\nto this supposed prince. There was no king at Edessa, which was a\ntown under the Syrian governor; the petty prince of Edessa never had\nthe title of king. Moreover, it is not said in any of the gospels\nthat Jesus could write; and if he could, he would have left some\nproof of it to his disciples. Hence these letters are now declared by\nall scholars to be forgeries.\n\n\n _Third Chief Imposture_\n\n (_which contains several_)\n\nThey forged _Acts of Pilate_, letters of Pilate, and even a history\nof Pilate\u2019s wife. The letters of Pilate are especially interesting.\nHere is a fragment of one:\n\n\u201cIt happened a short time ago, and I have verified it, that the Jews\nin their envy drew on themselves a cruel condemnation. Their God\nhaving promised that he would send his holy one to them from heaven\nto be their legitimate king, and that he should be born of a virgin,\ndid indeed send him when I was procurator in Jud\u00e6a. The leaders of\nthe Jews denounced him to me as a magician. I believed it, and had\nhim scourged, and handed him over to them; and they crucified him.\nThey put guards about his tomb, but he rose again the third day.\u201d\n\nTo this forgery I may add that of the rescript of Tiberius to the\nSenate, to raise Jesus to the rank of the imperial gods, and the\nridiculous letters of the philosopher Seneca to Paul, and of Paul to\nSeneca, written in barbaric Latin; also the letters of the Virgin\nMary to St. Ignatius, and many other clumsy fictions of the same\nnature. I will not draw out this list of impostures. It would amaze\nyou if I enumerated them one by one.\n\n\n _Fourth Imposture_\n\nThe boldest, perhaps, and clumsiest of these forgeries is that of the\nprophecies attributed to the Sibyls, foretelling the incarnation,\nmiracles, and death of Jesus, in acrostic verse. This piece of\nfolly, unknown to the Romans, fed the belief of the catechumens. It\ncirculated among us for eight centuries, and we still sing in one of\nour hymns[55] \u201cteste David cum Sibylla\u201d [witness David and the Sibyl].\n\nYou are astonished, no doubt, that this despicable comedy was\nmaintained so long, and that men could be led with such a bridle as\nthat. But as the Christians were plunged in the most stupid barbarism\nfor fifteen hundred years, as books were very rare and theologians\nvery astute, one could say anything at all to poor wretches who would\nbelieve anything at all.\n\n\n _Fifth Imposture_\n\nIllustrious and unfortunate Romans, before we come to the pernicious\nuntruths which have cost you your liberty, your property, and your\nglory, and put you under the yoke of a priest; before I speak to you\nof the alleged pontificate of Simon Barjona, who is said to have been\nbishop of Rome for twenty-five years, you must be informed of the\n\u201cApostolic Constitutions,\u201d the first foundation of the hierarchy that\ncrushes you to-day.\n\nAt the beginning of the second century there was no such thing as an\n_episcopos_ (\u201coverseer\u201d) or bishop, clothed with real dignity for\nlife, unalterably attached to a certain see, and distinguished from\nother men by his clothes; bishops, in fact, dressed like ordinary\nlaymen until the middle of the fifth century. The meeting was held\nin a chamber of some retired house. The minister was chosen by the\ninitiated, and continued his work as long as they were satisfied.\nThere were no altars, candles, or incense; the earliest fathers of\nthe Church speak of altars and temples with a shudder.[56] They were\ncontent to make a collection and sup together. When the Christian\nsociety had grown, however, ambition set up an hierarchy. How did\nthey go about it? The rogues who led the enthusiasts made them\nbelieve that they had discovered the apostolic constitutions written\nby St. John and St. Matthew: \u201cqu\u00e6 ego Matth\u00e6us et Joannes vobis\ntradidimus [which I, Matthew, and John have given you].\u201d[57] In these\nMatthew is supposed to say (II., xxxvi.): \u201cBe ye careful not to\njudge your bishop, for it is given to the priests alone to judge.\u201d\nMatthew and John say (II., xxxiv.): \u201cAs much as the soul is above\nthe body, so much higher is the priesthood than royalty; consider\nyour bishop as a king, an absolute master (_dominum_); give him your\nfruits, your works, your firstlings, your tithes, your savings, the\nfirst and tenth part of your wine, oil, and corn, etc.\u201d Again (II.,\nxxx.): \u201cLet the bishop be a god to you, and the deacon a prophet\u201d;\nand (II., xxxviii.): \u201cIn the festivals let the deacon have a double\nportion, and the priest double that of the deacon; and if they be not\nat table, send the portions to them.\u201d\n\nYou see, Romans, the origin of your custom of spreading your tables\nto give indigestion to your pontiffs. Would to God they had confined\nthemselves to the sin of gluttony.\n\nYou will further observe with care, in regard to this imposture\nof the constitutions of the apostles, that it is an authentic\nmonument of the dogmas of the second century, and that forgery at\nleast does homage to truth in maintaining a complete silence about\ninnovations that could not be foreseen--innovations with which you\nhave been deluged century after century. You will find, in this\nsecond-century document, neither trinity, nor consubstantiality, nor\ntransubstantiation, nor auricular confession. You will not find in\nit that the mother of Jesus was the mother of God, that Jesus had\ntwo natures and two wills, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the\nfather and the son. All these singular ornaments of imagination,\nunknown to the religion of the gospels, have been added since to the\ncrude structure which fanaticism and ignorance raised up in the first\ncenturies.\n\nYou will assuredly find in it three persons, but not three persons\nin one God. Read with all the acuteness of your mind, the only\ntreasure that your tyrants have left you, the common prayer which the\nChristians, by the mouth of their bishop, offered in their meetings\nin the second century:\n\n\u201cO all-powerful, unengendered, inaccessible God, the one true God,\nfather of Christ thy only son, God of the paraclete, God of all, thou\nhast made the disciples of Christ doctors, etc.\u201d[58]\n\nHere, clearly, is one sole God who commands Christ and the paraclete\n[Holy Ghost]. Judge for yourselves if that has any resemblance to\nthe trinity and consubstantiality which were afterwards declared at\nNic\u00e6a, in spite of the strong protest of eighteen bishops and two\nthousand priests.[59]\n\nIn another place (III., xvi.) the author of the _Apostolic\nConstitutions_, who is probably a bishop of the Christians at Rome,\nsays expressly that the father is God above all.\n\nThat is the doctrine of Paul, finding expression so frequently in\nhis epistles. \u201cWe have peace in God through Our Lord Jesus Christ\u201d\n(_Romans_ v., 1). \u201cIf through the offence of one many be dead, much\nmore the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man,\nJesus Christ, hath abounded unto many\u201d (_Romans_ v., 15). \u201cWe are\nheirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ\u201d (_Romans_ viii., 17).\n\u201cReceive ye one another, as Christ also received us to the glory of\nGod\u201d (_Romans_ xv., 7). \u201cTo God only wise, be glory through Jesus\nChrist for ever\u201d (_Romans_ xvi., 27). \u201cThat the God of Our Lord Jesus\nChrist, the father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom\u201d\n(_Ephesians_ i., 17).\n\nThus does the Jew-Christian Saul Paul always express himself, and\nthus is Jesus himself made to speak in the gospels. \u201cMy Father is\ngreater than I\u201d (_John_ xiv., 28); that is to say, God can do what\nmen cannot do. All the Jews said \u201cmy father\u201d when they spoke of God.\n\nThe Lord\u2019s Prayer begins with the words \u201cOur Father.\u201d Jesus said: \u201cOf\nthat day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but\nmy Father only\u201d (_Matthew_ xxiv., 36); and \u201cThat is not mine to give,\nbut for whom it is prepared by my Father\u201d (_Matthew_ xx., 23). It\nis also very remarkable that when Jesus awaited arrest, and sweated\nblood and water, he cried out: \u201cFather, remove this cup from me\u201d\n(_Luke_ xxii., 42). No gospel has put into his mouth the blasphemy\nthat he was God, or consubstantial with God.\n\nYou will ask me, Romans, why and how he was made into a God in the\ncourse of time? I will ask you in turn why and how Bacchus, Perseus,\nHercules, and Romulus were made gods? In their case, moreover, the\nsacrilege did not go so far as to give them the title of supreme god\nand creator. This blasphemy was reserved for the Christian outgrowth\nof the Jewish sect.\n\n\n _Sixth Chief Imposture_\n\nI pass over the countless impostures of \u201cThe Travels of Simon\nBarjona,\u201d the \u201cGospel of Simon Barjona,\u201d his \u201cApocalypse,\u201d the\n\u201cApocalypse\u201d of Cerinthus (ridiculously attributed to John), the\nepistles of Barnaby, the \u201cGospel of the Twelve Apostles,\u201d their\nliturgies, the \u201cCanons of the Council of the Apostles,\u201d the\n\u201cApostles\u2019 Creed,\u201d the \u201cTravels of Matthew,\u201d the \u201cTravels of Thomas,\u201d\nand so many other vagaries that are now recognised to be the work of\nforgers, who passed them off under venerated Christian names.\n\nI will not insist much on the romance of the alleged Pope St.\nClement, who calls himself the first successor of St. Peter. I will\nnote only that Simon Barjona and he met an old man, who complained\nof the unfaithfulness of his wife, who had lain with his servant.\nClement asks how he learned it. \u201cBy my wife\u2019s horoscope,\u201d said the\ngood man, \u201cand from my brother, with whom she wished to lie, but he\nwould not.\u201d From these words Clement recognised his father in the old\nman.[60] From Peter Clement learned that he was of the blood of the\nC\u00e6sars. On such romances, Romans, was the papal power set up!\n\n\n _Seventh Chief Imposture_\n\n _On the Supposed Pontificate of Simon Barjona, Called Peter_\n\nWho was the first to say that Simon, the poor fisherman, came from\nGalilee to Rome, spoke Latin there (though he could not possibly know\nmore than his native dialect), and in the end was pope of Rome for\ntwenty-five years? It was a Syrian named Abdias, who lived about the\nend of the first century, and is said to have been bishop of Babylon\n(a good bishopric). He wrote in Syriac, and we have his work in a\nLatin translation by Julius the African. Listen well to what this\nintelligent writer says. He was an eye-witness, and his testimony is\nirrefragable.\n\nSimon Barjona Peter, having, he says, raised to life Tabitha, or\nDorcas, the sempstress of the apostles, and having been put in prison\nby the orders of King Herod (though there was no King Herod at the\ntime); and an angel having opened the doors of the prison for him\n(after the custom of angels), met, in C\u00e6sarea, the other Simon, of\nSamaria, known as the Magician (Magus), who also performed miracles.\nThey began to defy each other. Simon the Samaritan went off to the\nEmperor Nero at Rome. Simon Barjona followed him, and the emperor\nreceived them excellently. A cousin of the emperor had died, and it\nwas a question which of them could restore him to life. The Samaritan\nhas the honour of opening the ceremony. He calls upon God, and the\ndead man gives signs of life and shakes his head. Simon Peter calls\non Jesus Christ, and tells the dead man to rise; forthwith he does\nrise, and embraces Peter. Then follows the well-known story of the\ntwo dogs. Then Abdias tells how Simon flew in the air, and his rival\nSimon Peter brought him down. Simon the Magician broke his legs, and\nNero had Simon Peter crucified, head downwards, for breaking the legs\nof the other Simon.\n\nThis harlequinade was described, not only by Abdias, but by some one\nnamed Marcellus, and by a certain Hegesippus, whom Eusebius often\nquotes in his history. Pray notice, judicious Romans, how this Simon\nPeter may have reigned spiritually in your city for twenty-five\nyears. He came to it under Nero, according to the earliest writers of\nthe Church; he died under Nero; and Nero reigned only thirteen years.\n\nRead the _Acts of the Apostles_. Is there any question therein of\nPeter going to Rome? Not the least mention. Do you not see that,\nwhen the fiction began that Peter was the first of the apostles, it\nwas thought that the imperial city alone was worthy of him? See how\nclumsily you have been deluded in everything. Is it possible that the\nson of God, nay God himself, should have made use of a play on words,\na ridiculous pun, to make Simon Barjona the head of his Church: \u201cThou\nart Peter, and upon this rock [petra] I will build my Church.\u201d Had\nBarjona been called Pumpkin, Jesus might have said to him: \u201cThou art\nPumpkin, and Pumpkin shall henceforward be the king of the fruits in\nmy garden.\u201d[61]\n\nFor more than three hundred years the alleged successor of a Galilean\npeasant was unknown to Rome. Let us now see how the popes became your\nmasters.\n\n\n _Eighth Imposture_\n\nNo one who is acquainted with the history of the Greek and Latin\nChurches can be unaware that the metropolitan sees established their\nchief rights at the Council of Chalcedon, convoked in the year 451 by\nthe order of the Emperor Marcian and of Pulcheria [his wife], and\ncomposed of six hundred and thirty bishops. The senators who presided\nin the emperor\u2019s name had on their right the patriarchs of Alexandria\nand Jerusalem, on their left the patriarch of Constantinople and the\ndeputies of the patriarch of Rome. It was in virtue of the canons\nof this Council that the episcopal sees shared the dignities of the\ncities in which they were situated. The bishops of the two imperial\ncities, Rome and Constantinople, were declared to be the first\nbishops, with equal prerogatives, by the celebrated twenty-eighth\ncanon:\n\n\u201cThe fathers have justly granted prerogatives to the see of ancient\nRome, as to a reigning city, and the 150 bishops of the first Council\nof Constantinople, very dear to God, have for the same reason given\nthe same privileges to the new Rome; they have rightly thought that\nthis city, in which the Emperor and Senate reside, should be equal to\nit in all ecclesiastical matters.\u201d\n\nThe popes have always contested the authenticity of this canon; they\nhave twisted and perverted its whole meaning. What did they do at\nlength to evade this equality and gradually to destroy all the titles\nof subjection which placed them under the emperors like all other\nmen? They forged the famous donation of Constantine, which has been\nfor many centuries so strictly regarded as genuine that it was a\nmortal and unpardonable sin to doubt it, and whoever did so incurred\nthe greater excommunication by the very fact of doubting.\n\nA very pretty thing was this donation of Constantine to Bishop\nSylvester.\n\n\u201cWe,\u201d says the Emperor, \u201cwith all our satraps and the whole Roman\npeople, have thought it good to give to the successors of St. Peter\na greater power than that of our serene majesty.\u201d Do you not think,\nRomans, that the word \u201csatrap\u201d comes in very well there?\n\nWith equal authenticity, Constantine goes on, in this noble diploma,\nto say that he has put the Apostles Peter and Paul in large amber\ncaskets; that he has built the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul;\nthat he has given them vast domains in Jud\u00e6a, Greece, Thrace, Asia,\netc. (to maintain the luminary); that he has given to the pope his\nLateran palace, with chamberlains and guards; and that, lastly, he\ngives him, as a pure donation for himself and his successors, the\ncity of Rome, Italy, and all the western provinces; and all this is\ngiven to thank the Pope Sylvester for having cured him of leprosy,\nand having baptised him--though, in point of fact, he was baptised\nonly on his death-bed, by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia.\n\nNever was there a document more ridiculous from one end to the other,\nyet more accredited in the ignorant ages in which Europe was so long\ndetained after the fall of your empire.\n\n\n _Ninth Imposture_\n\nI pass over the thousand and one little daily impostures to come at\nonce to the great fraud of the Decretals.\n\nThese false Decretals were spread everywhere in the time of\nCharlemagne. In these, Romans, the better to rob you of your liberty,\nthe bishops are deprived of theirs; it is decreed that the bishop of\nRome shall be their only judge. Certainly, if he is the sovereign\nof the bishops, he should soon be yours; and that is what happened.\nThese false Decretals abolished the Councils, and even abolished your\nSenate, which became merely a court of justice, subject to the will\nof a priest. Here is the real source of the humiliation you have\nsuffered. Your rights and privileges, so long maintained by your\nwisdom, could be wrested from you only by untruth. Only by lying to\nGod and men did they succeed in making slaves of you; but they have\nnever extinguished the love of liberty in your hearts. The greater\nthe tyranny, the greater is that love. The sacred name of liberty is\nstill heard in your conversations and gatherings, and in the very\nantechamber of the pope.\n\n\n ARTICLE IX.\n\nC\u00e6sar was but your dictator; Augustus was content to be your general,\nconsul, and tribune; Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero left you your\nelections, your prerogatives, and your dignities; even the barbarians\nrespected them. You maintained your municipal government. Not by the\nauthority of your bishop, Gregory III., but of your own decision, you\noffered the dignity of patrician to the great Charles Martel, master\nof his king, conqueror of the Saracens in the year 741 of our faulty\nvulgar era.\n\nBelieve not that it was the Bishop Leo III. who made Charlemagne\nemperor; it is an absurd romance of the secretary Eginhard, a vile\nflatterer of the popes, who had won him. By what right and in what\nway could a subject bishop make an emperor? Emperors were created\nonly by the people, or by the armies that took the place of the\npeople.\n\nIt was you, people of Rome, who used your rights; you who would\nno longer depend on a Greek emperor, who gave you no aid; you who\nappointed Charlemagne, or he would have been a usurper. The annalists\nof the time agree that all was arranged by Carolo and your leading\nofficers, as is, indeed, most probable. Your bishop\u2019s only share in\nit was to conduct an empty ceremony and receive rich presents. The\nonly authority he had in your city was that of the prestige attaching\nto his mitre, his clergy, and his ability.\n\nBut while you gave yourselves to Charlemagne, you retained the\nelection of your officers. The police was in your hands; you kept\npossession of the mole of Adrian, so absurdly called in later times\nthe Castello Sant\u2019 Angelo; and you were not wholly enslaved until\nyour bishops seized that fortress.\n\nThey made their way step by step to that supreme greatness, so\nexpressly forbidden them by him whom they call their God, and of\nwhom they dare to call themselves the vicars. They had never any\njurisdiction in Rome under the Othos. Excommunication and intrigue\nwere their sole arms; and even when, in an age of anarchy, they\nbecame the real sovereigns, they never dared to assume the title. I\ndefy the astutest of those fabricators of titles who abound in your\ncourt to find a single one in which the pope is described as prince\nby the grace of God. A strange princedom, when one fears to avow it!\n\nThe imperial cities of Germany, which have bishops, are free; and\nyou, Romans, are not. The archbishop of Cologne has not even the\nright to sleep in that city; and your pope will hardly allow you to\nsleep in your own. The sultan of the Turks is far less despotic at\nConstantinople than the pope has become at Rome.\n\nYou perish miserably in the shade of superb colonnades. Your noble\nand faded paintings, and your dozen gems of ancient sculpture, bring\nyou neither a good dinner nor a good bed. The opulence is for your\nmasters: the indigence is for you. The lot of a slave among the\nancient Romans was a hundred times better than yours. _He_ might\nacquire a large fortune; _you_ are born serfs, you die serfs, and\nthe only oil you have is that of the Last Anointing. Slaves in body\nand in soul, your tyrants do not even allow you to read, in your own\ntongue, the book on which they say your religion is founded.\n\nAwake, Romans, at the call of liberty, truth, and nature. The cry\nrings over Europe. You must hear it. Break the chains that bind your\ngenerous hands--the chains forged by tyranny in the den of imposture.\n\n\n\n\n THE SERMON OF THE FIFTY\n\n\nFifty cultivated, pious, and reasonable persons have, for a year\npast, met every Sunday in a large commercial town. They have prayers,\nand then a member of the society gives a discourse. They afterwards\ndine, and a collection for the poor is made after dinner. Each\npresides in turn, and it is the duty of the president to offer the\nprayer and give the sermon. Here are one of the prayers and one of\nthe sermons.\n\nIf the seed of these words fall on good soil, it will assuredly bear\nfruit.\n\n\n PRAYER\n\nGod of all the globes and stars, the one prayer that it is meet\nto offer to you is submission. How can we ask anything of him who\narranged and enchained all things from the beginning? Yet if it is\npermitted to expose our needs to a father, preserve in our hearts\nthis feeling of submission and a pure religion. Keep from us all\nsuperstition. Since there are those who insult you with unworthy\nsacrifices, abolish those infamous mysteries. Since there are those\nwho dishonour the divinity with absurd fables, may those fables\nperish for ever. If the days of the prince and the magistrate were\nnot numbered from all eternity, give them length of days. Preserve\nthe purity of our ways, the friendship of our brethren for each\nother, their goodwill towards all men, their obedience to the laws,\nand their wisdom in private life. Let them live and die in the\nworship of one God, the rewarder of good, the punisher of evil; a God\nthat could not be born or die, nor have associates, but who has too\nmany rebellious children in this world.\n\n\n SERMON\n\nMy brethren, religion is the secret voice of God speaking to men.\nIt ought to unite men, not divide them; hence every religion that\nbelongs to one people only is false. Ours is, in principle, that of\nthe whole universe; for we worship a supreme being as all nations do,\nwe practise the justice which all nations teach, and we reject all\nthe untruths with which the nations reproach each other. At one with\nthem in the principle which unites them, we differ from them in the\nthings about which they are in conflict.\n\nThe point on which all men of all times agree must be the centre of\ntruth, and the points on which they all differ must be standards\nof falsehood. Religion must conform to morality, and, like it, be\nuniversal; hence every religion whose dogmas offend against morality\nis certainly false. It is under this twofold aspect of perversity\nand falseness that we will, in this discourse, examine the books of\nthe Hebrews and of those who have succeeded them. Let us first see\nif these books conform to morality; we shall then see if they have\nany shade of probability. The first two points will deal with the Old\nTestament; the third will discuss the New.\n\n\n _First Point_\n\nYou know, my brethren, what horror fell on us when we read together\nthe writings of the Hebrews, confining our attention to those\nfeatures which offend against purity, charity, good faith, justice,\nand reason--features which one not only finds in every chapter, but,\nunhappily, one finds consecrated in them.\n\nFirst, to say nothing of the extravagant injustice which they\nventure to ascribe to the supreme being, in endowing a serpent with\nspeech in order to seduce a woman and her innocent posterity, let\nus run over in succession all the historical horrors which outrage\nnature and good sense. One of the patriarchs, Lot, the nephew of\nAbraham, receives in his house two angels disguised as pilgrims; the\ninhabitants of Sodom entertain impure desires of these angels; Lot,\nwho had two daughters promised in marriage, offers to abandon them\nto the people instead of the two strangers. These young women must\nhave been strangely familiar with evil ways, since the first thing\nthey do after the destruction of their town by a rain of fire, and\nafter their mother has been changed into a pillar of salt, is to\nintoxicate their father on two consecutive nights, in order to sleep\nwith him in succession. It is an imitation of the ancient Arabic\nlegend of Cyniras and Myrrha. But in this more decent legend Myrrha\nis punished for her crime, while the daughters of Lot are rewarded\nwith what is, in Jewish eyes, the greatest and dearest blessing: they\nbecome the mothers of a numerous posterity.\n\nWe will not insist on the falsehood of Isaac, the father of the just,\nwho says that his wife is his sister; whether he was merely repeating\nthe falsehood of Abraham, or Abraham was really guilty of taking his\nsister to wife. But let us dwell for a moment on the patriarch Jacob,\nwho is offered to us as a model man. He compels his brother, who is\ndying of hunger, to give up his birthright for a dish of lentils. He\nafterwards deceives his aged father on his death-bed. After deceiving\nhis father, he deceives and robs his father-in-law Laban. Not content\nwith wedding two sisters, he lies with all his servants; and God\nblesses this licentiousness and trickery. Who are the children of\nsuch a father? His daughter Dinah pleases a prince of Sichem, and\nit is probable that she loves the prince, since she lies with him.\nThe prince asks her in marriage, and she is promised on condition\nthat he and all his people are circumcised. The prince accepts the\ncondition; but as soon as he and his people undergo this painful\noperation--which, nevertheless, leaves them strong enough to defend\nthemselves--Jacob\u2019s family murder all the men of Sichem and enslave\ntheir women and children.\n\nWe have in our infancy heard the story of Pelop\u00e6us. This incestuous\nabomination is repeated in Judah, the patriarch and father of the\nfirst tribe. He lies with his daughter-in-law, and then wishes to\nhave her killed. The book declares that then Joseph, a child of this\nvagabond family, is sold into Egypt, and that, foreigner as he is,\nhe is made first minister as a reward for explaining a dream. What a\nfirst minister he was, compelling a whole nation to enslave itself,\nduring a time of famine, to obtain food! What magistrate among us\nwould, in time of famine, dare to propose so abominable a bargain,\nand what nation would accept it? Let us not stay to examine how\nseventy members of the family of Joseph, who settled in Egypt, could\nin two hundred and fifteen years increase to six hundred thousand\nfighting men, without counting the women, old men, and children,\nwhich would make a total of more than two millions. Let us not\ndiscuss how it is that the text has four hundred and thirty years,\nwhen the same text has given two hundred and fifteen. The infinite\nnumber of contradictions, which are the seal of imposture, is not\nthe point which we are considering. Let us likewise pass over the\nridiculous prodigies of Moses and of Pharaoh\u2019s magicians, and all the\nmiracles wrought to give the Jewish people a wretched bit of poor\ncountry, which they afterwards purchase by blood and crime, instead\nof giving them the fertile soil of Egypt, where they were. Let us\nconfine ourselves to the frightful iniquity of their ways.\n\nTheir God had made a thief of Jacob, and he now makes thieves of the\nentire people. He orders his people to steal and take away with them\nall the gold and silver vessels and utensils of the Egyptians. Behold\nthese wretches, to the number of six hundred thousand fighting men,\ninstead of taking up arms like men of spirit, flying like brigands\nled by their God. If their God had wished to give them a good\ncountry, he might have given them Egypt. He does not, however; he\nleads them into a desert. They might have fled by the shortest route,\nyet they go far out of their way to cross the Red Sea dry-foot. After\nthis fine miracle Moses\u2019 own brother makes them another god, and this\ngod is a calf. To punish his brother Moses commands certain priests\nto kill their sons, brothers, and fathers; and they kill twenty-three\nthousand Jews, who let themselves be slain like cattle.\n\nAfter this butchery it is not surprising to hear that this abominable\npeople sacrifices human victims to its god, whom it calls Adonai,\nborrowing the name of Adonis from the Ph\u0153nicians. The twenty-ninth\nverse of chapter xxvii. of _Leviticus_ expressly forbids the\nredemption of those who are destined for sacrifice, and it is in\nvirtue of this cannibalistic law that Jephthah, some time afterwards,\noffers up his own daughter.\n\nIt was not enough to slay twenty-three thousand men for a calf; we\nhave again twenty-four thousand sacrificed for having intercourse\nwith idolatrous women. It is, my brethren, a worthy prelude and\nexample of persecution on the ground of religion.\n\nThis people advances in the deserts and rocks of Palestine. Here is\nyour splendid country, God says to them. Slay all the inhabitants,\nkill all the male infants, make an end of their married women, keep\nthe young girls for yourselves. All this is carried out to the\nletter, according to the Hebrew books; and we should shudder at the\naccount, if the text did not add that the Jews found in the camp\nof the Midianites 675,000 sheep, 62,000 cattle, 61,000 asses, and\n32,000 girls. Happily, the absurdity undoes the barbarism. Once\nmore, however, I am not concerned here with what is ridiculous and\nimpossible; I select only what is execrable. Having passed the Jordan\ndry-shod, as they crossed the sea, we find our people in the promised\nland.\n\nThe first person to let in this holy people, by an act of treachery,\nis Rahab, a strange character for God to associate with himself.\nHe levels the walls of Jericho at the sound of the trumpet; the\nholy people enters the town--to which it had no right, on its own\nconfession--and slays the men, women, and children. Let us pass over\nthe other carnages, the crucifixion of kings, the supposed wars\nagainst the giants of Gaza and Ascalon, and the murder of those who\ncould not pronounce the word \u201cShibboleth.\u201d\n\nListen to this fine story.\n\nA Levite, with his wife, arrives on his ass at Gibeah, in the tribe\nof Benjamin. Some of the Benjamites, who are bent on committing\nthe sin of sodomy with the Levite, turn their brutality upon the\nwoman, who dies of the violence. Were the culprits punished? Not\nat all. The eleven tribes slaughtered the whole tribe of Benjamin;\nonly six hundred men escaped. But the eleven tribes are afterwards\nsorry to see a tribe perish, and, to restore it, they exterminate\nthe inhabitants of one of their own towns in order to take from it\nsix hundred girls, whom they give to the six hundred Benjamites who\nsurvive to perpetuate this splendid race.\n\nHow many crimes committed in the name of the Lord! We will give\nonly that of the man of God (Ehud). The Jews, having come so far to\nconquer, are subject to the Philistines. In spite of the Lord, they\nhave sworn obedience to King Eglon. A holy Jew, named Ehud, asks\npermission to speak in private with the king on the part of God. The\nking does not fail to grant the audience. Ehud assassinates him,\nand his example has been used many times by Christians to betray,\ndestroy, or massacre so many sovereigns.\n\nAt length this chosen nation, which had thus been directed by God\nhimself, desires to have a king; which greatly displeases the priest\nSamuel. The first Jewish king renews the custom of immolating men.\nSaul prudently enjoined that his soldiers should not eat on the day\nthey fought the Philistines, to give them more vigour; he swore to\nthe Lord that he would immolate to him any man who ate. Happily, the\npeople were wiser than he; they would not suffer the king\u2019s son to\nbe sacrificed for eating a little honey. But listen, my brethren, to\nthis most detestable, yet most consecrated, act. It is said that Saul\ntakes prisoner a king of the country, named Agag. He did not kill his\nprisoner; he acted as is usual in humane and civilised nations. What\nhappened? The Lord is angry, and Samuel, priest of the Lord, says to\nSaul: \u201cYou are reprobate for having spared a king who surrendered to\nyou.\u201d And the priestly butcher at once cuts Agag into pieces. What\nwould you say, my brethren, if, when the Emperor Charles V. had a\nFrench king in his hands, his chaplain came and said to him: \u201cYou\nare damned for not killing Francis I.,\u201d and proceeded to cut the\nFrench king to pieces before the eyes of the emperor?\n\nWhat will you say of the holy King David, the king who found favour\nin the eyes of the God of the Jews, and merited to be an ancestor\nof the Messiah? This good king is at first a brigand, capturing and\npillaging all he finds. Among others, he despoils a rich man named\nNabal, marries his wife, and flies to King Achish. During the night\nhe descends upon the villages of King Achish, his benefactor, with\nfire and sword. He slaughters men, women, and children, says the\nsacred text, lest there be any one left to take the news. When he is\nmade king he ravishes the wife of Uriah, and has the husband put to\ndeath; and it is from this adulterous homicide that the Messiah--God\nhimself--descends. What blasphemy! This David, who thus becomes an\nancestor of God as a reward of his horrible crime, is punished for\nthe one good and wise action which he did. There is no good and\nprudent prince who ought not to know the number of his people, as\nthe shepherd should know the number of his flock. David has them\nenumerated--though we are not told what the number was--and for\nmaking this wise and useful enumeration a prophet comes from God to\ngive him the choice of war, pestilence, or famine.\n\nLet us not linger, my dear brethren, over the numberless barbarities\nof the kings of Judah and Israel--their murders and outrages, mixed\nup always with ridiculous stories; though even the ridiculous in\nthem is always bloody, and not even the prophet Elisha is free from\nbarbarism. This worthy devotee has forty children devoured by bears\nbecause the innocent youngsters had called him \u201cbald.\u201d Let us leave\nthis atrocious nation in the Babylonian captivity and in its bondage\nto the Romans, with all the fine promises of their god Adonis or\nAdonai, who had so often promised the Jews the sovereignty of the\nearth. In fine, under the wise government of the Romans, a king is\nborn to the Hebrews. You know, my brethren, who this king, _shilo_,\nor Messiah is; it is he who, after being at first numbered among\nthe prophets without a mission, who, though not priests, made a\nprofession of inspiration, was, after some centuries, regarded as a\ngod. We need go no farther; let us see on what pretexts, what facts,\nwhat miracles, what prophecies--in a word, on what foundation, this\ndisgusting and abominable history is based.\n\n\n _Second Point_\n\nO God, if thou thyself didst descend upon the earth, and didst\ncommand me to believe this tissue of murders, thefts, assassinations,\nand incests committed by thy order and in thy name, I should say to\nthee: No; thy sanctity cannot ask me to acquiesce in these horrible\nthings that outrage thee. Thou seekest, no doubt, to try me.\n\nHow, then, my virtuous and enlightened hearers, could we accept this\nfrightful story on the wretched evidence which is offered in support\nof it?\n\nRun briefly over the books that have been falsely attributed to\nMoses. I say falsely, since it is not possible for Moses to have\nwritten about things that happened long after his time. None of us\nwould believe that the memoirs of William, Prince of Orange, were\nwritten with his own hand if there were allusions in these memoirs\nto things that happened after his death. Let us see what is narrated\nin the name of Moses. First, God created the light, which he calls\n\u201cday\u201d; then the darkness, which he calls \u201cnight,\u201d and it was the\nfirst day. Thus there were days before the sun was made.\n\nOn the sixth day God makes man and woman; but the author, forgetting\nthat woman has been made already, afterwards derives her from one of\nAdam\u2019s ribs. Adam and Eve are put in a garden from which four rivers\nissue; and of these rivers there are two, the Euphrates and the\nNile, which have their sources a thousand miles from each other. The\nserpent then spoke like a man; it was the most cunning of animals.\nIt persuades the woman to eat an apple, and so has her driven from\nparadise. The human race increases, and the children of God fall in\nlove with the daughters of men. There were giants on the earth, and\nGod was sorry that he had made man. He determined to exterminate him\nby a flood; but wished to save Noah, and ordered him to make a vessel\nof poplar wood, three hundred cubits in length. Into this vessel were\nto be brought seven pairs of all the clean animals, and two pairs of\nthe unclean. It was necessary to feed them during the ten months that\nthe water covered the earth. You can imagine what would be needed to\nfeed fourteen elephants, fourteen camels, fourteen buffaloes, and\nas many horses, asses, deer, serpents, ostriches--in a word, more\nthan two thousand species.[62] You will ask me whence came the water\nto cover the whole earth and rise fifteen cubits above the highest\nmountains? The text replies that it came from the cataracts of\nheaven. Heaven knows where these cataracts are. After the deluge God\nenters into an alliance with Noah and with all the animals; and in\nconfirmation of this alliance he institutes the rainbow.\n\nThose who wrote these things were not, as you perceive, great\nphysicists. However, here is Noah with a religion given to him by\nGod, and this religion is neither Jewish nor Christian. The posterity\nof Noah seeks to build a tower that shall reach to heaven. A fine\nenterprise! But God fears it, and causes the workers suddenly to\nspeak several different tongues, and they disperse. The whole is\nwritten in this ancient oriental vein.\n\nA rain of fire converts towns into a lake; Lot\u2019s wife is changed into\na salt statue; Jacob fights all night with an angel, and is hurt in\nthe leg; Joseph, sold as a slave into Egypt, is made first minister\nbecause he explains a dream. Seventy members of the family settle in\nEgypt, and in two hundred and fifteen years, as we saw, multiply into\ntwo millions. It is these two million Hebrews who fly from Egypt, and\ngo the longest way in order to have the pleasure of crossing the sea\ndry-shod.\n\nBut there is nothing surprising about this miracle. Pharaoh\u2019s\nmagicians performed some very fine miracles. Like Moses, they changed\na rod into a serpent, which is a very simple matter. When Moses\nchanged water into blood, they did the same. When he brought frogs\ninto existence, they imitated him. But they were beaten when it came\nto the plague of lice; on that subject the Jews knew more than other\nnations.\n\nIn the end Adonai causes the death of each first-born in Egypt in\norder to allow his people to leave in peace. The sea divides to let\nthem pass; it was the least that could be done on such an occasion.\nThe remainer is on the same level. The people cry out in the desert.\nSome of the husbands complain of their wives; at once a water is\nfound which causes any woman who has forfeited her honour to swell\nand burst. They have neither bread nor paste; quails and manna are\nrained on them. Their garments last forty years, and grow with the\nchildren. Apparently clothes descend from heaven for the new-born\nchildren.\n\nA prophet of the district seeks to curse the people, but his ass\nopposes the project, together with an angel, and the ass speaks very\nreasonably and at great length to the prophet.\n\nWhen they attack a town, the walls fall at the sound of trumpets;\njust as Amphion built walls to the sound of the flute. But the\nfinest miracle is when five Amorite kings--that is to say, five\nvillage sheiks--attempt to oppose the ravages of Joshua. They are\nnot merely vanquished and cut to pieces, but the Lord sends a great\nrain of stones upon the fugitives. Even that is not enough. A few\nescape, and, in order to give the Israelites time to pursue them,\nnature suspends its eternal laws. The sun halts at Gibeon, and the\nmoon at Aijalon. We do not quite understand how the moon comes in,\nbut the books of Joshua leave no room for doubt as to the fact. Now\nlet us pass to other miracles, and go on to Samson, who is depicted\nas a famous plunderer, a friend of God. Samson routs a thousand\nPhilistines with the jawbone of an ass, because he is not shaved, and\nties by the tails three hundred foxes which he found in a certain\nplace.\n\nThere is hardly a page that does not contain similar stories. In one\nplace it is the shade of Samuel appearing in response to the voice\nof a witch; in another it is the shadow on a sun-dial (assuming that\nthese miserable folk had sun-dials) receding ten degrees at the\nprayer of Hezekiah, who prudently asks for this sign. God gives him\nthe alternatives of advancing or retarding the hour, and Dr. Hezekiah\nthinks that it is not difficult to put the shadow on, but very\ndifficult to put it back.\n\nElias rises to heaven in a fiery chariot; children sing in a fiery\nfurnace. I should never come to an end if I wished to enter into all\nthe details of the unheard-of extravagances that swarm in this book.\nNever was common-sense assailed with such indecency and fury.\n\nSuch is, from one end to the other, the Old Testament, the father\nof the New, a father who disavows his child and regards it as a\nrebellious bastard; for the Jews, faithful to the law of Moses,\nregard with detestation the Christianity that has been reared on the\nruins of their law. The Christians, however, have with great subtlety\nsought to justify the New Testament by the Old. The two religions\nthus fight each other with the same weapons; they invoke the same\nprophets and appeal to the same predictions.\n\nWill the ages to come, which will have seen the passing of these\nfollies, yet may, unhappily, witness the rise of others not less\nunworthy of God and men, believe that Judaism and Christianity\nbased their claims on such foundations and such prophecies? What\nprophecies! Listen. The prophet Isaiah is summoned by Ahaz, king\nof Judah, to make certain predictions to him, in the vain and\nsuperstitious manner of the East. These prophets were, as you know,\nmen who earned more or less of a living by divination; there were\nmany like them in Europe in the last century, especially among the\ncommon people. King Ahaz, besieged in Jerusalem by Shalmaneser, who\nhad taken Samaria, demanded of the soothsayer a prophecy and a sign.\nIsaiah said to him: This is the sign:\n\n\u201cA girl will conceive, and will bear a child who shall be called\nEmmanuel. He shall eat butter and honey until the day when he shall\nreject evil and choose good; and before this child is of age, the\nland which thou detestest shall be forsaken by its two kings; and the\nLord shall hiss for the flies that are on the banks of the streams of\nEgypt and Assyria; and the Lord will take a razor, and shave the King\nof Assyria; he will shave his head and the hair of his feet.\u201d\n\nAfter this splendid prophecy, recorded in _Isaiah_, but of which\nthere is not a word in _Kings_, the prophet orders him first to\nwrite on a large roll, which they hasten to seal. He urges the king\nto press to the plunder of his enemies, and then ensures the birth\nof the predicted child. Instead of calling it Emmanuel, however, he\ngives it the name of Maher Salabas. This, my brethren, is the passage\nwhich Christians have distorted in favour of their Christ; this is\nthe prophecy that set up Christianity. The girl to whom the prophet\nascribes a child is incontestably the Virgin Mary.[63] Maher Salabas\nis Jesus Christ. As to the butter and honey, I am unaware what it\nmeans. Each soothsayer promises the Jews deliverance when they are\ncaptive; and this deliverance is, according to the Christians,\nthe heavenly Jerusalem, and the Church of our time. Prophecy is\neverything with the Jews; with the Christians miracle is everything,\nand all the prophecies are figures of Jesus Christ.\n\nHere, my brethren, is one of these fine and striking prophecies. The\ngreat prophet Ezekiel sees a wind from the north, and four animals,\nand wheels of chrysolite full of eyes; and the Lord says to him:\n\u201cRise, eat a book, and then depart.\u201d\n\nThe Lord orders him to sleep three hundred and ninety days on the\nleft side, and then forty on the right side. The Lord binds him with\ncords; he was certainly a man that needed binding. What follows in\nEzekiel is very distasteful.\n\nBut we need not waste our time in assailing all the disgusting and\nabominable dreams which are the subject of controversy between the\nJews and Christians. We will be content to deplore the most pitiful\nblindness that has ever darkened the mind of man. Let us hope that\nthis blindness will pass like so many others, and let us proceed to\nthe New Testament, a worthy sequel to what has gone before.\n\n\n _Third Point_\n\nVain was it that the Jews were a little more enlightened in the time\nof Augustus than in the barbaric ages of which we have spoken. Vainly\ndid the Jews begin to recognise the immortality of the soul, a dogma\nunknown to Moses, and the idea of God rewarding the just after death\nand punishing the wicked, a dogma equally unknown to Moses. Reason\nnone the less penetrated this miserable people, from whom issued the\nChristian religion, which has proved the source of so many divisions,\ncivil wars, and crimes; which has caused so much blood to flow; and\nwhich is broken into so many sects in the corner of the earth where\nit rules.\n\nThere were at all times among the Jews people of the lowest order,\nwho made prophecies in order to distinguish themselves from the\npopulace. We deal here with the one who has become best known, and\nhas been turned into a god; we give a brief account of his career, as\nit is described in the books called the gospels. We need not seek to\ndetermine when these books were written; it is evident that they were\nwritten after the fall of Jerusalem. You know how absurdly the four\nauthors contradict each other. It is a demonstrative proof that they\nare wrong. We do not, however, need many proofs to demolish this\nmiserable structure. We will be content with a short and faithful\naccount.\n\nIn the first place, Jesus is described as a descendant of Abraham and\nDavid, and the writer Matthew counts forty-two generations in two\nthousand years. In his list, however, we find only forty-one, and\nin the genealogical tree which he borrows from _Kings_ he blunders\nclumsily in making Josiah the father of Jechoniah.\n\nLuke also gives a genealogy, but he assigns forty-nine generations\nafter Abraham, and they are entirely different generations. To\ncomplete the absurdity, these generations belong to Joseph, and the\nevangelists assure us that Jesus was not the son of Joseph. Would one\nbe received in a German chapter on such proofs of nobility? Yet there\nis question here of the son of God, and God himself is the author of\nthe book!\n\nMatthew says that when Jesus, King of the Jews, was born in a stable\nin the town of Bethlehem, three magi or kings saw his star in the\neast, and followed it, until it halted over Bethlehem; and that King\nHerod, hearing these things, caused all the children under two years\nof age to be put to death. Could any horror be more ridiculous?\nMatthew adds that the father and mother took the child into Egypt,\nand remained there until the death of Herod. Luke says precisely the\ncontrary; he observes that Joseph and Mary remained peacefully at\nBethlehem for six weeks, then went to Jerusalem, and from there to\nNazareth; and that they went every year to Jerusalem.\n\nThe evangelists contradict each other in regard to the time of\nthe life of Jesus, his miracles, the night of the supper, and the\nday of his death--in a word, in regard to nearly all the facts.\nThere were forty-nine gospels composed by the Christians of the\nfirst few centuries, and these were still more flagrant in their\ncontradictions. In the end, the four which we have were selected.\nEven if they were in harmony, what folly, what misery, what puerile\nand odious things they contain!\n\nThe first adventure of Jesus, son of God, is to be taken up by the\ndevil; the devil, who makes no appearance in the books of Moses,\nplays a great part in the gospels. The devil, then, takes God up a\nmountain in the desert. From there he shows him all the kingdoms of\nthe earth. Where is this mountain from which one can see so many\nlands? We do not know.\n\nJohn records that Jesus goes to a marriage-feast, and changes water\ninto wine; and that he drives from the precincts of the temple those\nwho were selling the animals of the sacrifices ordered in the Jewish\nlaw.\n\nAll diseases were at that time regarded as possession by the devil,\nand Jesus makes it the mission of his apostles to expel devils. As\nhe goes along, he delivers one who was possessed by a legion of\ndevils, and he makes these devils enter a herd of swine, which cast\nthemselves into the sea of Tiberias. We may suppose that the owners\nof the swine, who were not Jews apparently, were not pleased with\nthis comedy. He heals a blind man, and the blind man sees men as if\nthey were trees. He wishes to eat figs in winter, and, not finding\nany on a tree, he curses the tree and causes it to wither; the text\nprudently adds: \u201cFor it was not the season of figs.\u201d\n\nHe is transformed during the night, and causes Moses and Elias to\nappear. Do the stories of romancers even approach these absurdities?\nAt length, after constantly insulting the Pharisees, calling them\n\u201craces of vipers,\u201d \u201cwhitened sepulchres,\u201d etc., he is handed over by\nthem to justice, and executed with two thieves; and the historians\nare bold enough to tell us that at his death the earth was darkened\nat midday, and at a time of full moon. As if every writer of the time\nwould not have mentioned so strange a miracle.\n\nAfter that it is a small matter to make him rise from the dead and\npredict the end of the world; which, however, has not happened.\n\nThe sect of Jesus lingers in concealment; fanaticism increases.\nAt first they dare not make a god of this man, but they soon take\ncourage. Some Platonic metaphysic amalgamates with the Nazar\u00e6an sect,\nand Jesus becomes the logos, the word of God, then consubstantial\nwith God his father. The Trinity is invented; and, in order to have\nit accepted, the first gospels are falsified.\n\nA passage is added in regard to this truth, and the historian\nJosephus is falsified and made to speak of Jesus, though Josephus is\ntoo serious an historian to mention such a man. They go so far as\nto forge sibylline books. In a word, there is no kind of trickery,\nfraud, and imposture that the Nazar\u00e6ans do not adopt. At the end of\nthree years they succeeded in having Jesus recognised as a god. Not\ncontent with this extravagance, they go so far as to locate their god\nin a bit of paste. While their god is eaten by mice and digested,\nthey hold that there is no such thing as bread in the host; that God\nhas, at the word of a man, put himself in the place of the bread. All\nkinds of superstitions flood the Church; plunder is predominant in\nit; indulgences, benefices, and all kinds of spiritual things are put\nup for sale.\n\nThe sect splits into a multitude of sects; age after age they fight\nand slaughter each other. At every dispute kings and princes are\nmassacred.\n\nSuch, my dear brethren, is the fruit of the tree of the Cross, the\npower that has been declared divine.\n\nFor this they have dared to bring God upon the earth; to commit\nEurope for ages to murder and brigandage. It is true that our fathers\nhave in part shaken off this frightful yoke, and rid themselves of\nsome errors and superstitions. But how imperfect they have left\nthe work! Everything tells us that it is time to complete it; to\ndestroy utterly the idol of which we have as yet broken only a finger\nor two. Numbers of theologians have already embraced Socinianism\n(Unitarianism), which comes near to the worship of one God, freed\nfrom superstition. England, Germany, and the provinces of France are\nfull of wise doctors, who ask only the opportunity to break away.\nThere are great numbers in other countries. Why persist in teaching\nwhat we do not believe, and make ourselves guilty before God of this\ngreat sin?\n\nWe are told that the people need mysteries, and must be deceived.\nMy brethren, dare any one commit this outrage on humanity? Have not\nour fathers already taken from the people their transubstantiation,\nauricular confession, indulgences, exorcisms, false miracles, and\nridiculous statues? Are not the people accustomed to the deprivation\nof this food of superstition? We must have the courage to go a few\nsteps farther. The people are not so weak of mind as is thought;\nthey will easily admit a wise and simple cult of one God, such as\nwas professed, it is said, by Abraham and Noah, and by all the sages\nof antiquity, and as is found among the educated people of China.\nWe seek not to despoil the clergy of what the liberality of their\nfollowers has given them; we wish them, since most of them secretly\nlaugh at the untruths they teach, to join us in preaching the truth.\nLet them observe that, while they now offend and dishonour the\nDeity, they would, if they follow us, glorify him. What incalculable\ngood would be done by that happy change? Princes and magistrates\nwould be better obeyed, the people would be tranquil, the spirit\nof division and hatred would be expelled. They would offer to God,\nin peace, the first fruits of their work. There would assuredly be\nmore righteousness on the earth, for many weak-minded folk who hear\ncontempt expressed daily for the Christian superstition, and know\nthat it is ridiculed by the priests themselves, thoughtlessly imagine\nthat there is no such thing as religion, and abandon themselves to\nexcesses. But when they learn that the Christian sect is really only\na perversion of natural religion; when reason, freed from its chains,\nteaches the people that there is but one God; that this God is the\ncommon parent of all men, who are brothers; that, as brothers, they\nmust be good and just to each other, and practise every virtue; that\nGod, being good and just, must reward virtue and punish crime; then\nassuredly, my brethren, men will gain in righteousness as they lose\nin superstition.\n\nWe begin by giving this example in secret, and we trust that it will\nbe followed in public.\n\nMay the great God who hears me--a God who certainly could not be born\nof a girl, nor die on a gibbet, nor be eaten in a morsel of paste,\nnor have inspired this book with its contradictions, follies, and\nhorrors--may this God, creator of all worlds, have pity on the sect\nof the Christians who blaspheme him. May he bring them to the holy\nand natural religion, and shower his blessing on the efforts we make\nto have him worshipped. Amen.\n\n\n\n\n THE QUESTIONS OF ZAPATA\n\n (TRANSLATED BY DR. TAMPONET, OF THE SORBONNE)\n\n _The licentiate Zapata, being appointed Professor of Theology\n at the University of Salamanca, presented these questions to a\n committee of doctors in 1629. They were suppressed. The Spanish\n copy is in the Brunswick Library._\n\n\nWISE MASTERS:\n\n1\u00ba. How ought I to proceed with the object of showing that the Jews,\nwhom we burn by the hundred, were for four thousand years God\u2019s\nchosen people?\n\n2\u00ba. How could God, whom one cannot without blasphemy regard as\nunjust, forsake the whole earth for the little Jewish tribe, and then\nabandon this little group for another, which, during two hundred\nyears, was even smaller and more despised?\n\n3\u00ba. Why did he perform a number of incomprehensible miracles in\nfavour of this miserable nation before the period which is called\n_historical_? Why did he, some centuries ago, cease to perform them?\nAnd why do we, who are God\u2019s people, never witness any?\n\n4\u00ba. If God is the God of Abraham, why do you burn the children of\nAbraham? And, when you burn them, why do you recite their prayers?\nHow is it that, since you worship the book of their law, you put them\nto death for observing that law?\n\n5\u00ba. How shall I reconcile the chronology of the Chinese, Chald\u00e6ans,\nPh\u0153nicians, and Egyptians with that of the Jews? And how shall I\nreconcile the forty different methods of calculation which I find in\nthe commentators? If I say that God dictated the book, I may be told\nthat God evidently is not an expert in chronology.\n\n6\u00ba. By what argument can I prove that the books attributed to Moses\nwere written by him in the desert? How could he say that he wrote\nbeyond the Jordan when he never crossed the Jordan? I may be told\nthat God is evidently not good at geography.\n\n7\u00ba. The book entitled _Joshua_ says that Joshua had _Deuteronomy_\nengraved on stones coated with mortar; this passage in _Joshua_,\nand others in ancient writers, clearly prove that in the days of\nMoses and Joshua the peoples of the East engraved their laws and\nobservations on stone and brick. The Pentateuch tells us that the\nJewish people were without food and clothing in the desert; it seems\nhardly probable that, if they had no tailors or shoemakers, they had\nmen who were able to engrave a large book. In any case, how did they\npreserve this large work inscribed in mortar?\n\n8\u00ba. What is the best way to refute the objections of the learned men\nwho find in the Pentateuch the names of towns which were not yet in\nexistence; precepts for kings whom the Jews detested, and who did not\nreign until seven hundred years after Moses; and passages in which\nthe author betrays that he was much later than Moses, as: \u201cThe bed of\nOg, which is still seen in Ramath,\u201d \u201cThe Canaanite was then in the\nland,\u201d etc., etc., etc., etc.?\n\nThese learned men might, with the difficulties and contradictions\nwhich they impute to the Jewish chronicles, give some trouble to a\nlicentiate.\n\n9\u00ba. Is the book of _Genesis_ to be taken literally or allegorically?\nDid God really take a rib from Adam and make woman therewith? and, if\nso, why is it previously stated that he made man male and female? How\ndid God create light before the sun? How did he separate light from\ndarkness, since darkness is merely the absence of light? How could\nthere be a day before the sun was made? How was the firmament made\namid the waters, since there is no such thing as a firmament?--it\nis an illusion of the ancient Greeks. There are those who suggest\nthat _Genesis_ was not written until the Jews had some knowledge of\nthe erroneous philosophy of other peoples, and it would pain me to\nhear it said that God knows no more about physics than he does about\nchronology and geography.\n\n10\u00ba. What shall I say of the garden of Eden, from which issued a\nriver which divided into four rivers--the Tigris, Euphrates, Phison\n(which is believed to be the Phasis), and Gihon, which flows in\nEthiopia, and must therefore be the Nile, the source of which is a\nthousand miles from the source of the Euphrates? I shall be told once\nmore that God is a very poor geographer.\n\n11\u00ba. I should, with all my heart, like to eat the fruit which hung\nfrom the tree of knowledge; and it seems to me that the prohibition\nto eat it is strange. Since God endowed man with reason, he ought\nto encourage him to advance in knowledge. Did he wish to be served\nonly by fools? I should also like to have speech with the serpent,\nsince it was so intelligent; but I should like to know what language\nit spoke. The Emperor Julian, a great philosopher, asked this of the\ngreat St. Cyril, who could not meet the question, and said to the\nlearned emperor: \u201cYou are the serpent.\u201d St. Cyril was not polite;\nbut you will observe that he did not perpetrate this theological\nimpertinence until Julian was dead.\n\n_Genesis_ says that the serpent eats earth; you know that _Genesis_\nis wrong, and that earth alone contains no nourishment. In regard\nto God walking familiarly every day in the garden, and talking to\nAdam and Eve and the serpent, I may say that it would have been very\npleasant to have been there. But as I think you are much more fitted\nfor the kind of society which Joseph and Mary had in the stable\nat Bethlehem, I will not advise you to visit the garden of Eden,\nespecially as the gate is now guarded by a cherub armed to the teeth.\nIt is true that, according to the rabbis, _cherub_ means \u201cox.\u201d[64] A\ncurious kind of porter! Please let me know at least what a cherub is.\n\n12\u00ba. How shall I explain the story of the angels who fell in love\nwith the daughters of men, and begot giants? May I not be told\nthat this episode is borrowed from pagan legends? But as the Jews\ninvented everything in the desert, and were very ingenious, it is\nclear that all the other nations took their science from the Jews.\nHomer, Plato, Cicero, and Vergil learned all they knew from the Jews.\nIs not that proved?\n\n13\u00ba. How shall I get out of the deluge, the cataracts of heaven\n(which has no cataracts), and the animals coming from Japan, Africa,\nAmerica, and the south, and being enclosed in a large ark with food\nand drink for one year, without counting the time when the earth was\nstill too damp to produce food for them? How did Noah\u2019s little family\nmanage to give all these animals their proper food? It consisted only\nof eight persons.\n\n14\u00ba. How can I make the story of the tower of Babel plausible? This\ntower must have been higher than the pyramids of Egypt, since God\nallowed the building of the pyramids. Did it reach as high as Venus,\nor at least to the moon?\n\n15\u00ba. By what device shall I justify the two lies of Abraham, the\nfather of believers, who, at the age of one hundred and thirty-five\n(counting carefully), represented the pretty Sarah as his sister in\nEgypt and at Gerar, in order that the kings of those countries might\nfall in love with her and make presents to him? What a naughty thing\nto do, to sell one\u2019s wife!\n\n16\u00ba. Give me some explanation why, although God told Abraham that all\nhis posterity should be circumcised, this was not done under Moses.\n\n17\u00ba. Can I know by my natural powers whether the three angels, to\nwhom Sarah offered a whole calf to eat, had bodies, or borrowed\nbodies?\n\n18\u00ba. Will my hearers believe me when I tell them that Lot\u2019s wife\nwas changed into a salt statue? What shall I say to those who tell\nme that it is probably a coarse imitation of the ancient fable of\nEurydice, and that a salt statue would not last in the rain?\n\n19\u00ba. What shall I say in justification of the blessings which fell\non Jacob, the just man, who deceived his father Isaac and robbed his\nfather-in-law Laban? How shall I explain God appearing to him at the\ntop of a ladder? And how could Jacob fight an angel all night?, etc.,\netc.\n\n20\u00ba. How must I treat the sojourn of the Jews in Egypt and their\nescape? _Exodus_ says that they remained four hundred years in Egypt;\nbut, counting carefully, we find only two hundred and five years. Why\ndid Pharaoh\u2019s daughter bathe in the Nile, in which no one ever bathes\non account of the crocodiles?, etc., etc.\n\n21\u00ba. Moses having wedded the daughter of an idolater, how could\nGod choose him as his prophet without reproaching him? How could\nPharaoh\u2019s magicians work the same miracles as Moses, except that of\ncovering the land with lice and vermin? How could they change into\nblood all the waters, since these had already been changed into\nblood by Moses? How was it that Moses, led by God himself, and at\nthe head of six hundred and thirty thousand fighting men, fled with\nhis people, instead of taking Egypt, in which God had slain all the\nfirst-born? Egypt never had an army of a hundred thousand men,\nfrom the first mention of it in historical times. How was it that\nMoses, flying with his troops from the land of Goshen, crossed half\nof Egypt, instead of going straight to Canaan, and advanced as far\nas Memphis, between Baal-Sephon and the Red Sea? Finally, how could\nPharaoh pursue him with all his cavalry when, in the fifth plague\nof Egypt, God had just destroyed all the horses and beasts in the\ncountry, and, moreover, Egypt, which is much broken by canals, always\nhad very little cavalry?\n\n22\u00ba. How shall I reconcile what is said in _Exodus_ with the speech\nof St. Stephen in _Acts_ and the passages of _Jeremiah_ and _Amos_?\n_Exodus_ says that they sacrificed to Jehovah for forty years in the\ndesert; Jeremiah, Amos, and St. Stephen say that neither sacrifice\nnor victim was offered during all that time. _Exodus_ says that they\nmade the tabernacle, which contained the ark of the covenant; St.\nStephen, in _Acts_, says that they took the tabernacle from Moloch\nand Remphan.\n\n23\u00ba. I am not sufficiently versed in chemistry to deal happily with\nthe golden calf which, _Exodus_ says, was made in a day, and which\nMoses reduced to ashes. Are they two miracles, or two possibilities\nof human art?\n\n24\u00ba. Was it a further miracle for the leader of a nation, in a\ndesert, to have twenty-three thousand men of that nation slain by a\nsingle one of the twelve tribes, and for twenty-three thousand men to\nlet themselves be massacred without making any defence?\n\n25\u00ba. Must I again regard it as a miracle, or as an act of ordinary\njustice, that twenty-four thousand Hebrews were put to death because\none of them had lain with a Midianite woman, while Moses himself had\nmarried a Midianite? And were not these Hebrews, who are described\nto us as so ferocious, really very good fellows to let themselves be\nslain for girls?\n\n26\u00ba. What explanation shall I give of the law which forbids the\neating of the hare \u201cbecause it ruminates, and has not a cloven\nfoot,\u201d whereas hares have cloven feet and do not ruminate? We have\nalready seen that this remarkable book suggests that God is a poor\ngeographer, a poor chronologist, and a poor physicist; he seems\nto have been no less weak in natural history. How can I explain\nother equally wise laws, such as that of the waters of jealousy and\nthe sentence of death on a man who lies with his wife during the\nmenstrual period? etc., etc., etc. Can I justify these barbaric and\nridiculous laws, which are said to have been given by God himself?\n\n27\u00ba. What answer shall I make to those who are surprised that a\nmiracle was needed to effect the crossing of the Jordan, since it is\nonly forty-five feet across at its widest, could easily be crossed\nwith a small raft, and was fordable at many points, as we learn from\nthe slaying of forty-two thousand Ephraimites by their brothers at a\nford of the same river?\n\n28\u00ba. What reply shall I make to those who ask how the walls of\nJericho fell at the sound of a trumpet, and why other towns did not\nfall in the same way?\n\n29\u00ba. How shall I excuse the conduct of the harlot Rahab in betraying\nher country, Jericho? How was this treachery necessary, since they\nhad only to blow their trumpet to take a town? And how shall I fathom\nthe depth of the divine decrees which enacted that our divine Saviour\nJesus Christ should descend from this harlot Rahab, from the incest\nof Thamar with her father-in-law Judah, and from the adultery of\nDavid and Bathsheba? How incomprehensible are the ways of God!\n\n30\u00ba. How can I approve of Joshua hanging thirty-one kinglets and\nusurping their little States--that is to say, their villages?\n\n31\u00ba. How shall I speak of the battle of Joshua with the Amorites at\nBeth-horon on the way to Gibeon? The Lord sends a rain of stones,\nfrom Beth-horon to Azekah: it is fifteen miles from Beth-horon to\nAzekah; therefore the Amorites were exterminated by rocks which fell\nfrom heaven over a space of fifteen miles. The Scripture says that\nit was midday. Why, then, did Joshua command the sun and the moon to\nstand still in the middle of the sky in order to give him time to\ncomplete the defeat of a small troop which was already exterminated?\nWhy did he tell the moon to stand still at midday? How could the sun\nand moon remain in the same place for a day? Which commentator shall\nI consult for an explanation of this extraordinary truth?\n\n32\u00ba. What shall I say of Jephthah immolating his daughter, and having\nforty-two thousand Jews of the tribe of Ephraim, who could not say\n_Shibboleth_, put to death?\n\n33\u00ba. Ought I to admit or deny that the Jewish law nowhere speaks of\npunishment or reward after death? How is it that neither Moses nor\nJoshua ever spoke of the immortality of the soul, a dogma well known\nto the ancient Egyptians, Chald\u00e6ans, Persians, and Greeks, but hardly\nknown to the Jews until after the time of Alexander, and always\nrejected by the Sadducees because it is not in the Pentateuch?\n\n34\u00ba. What gloss must I put on the story of the Levite who, coming on\nhis ass to the Benjamite town Gibeah, excited the passion of all the\nGibeonites? He abandoned his wife to them, and she died the next day.\n\n35\u00ba. I need your advice to enable me to understand the nineteenth\nverse of the first chapter of _Judges_: \u201cAnd the Lord was with Judah:\nand he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain: but could not\ndrive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots\nof iron.\u201d I cannot, of my own feeble lights, understand how the God\nof heaven and earth, who had so often superseded the order of nature\nand suspended the eternal laws in favour of the Jewish people, was\nunable to vanquish the inhabitants of a valley because they had iron\nchariots. Can it be true that, as some learned men say, the Jews\nat that time regarded their God as a local and protecting deity,\nsometimes more powerful, at other times less powerful, than the gods\nof the enemy? And is this not proved by the reply of Jephthah: \u201cYe\npossess by right what your god Camos has given you: suffer then that\nwe take what our god Adonai has promised us\u201d?\n\n36\u00ba. I may add that it is difficult to believe that there were so\nmany chariots armed with scythes in a mountainous district, in which,\nas the Scriptures often show, the height of magnificence was to be\nmounted on an ass.[65]\n\n37\u00ba. The story of Ehud gives me even greater trouble. I see that the\nJews were always in bondage, in spite of the help of their God, who\nhad sworn to give them all the country between the Nile, the sea,\nand the Euphrates. For eighteen years they were subject to a petty\nking named Eglon, when God raised up for them Ehud, son of Gera, who\nused his left hand as well as the right. Ehud, son of Gera, made a\ntwo-edged sword, and hid it under his cloak--as Jacques Cl\u00e9ment and\nRavaillac did afterwards. He asks a private audience of the king,\nsaying that he has a secret of the utmost importance to communicate\nto him from God. Eglon respectfully rises, and Ehud drives his\nsword into his belly with his left hand. God entirely approved this\ndeed; but, judged by the moral code of all nations, it seems rather\nquestionable. Please tell me which was the most divine assassination,\nthat of St. Ehud, or that of St. David (who had Uriah, the husband\nof his mistress, slain), or that of the blessed Solomon, who, having\nseven hundred wives and three hundred concubines, assassinated his\nbrother Adonias because he asked for one of them? etc., etc., etc.,\netc.\n\n38\u00ba. I pray you tell me by what trick Samson caught three hundred\nfoxes, tied them together by their tails, and fastened lighted\ntorches to their hind quarters, in order to set fire to the harvests\nof the Philistines. Foxes are found only in wooded country. There was\nno forest in this district, and it seems rather difficult to catch\nthree hundred foxes alive and tie them together by their tails. It is\nthen said that he killed a thousand Philistines with the jaw of an\nass, and that a spring issued from one of the teeth of this jaw. When\nit comes to the jaws of asses, you certainly owe me explanations.\n\n39\u00ba. I also ask you for information about that good man Tobias, who\nslept with his eyes open, and was blinded by the droppings of a\nswallow; about the angel who came down expressly from what is called\nthe empyrean to seek, with Tobias junior, the money which the Jew\nGabel owed to Tobias senior; about the wife of Tobias junior, who had\nhad seven husbands whose necks had been wrung by the devil; and about\nthe way to restore sight to the blind with the gall of a fish. These\nstories are curious, and nothing is more worthy of attention--after\nSpanish novels; the only things to which they may be compared are the\nstories of Judith and Esther. But how am I to interpret the sacred\ntext which says that the beautiful Judith descended from Simeon, son\nof Reuben, whereas Simeon was the brother of Reuben, according to the\nsame sacred text, which cannot lie?\n\nI am very fond of Esther, and think the alleged King Assuerus acted\nvery sensibly in marrying a Jewess and living with her for six\nmonths without knowing who she was. As all the rest of the story\nis of much the same character, I must ask you kindly to come to my\nassistance, my wise masters.\n\n40\u00ba. I need your help in regard to the history of the kings, at\nleast as much as in regard to the history of the judges, of Tobias\nand his dog, of Esther, of Judith, of Ruth, etc., etc. When Saul was\nappointed king, the Jews were in bondage to the Philistines. Their\nconquerors did not allow them to have swords or lances; they were\neven compelled to go to the Philistines to have their ploughshares\nand axes sharpened. Nevertheless, Saul gives battle to the\nPhilistines and defeats them; and in this battle he is at the head of\nthree hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, in a little country that\ncannot sustain thirty thousand souls. The Jews had not at that time\nmore than a third of Palestine, at the most, and so sterile a country\ndoes not sustain twenty thousand inhabitants to-day. The surplus\npopulation was compelled to go and earn its living by prostitution at\nDamascus, Tyre, and Babylon.\n\n41\u00ba. I know not how I can justify the conduct of Samuel in cutting\ninto pieces Agag, whom Saul had taken prisoner and put to ransom. I\nwonder whether our king Philip, if he captured a Moorish king, and\nmade an agreement with him, would be approved if he cut the captured\nking in pieces.\n\n42\u00ba. We owe great respect to David, who was a man after God\u2019s heart;\nbut I fear I am not learned enough to justify, by ordinary laws,\nthe conduct of David in associating with four hundred men of evil\nways, and burdened with debt, as the Scripture says; in going to\nsack the house of the king\u2019s servant Nabal, and marrying his widow\na week later; in offering his services to Achish, the king\u2019s enemy,\nand spreading fire and blood over the land of the allies of Achish,\nwithout sparing either age or sex; in taking new concubines as soon\nas he is on the throne; and, not content with these concubines, in\nstealing Bathsheba from her husband, whom he not only dishonours,\nbut slays. I find it difficult to imagine how God could afterwards\ndescend, in Jud\u00e6a, from this adulterous and homicidal woman, who is\ncounted among the ancestresses of the Eternal. I have already warned\nyou that this article causes much trouble to pious souls.\n\n43\u00ba. The wealth of David and Solomon, which amounted to more than\nfive hundred thousand million gold ducats, seems to be not easily\nreconciled with the poverty of the country and with the condition to\nwhich the Jews were reduced under Saul, when they had not the means\nof sharpening their ploughshares and axes. Our cavalry officers will\nshrug their shoulders when I tell them that Solomon had four hundred\nthousand horses in a little country where there never were, and are\nnot to-day, anything but asses, as I have already had the honour to\nrepresent to you.\n\n44\u00ba. If I were to run over the history of the frightful cruelties of\nnearly all the kings of Judah and Israel, I fear I should scandalise,\nrather than edify, the weak. These kings assassinate each other a\nlittle too frequently. It is bad politics, if I am not mistaken.\n\n45\u00ba. I see this small people almost always in bondage to the\nPh\u0153nicians, Babylonians, Persians, Syrians, or Romans; and I may\nhave some trouble in reconciling so much misery with the magnificent\npromises of their prophets.\n\n46\u00ba. I know that all the eastern nations had prophets, but I do not\nquite understand those of the Jews. What is the meaning of the vision\nof Ezekiel, son of Buzi, near the river Chebar; of the four animals\nwhich had four faces and four wings each, with the feet of calves; of\nthe wheel that had four faces; and of the firmament above the heads\nof the animals? How can we explain the order given by God to Ezekiel\nto eat a parchment book, to have himself bound, and to lie on his\nleft side for three hundred and ninety days, and on his right side\nfor forty days?\n\n47\u00ba. It will be my duty to explain the great prophecy of Isaiah in\nregard to our Lord Jesus Christ. It is, as you know, in the seventh\nchapter. Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, kinglet of Israel, were\nbesieging Jerusalem. Ahaz, kinglet of Jerusalem, consults the prophet\nIsaiah as to the issue of the siege. Isaiah replies: \u201cGod shall give\nyou a sign: a girl (or woman) shall conceive and bear a son, and\nshall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he\nmay know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child\nshall be able to refuse the evil and choose the good the land shall\nbe delivered of both the kings, ... and the Lord shall hiss for the\nfly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the\nbee that is in the land of Assyria.\u201d\n\nThen, in the eighth chapter, the prophet, to ensure the fulfilment\nof the prophecy, lies with the prophetess. She bore a son, and\nthe Lord said to Isaiah: \u201cCall his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz\n[Hasten-to-seize-the-spoil, or Run-quickly-to-the-booty]. For before\nthe child shall have knowledge to cry, My father and my mother, the\npower of Damascus shall be overthrown.\u201d I cannot plainly interpret\nthis prophecy without your assistance.\n\n48\u00ba. How must I understand the story of Jonah, who was sent to\nNineveh to preach penance? Nineveh was not Israelitic, and it seems\nthat Jonah was to instruct it in the Jewish law before bringing it\nto repent. Instead of obeying the Lord, Jonah flies to Tarshish. A\nstorm arises, and the sailors throw Jonah into the sea to appease\nthe tempest. God sends a great fish to swallow Jonah, and he remains\nthree days and three nights in the belly of the fish. God orders the\nfish to give up Jonah, and it obeys. Jonah disembarks on the coast\nof Joppa. God commands him to go and tell Nineveh that in forty days\nit will be overturned, unless it does penance. It is more than four\nhundred miles from Joppa to Nineveh. Do not all the stories demand\na superior knowledge which I lack? I greatly wish to confound the\nlearned men who assert that this legend is taken from the legend of\nthe ancient Hercules.\n\n49\u00ba. Show me how to interpret the first verses of the prophet Hosea.\nGod explicitly enjoins him to take a harlot and have children by\nher. The prophet obeys punctually. He pays his respects to Dona\nGomer, daughter of Dom Diblaim, keeps her three years, and has three\nchildren--which is a model. Then God desires another model. He orders\nhim to lie with another gay lady, a married woman, who has already\ndeceived her husband. The good Hosea, always obedient, has no trouble\nin finding a handsome lady of this character, and it costs him only\nfifteen pieces of silver and a measure of barley. I beg you to tell\nme how much the piece of silver was worth among the Jews.\n\n50\u00ba. I have still greater need of your wise guidance in regard to the\nNew Testament. I hardly know what to say when I have to reconcile\nthe two genealogies of Jesus. I shall be reminded that Matthew makes\nJacob the father of Joseph, while Luke makes him the son of Heli,\nand that this is impossible unless we change _He_ into _Ja_ and _li_\ninto _cob_. I shall be asked why the one counts fifty-six generations\nand the other only forty-two, and why the generations are quite\ndifferent; and then why only forty-one are given instead of the\npromised forty-two; and lastly why the genealogical tree of Joseph\nwas given at all, seeing that he was not the father of Jesus. I fear\nto make a fool of myself, as so many of my predecessors have done. I\ntrust that you will extricate me from this labyrinth.\n\n51\u00ba. If I declare that, as Luke says, Augustus had ordered a census\nto be taken of the whole earth when Mary was pregnant, and that\nCyrenius or Quirinus, the governor of Syria, published the decree,\nand that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be enumerated; and if\npeople laugh at me, and antiquarians teach me that there never was a\ncensus of the Roman Empire, that Quintilius Varus, not Cyrenius, was\nat that time governor of Syria, and that Cyrenius only governed Syria\nten years after the birth of Jesus, I shall be very much embarrassed,\nand no doubt you will extricate me from this little difficulty. For\nhow could a book be inspired if there were one single untruth in it?\n\n52\u00ba. When I teach that, as Matthew says, the family went into Egypt,\nI shall be told that that is not true, but that, as the other\nevangelists say, the family remained in Jud\u00e6a; and if I then grant\nthat they remained in Jud\u00e6a, I shall be told that they were in Egypt.\nIs it not simpler to say that one can be in two places at once, as\nhappened to St. Francis Xavier and several other saints?\n\n53\u00ba. Astronomers may laugh at the star which led the three kings\nto a stable. But you are great astrologers, and will be able to\nexplain the phenomenon. Tell me, especially, how much gold the kings\npresented. For you are wont to extort a good deal of it from kings\nand peoples. And in regard to the fourth king, Herod, why did he\nfear that Jesus, born in a stable, might become king of the Jews?\nHerod was king only by permission of the Romans; it was the business\nof Augustus. The massacre of the innocents is rather curious. I am\ndisappointed that no Roman writer mentions it. An ancient and most\ntruthful (as they all are) martyrology gives the number of these\nmartyred infants as fourteen thousand. If you would like me to add a\nfew thousand more, you have only to say so.\n\n54\u00ba. You will tell me how the devil carried off God and perched him\non a hill in Galilee, from which one could see all the kingdoms of\nthe earth. The devil promising these kingdoms to God, provided God\nworships the devil, may scandalise many good people, whom I recommend\nto your notice.\n\n55\u00ba. I beg you, when you go to a wedding feast, to tell me how God,\nwho also went to a wedding feast, succeeded in changing water into\nwine for the sake of people who were already drunk.\n\n56\u00ba. When you eat figs at breakfast towards the end of July, I\nbeg you to tell me why God, being hungry, looked for figs at the\nbeginning of the month of March, when it was not the season of figs.\n\n57\u00ba. Having received your instructions on all the prodigies of this\nnature, I shall have to say that God was condemned to be executed\nfor original sin. And if I am told that there was never any question\nof original sin, either in the Old or the New Testament; that it is\nmerely stated that Adam was condemned to die on the day on which he\nshould eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and he did not die;\nand that Augustine, bishop of Hippo, formerly a Manichean, was the\nfirst to set up the doctrine of original sin, I submit to you that,\nas my hearers are not the simple folk of Hippo, I run some risk of\nexciting derision by speaking much without saying anything. When\ncertain cavillers came to show me that God could not possibly be\nexecuted because an apple was eaten four thousand years before his\ndeath, and could not possibly have redeemed the human race, yet,\napart from a chosen few, left the whole of it in the devil\u2019s claws, I\nhad only verbiage to give in reply, and went away to hide my shame.\n\n58\u00ba. Throw some light for me on the prophecy which Our Lord makes\nin _Luke_ (ch. xxi.). Jesus says explicitly that he will come in\na cloud with great power and great glory before the generation to\nwhich he speaks shall pass away. He did not do this; he did not come\nin the clouds. If he came in some fog or other, we know nothing\nabout it; tell me what you think. The Apostle Paul also says to his\nThessalonian disciples that they will go with him in the clouds to\nJesus. Why did they not go? Does it cost more to go to the clouds\nthan to the third heaven? I beg your forgiveness, but I prefer the\nclouds of Aristophanes to those of Paul.\n\n59\u00ba. Shall I say with Luke that Jesus went up to heaven from the\nlittle village of Bethany? Shall I state with Matthew that it was\nfrom Galilee, where the disciples saw him for the last time? Or shall\nI take the word of a learned doctor who says that Jesus had one foot\nin Bethany and another in Galilee? The latter opinion seems to me the\nmore probable, but I will await your decision.\n\n60\u00ba. I shall then be asked whether Peter was ever at Rome. I shall\nreply, of course, that he was pope there for twenty-five years; and\nthe chief reason I shall give is that we have an epistle from the\ngood man (who could neither read nor write), and that it is dated\nfrom Babylon. There is no answer to that argument, but I should like\nsomething stronger.\n\n61\u00ba. Please tell me why the \u201cApostles\u2019 Creed\u201d was not written until\nthe time of Jerome and Rufinus, four hundred years after the\napostles. Tell me why the earliest fathers of the Church never quote\nany but the gospels which we call apocryphal. Is it not a clear proof\nthat the four canonical gospels had not yet been written?\n\n62\u00ba. Are you not sorry, as I am, that the early Christians forged\nso much bad poetry, and attributed it to the Sibyls? And that they\nforged letters of Paul and Seneca, of Jesus, of Mary, and of Pilate?\nAnd that they thus set up their sect on a hundred forgeries which\nwould be punished to-day by any court in the world? These frauds\nare now recognised by all scholars. We are reduced to calling them\n\u201cpious.\u201d But is it not sad that your truth should be based on lies?\n\n63\u00ba. Tell me why, since Jesus did not institute seven sacraments,\nwe have seven sacraments[66]; why, whereas Jesus never said that he\nwas threefold and had two natures and two wills and one person, we\nmake him threefold, with one person and two natures; and why, having\ntwo wills, he had not the will to instruct us in the dogmas of the\nChristian religion.\n\n64\u00ba. Is the pope infallible when he consorts with his mistress, and\nwhen he brings to supper a bottle of poisoned wine for Cardinal\nCornetto?[67] When two councils anathematise each other, as has often\nhappened, which of them is infallible?\n\n65\u00ba. Would it not really be better to avoid these labyrinths, and\nsimply preach virtue? When God comes to judge us, I doubt very\nmuch if he will ask us whether grace is versatile or concomitant,\nwhether marriage is the visible sign of an invisible thing, whether\nwe believe that there are ten choirs of angels or nine, whether the\npope is above the council or the council above the pope. Will it be a\ncrime in his eyes to have prayed to him in Spanish when one does not\nknow Latin? Shall we be visited with his cruel wrath for having eaten\na penny-worth of bad meat on a certain day? And shall we be eternally\nrewarded if, like you, my learned masters, we ate a hundred piastres\u2019\nworth of turbot, sole, and sturgeon? You do not believe it in the\ndepth of your hearts; you believe that God will judge you by your\nworks, not by the opinions of Thomas and Bonaventure.\n\nShall I not render a service to men in speaking to them only of\nmorality? This morality is so pure, so holy, so universal, so clear,\nso ancient, that it seems to come from God himself, like the light\nwhich we regard as the first of his works. Has he not given men\nself-love to secure their preservation; benevolence, beneficence,\nand virtue to control their self-love; the natural need to form a\nsociety; pleasure to enjoy, pain to warn us to enjoy in moderation,\npassions to spur us to great deeds, and wisdom to curb our passions?\nWill you allow me to announce these truths to the noble people of\nSpain?\n\n66\u00ba. If you bid me conceal these truths, and strictly enjoin me\nto announce the miracles of St. James of Galicia, or of Our Lady\nof Atocha, or of Maria d\u2019Agreda (who in her ecstasies behaved in\na most improper manner), tell me what I must do with those who\ndare to doubt? Must I, for their edification, have the ordinary and\nextraordinary question put to them?[68]\n\nI await the honour of your reply,\n\n DOMINICO ZAPATA,\n y verdadero, y honrado,\n y caricativo.\n\n Zapata, receiving no answer, took to preaching God in all\n simplicity. He announced to men the common father, the rewarder,\n punisher, and pardoner. He extricated the truth from the lies, and\n separated religion from fanaticism; he taught and practised virtue.\n He was gentle, kindly, and modest; and he was burned at Valladolid\n in the year of grace 1631. Pray God for the soul of Brother Zapata.\n\n\n\n\n WE MUST TAKE SIDES;\n\n OR, THE PRINCIPLE OF ACTION\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\nIt is not a question of taking sides between Russia and Turkey; for\nthese States will, sooner or later, come to an understanding without\nmy intervention.\n\nIt is not a question of declaring oneself in favour of one English\nfaction and against another; for they will soon have disappeared, to\nmake room for others.\n\nI am not endeavouring to choose between Greek and Armenian\nChristians, Eutychians and Jacobites, Christians who are called\nPapists and Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, the primitive folk\ncalled Quakers, Anabaptists, Jansenists, Molinists, Socinians,\nPietists, and so many other \u2019ists. I wish to live in peace with all\nthese gentlemen, whenever I may meet them, and never dispute with\nthem; because there is not a single one of them who, when he has a\ncrown to share with me, will not know his business perfectly, or who\nwould spend a single penny for the salvation of my soul or his own.\n\nI am not going to take sides between the old and the new French\nParliaments; because in a few years there will be no question of\neither of them.\n\nNor between the ancients and the moderns; because the trial would be\nendless.\n\nNor between the Jansenists and the Molinists; because they exist no\nlonger, and, thank God, five or six thousand volumes have become as\nuseless as the works of St. Ephraim.\n\nNor between the partisans of the French and the Italian opera;\nbecause it is a mere matter of fancy.\n\nThe subject I have in mind is but a trifle--namely, the question\nwhether there is or is not a God; and I am going to examine it in all\nseriousness and good faith, because it interests me, and you also.\n\n\n I\n\n OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ACTION\n\nEverything is in motion, everything acts and reacts, in nature.\n\nOur sun turns on its axis with a rapidity that astonishes us; other\nsuns turn with the same speed, while countless swarms of planets\nrevolve round them in their orbits, and the blood circulates more\nthan twenty times an hour in the lowliest of our animals.\n\nA straw that is borne on the wind tends naturally towards the centre\nof the earth, just as the earth gravitates towards the sun, and the\nsun towards the earth. The sea owes to the same laws its eternal\nebb and flow. In virtue of the same laws the vapours which form our\natmosphere rise continually from the earth, and fall again in dew,\nrain, hail, snow, and thunder. Everything, even death, is active.\nCorpses are decomposed, transformed into plants, and nourish the\nliving, which in their turn are the food of others. What is the\nprinciple of this universal activity?\n\nThis principle must be unique. The unvarying uniformity of the laws\nwhich control the march of the heavenly bodies, the movements of\nour globe, every species and genus of animal, plant, and mineral,\nindicates that there is one mover. If there were two, they would\neither differ, or be opposed to each other, or like each other. If\nthey were different, there would be no harmony; if opposed, things\nwould destroy each other; if like, it would be as if there were only\none--a twofold employment.\n\nI am encouraged in this belief that there can be but one principle,\none single mover, when I observe the constant and uniform laws of the\nwhole of nature.\n\nThe same gravitation reaches every globe, and causes them to tend\ntowards each other in direct proportion, not to their surfaces, which\nmight be the effect of an impelling fluid, but to their masses.\n\nThe square of the revolution of every planet is as the cube of\nits distance from the sun (which proves, one may note, what Plato\nhad somehow divined, that the world is the work of the eternal\ngeometrician).\n\nThe rays of light are reflected and refracted from end to end of the\nuniverse. All the truths of mathematics must be the same on the star\nSirius as in our little home.\n\nIf I glance at the animal world, I find that all quadrupeds, and\nall wingless bipeds, reproduce their kind by the same process of\ncopulation, and all the females are viviparous.\n\nAll female birds lay eggs.\n\nIn each species there is the same manner of reproduction and feeding.\n\nEach species of plants has the same basic qualities.\n\nAssuredly the oak and the nut have come to no agreement to be born\nand to grow in the same way, any more than Mars and Saturn have come\nto an understanding to observe the same laws. There is, therefore,\na single, universal, and powerful intelligence, acting always by\ninvariable laws.\n\nNo one doubts that an armillary sphere, landscapes, drawings of\nanimals, or models in coloured wax, are the work of clever artists.\nIs it possible for the copyists to be intelligent and the originals\nnot? This seems to me the strongest demonstration; I do not see how\nit can be assailed.\n\n\n II\n\n OF THE NECESSARY AND ETERNAL PRINCIPLE OF ACTION\n\nThis single mover is very powerful, since it directs so vast and\ncomplex a machine. It is very intelligent, since the smallest spring\nof this machine cannot be equalled by us, who are intelligent beings.\n\nIt is a necessary being, since without it the machine would not\nexist.\n\nIt is eternal, for it cannot be produced from nothing, which, being\nnothing, can produce nothing; given the existence of something, it\nis demonstrated that something has existed for all eternity. This\nsublime truth has become trivial. So great has been the advance of\nthe human mind in our time, in spite of the efforts to brutalise us\nwhich the masters of ignorance have made for so many centuries.\n\n\n III\n\n WHAT IS THIS PRINCIPLE?\n\nI cannot prove synthetically the existence of the principle of\naction, the prime mover, the Supreme Being, as Dr. Clarke does. If\nthis method were in the power of man, Clarke was, perhaps, worthy to\nemploy it; but analysis seems to me more suitable for our poor ideas.\nIt is only by ascending the stream of eternity that I can attempt to\nreach its source.\n\nHaving therefore recognised from movement that there is a mover;\nhaving proved from action that there is a principle of action; I\nseek the nature of this universal principle. And the first thing I\nperceive, with secret distress but entire resignation, is that, being\nan imperceptible part of the great whole; being, as Plato says in the\n_Tim\u00e6us_, a point between two eternities; it will be impossible for\nme to understand this great whole, which hems me in on every side,\nand its master.\n\nYet I am a little reassured on seeing that I am able to measure\nthe distance of the stars, and to recognise the course and the laws\nwhich keep them in their orbits. I say to myself: Perhaps, if I use\nmy reason in good faith, I may succeed in discovering some ray of\nprobability to lighten me in the dark night of nature. And if this\nfaint dawn which I seek does not come to me, I shall be consoled\nto think that my ignorance is invincible; that knowledge which is\nforbidden me is assuredly useless to me; and that the great Being\nwill not punish me for having sought a knowledge of him and failed to\nobtain it.\n\n\n IV\n\n WHERE IS THE FIRST PRINCIPLE? IS IT INFINITE?\n\nI do not see the first motive and intelligent principle of the animal\ncalled man, when he demonstrates a geometrical proposition or lifts\na burden. Yet I feel irresistibly that there is one in him, however\nsubordinate. I cannot discover whether this first principle is in his\nheart, or in his head, or in his blood, or in his whole body. In the\nsame way I have detected a first principle in nature, and have seen\nthat it must necessarily be eternal. But where is it?\n\nIf it animates all existence, it is in all existence: that seems to\nbe beyond doubt. It is in all that exists, just as movement is in the\nwhole body of an animal, if one may use so poor a comparison.\n\nBut while it is in what exists, can it be in what does not exist?\nIs the universe infinite? I am told that it is; but who will prove\nit? I regard it as eternal, because it cannot have been made from\nnothing; because the great principle, \u201cnothing comes from nothing,\u201d\nis as true as that two and two make four; because, as we saw\nelsewhere, it is an absurd contradiction to say that the active being\nhas spent an eternity without acting, the formative being has been\neternal without forming anything, and the necessary being has been,\nduring an eternity, a useless being.\n\nBut I see no reason why this necessary being should be infinite. Its\nnature seems to me to be wherever there is existence; but why, and\nhow, an infinite existence? Newton has demonstrated the void, which\nhad until his time been a matter of conjecture. If there is a void in\nnature, there may be a void outside nature. What need is there that\nbeings should extend to infinity? What would an infinite extension\nbe? Nor can we have infinity in number. There is no number and no\nextension to which I cannot add. It seems to me that in this matter\nthe conclusion of Cudworth is preferable to that of Clarke.\n\nGod is present everywhere, says Clarke. Yes, doubtless; but\neverywhere where there is something, not where there is not. To\nbe present in nothing seems to me a contradiction in terms, an\nabsurdity. I am compelled to admit eternity, but I am not compelled\nto admit an actual infinity.\n\nIn fine, what does it matter to me whether space is a reality or\nmerely an idea in my mind? What does it matter whether or no the\nnecessary, intelligent, powerful, eternal being, the former of all\nbeing, is in this imaginary space? Am I less his work? Am I less\ndependent on him? Is he the less my master? I see this master of the\nworld with the eyes of my mind, but I see him not beyond the world.\n\nIt is still disputed whether or no infinite space is a reality. I\nwill not base my judgment on so equivocal a point, a quarrel worthy\nof the scholastics. I will not set up the throne of God in imaginary\nspaces.\n\nIf it is allowable to compare once more the little things which seem\nlarge to us to what is great in reality, let us imagine a gentleman\nof Madrid trying to persuade a Castilian neighbour that the king\nof Spain is master of the sea to the north of California, and that\nwhoever doubts it is guilty of high treason. The Castilian replies:\nI do not even know whether there is a sea beyond California. It\nmatters little to me whether there is or not, provided that I have\nthe means of subsistence in Madrid. I do not need this sea to be\ndiscovered to make me faithful to the king my master on the banks of\nthe Manzanares. Whether or no there are vessels beyond Hudson Bay, he\nhas none the less power to command me here; I feel my dependence on\nhim in Madrid, because I know that he is master of Madrid.\n\nIn the same way, our dependence on the great being is not due to the\nfact that he is present outside the world, but to the fact that he\nis present in the world. I do but ask pardon of the master of nature\nfor comparing him to a frail human being in order to make my meaning\nclearer.\n\n\n V\n\n THAT ALL THE WORKS OF THE ETERNAL BEING ARE ETERNAL\n\nThe principle of nature being necessary and eternal, and its very\nessence being to act, it must have been always active. If it had not\nbeen an ever-active God, it would have been an eternally indolent\nGod, the God of Epicurus, the God who is good for nothing. This truth\nseems to me to be fully demonstrated.\n\nHence the world, his work, whatever form it assume, is, like him,\neternal; just as the light is as old as the sun, movement as old as\nmatter, and food as old as the animals; otherwise the sun, matter,\nand the animals would be, not merely useless, but self-contradictory\nthings, chim\u00e6ras.\n\nWhat, indeed, could be more contradictory than an essentially active\nbeing that has been inactive during an eternity; a formative being\nthat has fashioned nothing, or merely formed a few globes some years\nago, without there being the least apparent reason for making them\nat one time rather than another? The intelligent principle can do\nnothing without reason; nothing can exist without an antecedent and\nnecessary reason. This antecedent and necessary reason has existed\neternally; therefore the universe is eternal.\n\nWe speak here a strictly philosophical language; it is not our part\neven to glance at those who use the language of revelation.\n\n\n VI\n\n THAT THE ETERNAL BEING, AND FIRST PRINCIPLE, HAS\n ARRANGED ALL THINGS VOLUNTARILY\n\nIt is clear that this supreme, necessary, active intelligence is\npossessed of will, and has arranged all things because it[69] willed\nthem. How can one act, and fashion all things, without willing to\nfashion them? That would be the action of a mere machine, and this\nmachine would presuppose another first principle, another mover. We\nshould always have to end in a first intelligent being of some kind\nor other. We wish, we act, we make machines, when we will; hence\nthe great very powerful _Demiourgos_ has done all things because he\nwilled.\n\nSpinoza himself recognises in nature an intelligent, necessary power.\nBut an intelligence without will would be an absurdity, since such an\nintelligence would be useless; it would do nothing, because it would\nnot will to do anything. Hence the great necessary being has willed\neverything that it has done.\n\nI said above that it has done all things necessarily because, if\nits works were not necessary, they would be useless. But does this\nnecessity deprive it of will? Certainly not. I necessarily will to be\nhappy, but I will it none the less on that account; on the contrary,\nI will it all the more strongly because I will it irresistibly.\n\nDoes this necessity deprive it of liberty? Not at all. Liberty can\nonly be the power to act. Since the supreme being is very powerful,\nit is the freest of beings.\n\nWe thus recognise that the great artisan of things is necessary,\neternal, intelligent, powerful, possessed of will, and free.\n\n\n VII\n\n THAT ALL BEINGS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, ARE SUBJECT TO ETERNAL LAWS\n\nWhat are the effects of this eternal power that dwells essentially\nin nature? I see only two classes of them, the insensitive and the\nsensitive.\n\nThe earth, the seas, the planets, the suns, seem admirable but\nlifeless things, devoid of sensibility. A snail that wills, has some\ndegree of perception, and makes love, seems, to that extent, to have\nan advantage greater than all the glory of the suns that illumine\nspace.\n\nBut all these beings are alike subject to eternal and unvarying laws.\n\nNeither the sun, nor the snail, nor the oyster, nor the dog, nor the\nape, nor man, has given himself any one of the things which he has;\nit is evident that they have received everything.\n\nMan and the dog are born, unwittingly, of a mother who has brought\nthem into the world in spite of herself. Both of them suck the\nmother\u2019s breast without knowing what they do, and they do this in\nvirtue of a very delicate and complex mechanism, the nature of which\nis known to few men.\n\nBoth of them have, after a time, ideas, memory, and will; the dog\nmuch earlier than the man.\n\nIf the animals were mere machines, it would be another argument for\nthe position of those who believe that man also is a mere machine;\nbut there are now none who do not admit that the animals have ideas,\nmemory, and a measure of intelligence, and that they improve their\nknowledge; that a hunting-dog learns its work, an old fox is more\nastute than a young one, and so on.\n\nWhence have they these faculties, if not from the primordial eternal\ncause, the principle of action, the great being that animates the\nwhole of nature?\n\nMan obtains the faculties of the animals much later than they, but in\na higher degree; can he obtain them from any other source?\n\nHe has nothing but what the great being has given him. It would\nbe a strange contradiction, a singular absurdity, if all the\nstars and elements, the animals and plants, obeyed, unceasingly\nand irresistibly, the laws of the great being, and man alone were\nindependent of them.\n\n\n VIII\n\n THAT MAN IS ESSENTIALLY SUBJECT IN EVERYTHING\n TO THE ETERNAL LAWS OF THE FIRST PRINCIPLE\n\nLet us regard, with the eyes of reason, this animal man which the\ngreat being has produced.\n\nWhat is his first sensation? A sensation of pain; then the pleasure\nof feeding. That is the whole of our life: pain and pleasure. Whence\nhave we these two springs which keep us in action until our last\nmoment, if not from this first principle of action, this Demiourgos?\nAssuredly we do not give pain to ourselves; and how could we be\nthe cause of our few pleasures? We have said elsewhere that it is\nimpossible for us to invent a new kind of pleasure--that is to say,\na new sense. Let us now say that it is equally impossible for us to\ninvent a new kind of pain. The most execrable of tyrants cannot do\nit. The Jews, whose tortures have been described by the Benedictine\nmonk Calmet in his dictionary, could only cut, tear, mutilate, draw,\nburn, strangle, and crush; all torments may thus be summarised. We\ncan therefore do nothing of ourselves, either for good or evil; we\nare but the blind instruments of nature.\n\nBut I wish to think and I think, most men will recklessly assert. Let\nus consider it. What was our first idea after the feeling of pain?\nThe idea of the breast that we sucked; then the face of the nurse;\nthen a few other objects and needs made their faint impressions.\nWould any one up to this point venture to say that he was more than\na sentient automaton, a wretched abandoned animal destitute of\nknowledge or power, an outcast of nature? Will he venture to say\nthat in this condition he is a thinking being, the author of his own\nideas, the possessor of a soul? What is the son of a king when he\nleaves the womb? He would excite the disgust of his father, if he\nwere not his father. A flower of the field that one treads underfoot\nis an infinitely superior thing.\n\n\n IX\n\n OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ACTION IN SENTIENT BEINGS\n\nThere comes at length a time when a greater or smaller number of\nperceptions, received in our mechanism, seem to present themselves to\nour will. We think that we are forming ideas. It is as if, when we\nturn the tap of a fountain, we were to think that we cause the water\nwhich streams out. We create ideas, poor creatures that we are! It\nis evident that we had no share in the former, yet we would regard\nourselves as the authors of the latter. If we reflect well on this\nvain boast of forming ideas, we shall see that it is insolent and\nabsurd.\n\nLet us remember that there is nothing in external objects with the\nleast analogy, the least relation, to a feeling, an idea, a thought.\nLet an eye or an ear be made by the best artisan in the world; the\neye will see nothing, the ear will hear nothing. It is the same with\nour living body. The universal principle of action does everything in\nus. He has not made us an exception to the rest of nature.\n\nTwo experiences which are constantly repeated during the course of\nour life, and of which I have spoken elsewhere, will convince every\nthoughtful man that our ideas, our wills, and our actions do not\nbelong to us.\n\nThe first is that no one knows, or can know, what idea he will have\nat any minute, what desire he will have, what word he will speak,\nwhat movement his body will perform.\n\nThe second is that during sleep it is clear that we have not the\nleast share in what takes place in our dreams. We grant that we are\nthen mere automata, on which an invisible power acts with a force\nthat is as real and powerful as it is incomprehensible. This power\nfills the mind with ideas, inspires desires, passions, reflections.\nIt sets in motion all the organs of the body. It has happened at\ntimes that a mother has smothered, in a restless dream, the new-born\nchild that lay by her side; that a man has killed his friend. How\nmany musicians have composed music during sleep? How many young\npreachers have composed sermons during their sleep?\n\nIf our life were equally divided between waking and sleeping, instead\nof our usually spending a third of our short career in sleep, and if\nwe always dreamed during sleep, it would then be evident that half of\nour life did not depend on us. In any case, assuming that we spend\neight out of the twenty-four hours in sleep, it is plain that a third\nof our existence is beyond our control. Add to this infancy, add all\nthe time that is occupied in purely animal functions, and see how\nmuch is left. You will admit with surprise that at least half our\nlife does not belong to us at all. Then reflect how inconsistent it\nwould be if one half depended on us and the other half did not.\n\nConclude, therefore, that the universal principle of action does\neverything in us.\n\nHere the Jansenist interrupts me and says: \u201cYou are a plagiarist; you\nhave taken your doctrine from the famous book, _The Action of God\non Created Things, or Physical Premotion_, by our great patriarch\nBoursier.\u201d I have said somewhere of Boursier that he had dipped\nhis pen in the inkpot of the Deity. No, my friend; I have never\nreceived anything from the Jansenists or the Molinists except a\nstrong aversion for sects, and some indifference to their opinions.\nBoursier, taking God as his model, knows precisely what was the\nnature of Adam\u2019s dream when God took a rib from his side wherewith\nto make woman; he knows the nature of his concupiscence, habitual\ngrace, and actual grace. He knows, with St. Augustine, that men and\nwomen would have engendered children dispassionately in the earthly\nparadise, just as one sows a field, without any feeling of carnal\npleasure. He is convinced that Adam sinned only by distraction in the\nearthly paradise. I know nothing about these things, and am content\nto admire those who have so splendid and profound a knowledge.\n\n\n X\n\n OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ACTION CALLED THE SOUL\n\nBut, some centuries later in the history of man, it came to be\nimagined that we have a soul which acts of itself; and the idea has\nbecome so familiar that we take it for a reality.\n\nWe talk incessantly of \u201cthe soul,\u201d though we have not the least idea\nof the meaning of it.\n\nTo some the soul means the life; to others it is a small, frail\nimage of ourselves, which goes, when we die, to drink the waters of\nAcheron; to others it is a harmony, a memory, an entelechy. In the\nend it has been converted into a little being that is not body, a\nbreath that is not air; and of this word \u201cbreath,\u201d which corresponds\nto \u201cspirit\u201d in many tongues, a kind of thing has been made which is\nnothing at all.\n\nWho can fail to see that men uttered, and still utter, the word\n\u201csoul\u201d vaguely and without understanding, as we utter the words\n\u201cmovement,\u201d \u201cunderstanding,\u201d \u201cimagination,\u201d \u201cmemory,\u201d \u201cdesire,\u201d and\n\u201cwill\u201d? There is no real being which we call will, desire, memory,\nimagination, understanding, or movement; but the real being called\nman understands, imagines, remembers, desires, wills, and moves.\nThey are abstract terms, invented for convenience of speech. I run,\nI sleep, I awake; but there is no such physical reality as running,\nsleep, or awakening. Neither sight, nor hearing, nor touch, nor\nsmell, nor taste, is a real being; I hear, I see, I smell, I taste, I\ntouch. And how could I do this if the great being had not so disposed\nall things; if the principle of action, the universal cause--in one\nword, God--had not given us these faculties?\n\nWe may be quite sure that there would be just as much reason to grant\nthe snail a hidden being called a \u201cfree soul\u201d as to grant it to man.\nThe snail has a will, desires, tastes, sensations, ideas, and memory.\nIt wishes to move towards the material of its food or the object of\nits love. It remembers it, has an idea of it, advances towards it\nas quickly as it can; it knows pleasure and pain. Yet you are not\nterrified when you are told that the animal has not a spiritual soul;\nthat God has bestowed on it these gifts for a little time; that he\nwho moves the stars moves also the insect. But when it comes to man\nyou change your mind. This poor animal seems to you so worthy of\nyour respect--that is to say, you are so proud--that you venture to\nplace in its frail body something that seems to share the nature of\nGod himself, yet something that seems to you at times diabolical\nin the perversity of its thoughts; something wise and foolish,\ngood and execrable, heavenly and infernal, invisible, immortal,\nincomprehensible. And you have familiarised yourself with this idea,\nas you have grown accustomed to speak of movement, though there is no\nsuch being as movement; as you use abstract words, though there are\nno abstract beings.\n\n\n XI\n\n EXAMINATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ACTION CALLED THE SOUL\n\nThere is, nevertheless, a principle of action in man. Yes, there\nis one everywhere. But can this principle be anything else than a\nspring, a secret first mover which is developed by the ever-active\nfirst principle--a principle that is as powerful as it is secret,\nas demonstrable as it is invisible, which we have recognised as the\nessential cause in the whole of nature?\n\nIf you create movement or ideas because you will it, you are God for\nthe time being; for you have all the attributes of God--will, power,\nand creation. Consider the absurdity into which you fall in making\nyourself God.\n\nYou have to choose between these two alternatives: either to be God\nwhenever you will, or to depend continually on God. The first is\nextravagant; the second alone is reasonable.\n\nIf there were in our body a little god called \u201cthe free soul,\u201d which\nbecomes so frequently a little devil, this little god would have to\nbe regarded either as having been created from all eternity, or as\ncreated at the moment of your conception, or during your embryonic\nlife, or at birth, or when you begin to feel. All these positions are\nequally ridiculous.\n\nA little subordinate god, existing uselessly during a past eternity\nand descending into a body that often dies at birth, is the height of\nabsurdity.\n\nIf this little god-soul is supposed to be created at the moment of\nconception, we must consider the master of nature, the being of\nbeings, continually occupied in watching assignations, attentive to\nevery intercourse of man and woman, ever ready to despatch a sentient\nand thinking soul into a recess between the entrails. A fine lodging\nfor a little god! When the mother brings forth a still-born child,\nwhat becomes of the god-soul that had been lodged in the abdomen?\nWhither has it returned?\n\nThe same difficulties and absurdities, equally ridiculous and\nrevolting, and found in connection with each of the other\nsuppositions. The idea of a soul, as it is usually and thoughtlessly\nconceived by people, is one of the most foolish things that has ever\nbeen devised.\n\nHow much more reasonable, more decent, more respectful to the supreme\nbeing, more in harmony with our nature, and therefore truer, is it\nnot to say:\n\n\u201cWe are machines made successively by the eternal geometrician;\nmachines made like all the other animals, having the same organs, the\nsame needs, the same pleasures, the same pains; far superior to all\nof them in many things, inferior to them in others; having received\nfrom the great being a principle of action which we cannot penetrate;\nreceiving everything, giving ourselves nothing; and a million times\nmore subject to him than the clay is to the potter who moulds it\u201d?\n\nOnce more, either man is a god or he is precisely as I have described\nhim.\n\n\n XII\n\n WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE OF ACTION IN ANIMALS IS FREE\n\nThere is a principle of action in man and in every animal, just\nas there is in every machine; and this first mover, this ultimate\nspring, is necessarily eternally arranged by the master, otherwise\nall would be chaos, and there would be no world.\n\nEvery animal, like every machine, necessarily and irresistibly\nobeys the power that directs it. That is evident, and sufficiently\nfamiliar. Every animal is possessed of will, and one must be a\nfool to think that a dog following its master has not the will to\nfollow him. No doubt, it follows him irresistibly; but it follows\nvoluntarily. Does it follow freely? Yes, if nothing prevents it; that\nis to say, it can follow, it wills to follow, and it follows. The\nfreedom to follow is not in its will, but in the power to walk that\nis given to it. A nightingale wills to make its nest, and makes it\nwhen it has found some moss. It had the freedom to construct this\ncradle, just as it had freedom to sing when it desires, and has not\na chill. But was it free to have the desire? Did it will to will to\nmake its nest? Had it that absurd \u201cliberty of indifference\u201d which\ntheologians would describe as follows: \u201cI neither will to make my\nnest nor the contrary; it is a matter of complete indifference to\nme; but I am going to will to make my nest solely for the sake of\nwilling, and without being determined to do it in any way, merely\nto prove that I am free\u201d? Such is the absurdity we find taught in\nthe schools. If the nightingale could speak, it would say to these\ndoctors: \u201cI am irresistibly determined to nest, I will to nest, and I\nnest; you are irresistibly determined to reason badly, and you fulfil\nyour destiny as I do mine.\u201d\n\nWe will now see if man is free in any other sense.\n\n\n XIII\n\n OF THE LIBERTY OF MAN, AND OF DESTINY\n\nA ball that drives another, a hunting-dog that necessarily and\nvoluntarily follows a stag, a stag that leaps a great ditch not less\nnecessarily and voluntarily, a roe that gives birth to another roe,\nwhich will bring a third into the world--these things are not more\nirresistibly determined than we are to do all that we do. Let us\nremember always how inconsistent and absurd it would be for one set\nof things to be arranged and the other not.\n\nEvery present event is born of the past, and is father of the future;\notherwise the universe would be quite other than it is, as Leibnitz\nhas well said, more correct in this than in his pre-established\nharmony.[70] The eternal chain can be neither broken nor entangled.\nThe great being who necessarily sustains it cannot let it hang\nuncertainly, nor change it; for he would then no longer be the\nnecessary and immutable being, the being of beings; he would be\nfrail, inconstant, capricious; he would belie his nature, and exist\nno longer.\n\nHence, an inevitable destiny is the law of nature, as the whole of\nantiquity felt. The dread of depriving man of some false liberty,\nrobbing virtue of its merit, and relieving crime of its horror, has\nat times alarmed tender souls; but as soon as they were enlightened\nthey returned to this great truth, that all things are enchained and\nnecessary.\n\nMan is free, we repeat, when he can do what he wills to do; but he is\nnot free to will; it is impossible that he should will without cause.\nIf this cause is not infallibly followed by its effect, it is no\ncause. It would not be more absurd for a cloud to say to the wind:\n\u201cI do not wish to be driven by you.\u201d This truth can never injure\nmorality. Vice is always vice, as disease is always disease. It will\nalways be necessary to repress the wicked; if they are determined to\nevil, we must reply that they are equally predestined to chastisement.\n\nLet us make these truths clearer.\n\n\n XIV\n\n ABSURDITY OF WHAT IS CALLED LIBERTY OF INDIFFERENCE\n\nWhat an admirable spectacle is that of the eternal destinies of all\nbeings chained to the throne of the maker of all worlds! I imagine a\ntime when it is not so, but a chimerical liberty makes every event\nuncertain. I imagine that one of the substances intermediate between\nus and the great being (there may be millions of such beings) comes\nto consult the eternal being on the destiny of some of the enormous\nglobes that stand at such vast distances from us. The sovereign of\nnature would be forced to reply: \u201cI am not sovereign, I am not the\ngreat necessary being; every little embryo is a master of destiny.\nThe whole world is free to will without any other cause than the\nwill. The future is uncertain; everything depends on caprice. I can\nforesee nothing. This great whole, which you regarded as so regular,\nis but a vast anarchy in which all is done without cause or reason. I\nshall be very careful not to say to you that such and such a thing\nwill happen; for then the wicked folk who people the globes would do\nthe contrary to what I had foretold, if it were only from malice. Men\nalways dare to be jealous of their master, when he has not a power\nso absolute as to take away the very faculty of jealousy; they are\npleased to see him fall into a trap. I am but weak and ignorant.\nAppeal to one more powerful and more gifted than I.\u201d\n\nPossibly this allegory will avail more than any other argument to\narrest the partisans of this empty liberty of indifference, if there\nstill be any, and those who labour to reconcile foreknowledge with\nthis liberty, and those who, in the university of Salamanca or in\nBedlam, still speak of medicinal and concomitant grace.\n\n\n XV\n\n OF EVIL AND, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE DESTRUCTION OF BEASTS\n\nWe have never had any idea of good and evil, save in relation to\nourselves. The sufferings of an animal seem to us evils, because,\nbeing animals ourselves, we feel that we should excite compassion if\nthe same were done to us. We should have the same feeling for a tree\nif we were told that it suffered torment when it was cut; and for a\nstone if we learned that it suffers when it is dressed. But we should\npity the tree and the stone much less than the animal, because they\nare less like us. Indeed, we soon cease to be touched by the awful\ndestiny of the beasts that are intended for our table. Children who\nweep at the death of the first chicken they see killed laugh at the\ndeath of the second.\n\nIt is only too sure that the disgusting carnage of our butcheries and\nkitchens does not seem to us an evil. On the contrary, we regard this\nhorror, pestilential as it often is, as a blessing of the Lord; and\nwe still have prayers in which we thank him for these murders. Yet\nwhat can be more abominable than to feed constantly on corpses?\n\nNot only do we spend our lives in killing, and devouring what we have\nkilled, but all the animals slaughter each other; they are impelled\nto do so by an invincible instinct. From the smallest insects to the\nrhinoceros and the elephant, the earth is but a vast battle-field, a\nworld of carnage and destruction. There is no animal that has not its\nprey, and that, to capture it, does not employ some means equivalent\nto the ruse and rage with which the detestable spider entraps and\ndevours the innocent fly. A flock of sheep devours in an hour, as it\ncrops the grass, more insects than there are men on the earth.\n\nWhat is still more cruel is that in this horrible scene of\nreiterated murder we perceive an evident design to perpetuate all\nspecies by means of the bloody corpses of their mutual enemies.\nThe victims do not expire until nature has carefully provided for\nnew representatives of the species. Everything is born again to be\nmurdered.\n\nYet I observe no moralist among us, nor any of our fluent preachers\nor boasters, who has ever reflected in the least on this frightful\nhabit, which has become part of our nature. We have to go back to the\npious Porphyry and the sympathetic Pythagoreans to find those who\nwould shame us for our bloody gluttony; or we must travel to the land\nof the Brahmans. Our monks, the caprice of whose founders has bade\nthem renounce the flesh, are murderers of soles and turbots, if not\nof partridges and quails. Neither among the monks, nor in the Council\nof Trent, nor in the assemblies of the clergy, nor in our academies,\nhas this universal butchery ever been pronounced an evil. There has\nbeen no more thought given to it in the councils of the clergy than\nin our public-houses.\n\nHence the great being is justified of these butcheries in our eyes;\nor, indeed, we are his accomplices.\n\n\n XVI\n\n OF EVIL IN THE ANIMAL CALLED MAN\n\nSo much for the beasts; let us come to man. If it be not an evil that\nthe only being on earth that knows God by his thoughts should be\nunhappy in his thoughts; if it be not an evil that this worshipper of\nthe Deity should be almost always unjust and suffering, should know\nvirtue and commit crime, should so often deceive and be deceived, and\nbe the victim or the executioner of his fellows, etc.; if all that be\nnot a frightful evil, I know not where evil is to be found.\n\nBeasts and men suffer almost without ceasing; men suffer the more\nbecause, not only is the gift of thought often a source of torture,\nbut this faculty of thinking always makes them fear death, which the\nbeast cannot foresee. Man is a very miserable being, having but a few\nhours of rest, a few moments of satisfaction, and a long series of\ndays of sorrow in his short life. Everybody admits and says this; and\nit is true.\n\nThey who have protested that all is well are charlatans. Shaftesbury,\nwho set the fashion in this, was a most unhappy man. I have seen\nBolingbroke torn with grief and rage; and Pope, whom he induced to\nput this miserable joke into verse, was one of the most pitiable men\nI have ever known, misshapen in body, unbalanced in temperament,\nalways ill and a burden to himself, harassed by a hundred enemies\nuntil his last moment. At least let us have happy beings saying that\nall is well.\n\nIf by all is well it is merely meant that a man\u2019s head is happily\nplaced above his shoulders, so that his eyes are better situated\nbeside the root of his nose than behind his ears, we may assent.\nAll is well in that sense. The laws of physics and mathematics are\nvery well observed in his structure. A man who saw the beautiful\nAnne Boleyn, or the still more beautiful Mary Stuart, in her youth,\nwould have said that it was well; would he have said it on seeing\nthem die by the hand of the executioner? Would he have said it on\nseeing the grandson of the beautiful Mary Stuart perish in the same\nway in the heart of his capital? Would he have said it on seeing the\ngreat-grandson even more miserable, because he lived longer?\n\nGlance over the human race, if it be but from the prescriptions of\nSylla to the Irish massacres.\n\nBehold these battlefields, strewn by imbeciles with the corpses of\nother imbeciles, whom they have slain with a substance born of the\nexperiments of a monk. See these arms, these legs, these bloody\nbrains, and all these scattered limbs; it is the fruit of a quarrel\nbetween two ignorant ministers, neither of whom would dare to open\nhis mouth in the presence of Newton, Locke, or Halley; or of some\nridiculous quarrel between two forward women. Enter the neighbouring\nhospital, where are gathered those who are not yet dead. Their life\nis taken from them by fresh torments, and men make a fortune out of\nthem, keeping a register of the victims who are dissected alive, at\nso much a day, under the pretext of healing them.\n\nSee these other men, dressed as comedians, earning a little money\nby singing, in a foreign language, a very obscure and insipid song,\nto thank the author of nature for this horrible outrage done to\nnature; and then tell me calmly that all is well.[71] Say the word,\nif you dare, in connection with Alexander VI. and Julius II.; say\nit over the ruins of a hundred towns that have been swallowed up by\nearthquakes, and amid the twelve millions of Americans who are being\nassassinated, in twelve million ways, to punish them for not being\nable to understand in Latin a papal bull that the monks have read\nto them. Say it to-day, the 24th of August, 1772; a day on which\nthe pen trembles in my fingers, the two-hundredth anniversary of the\nmassacre of St. Bartholomew. Pass from these innumerable theatres\nof carnage to the equally unnumbered retreats of sorrow that cover\nthe earth, to that swarm of diseases which slowly devour so many\npoor wretches while they yet live; think of that frightful ravage of\nnature which poisons the human race in its source, and associates\nthe most abominable of plagues with the most necessary of pleasures.\nSee that despised king Henry III., and that mediocre leader the Duke\nof Mayenne, struck down with the small-pox while they are waging\ncivil war; and that insolent descendant of a Florentine merchant,\nGondi, and Retz, the priest, archbishop of Paris, preaching with\nsword in hand and body diseased. To complete this true and horrible\npicture, fancy yourself amid the floods and volcanoes that have so\noften devastated so many parts of the world; amid the leprosy and the\nplague that have swept it. And do you who read this recall all that\nyou have suffered, admit that evil exists, and do not add to so many\nmiseries and horrors the wild absurdity of denying them.\n\n\n XVII\n\n ROMANCES INVENTED TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF EVIL\n\nOf a hundred peoples who have sought the cause of physical and moral\nevil, the Hindoos are the first whose romantic imaginations are known\nto us. They are sublime, if the word \u201csublime\u201d be taken to mean\n\u201chigh.\u201d Evil, according to the ancient Brahmans, comes of a quarrel\nthat once took place in the highest heavens, between the faithful and\nthe jealous angels. The rebels were cast out of heaven into Ondera\nfor millions of ages. But the great being pardoned them at the end\nof a few thousand years; they were turned into men, and they brought\nupon the earth the evil that they had engendered in the empyr\u00e6an. We\nhave elsewhere described at length this ancient fable, the source of\nall fables.\n\nIt was finely imitated by gifted nations, and grossly reproduced by\nbarbarians. Nothing, indeed, is more spiritual and agreeable than\nthe story of Pandora and her box. If Hesiod has had the merit of\ninventing this allegory, I think it as superior to Homer as Homer is\nto Lycophron.\n\nThis box of Pandora, containing all the evils that have issued from\nit, seems to have all the charm of the most striking and delicate\nallusions. Nothing is more enchanting than this origin of our\nsufferings. But there is something still more admirable in the story\nof Pandora. It has a very high merit, which seems to have escaped\nnotice: it is that no one was ever commanded to believe it.\n\n\n XVIII\n\n OF THE SAME ROMANCES, IMITATED BY BARBARIC NATIONS\n\nIn the regions of Chald\u00e6a and Syria the barbarians also had their\nlegends of the origin of evil. Among one of these nations in the\nneighbourhood of the Euphrates it was said that a serpent, meeting\na burdened and thirsty ass, asked what the ass carried. \u201cThe recipe\nof immortality,\u201d said the ass; \u201cGod has bestowed it upon man, who\nhas laid it on my back. He follows me, but is far off, because he\nhas only two legs. I die of thirst; prithee tell me where there is a\nstream.\u201d The serpent led the ass to water, and, while it drank, stole\nthe recipe. Hence it is that the serpent is immortal, while man is\nsubject to death and all the pains that precede it.\n\nYou will observe that the serpent was thought by all peoples to\nbe immortal because it cast its skin. If it changed its skin,\nthis must have been in order to become young again. I have spoken\nelsewhere of this na\u00efve theology; but it is well to bring it once\nmore to the notice of the reader, in order to show him the nature of\nthis venerable antiquity, in which serpents and asses played such\nimportant parts.\n\nThe Syrians rose higher. They told that man and woman, having been\ncreated in heaven, desired one day to eat a certain cake; and that\nthey then asked an angel to show them the place of retirement. The\nangel pointed to the earth. They went thither; and God, to punish\nthem for their gluttony, left them there. Let us also leave them\nthere, and their dinner and their ass and their serpent. These\ninconceivable puerilities of ancient Syria are not worth a moment\u2019s\nnotice. The detestable fables of an obscure people should be excluded\nfrom a serious discussion.\n\nLet us return from these miserable legends to the great saying of\nEpicurus, which has so long alarmed the whole earth, and to which\nthere is no answer but a sigh: \u201cEither God wished to prevent evil\nand could not do so; or he was able to do so, and did not wish.\u201d\n\nA thousand bachelors and doctors of divinity have fired the arrows of\nthe school at this unshakeable rock; in this terrible shelter have\nthe Atheists taken refuge. Yet the Atheist must admit that there is\nin nature an active, intelligent, necessary, eternal principle, and\nthat from this principle comes all that we call good and evil. Let us\ndiscuss the point with the Atheist.\n\n\n XIX\n\n DISCOURSE OF AN ATHEIST ON ALL THIS\n\nAn Atheist says to me: It has been proved, I admit, that there is\nan eternal and necessary principle. But from the fact that it is\nnecessary I infer that all that is derived from it is necessary;\nyou have been compelled to admit this yourself. Since everything is\nnecessary, evil is as inevitable as good. The great wheel of the\never-turning machine crushes all that comes in its way. I have no\nneed of an intelligent being who can do nothing of himself, and who\nis as much a slave to his destiny as I am to mine. If he existed,\nI should have too much with which to reproach him. I should be\nobliged to call him either feeble or wicked. I would rather deny\nhis existence than be discourteous to him. Let us get through this\nmiserable life as well as we can, without reference to a fantastic\nbeing whom no one has ever seen, and to whom it would matter little,\nif he existed, whether we believed in him or not. What I think of\nhim can no more affect him, supposing that he exists, than what\nhe thinks of me, of which I am ignorant, affects me. There is no\nrelation, no connection, no interest between him and me. Either there\nis no such being or he is an utter stranger to me. Let us do as nine\nhundred and ninety-nine mortals out of a thousand do; they work,\ngenerate, eat, drink, sleep, suffer, and die, without speaking of\nmetaphysics, or knowing that there is such a thing.\n\n\n XX\n\n DISCOURSE OF A MANICH\u00c6AN\n\nA Manich\u00e6an, hearing the Atheist, says to him: You are mistaken.\nNot only is there a God, but there are necessarily two. It has been\nfully proved that the universe is arranged intelligently, and there\nis an intelligent principle in nature; but it is impossible that this\nintelligent principle, which is the author of good, should also be\nthe author of evil. Evil must have its own God. Zoroaster was the\nfirst to proclaim this great truth, about two thousand years ago;\nand two other Zoroasters came afterwards to confirm it. The Parsees\nhave always followed, and still follow, this excellent doctrine. Some\nwretched people or other, called the Jews, at that time in bondage to\nus, learned a little of our science, together with the names of Satan\nand Knatbul. They recognised God and the devil; and the devil was so\npowerful, in the opinion of this poor little people, that one day,\nwhen God had descended into their country, the devil took him up\ninto a mountain. Admit two gods, therefore; the world is large enough\nto hold them and find sufficient work for them.\n\n\n XXI\n\n DISCOURSE OF A PAGAN\n\nThen a Pagan arose, and said: If we are to admit two gods, I do\nnot see what prevents us from worshipping a thousand. The Greeks\nand Romans, who were superior to you, were polytheists. It will be\nnecessary some day to return to the admirable doctrine that peoples\nthe universe with genii and deities; it is assuredly the only\nsystem which explains everything--the only one in which there is no\ncontradiction. If your wife betrays you, Venus is the cause of it.\nIf you are robbed, put the blame on Mercury. If you lose an arm or\na leg in battle, it was arranged by Mars. So much for the evil. In\nregard to the good, not only do Apollo, Ceres, Pomona, Bacchus, and\nFlora load you with presents, but occasionally the same Mars will rid\nyou of your enemies, the same Venus will find you mistresses, the\nsame Mercury may pour all your neighbours\u2019 gold into your coffers,\nprovided your hand comes to the assistance of his wand.\n\nIt was much easier for these gods to agree in governing the universe\nthan it seems to be to this Manich\u00e6an to reconcile his Ormuzd, the\nbenevolent, and Ahriman, the malevolent, two mortal enemies, so as\nto maintain both light and darkness. Many eyes see better than one.\nHence all the poets of antiquity are continually calling councils\nof the gods. How can you suppose that one god is enough to see to\nall the details of life on Saturn and all the business of the star\nCapella? What! You imagine that everything on our globe, except\nin the houses of the King of Prussia and the Pope Ganganelli, is\nregulated by councils, and there is no council in heaven! There is no\nbetter way of deciding things than by a majority of votes. The deity\nalways acts in the wisest way. The Theist seems to me, in comparison\nwith a Pagan, to be like a Prussian soldier entering the territory\nof Venice; he is charmed with the excellence of the government. \u201cThe\nking of this country,\u201d he says, \u201cmust work from morning to night. I\ngreatly pity him.\u201d \u201cThere is no king,\u201d people reply; \u201cwe are governed\nby a council.\u201d\n\nHere are the true principles of our ancient religion.\n\nThe great being known as Jehovah or Yaa among the Ph\u0153nicians, the\nJove of other Asiatic nations, the Jupiter of the Romans, the Zeus of\nthe Greeks, is the sovereign of gods and men.\n\n _Deum sator atque hominum rex._\n\nThe master of the whole of nature, to whom nothing in the whole range\nof being approaches.\n\n _Cui nihil simile, nec secundum._\n\nThe animating spirit of the universe.\n\n _Jovis omnia plena._\n\nAll the ideas that one may have of God are enfolded in this fine\nverse of the ancient Orpheus, quoted throughout antiquity, and\nrepeated in all the mysteries.\n\n \u03b5\u1f36\u03c2 \u1f14\u03c3\u03c4\u2019, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1f74\u03c2, \u1f11\u03bd\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f14k\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03b1 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03ad\u03c5\u03ba\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9.\n\n \u201cHe is One, self-born, and all was born of One.\u201d\n\nBut he confides to the subordinate gods the care of the stars, the\nelements, the seas, and the bowels of the earth. His wife, who\nrepresents the expanse of space that he fills, is Juno. His daughter,\nwho is eternal wisdom, his word, is Minerva. His other daughter,\nVenus, is the lover of the poetical generation. She is the mother of\nlove, inflaming all sensitive beings, uniting them, reproducing by\nthe attraction of pleasure all that necessity devotes to death. All\nthe gods have made presents to mortals. Ceres has given them corn,\nBacchus the vine, Pomona fruit; Apollo and Mercury have taught them\nthe arts.\n\nThe great Zeus, the great Demiourgos, had made the planets and the\nearth. He had brought men and animals into existence on our planet.\nThe first man was, according to the account of Berosus, Alora, father\nof Sares, grandfather of Alaspara, who begot Amenon, of whom was born\nMetalare, who was the father of Daon, father of Everodao, father of\nAmphis, father of Osiarte, father of the famous Sixutros or Xixutrus,\nKing of Chald\u00e6a, under whom occurred the well-known deluge, which the\nGreeks called \u201cthe deluge of Ogyges\u201d; a flood of which the precise\ndate is still uncertain, as is that of the other great inundation,\nwhich swallowed up the isle of Atlantis and part of Greece about six\nthousand years ago.\n\nWe have another theogony in Sanchoniathon, without a deluge. Those of\nthe Hindoos, Chinese, and Egyptians are very different again.\n\nAll events of antiquity are lost in a dark night; but the existence\nand blessings of Jupiter are clearer than the light of the sun. The\nhero who, stirred by his example, did good to men was known by the\nholy name of Dionysos, son of God. Bacchus, Hercules, Perseus, and\nRomulus also received this divine name. Some went so far even as to\nsay that the divine virtue was communicated to their mothers. The\nGreeks and Romans, although they were somewhat debauched, as are\nto-day all Christians of a sociable nature, rather drunken, like the\ncanons of Germany, and given to unnatural vices, like the French\nking Henry III. and his Nogaret, were very religious. They offered\nsacrifice and incense, walked in processions, and fasted.\n\nBut everything becomes corrupt in time. Religion changed. The\nsplendid name of Son of God--that is to say, just and benevolent--was\nafterwards given to the most unjust and cruel of men, because they\nwere powerful. The ancient piety, which was humane, was displaced by\nsuperstition, which is always cruel. Virtue had dwelt on the earth as\nlong as the fathers of families were the only priests, and offered to\nJupiter and the immortal gods the first of their fruits and flowers;\nbut all this was changed when the priests began to shed blood and\nwanted to share with the gods. They did share in truth; they took the\nofferings, and left the smoke to the gods. You know how our enemies\nsucceeded in crushing us, adopting our earlier morals, rejecting our\nbloody sacrifices, calling men to the Church, making a party for\nthemselves among the poor until such time as they should capture the\nrich. They took our place. We are annihilated, they triumph; but,\ncorrupted at length like ourselves, they need a great reform, which I\nwish them with all my heart.\n\n\n XXII\n\n DISCOURSE OF A JEW\n\nTake no notice of this idolatrous Pagan who would turn God into\na Dutch president, and offer us subordinate gods like members of\nparliament.\n\nMy religion, being above nature, can have no resemblance to others.\n\nThe first difference between them and us is that the source of our\nreligion was hidden for a very long time from the rest of the earth.\nThe dogmas of our fathers were buried, like ourselves, in a little\ncountry about a hundred and fifty miles long and sixty in width. In\nthis well dwelt the truth that was unknown to the whole world, until\ncertain rebels, going forth from among us, took from it the name of\n\u201ctruth\u201d in the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero; and\npresently boasted that they were establishing a new truth.\n\nThe Chald\u00e6ans recognised Alora as their father, as you know.\nThe Ph\u0153nicians descended from a man named Origen, according to\nSanchoniathon. The Greeks had their Prometheus; the Atlantids had\ntheir Ouran, called in Greek Ouranos. I say nothing of the Chinese,\nHindoos, or Scythians. We had our Adam, of whom nobody ever heard\nexcept our nation, and we only very late. It was not the Ephaistos\nof the Greeks, known to the Latins as Vulcan, who invented the\nart of using metals; it was Tubalcain. The whole of the West was\nastonished to hear, under Constantine, that it was not Bacchus to\nwhom the nations owed the use of wine, but Noah, whose name none\nknew in the whole Roman Empire, any more than they knew the names of\nhis ancestors, which were unknown throughout the earth. The anecdote\nwas learned only from our Bible, when it was translated into Greek;\nit began to spread about that time. The sun was then seen to be no\nlonger the source of light; the light was created before the sun,\nand separated from the darkness, as the waters were separated from\nthe waters. Woman was made from a rib, which God himself took out\nof a sleeping man, without awakening him, and without causing his\ndescendants to be short of a rib.\n\nThe Tigris, Araxis, Euphrates, and Nile all had their source in the\nsame garden. We do not know where the garden was, but its existence\nis proved, because the gate was guarded by a cherub.\n\nAnimals speak. The eloquence of a serpent was fatal to the whole\nhuman race. A Chald\u00e6an prophet conversed with his ass.\n\nGod, the creator of all men, is not the father of all men, but of\none family alone. This family, always wandering, left the fertile\nland of Chald\u00e6a to wander for some time in the neighbourhood of\nSodom; from this journey it acquired an incontestable right to the\ncity of Jerusalem, which was not yet in existence.\n\nOur family increases at such a rate that seventy men produce, at the\nend of two hundred and fifty years, six hundred and thirty thousand\nmen bearing arms; counting the women, children, and old men, that\namounts to about three millions. These three millions live in a small\ncanton of Egypt which cannot maintain twenty thousand people. For\ntheir advantage God puts to death in one night all the first-born of\nthe Egyptians; and, after this massacre, instead of giving Egypt to\nhis people, God puts himself at their head to fly with them dry-foot\nacross the sea, and cause a whole generation of Jews to die in the\ndesert.\n\nWe have seven times been in slavery in spite of the appalling\nmiracles that God works for us every day, causing the moon to stand\nstill in midday, and also the sun. Ten out of twelve of our tribes\nperished for ever. The other two are scattered and in misery. We\nhave always prophets, nevertheless. God descends continually among\nour people alone, and mingles only with us. He appears constantly to\nthese prophets, his sole confidants and favourites.\n\nHe goes to visit Addo or Iddo or Jeddo, and commands him to travel\nwithout eating. The prophet thinks that God has ordered him to eat\nthat he may walk better; he eats, and forthwith he is eaten by a lion\n(1 _Kings_ xiii.).\n\nGod commands Isaiah to go forth among his fellow-citizens in a most\nunbecoming state of attire, _discoopertis natibus_ (_Isaiah_ xx.).\n\nGod orders Jeremiah to put a yoke on his neck and a saddle on his\nback (_ch._ xxvii. according to the Hebrews).\n\nHe orders Ezekiel to have himself bound, to eat a parchment book, to\nlie for two hundred and ninety days on the right side and forty days\non the left side, and then to eat filth with his bread.\n\nHe commands Hosea to take a prostitute and have three children\nby her; then he commands him to pay an adulterous woman and have\nchildren by her.\n\nAdd to all these prodigies an uninterrupted series of massacres, and\nyou will see that among us all things are divine, because nothing is\nin accordance with what men call decent laws.\n\nUnhappily, we were not well known to other nations until we were\nnearly annihilated. It was our enemies, the Christians, who made\nus known when they despoiled us. They built up their system with\nmaterial taken from a bad Greek translation of our Bible. They insult\nand oppress us to this day; but our turn will come. It is well known\nhow we will triumph at the end of the world, when there will be no\none left on the earth.\n\n\n XXIII\n\n DISCOURSE OF A TURK\n\nWhen the Jew had finished, a Turk, who had smoked throughout the\nmeeting, washed his mouth, recited the formula \u201cAllah Illah,\u201d and\nsaid to me:\n\nI have listened to all these dreamers. I have gathered that thou\nart a dog of a Christian, but thou pleasest me because thou seemest\nliberal, and art in favour of gratuitous predestination. I believe\nthou art a sensible man, assuming that thou dost agree with me.\n\nMost of thy dogs of Christians have spoken only folly about our\nMohammed. A certain Baron de Tott, a man of much ability and\ngeniality, who did us great service in the last war, induced me\nsome time ago to read a book of one of your most learned men, named\nGrotius, entitled _The Truth of the Christian Religion_. This Grotius\naccuses our great Mohammed of forcing men to believe that a pigeon\nspoke in his ear, that a camel conversed with him during the night,\nand that he had put half the moon in his sleeve. If the most learned\nof your Christ-worshippers can write such asinine stuff, what must I\nthink of the others?\n\nNo, Mohammed did none of these village-miracles, of which people\nspeak only a hundred years after the supposed event. He wrought none\nof those miracles which Baron de Tott read to me in the _Golden\nLegend_, written at Geneva. He wrought none of your miracles in the\nmanner of St. M\u00e9dard, which have been so much derided in Europe, and\nat which a French ambassador has laughed so much in our presence.\nThe miracles of Mohammed were victories. God has shown that he was\na favourite by subjecting half our hemisphere to him. He was not\nunknown for two whole centuries. He triumphed as soon as he was\npersecuted.\n\nHis religion is wise, severe, chaste, and humane. Wise, because\nit knows not the folly of giving God associates, and it has no\nmysteries; severe, because it prohibits games of chance, and wine,\nand strong drinks, and orders prayer five times a day; chaste,\nbecause it reduces to four the prodigious number of spouses who\nshared the bed of all oriental princes; humane, because it imposes on\nus almsgiving more rigorously than the journey to Mecca.\n\nAdd tolerance to all these marks of truth. Reflect that we have in\nthe city of Stamboul alone more than a hundred thousand Christians of\nall sects, who carry out all the ceremonies of their cults in peace,\nand live so happily under the shelter of our laws that they never\ndeign to visit you, while you crowd to our imperial gate.\n\n\n XXIV\n\n DISCOURSE OF A THEIST\n\nA Theist then asked permission to speak, and said:\n\nEveryone has his own opinion, good or bad. I should be sorry to\ndistress any good man. First, I ask pardon of the Atheist; but it\nseems to me that, compelled as he is to admit an excellent design in\nthe order of the universe, he is bound to admit an intelligence that\nhas conceived and carried out this design. It is enough, it seems to\nme, that, when the Atheist lights a candle, he admits that it is for\nthe purpose of giving light. It seems to me that he should also grant\nthat the sun was made to illumine our part of the universe. We must\nnot dispute about such probable matters.\n\nThe Atheist should yield the more graciously since, being a good man,\nhe has nothing to fear from a master who has no interest in injuring\nhim. He may quite safely admit a God; he will not pay a penny the\nmore in taxes, and will not live less comfortably.\n\nAs to you, my pagan friend, I submit that you are rather late with\nyour project of restoring polytheism. For that Maxentius ought to\nhave defeated Constantine, or else Julian ought to have lived thirty\nyears longer.\n\nI confess that I see no impossibility in the existence of several\nbeings far superior to us, each of whom would superintend some\nheavenly body. Indeed, it would give me some pleasure to prefer\nyour Naiads, Dryads, Sylvans, Graces, and Loves to St. Fiacre, St.\nPancratius, Sts. Crepin and Crepinien, St. Vitus, St. Cunegonde, or\nSt. Marjolaine. But, really, one must not multiply things without\nneed; and as a single intelligence suffices for the regulation of the\nworld, I will stop at that until other powers show me that they share\nits rule.\n\nAs to you, my Manich\u00e6an friend, you seem to me a duellist, very fond\nof fighting. I am a peaceful man, and do not like to find myself\nbetween two rivals who are ever at war. Your Ormuzd is enough for me;\nyou can keep your Ahriman.\n\nI shall always be somewhat embarrassed in regard to the origin of\nevil; but I suppose that the good Ormuzd, who made everything, could\nnot do better. I cannot offend him if I say to him: You have done all\nthat a powerful, wise, and good being could do. It is not your fault\nif your works cannot be as good and perfect as yourself. Imperfection\nis one of the essential differences between you and your creatures.\nYou could not make gods; it was necessary that, since men possessed\nreason, they should display folly, just as there must be friction in\nevery machine. Each man has his dose of imperfection and folly, from\nthe very fact that you are perfect and wise. He must not be always\nhappy, because you are always happy. It seems to me that a collection\nof muscles, nerves, and veins cannot last more than eighty or a\nhundred years at the most, and that you must be for ever. It seems to\nme impossible that an animal, necessarily compacted of desires and\nwills, should not at times wish to serve his own purpose by doing\nevil to his neighbour. You only never do evil. Lastly, there is\nnecessarily so great a distance between you and your works that the\ngood is in you, and the evil must be in them.[72]\n\nAs for me, imperfect as I am, I thank you for giving me a short span\nof existence, and especially for not having made me a professor of\ntheology.\n\nThat is not at all a bad compliment. God could not be angry with me,\nseeing that I do not wish to displease him. In fine, I feel that,\nif I do no evil to my brethren and respect my master, I shall have\nnothing to fear, either from Ahriman, or Cerberus and the Furies, or\nSatan, or Knatbull, or St. Fiacre and St. Crepin; and I shall end my\ndays in peace and the pursuit of philosophy.\n\nI come now to you, Mr. Abrabanel and Mr. Benjamin.[73] You seem\nto me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, Hottentots, and\nblacks of New Guinea are more reasonable and decent beings than your\nJewish ancestors were. You have surpassed all nations in exorbitant\nlegends, bad conduct, and barbarism. You are paying for it; it is\nyour destiny. The Roman Empire has fallen; the Parsees, your former\nmasters, are scattered. The Armenians sell rags, and occupy a low\nposition in the whole of Asia. There is no trace left of the ancient\nEgyptians. Why should you be a power?\n\nAs to you, my Turkish friend, I advise you to come to terms as soon\nas possible with the Empress of Russia, if you wish to keep what you\nhave usurped in Europe. I am willing to believe that the victories of\nMohammed, son of Abdala, were miracles; but Catherine II. also works\nmiracles. Take care that she do not some day perform the miracle of\nsending you back to the deserts from which you came. In particular,\ncontinue to be tolerant; it is the true way to please the being of\nbeings, who is alike the father of Turks and Russians, Chinese and\nJapanese, black and yellow man, and of the whole of nature.\n\n\n XXV\n\n DISCOURSE OF A CITIZEN\n\nWhen the Theist had spoken, a man arose and said: I am a citizen,\nand therefore the friend of all these gentlemen. I will not dispute\nwith any of them. I wish only to see them all united in the design of\naiding and loving each other, in making each other happy, in so far\nas men of such different opinions can love each other, and contribute\nto each other\u2019s happiness, which is as difficult as it is necessary.\n\nTo attain this end, I advise them first to cast in the fire all the\ncontroversial books which come their way, especially those of the\nJesuits; and also the ecclesiastical gazette, and all other pamphlets\nwhich are but the fuel of the civil war of fools.\n\nNext, each of our brethren, whether Theist, Turk, Pagan, Greek\nChristian, Latin Christian, Anglican, Scandinavian, Jew, or Atheist,\nwill read attentively several pages of Cicero\u2019s _De Officiis_, or of\nMontaigne, and some of La Fontaine\u2019s _Fables_.\n\nThe reading of these works insensibly disposes men to that concord\nwhich theologians have hitherto held in horror. Their minds being\nthus prepared, every time that a Christian and a Mussulman meet an\nAtheist they will say to him: \u201cDear brother, may heaven enlighten\nyou\u201d; and the Atheist will reply: \u201cWhen I am converted I shall come\nand thank you.\u201d\n\nThe Theist will give two kisses to the Manich\u00e6an woman in honour of\nthe two principles. The Greek and Roman woman will give three to\neach member of the other sects, even the Quakers and Jansenists. The\nSocinians need only embrace once, seeing that those gentlemen believe\nthere is only one person in God; but this embrace will be equal to\nthree when it is performed in good faith.\n\nWe know that an Atheist can live very cordially with a Jew,\nespecially if the Jew does not charge more than eight per cent.\nin lending him money; but we have no hope of ever seeing a lively\nfriendship between a Calvinist and a Lutheran. All that we require\nof the Calvinist is that he return the salute of the Lutheran with\nsome affection, and do not follow the example of the Quakers, who do\nreverence to nobody; but the Calvinists have not their candour.\n\nWe urge the primitive folk called Quakers to marry their sons to the\ndaughters of the Theists who are known as Socinians, as these young\nladies, being nearly all the daughters of priests, are very poor.\nNot only will it be a very good deed before God and men, but these\nmarriages will produce a new race, which, representing the first\nyears of the Christian Church, will be very useful to the human race.\n\nThese preliminaries being settled, if any quarrel occur between\nmembers of two different sects, they must never choose a theologian\nas arbitrator, for he would infallibly eat the oyster and leave them\nthe shells.\n\nTo maintain the established peace nothing shall be offered for sale,\neither by a Greek to a Turk, a Turk to a Jew, or a Roman to a Roman,\nexcept what pertains to food, clothing, lodging, or pleasure. They\nshall not sell circumcision, or baptism, or burial, or permission to\nturn round the black stone in the _caaba_, or to harden one\u2019s knees\nbefore Our Lady of Loretto, who is still blacker.\n\nIn all the disputes that shall arise it is expressly forbidden to\ntreat any person as a dog, however angry one may be--unless indeed we\ntreat dogs as men when they steal our dinner or bite us.\n\n\n\n\n POEM ON THE LISBON DISASTER;\n\n OR AN EXAMINATION OF THE AXIOM, \u201cALL IS WELL\u201d\n\n\n Unhappy mortals! Dark and mourning earth!\n Affrighted gathering of human kind!\n Eternal lingering of useless pain!\n Come, ye philosophers, who cry, \u201cAll\u2019s well,\u201d\n And contemplate this ruin of a world.\n Behold these shreds and cinders of your race,\n This child and mother heaped in common wreck,\n These scattered limbs beneath the marble shafts--\n A hundred thousand whom the earth devours,\n Who, torn and bloody, palpitating yet,\n Entombed beneath their hospitable roofs,\n In racking torment end their stricken lives.\n To those expiring murmurs of distress,\n To that appalling spectacle of woe,\n Will ye reply: \u201cYou do but illustrate\n The iron laws that chain the will of God\u201d?\n Say ye, o\u2019er that yet quivering mass of flesh:\n \u201cGod is avenged: the wage of sin is death\u201d?\n What crime, what sin, had those young hearts conceived\n That lie, bleeding and torn, on mother\u2019s breast?\n Did fallen Lisbon deeper drink of vice\n Than London, Paris, or sunlit Madrid?\n In these men dance; at Lisbon yawns the abyss.\n Tranquil spectators of your brothers\u2019 wreck,\n Unmoved by this repellent dance of death,\n Who calmly seek the reason of such storms,\n Let them but lash your own security;\n Your tears will mingle freely with the flood.\n When earth its horrid jaws half open shows,\n My plaint is innocent, my cries are just.\n Surrounded by such cruelties of fate,\n By rage of evil and by snares of death,\n Fronting the fierceness of the elements,\n Sharing our ills, indulge me my lament.\n \u201c\u2019Tis pride,\u201d ye say--\u201cthe pride of rebel heart,\n To think we might fare better than we do.\u201d\n Go, tell it to the Tagus\u2019 stricken banks;\n Search in the ruins of that bloody shock;\n Ask of the dying in that house of grief,\n Whether \u2019tis pride that calls on heaven for help\n And pity for the sufferings of men.\n \u201cAll\u2019s well,\u201d ye say, \u201cand all is necessary.\u201d\n Think ye this universe had been the worse\n Without this hellish gulf in Portugal?\n Are ye so sure the great eternal cause,\n That knows all things, and for itself creates,\n Could not have placed us in this dreary clime\n Without volcanoes seething \u2019neath our feet?\n Set you this limit to the power supreme?\n Would you forbid it use its clemency?\n Are not the means of the great artisan\n Unlimited for shaping his designs?\n The master I would not offend, yet wish\n This gulf of fire and sulphur had outpoured\n Its baleful flood amid the desert wastes.\n God I respect, yet love the universe.\n Not pride, alas, it is, but love of man,\n To mourn so terrible a stroke as this.\n\n Would it console the sad inhabitants\n Of these aflame and desolated shores\n To say to them: \u201cLay down your lives in peace;\n For the world\u2019s good your homes are sacrificed;\n Your ruined palaces shall others build,\n For other peoples shall your walls arise;\n The North grows rich on your unhappy loss;\n Your ills are but a link in general law;\n To God you are as those low creeping worms\n That wait for you in your predestined tombs\u201d?\n What speech to hold to victims of such ruth!\n Add not such cruel outrage to their pain.\n\n Nay, press not on my agitated heart\n These iron and irrevocable laws,\n This rigid chain of bodies, minds, and worlds.\n Dreams of the bloodless thinker are such thoughts.\n God holds the chain: is not himself enchained;\n By his indulgent choice is all arranged;\n Implacable he\u2019s not, but free and just.\n Why suffer we, then, under one so just?[74]\n There is the knot your thinkers should undo.\n Think ye to cure our ills denying them?\n All peoples, trembling at the hand of God,\n Have sought the source of evil in the world.\n When the eternal law that all things moves\n Doth hurl the rock by impact of the winds,\n With lightning rends and fires the sturdy oak,\n They have no feeling of the crashing blows;\n But I, I live and feel, my wounded heart\n Appeals for aid to him who fashioned it.\n\n Children of that Almighty Power, we stretch\n Our hands in grief towards our common sire.\n The vessel, truly, is not heard to say:\n \u201cWhy should I be so vile, so coarse, so frail?\u201d\n Nor speech nor thought is given unto it.\n The urn that, from the potter\u2019s forming hand,\n Slips and is shattered has no living heart\n That yearns for bliss and shrinks from misery.\n \u201cThis misery,\u201d ye say, \u201cis others\u2019 good.\u201d\n Yes; from my mouldering body shall be born\n A thousand worms, when death has closed my pain.\n Fine consolation this in my distress!\n Grim speculators on the woes of men,\n Ye double, not assuage, my misery.\n In you I mark the nerveless boast of pride\n That hides its ill with pretext of content.\n\n I am a puny part of the great whole.\n Yes; but all animals condemned to live,\n All sentient things, born by the same stern law,\n Suffer like me, and like me also die.\n\n The vulture fastens on his timid prey,\n And stabs with bloody beak the quivering limbs:\n All\u2019s well, it seems, for it. But in a while\n An eagle tears the vulture into shreds;\n The eagle is transfixed by shaft of man;\n The man, prone in the dust of battlefield,\n Mingling his blood with dying fellow-men,\n Becomes in turn the food of ravenous birds.\n Thus the whole world in every member groans:\n All born for torment and for mutual death.\n And o\u2019er this ghastly chaos you would say\n The ills of each make up the good of all!\n What blessedness! And as, with quaking voice,\n Mortal and pitiful, ye cry, \u201cAll\u2019s well,\u201d\n The universe belies you, and your heart\n Refutes a hundred times your mind\u2019s conceit.\n\n All dead and living things are locked in strife.\n Confess it freely--evil stalks the land,\n Its secret principle unknown to us.\n Can it be from the author of all good?\n Are we condemned to weep by tyrant law\n Of black Typhon or barbarous Ahriman?[75]\n These odious monsters, whom a trembling world\n Made gods, my spirit utterly rejects.\n\n But how conceive a God supremely good,\n Who heaps his favours on the sons he loves,\n Yet scatters evil with as large a hand?\n What eye can pierce the depth of his designs?\n From that all-perfect Being came not ill:\n And came it from no other, for he\u2019s lord:\n Yet it exists. O stern and numbing truth!\n O wondrous mingling of diversities!\n A God came down to lift our stricken race:\n He visited the earth, and changed it not!\n One sophist says he had not power to change;\n \u201cHe had,\u201d another cries, \u201cbut willed it not:\n In time he will, no doubt.\u201d And, while they prate,\n The hidden thunders, belched from underground,\n Fling wide the ruins of a hundred towns\n Across the smiling face of Portugal.\n God either smites the inborn guilt of man,\n Or, arbitrary lord of space and time,\n Devoid alike of pity and of wrath,\n Pursues the cold designs he has conceived.\n Or else this formless stuff, recalcitrant,\n Bears in itself inalienable faults;\n Or else God tries us, and this mortal life\n Is but the passage to eternal spheres.\n \u2019Tis transitory pain we suffer here,\n And death its merciful deliverance.\n Yet, when this dreadful passage has been made,\n Who will contend he has deserved the crown?\n Whatever side we take we needs must groan;\n We nothing know, and everything must fear.\n Nature is dumb, in vain appeal to it;\n The human race demands a word of God.\n \u2019Tis his alone to illustrate his work,\n Console the weary, and illume the wise.\n Without him man, to doubt and error doomed,\n Finds not a reed that he may lean upon.\n From Leibnitz learn we not by what unseen\n Bonds, in this best of all imagined worlds,\n Endless disorder, chaos of distress,\n Must mix our little pleasures thus with pain;\n Nor why the guiltless suffer all this woe\n In common with the most abhorrent guilt.\n \u2019Tis mockery to tell me all is well.\n Like learned doctors, nothing do I know.\n Plato has said that men did once have wings\n And bodies proof against all mortal ill;\n That pain and death were strangers to their world.\n How have we fallen from that high estate!\n Man crawls and dies: all is but born to die:\n The world\u2019s the empire of destructiveness.\n This frail construction of quick nerves and bones\n Cannot sustain the shock of elements;\n This temporary blend of blood and dust\n Was put together only to dissolve;\n This prompt and vivid sentiment of nerve\n Was made for pain, the minister of death:\n Thus in my ear does nature\u2019s message run.\n Plato and Epicurus I reject,\n And turn more hopefully to learned Bayle.\n With even poised scale Bayle bids me doubt.\n He, wise and great enough to need no creed,\n Has slain all systems--combats even himself:\n Like that blind conqueror of Philistines,\n He sinks beneath the ruin he has wrought.[76]\n What is the verdict of the vastest mind?\n Silence: the book of fate is closed to us.\n Man is a stranger to his own research;\n He knows not whence he comes, nor whither goes.\n Tormented atoms in a bed of mud,\n Devoured by death, a mockery of fate.\n But thinking atoms, whose far-seeing eyes,\n Guided by thought, have measured the faint stars,\n Our being mingles with the infinite;\n Ourselves we never see, or come to know.\n This world, this theatre of pride and wrong,\n Swarms with sick fools who talk of happiness.\n With plaints and groans they follow up the quest,\n To die reluctant, or be born again.\n At fitful moments in our pain-racked life\n The hand of pleasure wipes away our tears;\n But pleasure passes like a fleeting shade,\n And leaves a legacy of pain and loss.\n The past for us is but a fond regret,\n The present grim, unless the future\u2019s clear.\n If thought must end in darkness of the tomb,\n All will be well one day--so runs our hope.\n All _now_ is well, is but an idle dream.\n The wise deceive me: God alone is right.\n With lowly sighing, subject in my pain,\n I do not fling myself \u2019gainst Providence.\n Once did I sing, in less lugubrious tone,\n The sunny ways of pleasure\u2019s genial rule;\n The times have changed, and, taught by growing age,\n And sharing of the frailty of mankind,\n Seeking a light amid the deepening gloom,\n I can but suffer, and will not repine.\n\n A caliph once, when his last hour had come,\n This prayer addressed to him he reverenced:\n \u201cTo thee, sole and all-powerful king, I bear\n What thou dost lack in thy immensity--\n Evil and ignorance, distress and sin.\u201d\n He might have added one thing further--hope.\n\n\n\n\n FOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Probably adopting a name which is known to have existed among his\nmother\u2019s ancestors. But it is curious that \u201cVoltaire\u201d is an anagram\nof his name--Arouet l (e) j (eune)--if u be read as v and j as i.\n\n[2] The condition of Toulouse will be best understood from a\ndescription of these processions which Voltaire gives elsewhere.\nIn front walked the shoemakers, bearing the authentic head of a\nprince of Peloponnesus, who had been Bishop of Toulouse _during the\nlifetime_ of Christ. After them came the slaters, carrying the bones\nof the fourteen thousand children slain by Herod; the old-clothes\ndealers, with a piece of the dress of the Virgin Mary; and the\ntailors, with the relics of St. Peter and St. Paul.--J. M.\n\n[3] I know only two instances in history of fathers being charged\nwith killing their children on account of religion. The first is the\ncase of the father of St. Barbara, or Ste. Barbe. He had had two\nwindows made in his bath-room. Barbara, in his absence, had a third\nmade, to honour the Holy Trinity. She made the sign of the cross on\nthe marble columns _with the tip of her finger_, and it was deeply\nengraved on the stone. Her son came angrily upon her, sword in hand;\nbut she escaped through a mountain, which opened to receive her. The\nfather went round the mountain and caught her. She was stripped and\nflogged, but God clothed her in a white cloud. In the end her father\ncut off her head. So says the _Flower of the Saints_.\n\nThe second case is that of Prince Hermenegild. He rebelled against\nhis father, the king, gave him battle (in 584), and was beaten and\nkilled by an officer. As his father was an Arian, he was regarded as\na martyr.\n\n[4] Voltaire nobly conceals his work. It was he who, from his exile\nnear Geneva, sent for young Calas, made searching inquiries in\nToulouse, and instructed the Parisian lawyers to appeal. He enlisted\nthe interest of English and French visitors at Geneva, and there\nwas \u201ca rivalry in generosity between the two nations.\u201d After a long\nstruggle with the Toulouse authorities the sentence was reversed at\nParis amid general enthusiasm. The King very generously pensioned the\nwidow and the other victims.--J. M.\n\n[5] Thanks to Voltaire and to the progress of Rationalism at Paris,\nshe was received with the greatest enthusiasm and generosity.--J. M.\n\n[6] In ancient Rome the _devoti_ were those who devoted themselves to\nthe good of the Republic.\n\n[7] The Catholic Church did not discover the infallibility of the\nPope until 1870, since which date his lips have remained, officially,\nclosed.--J. M.\n\n[8] A thrust at the Jesuits.--J. M.\n\n[9] The Catholic League for the suppression of Protestantism in\nFrance, in the second half of the sixteenth century, led to much war\nand bloodshed.--J. M.\n\n[10] In his treatise _Dieu et les Hommes_ Voltaire, after a very\nincomplete survey of history, puts the number of victims of religious\nwars and quarrels at 9,468,800.--J. M.\n\n[11] To marry within certain degrees of kindred, etc.--J. M.\n\n[12] An exaggerated account of the Ulster rebellion.--J. M.\n\n[13] This position could be held in a modified form in regard\nto ancient Greece. See E. S. P. Haynes\u2019s work, _Religious\nPersecution_.--J. M.\n\n[14] The Jews had no right to inflict death after Jud\u00e6a had become\na Roman province, but the authorities at times overlooked these\npunishments of blasphemy.\n\n[15] Ch. 25. Voltaire has in this followed ecclesiastical custom.\nThe word in Suetonius is not \u201cChristo,\u201d but \u201cChresto,\u201d and therefore\nthe passage reads, in English: \u201cClaudius expelled the Jews from Rome\nfor their constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.\u201d As\nChrestus was not an uncommon name at Rome, there is no need to apply\nthe passage to Christ in any way.--J. M.\n\n[16] The passage of Tacitus (_Annals_, xv., 44) is very generally\nrejected as an interpolation.--J. M.\n\n[17] I omit many of the lengthy notes, in which Voltaire, with\nveiled irony and a bland pretence of orthodoxy--for the reason of\nwhich see the Introduction,--throws doubt on the persecutions. The\nfreer scholarship of the nineteenth century has so far justified his\nscepticism that few are now interested in the fairy tales of the\nearly \u201cpersecutions.\u201d There was only one general repression of the\nChristians, under Diocletian. See the latest editions of Gibbon, and\nRobertson\u2019s _Short History of Christianity_ (pp. 130-140).--J. M.\n\n[18] Voltaire\u2019s irony and pretence of orthodoxy must again, as in\nso many places, be taken into account. You do not, as a French\ncommentator says, incur death in French law for throwing a piece of\nwood into the Rhone.--J. M.\n\n[19] A beautiful youth loved by the Emperor Hadrian.--J. M.\n\n[20] If they had been content to preach and write, they would\nprobably have been left in peace; but the refusal to take the oaths,\nin a constitution in which much use was made of oaths, exposed them\nto suspicion. The refusal to take part publicly in the feasts in\nhonour of the emperors was a sort of crime at a time when the empire\nwas constantly stirred by revolutions. The insults they offered to\nthe established cult were punished with severity and barbarism, and\nit was an age of rough and violent ways.\n\n[21] _The Deaths of the Persecutors_, ch. iii.--a very untrustworthy\nwork. It is doubtful if Lactantius wrote it. There was no general\npersecution under Domitian, but certain high officials suffered, like\nthe rest of Rome, from his excessive suspicion.--J. M.\n\n[22] Voltaire, who knew only the late history of Egypt, gives a\nlengthy note to explain his disdain. Arch\u00e6ological research has\naltered all that.--J. M.\n\n[23] Not wholly unknown. We know that the mother of Galerius, an\nignorant peasant, was stung by the insults of Christian officers in\nthe palace, and inflamed her son, who persuaded Diocletian to take\naction. The action was mild at first; but Christians tore down the\nimperial edict, and the palace was twice set on fire. Then Diocletian\nyielded.--J. M.\n\n[24] The persecution under Diocletian began in 303.--J. M.\n\n[25] The Jesuit Busenbaum, edited by the Jesuit La Croix, says\nthat \u201cit is lawful to kill a prince excommunicated by the Pope,\nin whatever country he may be found, because the universe belongs\nto the Pope, and he who accepts this commission does a charitable\ndeed.\u201d This proposition, drawn up in the antechambers of hell, has\ndone more than anything to raise France against the Jesuits. [They\nwere expelled from France in 1767.--J. M.]. They endeavoured to\njustify themselves by pointing out that the same conclusions are\nfound in St. Thomas and other Dominicans. As a matter of fact, St.\nThomas of Aquin, the \u201cangelic doctor\u201d and \u201cinterpreter of the divine\nwill\u201d--such are his titles,--says that an apostate prince loses his\nright to the crown, and should no longer be obeyed (Bk. II., Part\nII., quest. xii.); that the Church may punish him with death; that\nthe Emperor Julian was tolerated only because the Christians were\nweak (same passage); that it is right to kill any heretic (same\nplace, questions xi. and xii.); that those are laudable who free a\npeople from a tyrannical prince, etc. We must admit that Gerson,\nChancellor of the University, went farther than St. Thomas, and the\nFranciscan Jean Petit much farther than Gerson.\n\n[26] It was not defined by the Church until 1854.--J. M.\n\n[27] This section is somewhat abridged, as much of it is better\ndeveloped in preceding works.--J. M.\n\n[28] Voltaire\u2019s eagerness to show the tolerance of the Jews is\npurely paradoxical and ironical. His sole object in this section is\nto expose the crudities of the Old Testament, under the cloak of\northodox theological reasoning. Hence he omits the savage laws of\n_Deuteronomy_ against foreign cults.--J. M.\n\n[29] It may be useful to recall that, as earlier pages show,\nVoltaire did not believe in the \u201cnext world.\u201d Much of the phrasing\nof this part is, when it is not ironical, merely an _argumentum ad\nhominem_.--J. M.\n\n[30] See that excellent work, _The Manual of the Inquisition_.\n\n[31] This horrible doctrine must not wholly be relegated to the\neighteenth century and the Middle Ages. It is still solemn Catholic\ndoctrine, defined by the Vatican Council in 1870, that no atheist or\nagnostic, whether in good or bad faith, can be saved.--J. M.\n\n[32] Daughter of the Emperor Diocletian. Not executed by\nChristians.--J. M.\n\n[33] The homily is supposed to have been delivered in London.--J. M.\n\n[34] Greece threw off the Turkish yoke in 1827.--J. M.\n\n[35] In the Greek, Latin, and modern Bibles it is \u201cfirmament.\u201d In\nthe Hebrew text it is \u201cexpanse,\u201d though other passages show that it\nrefers to the solid vault or firmament of the Babylonians.--J. M.\n\n[36] The Rev. Professor Sayce regards _Job_ as a piece of north\nArabian or Edomite literature, borrowed by the Jews.--J. M.\n\n[37] Ninety years old (_Genesis_ xvii., 17).--J. M.\n\n[38] A shaft at the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.--J. M.\n\n[39] See the _Acts of St. Thecla_, written in the first century by a\ndisciple of St. Paul, and recognised as authentic by Tertullian, St.\nCyprian, St. Gregory of Nazianzum, St. Ambrose, etc.\n\n[40] Spurious _Acts of the Apostle_ xxi.\n\n[41] 1 _Corinthians_ ix., 4, 5, and 7.\n\n[42] _Thessalonians_ iv., 16 and 17.\n\n[43] _Acts_ xxi.\n\n[44] Matthew gives five thousand men and five loaves in chapter xiv.,\nand four thousand men and five loaves in chapter xv. Apparently, they\nare two different miracles, which makes in all nine thousand men and\nat least nine thousand women. If you add nine thousand children, the\ntotal number of diners amounts to twenty-seven thousand--which is\nconsiderable.\n\n[45] A pun of which the point is lost in English. The French phrase,\nto make a man \u201cswallow the gudgeon,\u201d means to \u201cgull\u201d a man. Voltaire\nturns the \u201ctwo little fishes\u201d of the gospel into gudgeons to\naccommodate his joke.--J. M.\n\n[46] In France, an abbey of which the \u201cabbot\u201d was a kind of absentee\nlandlord. He lived at Paris, with the title and revenue, and left the\nwork to a sub-abbot.--J. M.\n\n[47] The indictment is too severe. The later years of Constantine\nwere marked by silly extravagance, but not debauch. The execution\nof his father-in-law was justified. His (partial) acceptance of\nChristianity was earlier than Voltaire supposes, and there is no\nserious ground for suggesting large payments of money. But it is now\nbeyond question that he put his brother-in-law (Licinius) to death\ntreacherously, had his wife, son, and nephew murdered, and greatly\ndegenerated in later life.--J. M.\n\n[48] No; in the Senate.--J. M.\n\n[49] _Matthew_ xx., 23.\n\n[50] _Matthew_ xx., 26 and 27.\n\n[51] All Christians believe that Jesus was born in a stable, between\nan ox and an ass. There is, however, no mention of this in the\ngospels. It was imagined by Justin, and is mentioned by Lactantius,\nor at least the author of a bad Latin poem on the passions, which is\nattributed to Lactantius.\n\n[52]\n\n A time by fate appointed was to come,\n When sea, and earth, and all the realm of heaven\n Should flame, and ruin seize the world\u2019s great mass.\n\n J. M.\n\n\n[53] See _Revelation_, Justin, and Tertullian.\n\n[54] In Voltaire\u2019s time, naturally, the relative priority of Indian,\nEgyptian, Babylonian, and Persian civilisations was quite unknown,\nand his idea of their relations to each other cannot hold to-day.--J.\nM.\n\n[55] The famous \u201cDies ir\u00e6,\u201d sung in Catholic funeral services to-day\nin England.--J. M.\n\n[56] Justin and Tertullian.\n\n[57] _Apostolic Constitutions_, Bk. II., ch. lvii.\n\n[58] _Apostolic Constitutions_, VIII., vi.\n\n[59] See the _History of the Church of Constantinople and\nAlexandria_, in the Bodleian Library.\n\n[60] _Recognitions_ of St. Clement, Bk. IX., Nos. 32-35.\n\n[61] The pun is lost to readers of the English Bible. In French, as\nin Syro-Chaldaic and Greek and (approximately) Latin, \u201cPeter\u201d and\n\u201crock\u201d are the same word. We have it in \u201csalt-petre.\u201d--J. M.\n\n[62] More than a million species, on modern estimates.--J. M.\n\n[63] As is well known, the word \u201cvirgin\u201d is a wilful mistranslation\nof the text of _Isaiah_. \u201cGirl\u201d is the correct translation.--J. M.\n\n[64] The _kerubim_ (or \u201ccherubim\u201d) of the Old Testament are the\nwinged bulls of the ancient Babylonians, of which there are two fine\nspecimens in the British Museum.--J. M.\n\n[65] Had Voltaire known what the modern arch\u00e6ologist has discovered,\nhe would have added that the age of iron did not even dawn until some\ncenturies after this supposed episode; and iron was not used in the\nEast until about six centuries afterwards.--J. M.\n\n[66] The number recognised in the Church of Rome.--J. M.\n\n[67] The author was thinking, apparently, of Pope Alexander VI. [Note\nby Voltaire.]\n\n[68] The tortures of the Inquisition.--J. M.\n\n[69] Since the words \u201cit\u201d and \u201che\u201d are both expressed by the French\nword \u201cil,\u201d it is not clear whether Voltaire would have spoken of his\nsupreme being as \u201cit\u201d or \u201che.\u201d I interpret his feeling as carefully\nas the context permits.--J. M.\n\n[70] Leibnitz taught that material things never acted on each other;\nthe only cause was God. The leaf fell from the tree, when the wind\nblew, because God had pre-established that coincidence, or harmony,\nof movements.--J. M.\n\n[71] The allusion is to priests, in their coloured vestments, singing\nmasses for a successful war.--J. M.\n\n[72] Voltaire always candidly faces the problem of evil, and admits\nthat it is inconsistent with infinite power and goodness. In another\ntreatise he makes the bold observation that, since morality is merely\na social law regulating the relations of men, it has no application\nto his isolated \u201cgreat being.\u201d--J. M.\n\n[73] Well-known Jews in medi\u00e6val history.--J. M.\n\n[74] \u201cSub Deo justo nemo miser nisi mereatur [Under a just God no one\nis miserable who has not deserved misery.]\u201d--_St. Augustine._\n\n[75] The Egyptian and Persian principles of evil. The problem is\ndiscussed in the preceding essay.--J. M.\n\n[76] In a lengthy note Voltaire explains that Bayle never questioned\nProvidence, and that the scepticism in which he follows Bayle is in\nregard to the source of evil. It will be seen from earlier pages,\nhowever, that Voltaire does not ascribe infinite power to his God.\nThe words \u201call-perfect\u201d and \u201calmighty,\u201d which occur in this poem, are\npoetic phrases.--J. M.\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\n Minor punctuation and spelling errors have been silently corrected\n and, except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the\n text, especially in dialogue, and inconsistent or archaic usage,\n have been retained.\n\n Page 107: \u201cAh, my brethren, the Holy Sprit\u201d changed to \u201cAh, my\n brethren, the Holy Spirit\u201d.\n\n Page 115: \u201cthose who scruple to commnicate with foreign religions\u201d\n changed to \u201cthose who scruple to communicate with foreign religions\u201d.\n\n Page 136: \u201cpatriach of the west\u201d changed to \u201cpatriarch of the west\u201d.","title":"Toleration and other essays","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":74043}