SUPERSTITION IN ALL AGES

By Jean Meslier

1732

A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, WHO, AFTER A PASTORAL SERVICE OF THIRTY YEARSAT ETREPIGNY IN CHAMPAGNE, FRANCE, WHOLLY ABJURED RELIGIOUS DOGMAS, ANDLEFT AS HIS LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT TO HIS PARISHIONERS, AND TO THEWORLD, TO BE PUBLISHED AFTER HIS DEATH, THE FOLLOWING PAGES, ENTITLED:COMMON SENSE. 

Translated from the French original by Miss Anna Knoop

1878

LIFE OF JEAN MESLIER BY VOLTAIRE. 

Jean Meslier, born 1678, in the village of Mazerny, dependency of theduchy of Rethel, was the son of a serge weaver; brought up in thecountry, he nevertheless pursued his studies and succeeded to thepriesthood. At the seminary, where he lived with much regularity, hedevoted himself to the system of Descartes. 

Becoming curate of Etrepigny in Champagne and vicar of a little annexedparish named Bue, he was remarkable for the austerity of his habits. Devoted in all his duties, every year he gave hat remained of his salaryto the poor of his parishes; enthusiastic, and of rigid virtue, he wasvery temperate, as much in regard to his appetite as in relation towomen. 

MM. Voiri and Delavaux, the one curate of Varq, the other curate ofBoulzicourt, were his confessors, and the only ones with whom heassociated. 

The curate Meslier was a rigid partisan of justice, and sometimescarried his zeal a little too far. The lord of his village, M. DeTouilly, having ill-treated some peasants, he refused to pray for him inhis service. M. De Mailly, Archbishop of Rheims, before whom the casewas brought, condemned him. But the Sunday which followed this decision, the abbot Meslier stood in his pulpit and complained of the sentence ofthe cardinal. "This is, " said he, "the general fate of the poor countrypriest; the archbishops, who are great lords, scorn them and do notlisten to them. Therefore, let us pray for the lord of this place. Wewill pray for Antoine de Touilly, that he may be converted and grantedthe grace that he may not wrong the poor and despoil the orphans. " Hislordship, who was present at this mortifying supplication, brought newcomplaints before the same archbishop, who ordered the curate Meslier tocome to Donchery, where he ill-treated him with abusive language. 

There have been scarcely any other events in his life, nor otherbenefice, than that of Etrepigny. He died in the odor of sanctity in theyear 1733, fifty-five years old. It is believed that, disgusted withlife, he expressly refused necessary food, because during his sicknesshe was not willing to take anything, not even a glass of wine. 

At his death he gave all he possessed, which was inconsiderable, to hisparishioners, and desired to be buried in his garden. 

They were greatly surprised to find in his house three manuscripts, eachcontaining three hundred and sixty-six pages, all written by his hand, signed and entitled by him, "My Testament. " This work, which the authoraddressed to his parishioners and to M. Leroux, advocate and procuratorfor the parliament of Meziers, is a simple refutation of all thereligious dogmas, without excepting one. The grand vicar of Rheimsretained one of the three copies; another was sent to MonsieurChauvelin, guardian of the State's seal; the third remained at theclerk's office of the justiciary of St. Minehould. The Count de Caylushad one of those three copies in his possession for some time, and soonafterward more than one hundred were at Paris, sold at ten Louis-d'orapiece. A dying priest accusing himself of having professed and taughtthe Christian religion, made a deeper impression upon the mind than the"Thoughts of Pascal. "

The curate Meslier had written upon a gray paper which enveloped thecopy destined for his parishioners these remarkable words: "I have seenand recognized the errors, the abuses, the follies, and the wickednessof men. I have hated and despised them. I did not dare say it during mylife, but I will say it at least in dying, and after my death; and it isthat it may be known, that I write this present memorial in order thatit may serve as a witness of truth to all those who may see and read itif they choose. "

At the beginning of this work is found this document (a kind ofhonorable amend, which in his letter to the Count of d'Argental of May31, 1762, Voltaire qualifies as a preface), addressed to hisparishioners. 

"You know, " said he, "my brethren, my disinterestedness; I do notsacrifice my belief to any vile interest. If I embraced a profession sodirectly opposed to my sentiments, it was not through cupidity. I obeyedmy parents. I would have preferred to enlighten you sooner if I couldhave done it safely. You are witnesses to what I assert. I have notdisgraced my ministry by exacting the requitals, which are a part of it. 

"I call heaven to witness that I also thoroughly despised those wholaughed at the simplicity of the blind people, those who furnishedpiously considerable sums of money to buy prayers. How horrible thismonopoly! I do not blame the disdain which those who grow rich by yoursweat and your pains, show for their mysteries and their superstitions;but I detest their insatiable cupidity and the signal pleasure suchfellows take in railing at the ignorance of those whom they carefullykeep in this state of blindness. Let them content themselves withlaughing at their own ease, but at least let them not multiply theirerrors by abusing the blind piety of those who, by their simplicity, procured them such an easy life. You render unto me, my brethren, thejustice that is due me. The sympathy which I manifested for yourtroubles saves me from the least suspicion. How often have I performedgratuitously the functions of my ministry. How often also has my heartbeen grieved at not being able to assist you as often and as abundantlyas I could have wished! Have I not always proved to you that I took morepleasure in giving than in receiving? I carefully avoided exhorting youto bigotry, and I spoke to you as rarely as possible of our unfortunatedogmas. It was necessary that I should acquit myself as a priest of myministry, but how often have I not suffered within myself when I wasforced to preach to you those pious lies which I despised in my heart. What a disdain I had for my ministry, and particularly for thatsuperstitious Mass, and those ridiculous administrations of sacraments, especially if I was compelled to perform them with the solemnity whichawakened all your piety and all your good faith. What remorse I had forexciting your credulity! A thousand times upon the point of burstingforth publicly, I was going to open your eyes, but a fear superior to mystrength restrained me and forced me to silence until my death. "

The abbot Meslier had written two letters to the curates of hisneighborhood to inform them of his Testament; he told them that he hadconsigned to the chancery of St. Minnehould a copy of his manuscript in366 leaves in octavo; but he feared it would be suppressed, according tothe bad custom established to prevent the poor from being instructed andknowing the truth. 

The curate Meslier, the most singular phenomenon ever seen among all themeteors fatal to the Christian religion, worked his whole life secretlyin order to attack the opinions he believed false. To compose hismanuscript against God, against all religion, against the Bible and theChurch, he had no other assistance than the Bible itself, MoreriMontaigne, and a few fathers. 

While the abbot Meslier naively acknowledged that he did not wish to beburned till after his death, Thomas Woolston, a doctor of Cambridge, published and sold publicly at London, in his own house, sixty thousandcopies of his "Discourses" against the miracles of Jesus Christ. 

It was a very astonishing thing that two priests should at the same timewrite against the Christian religion. The curate Meslier has gonefurther yet than Woolston; he dares to treat the transport of ourSaviour by the devil upon the mountain, the wedding of Cana, the breadand the fishes, as absurd fables, injurious to divinity, which wereignored during three hundred years by the whole Roman Empire, andfinally passed from the lower class to the palace of the emperors, whenpolicy obliged them to adopt the follies of the people in order the moreeasily to subjugate them. The denunciations of the English priest do notapproach those of the Champagne priest. Woolston is sometimes indulgent, Meslier never. He was a man profoundly embittered by the crimes hewitnessed, for which he holds the Christian religion responsible. Thereis no miracle which to him is not an object of contempt and horror; noprophecy that he does not compare to those of Nostredamus. He wrote thusagainst Jesus Christ when in the arms of death, at a time when the mostdissimulating dare not lie, and when the most intrepid tremble. Struckwith the difficulties which he found in Scripture, he inveighed againstit more bitterly than the Acosta and all the Jews, more than the famousPorphyre, Celse, Iamblique, Julian, Libanius, and all the partisans ofhuman reason. 

There were found among the books of the curate Meslier a printedmanuscript of the Treatise of Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray, upon theexistence of God and His attributes, and the reflections of the JesuitTournemine upon Atheism, to which treatise he added marginal notessigned by his hand. 

DECREE

of the NATIONAL CONVENTION upon the proposition to erect a statue to thecurate Jean Meslier, the 27 Brumaire, in the year II. (November 17, 1793). The National Convention sends to the Committee of PublicInstruction the proposition made by one of its members to erect a statueto Jean Meslier, curate at Etrepigny, in Champagne, the first priest whohad the courage and the honesty to abjure religious errors. 

PRESIDENT AND SECRETARIES. 

SIGNED--P. A. Laloy, President; Bazire, Charles Duval, Philippeaux, Frecine, and Merlin (de Thionville), Secretaries. 

Certified according to the original. 

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF DECREES AND PROCESS-VERBAL. 

SIGNED--Batellier, Echasseriaux, Monnel, Becker, Vernetey, Pérard, Vinet, Bouillerot, Auger, Cordier, Delecloy, and Cosnard. 

PREFACE OF THE AUTHOR. 

When we wish to examine in a cool, calm way the opinions of men, we arevery much surprised to find that in those which we consider the mostessential, nothing is more rare than to find them using common sense;that is to say, the portion of judgment sufficient to know the mostsimple truths, to reject the most striking absurdities, and to beshocked by palpable contradictions. We have an example of this inTheology, a science revered in all times, in all countries, by thegreatest number of mortals; an object considered the most important, themost useful, and the most indispensable to the happiness of society. Ifthey would but take the trouble to sound the principles upon which thispretended science rests itself, they would be compelled to admit thatthe principles which were considered incontestable, are but hazardoussuppositions, conceived in ignorance, propagated by enthusiasm or badintention, adopted by timid credulity, preserved by habit, which neverreasons, and revered solely because it is not comprehended. Some, saysMontaigne, make the world believe that which they do not themselvesbelieve; a greater number of others make themselves believe, notcomprehending what it is to believe. In a word, whoever will consultcommon sense upon religious opinions, and will carry into thisexamination the attention given to objects of ordinary interest, willeasily perceive that these opinions have no solid foundation; that allreligion is but a castle in the air; that Theology is but ignorance ofnatural causes reduced to a system; that it is but a long tissue ofchimeras and contradictions; that it presents to all the differentnations of the earth only romances devoid of probability, of which thehero himself is made up of qualities impossible to reconcile, his namehaving the power to excite in all hearts respect and fear, is found tobe but a vague word, which men continually utter, being able to attachto it only such ideas or qualities as are belied by the facts, or whichevidently contradict each other. The notion of this imaginary being, orrather the word by which we designate him, would be of no consequencedid it not cause ravages without number upon the earth. Born into theopinion that this phantom is for them a very interesting reality, men, instead of wisely concluding from its incomprehensibility that they areexempt from thinking of it, on the contrary, conclude that they can notoccupy themselves enough about it, that they must meditate upon itwithout ceasing, reason without end, and never lose sight of it. Theinvincible ignorance in which they are kept in this respect, far fromdiscouraging them, does but excite their curiosity; instead of puttingthem on guard against their imagination, this ignorance makes thempositive, dogmatic, imperious, and causes them to quarrel with all thosewho oppose doubts to the reveries which their brains have brought forth. What perplexity, when we attempt to solve an unsolvable problem! Anxiousmeditations upon an object impossible to grasp, and which, however, issupposed to be very important to him, can but put a man into bad humor, and produce in his brain dangerous transports. When interest, vanity, and ambition are joined to such a morose disposition, societynecessarily becomes troubled. This is why so many nations have oftenbecome the theaters of extravagances caused by nonsensical visionists, who, publishing their shallow speculations for the eternal truth, havekindled the enthusiasm of princes and of people, and have prepared themfor opinions which they represented as essential to the glory ofdivinity and to the happiness of empires. We have seen, a thousandtimes, in all parts of our globe, infuriated fanatics slaughtering eachother, lighting the funeral piles, committing without scruple, as amatter of duty, the greatest crimes. Why? To maintain or to propagatethe impertinent conjectures of enthusiasts, or to sanction the knaveriesof impostors on account of a being who exists only in their imagination, and who is known only by the ravages, the disputes, and the follieswhich he has caused upon the earth. 

Originally, savage nations, ferocious, perpetually at war, adored, undervarious names, some God conformed to their ideas; that is to say, cruel, carnivorous, selfish, greedy of blood. We find in all the religions ofthe earth a God of armies, a jealous God, an avenging God, anexterminating God, a God who enjoys carnage and whose worshipers make ita duty to serve him to his taste. Lambs, bulls, children, men, heretics, infidels, kings, whole nations, are sacrificed to him. The zealousservants of this barbarous God go so far as to believe that they areobliged to offer themselves as a sacrifice to him. Everywhere we seezealots who, after having sadly meditated upon their terrible God, imagine that, in order to please him, they must do themselves all theharm possible, and inflict upon themselves, in his honor, all imaginabletorments. In a word, everywhere the baneful ideas of Divinity, far fromconsoling men for misfortunes incident to their existence, have filledthe heart with trouble, and given birth to follies destructive to them. How could the human mind, filled with frightful phantoms and guided bymen interested in perpetuating its ignorance and its fear, makeprogress? Man was compelled to vegetate in his primitive stupidity; hewas preserved only by invisible powers, upon whom his fate was supposedto depend. Solely occupied with his alarms and his unintelligiblereveries, he was always at the mercy of his priests, who reserved forthemselves the right of thinking for him and of regulating his conduct. 

Thus man was, and always remained, a child without experience, a slavewithout courage, a loggerhead who feared to reason, and who could neverescape from the labyrinth into which his ancestors had misled him; hefelt compelled to groan under the yoke of his Gods, of whom he knewnothing except the fabulous accounts of their ministers. These, afterhaving fettered him by the ties of opinion, have remained his masters ordelivered him up defenseless to the absolute power of tyrants, no lessterrible than the Gods, of whom they were the representatives upon theearth. Oppressed by the double yoke of spiritual and temporal power, itwas impossible for the people to instruct themselves and to work fortheir own welfare. Thus, religion, politics, and morals becamesanctuaries, into which the profane were not permitted to enter. Men hadno other morality than that which their legislators and their priestsclaimed as descended from unknown empyrean regions. The human mind, perplexed by these theological opinions, misunderstood itself, doubtedits own powers, mistrusted experience, feared truth, disdained itsreason, and left it to blindly follow authority. Man was a pure machinein the hands of his tyrants and his priests, who alone had the right toregulate his movements. Always treated as a slave, he had at all timesand in all places the vices and dispositions of a slave. 

These are the true sources of the corruption of habits, to whichreligion never opposes anything but ideal and ineffectual obstacles;ignorance and servitude have a tendency to make men wicked and unhappy. Science, reason, liberty, alone can reform them and render them morehappy; but everything conspires to blind them and to confirm them intheir blindness. The priests deceive them, tyrants corrupt them in orderto subjugate them more easily. Tyranny has been, and will always be, thechief source of the depraved morals and habitual calamities of thepeople. These, almost always fascinated by their religious notions or bymetaphysical fictions, instead of looking upon the natural and visiblecauses of their miseries, attribute their vices to the imperfections oftheir nature, and their misfortunes to the anger of their Gods; theyoffer to Heaven vows, sacrifices, and presents, in order to put an endto their misfortunes, which are really due only to the negligence, theignorance, and to the perversity of their guides, to the folly of theirinstitutions, to their foolish customs, to their false opinions, totheir unreasonable laws, and especially to their want of enlightenment. Let the mind be filled early with true ideas; let man's reason becultivated; let justice govern him; and there will be no need ofopposing to his passions the powerless barrier of the fear of Gods. Menwill be good when they are well taught, well governed, chastised orcensured for the evil, and justly rewarded for the good which they havedone to their fellow-citizens. It is idle to pretend to cure mortals oftheir vices if we do not begin by curing them of their prejudices. It isonly by showing them the truth that they can know their best interestsand the real motives which will lead them to happiness. Long enough havethe instructors of the people fixed their eyes on heaven; let them atlast bring them back to the earth. Tired of an incomprehensibletheology, of ridiculous fables, of impenetrable mysteries, of puerileceremonies, let the human mind occupy itself with natural things, intelligible objects, sensible truths, and useful knowledge. Let thevain chimeras which beset the people be dissipated, and very soonrational opinions will fill the minds of those who were believed fatedto be always in error. To annihilate religious prejudices, it would besufficient to show that what is inconceivable to man can not be of anyuse to him. Does it need, then, anything but simple common sense toperceive that a being most clearly irreconcilable with the notions ofmankind, that a cause continually opposed to the effects attributed tohim; that a being of whom not a word can be said without falling intocontradictions; that a being who, far from explaining the mysteries ofthe universe, only renders them more inexplicable; that a being to whomfor so many centuries men addressed themselves so vainly to obtain theirhappiness and deliverance from their sufferings; does it need, I say, more than simple common sense to understand that the idea of such abeing is an idea without model, and that he is himself evidently not areasonable being? Does it require more than common sense to feel thatthere is at least delirium and frenzy in hating and tormenting eachother for unintelligible opinions of a being of this kind? Finally, doesit not all prove that morality and virtue are totally incompatible withthe idea of a God, whose ministers and interpreters have painted him inall countries as the most fantastic, the most unjust, and the most cruelof tyrants, whose pretended wishes are to serve as rules and laws forthe inhabitants of the earth? To discover the true principles ofmorality, men have no need of theology, of revelation, or of Gods; theyneed but common sense; they have only to look within themselves, toreflect upon their own nature, to consult their obvious interests, toconsider the object of society and of each of the members who composeit, and they will easily understand that virtue is an advantage, andthat vice is an injury to beings of their species. Let us teach men tobe just, benevolent, moderate, and sociable, not because their Godsexact it, but to please men; let us tell them to abstain from vice andfrom crime, not because they will be punished in another world, butbecause they will suffer in the present world. There are, saysMontesquieu, means to prevent crime, they are sufferings; to change themanners, these are good examples. Truth is simple, error is complicated, uncertain in its gait, full of by-ways; the voice of nature isintelligible, that of falsehood is ambiguous, enigmatical, andmysterious; the road of truth is straight, that of imposture is obliqueand dark; this truth, always necessary to man, is felt by all justminds; the lessons of reason are followed by all honest souls; men areunhappy only because they are ignorant; they are ignorant only becauseeverything conspires to prevent them from being enlightened, and theyare wicked only because their reason is not sufficiently developed. 

COMMON SENSE. 

Detexit quo dolose Vaticinandi furore sacerdotes mysteria, illis speignota, audactur publicant. --PETRON. SATYR. 

I. --APOLOGUE. 

There is a vast empire governed by a monarch, whose conduct does butconfound the minds of his subjects. He desires to be known, loved, respected, and obeyed, but he never shows himself; everything tends tomake uncertain the notions which we are able to form about him. Thepeople subjected to his power have only such ideas of the character andthe laws of their invisible sovereign as his ministers give them; thesesuit, however, because they themselves have no idea of their master, forhis ways are impenetrable, and his views and his qualities are totallyincomprehensible; moreover, his ministers disagree among themselves inregard to the orders which they pretend emanated from the sovereignwhose organs they claim to be; they announce them diversely in eachprovince of the empire; they discredit and treat each other as impostorsand liars; the decrees and ordinances which they promulgate are obscure;they are enigmas, made not to be understood or divined by the subjectsfor whose instruction they were intended. The laws of the invisiblemonarch need interpreters, but those who explain them are alwaysquarreling among themselves about the true way of understanding them;more than this, they do not agree among themselves; all which theyrelate of their hidden prince is but a tissue of contradictions, scarcely a single word that is not contradicted at once. He is calledsupremely good, nevertheless not a person but complains of his decrees. He is supposed to be infinitely wise, and in his administrationeverything seems contrary to reason and good sense. They boast of hisjustice, and the best of his subjects are generally the least favored. We are assured that he sees everything, yet his presence remediesnothing. It is said that he is the friend of order, and everything inhis universe is in a state of confusion and disorder; all is created byhim, yet events rarely happen according to his projects. He foreseeseverything, but his foresight prevents nothing. He is impatient if anyoffend him; at the same time he puts every one in the way of offendinghim. His knowledge is admired in the perfection of his works, but hisworks are full of imperfections, and of little permanence. He iscontinually occupied in creating and destroying, then repairing what hehas done, never appearing to be satisfied with his work. In all hisenterprises he seeks but his own glory, but he does not succeed in beingglorified. He works but for the good of his subjects, and most of themlack the necessities of life. Those whom he seems to favor, aregenerally those who are the least satisfied with their fate; we see themall continually revolting against a master whose greatness they admire, whose wisdom they extol, whose goodness they worship, and whose justicethey fear, revering orders which they never follow. This empire is theworld; its monarch is God; His ministers are the priests; their subjectsare men. 

II. --WHAT IS THEOLOGY?

There is a science which has for its object only incomprehensiblethings. Unlike all others, it occupies itself but with things unseen. Hobbes calls it "the kingdom of darkness. " In this land all obey lawsopposed to those which men acknowledge in the world they inhabit. Inthis marvelous region light is but darkness, evidence becomes doubtfulor false, the impossible becomes credible, reason is an unfaithfulguide, and common sense changed into delirium. This science is namedTheology, and this Theology is a continual insult to human reason. 

III. 

By frequent repetition of if, but, and perhaps, we succeed in forming animperfect and broken system which perplexes men's minds to the extent ofmaking them forget the clearest notions, and to render uncertain themost palpable truths. By the aid of this systematic nonsense, all naturehas become an inexplicable enigma for man; the visible world hasdisappeared to give place to invisible regions; reason is obliged togive place to imagination, which can lead us only to the land ofchimeras which she herself has invented. 

IV. --MAN BORN NEITHER RELIGIOUS NOR DEISTICAL. 

All religious principles are founded upon the idea of a God, but it isimpossible for men to have true ideas of a being who does not act uponany one of their senses. All our ideas are but pictures of objects whichstrike us. What can the idea of God represent to us when it is evidentlyan idea without an object? Is not such an idea as impossible as aneffect without a cause? An idea without a prototype, is it anything buta chimera? Some theologians, however, assure us that the idea of God isinnate, or that men have this idea from the time of their birth. Everyprinciple is a judgment; all judgment is the effect of experience;experience is not acquired but by the exercise of the senses: from whichit follows that religious principles are drawn from nothing, and are notinnate. 

V. --IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, AND THE MOST REASONABLETHING IS NOT TO THINK OF HIM. 

No religious system can be founded otherwise than upon the nature of Godand of men, and upon the relations they bear to each other. But, inorder to judge of the reality of these relations, we must have some ideaof the Divine nature. But everybody tells us that the essence of God isincomprehensible to man; at the same time they do not hesitate to assignattributes to this incomprehensible God, and assure us that man can notdispense with a knowledge of this God so impossible to conceive of. Themost important thing for men is that which is the most impossible forthem to comprehend. If God is incomprehensible to man, it would seemrational never to think of Him at all; but religion concludes that manis criminal if he ceases for a moment to revere Him. 

VI. --RELIGION IS FOUNDED UPON CREDULITY. 

We are told that Divine qualities are not of a nature to be grasped bylimited minds. The natural consequence of this principle ought to bethat the Divine qualities are not made to employ limited minds; butreligion assures us that limited minds should never lose sight of thisinconceivable being, whose qualities can not be grasped by them: fromwhich we see that religion is the art of occupying limited minds withthat which is impossible for them to comprehend. 

VII. --EVERY RELIGION IS AN ABSURDITY. 

Religion unites man with God or puts them in communication; but do yousay that God is infinite? If God is infinite, no finite being can havecommunication or any relation with Him. Where there are no relations, there can be no union, no correspondence, no duties. If there are noduties between man and his God, there exists no religion for man. Thusby saying that God is infinite, you annihilate, from that moment, allreligion for man, who is a finite being. The idea of infinity is for usin idea without model, without prototype, without object. 

VIII. --THE NOTION OF GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. 

If God is an infinite being, there can be neither in the actual world orin another any proportion between man and his God; thus the idea of Godwill never enter the human mind. In the supposition of a life where menwill be more enlightened than in this one, the infinity of God willalways place such a distance between his idea and the limited mind ofman, that he will not be able to conceive of God any more in a futurelife than in the present. Hence, it evidently follows that the idea ofGod will not be better suited to man in the other life than in thepresent. God is not made for man; it follows also that intelligencessuperior to man--such as angels, archangels, seraphims, and saints--canhave no more complete notions of God than has man, who does notunderstand anything about Him here below. 

IX. --ORIGIN OF SUPERSTITION. 

How is it that we have succeeded in persuading reasonable beings thatthe thing most impossible to understand was the most essential for them. It is because they were greatly frightened; it is because when men arekept in fear they cease to reason; it is because they have beenexpressly enjoined to distrust their reason. When the brain is troubled, we believe everything and examine nothing. 

X. --ORIGIN OF ALL RELIGION. 

Ignorance and fear are the two pivots of all religion. The uncertaintyattending man's relation to his God is precisely the motive whichattaches him to his religion. Man is afraid when in darkness--physical ormoral. His fear is habitual to him and becomes a necessity; he wouldbelieve that he lacked something if he had nothing to fear. 

XI. --IN THE NAME OF RELIGION CHARLATANS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WEAKNESSOF MEN. 

He who from his childhood has had a habit of trembling every time heheard certain words, needs these words, and needs to tremble. In thisway he is more disposed to listen to the one who encourages his fearsthan to the one who would dispel his fears. The superstitious man wantsto be afraid; his imagination demands it. It seems that he fears nothingmore than having no object to fear. Men are imaginary patients, whominterested charlatans take care to encourage in their weakness, in orderto have a market for their remedies. Physicians who order a great numberof remedies are more listened to than those who recommend a goodregimen, and who leave nature to act. 

XII. --RELIGION ENTICES IGNORANCE BY THE AID OF THE MARVELOUS. 

If religion was clear, it would have fewer attractions for the ignorant. They need obscurity, mysteries, fables, miracles, incredible things, which keep their brains perpetually at work. Romances, idle stories, tales of ghosts and witches, have more charms for the vulgar than truenarrations. 

XIII. --CONTINUATION. 

In the matter of religion, men are but overgrown children. The moreabsurd a religion is, and the fuller of marvels, the more power itexerts; the devotee thinks himself obliged to place no limits to hiscredulity; the more inconceivable things are, the more divine theyappear to him; the more incredible they are, the more merit he giveshimself for believing them. 

XIV. --THERE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ANY RELIGION IF THERE HAD NEVER BEENANY DARK AND BARBAROUS AGES. 

The origin of religious opinions dates, as a general thing, from thetime when savage nations were yet in a state of infancy. It was tocoarse, ignorant, and stupid men that the founders of religion addressedthemselves in all ages, in order to present them with Gods, ceremonies, histories of fabulous Divinities, marvelous and terrible fables. Thesechimeras, adopted without examination by the fathers, have beentransmitted with more or less changes to their polished children, whooften do not reason more than their fathers. 

XV. --ALL RELIGION WAS BORN OF THE DESIRE TO DOMINATE. 

The first legislators of nations had for their object to dominate, Theeasiest means of succeeding was to frighten the people and to preventthem from reasoning; they led them by tortuous paths in order that theyshould not perceive the designs of their guides; they compelled them tolook into the air, for fear they should look to their feet; they amusedthem upon the road by stories; in a word, they treated them in the wayof nurses, who employ songs and menaces to put the children to sleep, orto force them to be quiet. 

XVI. --THAT WHICH SERVES AS A BASIS FOR ALL RELIGION IS VERY UNCERTAIN. 

The existence of a God is the basis of all religion. Few people seem todoubt this existence, but this fundamental principle is precisely theone which prevents every mind from reasoning. The first question ofevery catechism was, and will always be, the most difficult one toanswer. 

XVII. --IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE CONVINCED OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

Can one honestly say that he is convinced of the existence of a beingwhose nature is not known, who remains inaccessible to all our senses, and of whose qualities we are constantly assured that they areincomprehensible to us? In order to persuade me that a being exists, orcan exist, he must begin by telling me what this being is; in order tomake me believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, hemust tell me things about him which are not contradictory, and which donot destroy one another; finally, in order to convince me fully of theexistence of this being, he must tell me things about him which I cancomprehend, and prove to me that it is impossible that the being to whomhe attributes these qualities does not exist. 

XVIII. --CONTINUATION. 

A thing is impossible when it is composed of two ideas so antagonistic, that we can not think of them at the same time. Evidence can be reliedon only when confirmed by the constant testimony of our senses, whichalone give birth to ideas, and enable us to judge of their conformity orof their incompatibility. That which exists necessarily, is that ofwhich the non-existence would imply contradiction. These principles, universally recognized, are at fault when the question of the existenceof God is considered; what has been said of Him is either unintelligibleor perfectly contradictory; and for this reason must appear impossibleto every man of common sense. 

XIX. --THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS NOT PROVED. 

All human intelligences are more or less enlightened and cultivated. Bywhat fatality is it that the science of God has never been explained?The most civilized nations and the most profound thinkers are of thesame opinion in regard to the matter as the most barbarous nations andthe most ignorant and rustic people. As we examine the subject moreclosely, we will find that the science of divinity by means of reveriesand subtleties has but obscured it more and more. Thus far, all religionhas been founded on what is called in logic, a "begging of thequestion;" it supposes freely, and then proves, finally, by thesuppositions it has made. 

XX. --TO SAY THAT GOD IS A SPIRIT, IS TO SPEAK WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING ATALL. 

By metaphysics, God is made a pure spirit, but has modern theologyadvanced one step further than the theology of the barbarians? Theyrecognized a grand spirit as master of the world. The barbarians, likeall ignorant men, attribute to spirits all the effects of which theirinexperience prevents them from discovering the true causes. Ask abarbarian what causes your watch to move, he will answer, "a spirit!"Ask our philosophers what moves the universe, they will tell you "it isa spirit. "

XXI. --SPIRITUALITY IS A CHIMERA. 

The barbarian, when he speaks of a spirit, attaches at least some senseto this word; he understands by it an agent similar to the wind, to theagitated air, to the breath, which produces, invisibly, effects that weperceive. By subtilizing, the modern theologian becomes as littleintelligible to himself as to others. Ask him what he means by a spirit?He will answer, that it is an unknown substance, which is perfectlysimple, which has nothing tangible, nothing in common with matter. Ingood faith, is there any mortal who can form the least idea of such asubstance? A spirit in the language of modern theology is then but anabsence of ideas. The idea of spirituality is another idea without amodel. 

XXII. --ALL WHICH EXISTS SPRINGS FROM THE BOSOM OF MATTER. 

Is it not more natural and more intelligible to deduce all which exists, from the bosom of matter, whose existence is demonstrated by all oursenses, whose effects we feel at every moment, which we see act, move, communicate, motion, and constantly bring living beings into existence, than to attribute the formation of things to an unknown force, to aspiritual being, who can not draw from his ground that which he has nothimself, and who, by the spiritual essence claimed for him, is incapableof making anything, and of putting anything in motion? Nothing isplainer than that they would have us believe that an intangible spiritcan act upon matter. 

XXIII. --WHAT IS THE METAPHYSICAL GOD OF MODERN THEOLOGY?

The material Jupiter of the ancients could move, build up, destroy, andpropagate beings similar to himself; but the God of modern theology is asterile being. According to his supposed nature he can neither occupyany place, nor move matter, nor produce a visible world, nor propagateeither men or Gods. The metaphysical God is a workman without hands; heis able but to produce clouds, suspicions, reveries, follies, andquarrels. 

XXIV. --IT WOULD BE MORE RATIONAL TO WORSHIP THE SUN THAN A SPIRITUAL GOD. 

Since it was necessary for men to have a God, why did they not have thesun, the visible God, adored by so many nations? What being had moreright to the homage of mortals than the star of the day, which giveslight and heat; which invigorates all beings; whose presence reanimatesand rejuvenates nature; whose absence seems to plunge her into sadnessand languor? If some being bestowed upon men power, activity, benevolence, strength, it was no doubt the sun, which should berecognized as the father of nature, as the soul of the world, asDivinity. At least one could not without folly dispute his existence, orrefuse to recognize his influence and his benefits. 

XXV. --A SPIRITUAL GOD IS INCAPABLE OF WILLING AND OF ACTING. 

The theologian tells us that God does not need hands or arms to act, andthat He acts by His will alone. But what is this God who has a will? Andwhat can be the subject of this divine will? Is it more ridiculous ormore difficult to believe in fairies, in sylphs, in ghosts, in witches, in were-wolfs, than to believe in the magical or impossible action ofthe spirit upon the body? As soon as we admit of such a God, there areno longer fables or visions which can not be believed. The theologianstreat men like children, who never cavil about the possibilities of thetales which they listen to. 

XXVI. --WHAT IS GOD?

To unsettle the existence of a God, it is only necessary to ask atheologian to speak of Him; as soon as he utters one word about Him, theleast reflection makes us discover at once that what he says isincompatible with the essence which he attributes to his God. Therefore, what is God? It is an abstract word, coined to designate the hiddenforces of nature; or, it is a mathematical point, which has neitherlength, breadth, nor thickness. A philosopher [David Hume] has veryingeniously said in speaking of theologians, that they have found thesolution to the famous problem of Archimedes; a point in the heavensfrom which they move the world. 

XXVII. --REMARKABLE CONTRADICTIONS OF THEOLOGY. 

Religion puts men on their knees before a being without extension, andwho, notwithstanding, is infinite, and fills all space with hisimmensity; before an almighty being, who never executes that which hedesires; before a being supremely good, and who causes but displeasure;before a being, the friend of order, and in whose government everythingis in disorder. After all this, let us conjecture what this God oftheology is. 

XXVIII. --TO ADORE GOD IS TO ADORE A FICTION. 

In order to avoid all embarrassment, they tell us that it is notnecessary to know what God is; that we must adore without knowing; thatit is not permitted us to turn an eye of temerity upon His attributes. But if we must adore a God without knowing Him, should we not be assuredthat He exists? Moreover, how be assured that He exists without havingexamined whether it is possible that the diverse qualities claimed forHim, meet in Him? In truth, to adore God is to adore nothing butfictions of one's own brain, or rather, it is to adore nothing. 

XXIX. --THE INFINITY OF GOD AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF KNOWING THE DIVINEESSENCE, OCCASIONS AND JUSTIFIES ATHEISM. 

Without doubt the more to perplex matters, theologians have chosen tosay nothing about what their God is; they tell us what He is not. Bynegations and abstractions they imagine themselves composing a real andperfect being, while there can result from it but a being of humanreason. A spirit has no body; an infinite being is a being which is notfinite; a perfect being is a being which is not imperfect. Can any oneform any real notions of such a multitude of deficiencies or absence ofideas? That which excludes all idea, can it be anything but nothingness?To pretend that the divine attributes are beyond the understanding ofthe human mind is to render God unfit for men. If we are assured thatGod is infinite, we admit that there can be nothing in common betweenHim and His creatures. To say that God is infinite, is to destroy Himfor men, or at least render Him useless to them. 

God, we are told, created men intelligent, but He did not create themomniscient: that is to say, capable of knowing all things. We concludethat He was not able to endow him with intelligence sufficient tounderstand the divine essence. In this case it is demonstrated that Godhas neither the power nor the wish to be known by men. By what rightcould this God become angry with beings whose own essence makes itimpossible to have any idea of the divine essence? God would evidentlybe the most unjust and the most unaccountable of tyrants if He shouldpunish an atheist for not knowing that which his nature made itimpossible for him to know. 

XXX. --IT IS NEITHER LESS NOR MORE CRIMINAL TO BELIEVE IN GOD THAN NOT TOBELIEVE IN HIM. 

For the generality of men nothing renders an argument more convincingthan fear. In consequence of this fact, theologians tell us that thesafest side must be taken; that nothing is more criminal thanincredulity; that God will punish without mercy all those who have thetemerity to doubt His existence; that His severity is just; since it isonly madness or perversity which questions the existence of an angrymonarch who revenges himself cruelly upon atheists. If we examine thesemenaces calmly, we shall find that they assume always the thing inquestion. They must commence by proving to our satisfaction theexistence of a God, before telling us that it is safer to believe, andthat it is horrible to doubt or to deny it. Then they must prove that itis possible for a just God to punish men cruelly for having been in astate of madness, which prevented them from believing in the existenceof a being whom their enlightened reason could not comprehend. In aword, they must prove that a God that is said to be full of equity, could punish beyond measure the invincible and necessary ignorance ofman, caused by his relation to the divine essence. Is not thetheologians' manner of reasoning very singular? They create phantoms, they fill them with contradictions, and finally assure us that thesafest way is not to doubt the existence of those phantoms, which theyhave themselves invented. By following out this method, there is noabsurdity which it would not be safer to believe than not to believe. 

All children are atheists--they have no idea of God; are they, then, criminal on account of this ignorance? At what age do they begin to beobliged to believe in God? It is, you say, at the age of reason. At whattime does this age begin? Besides, if the most profound theologians losethemselves in the divine essence, which they boast of not comprehending, what ideas can common people have?--women, mechanics, and, in short, those who compose the mass of the human race?

XXXI. --THE BELIEF IN GOD IS NOTHING BUT A MECHANICAL HABITUDE OFCHILDHOOD. 

Men believe in God only upon the word of those who have no more idea ofHim than they themselves. Our nurses are our first theologians; theytalk to children of God as they talk to them of were-wolfs; they teachthem from the most tender age to join the hands mechanically. Have thenurses clearer notions of God than the children, whom they compel topray to Him?

XXXII. --IT IS A PREJUDICE WHICH HAS BEEN HANDED FROM FATHER TO CHILDREN. 

Religion is handed down from fathers to children as the property of afamily with the burdens. Very few people in the world would have a Godif care had not been taken to give them one. Each one receives from hisparents and his instructors the God which they themselves have receivedfrom theirs; only, according to his own temperament, each one arranges, modifies, and paints Him agreeably to his taste. 

XXXIII. --ORIGIN OF PREJUDICES. 

The brain of man is, especially in infancy, like a soft wax, ready toreceive all the impressions we wish to make on it; education furnishesnearly all his opinions, at a period when he is incapable of judging forhimself. We believe that the ideas, true or false, which at a tender agewere forced into our heads, were received from nature at our birth; andthis persuasion is one of the greatest sources of our errors. 

XXXIV. --HOW THEY TAKE ROOT AND SPREAD. 

Prejudice tends to confirm in us the opinions of those who are chargedwith our instruction. We believe them more skillful than we are; wesuppose them thoroughly convinced themselves of the things they teachus. We have the greatest confidence in them. After the care they havetaken of us when we were unable to assist ourselves, we judge themincapable of deceiving us. These are the motives which make us adopt athousand errors without other foundation than the dangerous word ofthose who have educated us; even the being forbidden to reason upon whatthey tell us, does not diminish our confidence, but contributes often toincrease our respect for their opinions. 

XXXV. --MEN WOULD NEVER HAVE BELIEVED IN THE PRINCIPLES OF MODERN THEOLOGYIF THEY HAD NOT BEEN TAUGHT AT AN AGE WHEN THEY WERE INCAPABLE OFREASONING. 

The instructors of the human race act very prudently in teaching mentheir religious principles before they are able to distinguish the truefrom the false, or the left hand from the right. It would be asdifficult to tame the spirit of a man forty years old with theextravagant notions which are given us of Divinity, as to banish thesenotions from the head of a man who has imbibed them since his tenderestinfancy. 

XXXVI. --THE WONDERS OF NATURE DO NOT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

We are assured that the wonders of nature are sufficient to a belief inthe existence of a God, and to convince us fully of this importanttruth. But how many persons are there in this world who have theleisure, the capacity, the necessary taste, to contemplate nature and tomeditate upon its progress? The majority of men pay no attention to it. A peasant is not at all moved by the beauty of the sun, which he seesevery day. The sailor is not surprised by the regular movements of theocean; he will draw from them no theological inductions. The phenomenaof nature do not prove the existence of a God, except to a fewforewarned men, to whom has been shown in advance the finger of God inall the objects whose mechanism could embarrass them. The unprejudicedphilosopher sees nothing in the wonders of nature but permanent andinvariable law; nothing but the necessary effects of differentcombinations of diversified substance. 

XXXVII. --THE WONDERS OF NATURE EXPLAIN THEMSELVES BY NATURAL CAUSES. 

Is there anything more surprising than the logic of so many profounddoctors, who, instead of acknowledging the little light they have uponnatural agencies, seek outside of nature--that is to say, in imaginaryregions--an agent less understood than this nature, of which they can atleast form some idea? To say that God is the author of the phenomenathat we see, is it not attributing them to an occult cause? What is God?What is a spirit? They are causes of which we have no idea. Sages! studynature and her laws; and when you can from them unravel the action ofnatural causes, do not go in search of supernatural causes, which, veryfar from enlightening your ideas, will but entangle them more and moreand make it impossible for you to understand yourselves. 

XXXVIII--CONTINUATION. 

Nature, you say, is totally inexplicable without a God; that is to say, in order to explain what you understand so little, you need a causewhich you do not understand at all. You pretend to make clear that whichis obscure, by magnifying its obscurity. You think you have untied aknot by multiplying knots. Enthusiastic philosophers, in order to proveto us the existence of a God, you copy complete treatises on botany; youenter into minute details of the parts of the human body; you ascendinto the air to contemplate the revolutions of the stars; you returnthen to earth to admire the course of the waters; you fly into ecstasiesover butterflies, insects, polyps, organized atoms, in which you thinkto find the greatness of your God; all these things will not prove theexistence of this God; they will only prove that you have not the ideaswhich you should have of the immense variety of causes and effects thatcan produce the infinitely diversified combinations, of which theuniverse is the assemblage. This will prove that you ignore nature, thatyou have no idea of her resources when you judge her incapable ofproducing a multitude of forms and beings, of which your eyes, even bythe aid of the microscope, see but the least part; finally, this willprove, that not being able to know the sensible and comprehensibleagents, you find it easier to have recourse to a word, by which youdesignate an agent, of whom it will always be impossible for you to formany true idea. 

XXXIX. --THE WORLD HAS NOT BEEN CREATED, AND MATTER MOVES BY ITSELF. 

They tell us gravely that there is no effect without a cause; theyrepeat to us very often that the world did not create itself. But theuniverse is a cause, not an effect; it is not a work, has not been made, because it was impossible that it should be made. The world has alwaysbeen, its existence is necessary. It is the cause of itself. Nature, whose essence is visibly acting and producing, in order to fulfill herfunctions, as we see she does, needs no invisible motor far more unknownthan herself. Matter moves by its own energy, by the necessary result ofits heterogeneity; the diversity of its movements or of its ways ofacting, constitute only the diversity of substances; we distinguish onebeing from another but by the diversity of the impressions or movementswhich they communicate to our organs. 

XL. --CONTINUATION. 

You see that everything in nature is in a state of activity, and youpretend that nature of itself is dead and without energy! You believethat all this, acting of itself, has need of a motor! Well! who is thismotor? It is a spirit, that is to say, an absolutely incomprehensibleand contradictory being. Conclude then, I say to you, that matter actsof itself, and cease to reason about your spiritual motor, which hasnothing that is necessary to put it into motion. Return from youruseless excursions; come down from an imaginary into a real world; takehold of second causes; leave to theologians their "First Cause, " ofwhich nature has no need in order to produce all the effects which yousee. 

XLI. --OTHER PROOFS THAT MOTION IS IN THE ESSENCE OF MATTER, AND THAT ITIS NOT NECESSARY TO SUPPOSE A SPIRITUAL MOTOR. 

It is but by the diversity of impressions or of effects which substancesor bodies make upon us, that we feel them, that we have perceptions andideas of them, that we distinguish them one from another, that we assignto them peculiarities. Moreover, in order to perceive or to feel anobject, this object must act upon our organs; this object can not actupon us without exciting some motion in us; it can not produce anymotion in us if it is not itself in motion. As soon as I see an object, my eyes must be struck by it; I can not conceive of light and of visionwithout a motion in the luminous, extended, and colored body whichcommunicates itself to my eye, or which acts upon my retina. As soon asI smell a body, my olfactory nerve must be irritated or put into motionby the parts exhaled from an odorous body. As soon as I hear a sound, the tympanum of my ear must be struck by the air put in motion by asonorous body, which could not act if it was not moved of itself. Fromwhich it follows, evidently, that without motion I can neither feel, see, distinguish, compare, nor judge the body, nor even occupy mythought with any matter whatever. It is said in the schools, that theessence of a being is that from which flow all the properties of thatbeing. Now then, it is evident that all the properties of bodies or ofsubstances of which we have ideas, are due to the motion which aloneinforms us of their existence, and gives us the first conceptions of it. I can not be informed or assured of my own existence but by the motionswhich I experience within myself. I am compelled to conclude that motionis as essential to matter as its extension, and that it can not beconceived of without it. If one persists in caviling about the evidenceswhich prove to us that motion is an essential property of matter, hemust at least acknowledge that substances which seemed dead or deprivedof all energy, take motion of themselves as soon as they are broughtwithin the proper distance to act upon each other. Pyrophorus, whenenclosed in a bottle or deprived of contact with the air, can not takefire by itself, but it burns as soon as exposed to the air. Flour andwater cause fermentation as soon as they are mixed. Thus dead substancesengender motion of themselves. Matter has then the power to move itself, and nature, in order to act, does not need a motor whose essence wouldhinder its activity. 

XLII. --THE EXISTENCE OF MAN DOES NOT PROVE THAT OF GOD. 

Whence comes man? What is his origin? Is he the result of the fortuitousmeeting of atoms? Was the first man formed of the dust of the earth? Ido not know! Man appears to me to be a production of nature like allothers she embraces. I should be just as much embarrassed to tell youwhence came the first stones, the first trees, the first elephants, thefirst ants, the first acorns, as to explain the origin of the humanspecies. Recognize, we are told, the hand of God, of an infinitelyintelligent and powerful workman, in a work so wonderful as the humanmachine. I would admit without question that the human machine appearsto me surprising; but since man exists in nature, I do not believe itright to say that his formation is beyond the forces of nature. I willadd, that I could conceive far less of the formation of the humanmachine, when to explain it to me they tell me that a pure spirit, whohas neither eyes, nor feet, nor hands, nor head, nor lungs, nor mouth, nor breath, has made man by taking a little dust and blowing upon it. The savage inhabitants of Paraguay pretend to be descended from themoon, and appear to us as simpletons; the theologians of Europe pretendto be descended from a pure spirit. Is this pretension more sensible?

Man is intelligent, hence it is concluded that he must be the work of anintelligent being, and not of a nature devoid of intelligence. Althoughnothing is more rare than to see man use this intelligence, of which heappears so proud, I will admit that he is intelligent, that hisnecessities develop in him this faculty, that the society of other mencontributes especially to cultivate it. But in the human machine and inthe intelligence with which it is endowed, I see nothing that shows in aprecise manner the infinite intelligence of the workman who has thehonor of making it. I see that this admirable machine is subject toderangement; that at that time this wonderful intelligence isdisordered, and sometimes totally disappears; from this I conclude thathuman intelligence depends upon a certain disposition of the materialorgans of the body, and that, because man is an intelligent being, it isnot well to conclude that God must be an intelligent being, any morethan because man is material, we are compelled to conclude that God ismaterial. The intelligence of man no more proves the intelligence of Godthan the malice of men proves the malice of this God, of whom theypretend that man is the work. In whatever way theology is taken, Godwill always be a cause contradicted by its effects, or of whom it isimpossible to judge by His works. We shall always see evil, imperfections, and follies resulting from a cause claimed to be full ofgoodness, of perfections, and of wisdom. 

XLIII. --HOWEVER, NEITHER MAN NOR THE UNIVERSE IS THE EFFECT OF CHANCE. 

Then you will say that intelligent man and even the universe and all itencloses, are the effects of chance. No, I answer, the universe is notan effect; it is the cause of all effects; all the beings it embracesare the necessary effects of this cause which sometimes shows to us itsmanner of acting, out which often hides from us its way. Men may use theword "chance" to cover their ignorance of the true causes; nevertheless, although they may ignore them, these causes act, but by certain laws. There is no effect without a cause. 

Nature is a word which we make use of to designate the immenseassemblage of beings, diverse substances, infinite combinations, and allthe various motions which we see. All bodies, whether organized or notorganized, are the necessary results of certain causes, made to producenecessarily the effects which we see. Nothing in nature can be made bychance; all follow fixed laws; these laws are but the necessary union ofcertain effects with their causes. An atom of matter does not meetanother atom by accident or by hazard; this rencounter is due topermanent laws, which cause each being to act by necessity as it does, and can not act otherwise under the same circumstances. To speak aboutthe accidental coming together of atoms, or to attribute any effects tochance, is to say nothing, if not to ignore the laws by which bodiesact, meet, combine, or separate. 

Everything is made by chance for those who do not understand nature, theproperties of beings, and the effects which must necessarily result fromthe concurrence of certain causes. It is not chance that has placed thesun in the center of our planetary system; it is by its very essence, the substance of which it is composed, that it occupies this place, andfrom thence diffuses itself to invigorate the beings who live in theseplanets. 

XLIV. --NEITHER DOES THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF AGOD. 

The worshipers of a God find, especially in the order of the universe, an invincible proof of the existence of an intelligent and wise beingwho rules it. But this order is only a result of motions necessarilybrought on by causes or by circumstances which are sometimes favorableand sometimes injurious to ourselves; we approve the former and findfault with the latter. 

Nature follows constantly the same progress; that is to say, the samecauses produce the same effects, as long as their action is notinterrupted by other causes which occasion the first ones to producedifferent effects. When the causes, whose effects we feel, areinterrupted in their action by causes which, although unknown to us, areno less natural and necessary, we are stupefied, we cry out miracles:and we attribute them to a cause far less known than all those we seeoperating before us. The universe is always in order; there can be nodisorder for it. Our organization alone is suffering if we complainabout disorder. Bodies, causes, beings, which this world embraces, actnecessarily in the manner in which we see them act, whether we approveor disapprove their action. Earthquakes, volcanoes, inundations, contagions, and famines are effects as necessary in the order of natureas the fall of heavy bodies, as the course of rivers, as the periodicalmovements of the seas, the blowing of the winds, the abundant rains, andthe favorable effects for which we praise and thank Providence for itsblessings. 

To be astonished that a certain order reigns in the world, is to besurprised to see the same causes constantly producing the same effects. To be shocked at seeing disorder, is to forget that the causes beingchanged or disturbed in their action, the effects can no longer be thesame. To be astonished to see order in nature, is to be astonished thatanything can exist; it is to be surprised at one's own existence. Whatis order for one being, is disorder for another. All wicked beings findthat everything is in order when they can with impunity put everythinginto disorder; they find, on the contrary, that everything is indisorder when they are prevented from exercising their wickedness. 

XLV. --CONTINUATION. 

Supposing God to be the author and the motor of nature, there could beno disorder relating to Him; all causes which He would have made wouldnecessarily act according to their properties the essences and theimpulsions that He had endowed them with. If God should change theordinary course of things, He would not be immutable. If the order ofthe universe--in which we believe we see the most convincing proof of Hisexistence, of His intelligence, His power, and His goodness--should beinconsistent, His existence might be doubted; or He might be accused atleast of inconstancy, of inability, of want of foresight, and of wisdomin the first arrangement of things; we would have a right to accuse Himof blundering in His choice of agents and instruments. Finally, if theorder of nature proves the power and the intelligence, disorder ought toprove the weakness, inconstancy, and irrationality of Divinity. You saythat God is everywhere; that He fills all space; that nothing was madewithout Him; that matter could not act without Him as its motor. But inthis case you admit that your God is the author of disorder; that it isHe who deranges nature; that He is the Father of confusion; that He isin man; and that He moves man at the moment when he sins. If God iseverywhere, He is in me; He acts with me; He is deceived when I amdeceived; He questions with me the existence of God; He offends God withme. Oh, theologians! you never understand yourselves when you speak ofGod. 

XLVI. --A PURE SPIRIT CAN NOT BE INTELLIGENT, AND TO ADORE A DIVINEINTELLIGENCE IS A CHIMERA. 

To be what we call intelligent, we must have ideas, thoughts, will; tohave ideas, thoughts, and will, we must have organs; to have organs, wemust have a body; to act upon bodies, we must have a body; to experiencetrouble, we must be capable of suffering; from which it evidentlyfollows that a pure spirit can not be intelligent, and can not beaffected by that which takes place in the universe. 

Divine intelligence, divine ideas, divine views, you say, have nothingin common with those of men. So much the better! But in this case, howcan men judge of these views--whether good or evil--reason about theseideas, or admire this intelligence? It would be to judge, to admire, toadore that of which we can form no idea. To adore the profound views ofdivine wisdom, is it not to worship that of which it is impossible forus to judge? To admire these same views, is it not admiring withoutknowing wry? Admiration is always the daughter of ignorance. Men admireand worship only what they do not understand. 

XLVII. --ALL THE QUALITIES WHICH THEOLOGY GIVES TO ITS GOD ARE CONTRARY TOTHE VERY ESSENCE WHICH IT SUPPOSES HIM TO HAVE. 

All these qualities which are given to God are not suited to a beingwho, by His own essence, is devoid of all similarity to human beings. Itis true, they think to find this similarity by exaggerating the humanqualities with which they have clothed Divinity; they thrust them uponthe infinite, and from that moment cease to understand themselves. Whatis the result of this combination of man with God, or of thistheanthropy? Its only result is a chimera, of which nothing can beaffirmed without causing the phantom to vanish which they had taken somuch trouble to conjure up. 

Dante, in his poem of Paradise, relates that the Divinity appeared tohim under the figure of three circles, which formed an iris, whosebright colors arose from each other; but having wished to retain itsbrilliant light, the poet saw only his own face. In worshiping God, manadores himself. 

XLVIII. --CONTINUATION. 

The slightest reflection suffices to prove to us that God can not haveany of the human qualities, virtues, or perfections. Our virtues and ourperfections are the results of our temperament modified. Has God atemperament like ours? Our good qualities are our habits relative to thebeings in whose society we live. God, according to you, is a solitarybeing. God has no one like Him; He does not live in society; He has noneed of any one; He enjoys a happiness which nothing can alter. Admit, then, upon your own principles, that God can not possess what we callvirtues, and that man can not be virtuous in regard to Him. 

XLIX. --IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT THE HUMAN RACE IS THE OBJECT AND THE ENDOF CREATION. 

Man, charmed with his own merits, imagines that it is but his own kindthat God proposed as the object and the end in the formation of theuniverse. Upon what is this so flattering opinion based? It is, we aretold, upon this: that man is the only being endowed with an intelligencewhich enables him to know the Divine nature, and to render to it homageworthy of it. We are assured that God created the world for His ownglory, and that the human race was included in His plan, in order thatHe might have somebody to admire and glorify Him in His works. But bythese intentions has not God visibly missed His end?

1. According to you, it would always be impossible for man to know hisGod, and he would be kept in the most invincible ignorance of the Divineessence. 

2. A being who has no equals, can not be susceptible of glory. Glory canresult but from the comparison of his own excellence with that ofothers. 

3. If God by Himself is infinitely happy and is sufficient unto Himself, why does He need the homage of His feeble creatures?

4. In spite of all His works, God is not glorified; on the contrary, allthe religions of the world show Him to us as perpetually offended; theirgreat object is to reconcile sinful, ungrateful, and rebellious man withhis wrathful God. 

L. --GOD IS NOT MADE FOR MAN, NOR MAN FOR GOD. 

If God is infinite, He is created still less for man, than man is forthe ants. Would the ants of a garden reason pertinently with referenceto the gardener, if they should attempt to occupy themselves with hisintentions, his desires, and his projects? Would they reason correctlyif they pretended that the park of Versailles was made but for them, andthat a fastidious monarch had had as his only object to lodge themsuperbly? But according to theology, man in his relation to God is farbeneath what the lowest insect is to man. Thus by the acknowledgment oftheology itself, theology, which does but occupy itself with theattributes and views of Divinity, is the most complete of follies. 

LI. --IT IS NOT TRUE THAT THE OBJECT OF THE FORMATION OF THE UNIVERSE WASTO RENDER MEN HAPPY. 

It is pretended, that in forming the universe, God had no object but torender man happy. But, in a world created expressly for him and governedby an all-mighty God, is man after all very happy? Are his enjoymentsdurable? Are not his pleasures mingled with sufferings? Are there manypeople who are contented with their fate? Is not mankind the continualvictim of physical and moral evils? This human machine, which is shownto us as the masterpiece of the Creator's industry, has it not athousand ways of deranging itself? Would we admire the skill of amechanic, who should show us a complicated machine, liable to be out oforder at any moment, and which would after a while destroy itself?

LII. --WHAT IS CALLED PROVIDENCE IS BUT A WORD VOID OF SENSE. 

We call Providence the generous care which Divinity shows in providingfor our needs, and in watching over the happiness of its belovedcreatures. But, as soon as we look around, we find that God provides fornothing. Providence neglects the greatest part of the inhabitants ofthis world. Against a very small number of men, who are supposed to behappy, what a multitude of miserable ones are groaning beneathoppression, and languishing in misery! Whole nations are compelled tostarve in order to indulge the extravagances of a few morose tyrants, who are no happier than the slaves whom they oppress! At the same timethat our philosophers energetically parade the bounties of Providence, and exhort us to place confidence in it, do we not see them cry out atunforeseen catastrophes, by which Providence plays with the vainprojects of men; do we not see that it overthrows their designs, laughsat their efforts, and that its profound wisdom pleases itself inmisleading mortals? But how can we place confidence in a maliciousProvidence which laughs at and sports with mankind? How can I admire theunknown course of a hidden wisdom whose manner of acting is inexplicableto me? Judge it by its effects! you will say; it is by these I do judgeit, and I find that these effects are sometimes useful and sometimesinjurious to me. 

We think to justify Providence by saying, that in this world there aremore blessings than evil for each individual man. Let us suppose thatthe blessings which this Providence makes us enjoy are as one hundred, and that the evils are as ten per cent. ; would it not always result thatagainst these hundred degrees of goodness, Providence possesses a tenthdegree of malignity?--which is incompatible with the perfection wesuppose it to have. 

All the books are filled with the most flattering praises of Providence, whose attentive care is extolled; it would seem to us, as if in order tolive happy here below, man would have no need of exerting himself. However, without labor, man could scarcely live a day. In order to live, I see him obliged to sweat, work, hunt, fish, toil without relaxation;without these secondary causes, the First Cause (at least in themajority of countries) could provide for none of his needs. If I examineall parts of this globe, I see the uncivilized as well as the civilizedman in a perpetual struggle with Providence; he is compelled to ward offthe blows which it sends in the form of hurricanes, tempests, frost, hail, inundations, sterility, and the divers accidents which so oftenrender all their labors useless. In a word, I see the human racecontinually occupied in protecting itself from the wicked tricks of thisProvidence, which is said to be busy with the care of their happiness. Adevotee admired Divine Providence for having wisely made rivers to flowthrough all the places where men had built large cities. Is not thisman's way of reasoning as sensible as that of many learned men who donot cease from telling us of Final Causes, or who pretend to perceiveclearly the benevolent views of God in the formation of things?

LIII. --THIS PRETENDED PROVIDENCE IS LESS OCCUPIED IN CONSERVING THAN INDISTURBING THE WORLD--MORE AN ENEMY THAN A FRIEND OF MAN. 

Do we see, then, that Divine Providence manifests itself in a sensiblemanner in the conservation of its admirable works, for which we honorit? If it is Divine Providence which governs the world, we find it asmuch occupied in destroying as in creating; in exterminating as inproducing. Does it not at every instant cause thousands of those samemen to perish, to whose preservation and well-being it is supposed togive its continual attention? Every moment it loses sight of its belovedcreatures; sometimes it tears down their dwellings; sometimes itdestroys their harvests, inundates their fields, devastates by adrought, arms all nature against man, sets man against man, and finishesby causing him to expire in pain. Is this what you call preserving auniverse? If we attempted to consider without prejudice the equivocalconduct of Providence relative to mankind and to all sentient beings, weshould find that very far from resembling a tender and careful mother, it rather resembles those unnatural mothers who, forgetting theunfortunate fruits of their illicit amours, abandon their children assoon as they are born; and who, pleased to have conceived them, exposethem without mercy to the caprices of fate. 

The Hottentots--wiser in this particular than other nations, who treatthem as barbarians--refuse, it is said, to adore God, because if Hesometimes does good, He as often does harm. Is not this reasoning morejust and more conformed to experience than that of so many men whopersist in seeing in their God but kindness, wisdom, and foresight; andwho refuse to see that the countless evils, of which the world is thetheater, must come from the same Hand which they kiss with transport?

LIV. --NO! THE WORLD IS NOT GOVERNED BY AN INTELLIGENT BEING. 

The logic of common sense teaches us that we should judge a cause but byits effects. A cause can not be reputed as constantly good, except whenit constantly produces good, useful, and agreeable effects. A causewhich produces good at one time, and evil at another, is a cause whichis sometimes good and sometimes bad. But the logic of Theology destroysall this. According to it, the phenomena of nature, or the effects whichwe see in this world, prove to us the existence of an infinitely goodCause, and this Cause is God. Although this world is full of evils, although disorder reigns here very often, although men groan everymoment under the fate which oppresses them, we ought to be convincedthat these effects are due to a benevolent and immutable Cause; and manypeople believe it, or pretend to believe it!

Everything which takes place in the world proves to us in the clearestway that it is not governed by an intelligent being. We can judge of theintelligence of a being but by the means which he employs to accomplishhis proposed design. The aim of God, it is said, is the happiness of ourrace; however, the same necessity regulates the fate of all sentientbeings--which are born to suffer much, to enjoy little, and to die. Man'scup is full of joy and of bitterness; everywhere good is side by sidewith evil; order is replaced by disorder; generation is followed bydestruction. If you tell me that the designs of God are mysteries, andthat His views are impossible to understand, I will answer, that in thiscase it is impossible for me to judge whether God is intelligent. 

LV. --GOD CAN NOT BE CALLED IMMUTABLE. 

You pretend that God is immutable! But what is it that occasions thecontinual instability in this world, which you claim as His empire? Isany state subject to more frequent and cruel revolutions than that ofthis unknown monarch? How can we attribute to an immutable God, powerfulenough to give solidity to His works, the government of a world whereeverything is in a continual vicissitude? If I think to see a Godunchanging in all the effects advantageous to my kind, what God can Idiscover in the continual misfortunes by which my kind is oppressed? Youtell me that it is our sins that force Him to punish us. I will answerthat God, according to yourselves, is not immutable, because the sins ofmen compel Him to change His conduct in regard to them. Can a being whois sometimes irritated, and sometimes appeased, be constantly the same?

LVI. --EVIL AND GOOD ARE THE NECESSARY EFFECTS OF NATURAL CAUSES. WHAT ISA GOD WHO CAN CHANGE NOTHING?

The universe is but what it can be; all sentient beings enjoy and sufferhere: that is to say, they are moved sometimes in an agreeable, and atother times in a disagreeable way. These effects are necessary; theyresult from causes that act according to their inherent tendencies. , These effects necessarily please or displease me, according to my ownnature. This same nature compels me to avoid, to remove, and to combatthe one, and to seek, to desire, and to procure the other. In a worldwhere everything is from necessity, a God who remedies nothing, andallows things to follow their own course, is He anything else butdestiny or necessity personified? It is a deaf God who can effect nochange on the general laws to which He is subjected Himself. What do Icare for the infinite power of a being who can do but a very few thingsto please me? Where is the infinite kindness of a being who isindifferent to my happiness? What good to me is the favor of a beingwho, able to bestow upon me infinite good, does not even give me afinite one?

LVII. --THE VANITY OF THEOLOGICAL CONSOLATIONSIN THE TROUBLES OF THIS LIFE. THE HOPE OF A HEAVEN, OF A FUTURE LIFE, IS BUT IMAGINARY. 

When we ask why, under a good God, so many are wretched, we are remindedthat the present world is but a pass-way, designed to conduct man to ahappier sphere; we are assured that our sojourn on the earth, where welive, is for trial; they silence us by saying that God would not impartto His creatures either the indifference to the sufferings of others, orthe infinite happiness which He reserved for Himself alone. How can webe satisfied with these answers?

1. The existence of another life has no other guaranty than theimagination of men, who, in supposing it, have but manifested theirdesire to live again, in order to enter upon a purer and more durablestate of happiness than that which they enjoy at present. 

2. How can we conceive of a God who, knowing all things, must know totheir depths the nature of His creatures, and yet must have so manyproofs in order to assure Himself of their proclivities?

3. According to the calculations of our chronologists, the earth whichwe inhabit has existed for six or seven thousand years; during this timethe nations have, under different forms, experienced many vicissitudesand calamities; history shows us that the human race in all ages hasbeen tormented and devastated by tyrants, conquerors, heroes; by wars, inundations, famines, epidemics, etc. Is this long catalogue of proofsof such a nature as to inspire us with great confidence in the hiddenviews of the Divinity? Do such constant evils give us an exalted idea ofthe future fate which His kindness is preparing for us?

4. If God is as well-disposed as they assure us He is, could He not atleast, without bestowing an infinite happiness upon men, communicate tothem that degree of happiness of which finite beings are susceptible? Inorder to be happy, do we need an Infinite or Divine happiness?

5. If God has not been able to render men happier than they are herebelow, what will become of the hope of a Paradise, where it is pretendedthat the elect or chosen few will rejoice forever in ineffablehappiness? If God could not or would not remove evil from the earth (theonly sojourning place we know of), what reason could we have to presumethat He can or will remove it from another world, of which we knownothing? More than two thousand years ago, according to Lactance, thewise epicure said: "Either God wants to prevent evil, and can not, or Hecan and will not; or He neither can nor will, or He will and can. If Hewants to, without the power, He is impotent; if He can, and will not, Heis guilty of malice which we can not attribute to Him; if He neither cannor will, He is both impotent and wicked, and consequently can not beGod; if He wishes to and can, whence then comes evil, or why does He notprevent it?" For more than two thousand years honest minds have waitedfor a rational solution of these difficulties; and our theologians teachus that they will not be revealed to us until the future life. 

LVIII. --ANOTHER IDLE FANCY. 

We are told of a pretended scale for human beings; it is supposed thatGod has divided His creatures into different classes, each one enjoyingthe degree of happiness of which he is susceptible. According to thisromantic arrangement, all beings, from the oyster to the angel, enjoythe happiness which belongs to them. Experience contradicts this sublimerevery. In the world where we are, we see all sentient beings living andsuffering in the midst of dangers. Man can not step without wounding, tormenting, crushing a multitude of sentient beings which he finds inhis path, while he himself, at every step, is exposed to a throng ofevils seen or unseen, which may lead to his destruction. Is not the verythought of death sufficient to mar his greatest enjoyment? During thewhole course of his life he is subject to sufferings; there is not amoment when he feels sure of preserving his existence, to which he is sostrongly attached, and which he regards as the greatest gift ofDivinity. 

LIX. --IN VAIN DOES THEOLOGY EXERT ITSELF TO ACQUIT GOD OF MAN'S DEFECTS. EITHER THIS GOD IS NOT FREE, OR HE IS MORE WICKED THAN GOOD. 

The world, it will be said, has all the perfection of which it wassusceptible; by the very reason that the world was not the God who madeit, it was necessary that it should have great qualities and greatdefects. But we will answer, that the world necessarily having greatdefects, it would have been better suited to the nature of a good Godnot to create a world which He could not render completely happy. IfGod, who was, according to you, supremely happy before the world wascreated, had continued to be supremely happy in the created world, whydid He not remain in peace? Why must man suffer? Why must man exist Whatis his existence to God? Nothing or something. If his existence is notuseful or necessary to God, why did He not leave him in nothingness? Ifman's existence is necessary to His glory, He then needed man, He lackedsomething before this man existed!

We can forgive an unskillful workman for doing imperfect work, becausehe must work, well or ill, or starve; this workman is excusable; butyour God is not. According to you, He is self-sufficient; in this case, why does He create men? He has, according to you, all that is necessaryto render man happy; why, then, does He not do it? You must concludethat your God has more malice than goodness, or you must admit that Godwas compelled to do what He has done, without being able to dootherwise. However, you assure us that your God is free; you say alsothat He is immutable, although beginning in time and ceasing in time toexercise His power, like all the inconstant beings of this world. Oh, theologians! you have made vain efforts to acquit your God of all thedefects of man; there is always visible in this God so perfect, "a tipof the [human] ear. "

LX. --WE CAN NOT BELIEVE IN A DIVINE PROVIDENCE, IN AN INFINITELY GOOD ANDPOWERFUL GOD. 

Is not God the master of His favors? Has He not the right to dispenseHis benefits? Can He not take them back again? His creature has no rightto ask the reason of His conduct; He can dispose at will of the works ofHis hands. Absolute sovereign of mortals, He distributes happiness orunhappiness, according to His pleasure. These are the solutions whichtheologians give in order to console us for the evils which God inflictsupon us. We would tell them that a God who was infinitely good, wouldnot be the master of His favors, but would be by His own nature obligedto distribute them among His creatures; we would tell them that a trulybenevolent being would not believe he had the right to abstain fromdoing good; we would tell them that a truly generous being does not takeback what he has given, and any man who does it, forfeits gratitude, andhas no right to complain of ingratitude. How can the arbitrary andwhimsical conduct which theologians ascribe to God, be reconciled withthe religion which supposes a compact or mutual agreement between thisGod and men? If God owes nothing to His creatures, they, on their part, can not owe anything to their God. All religion is founded upon thehappiness which men believe they have a right to expect from theDivinity, who is supposed to tell them: "Love, adore, obey me, and Iwill render you happy!" Men on their side say to Him: "Make us happy, befaithful to your promises, and we will love you, we will adore you, wewill obey your laws!" In neglecting the happiness of His creatures, indistributing His favors and His graces according to His caprice, andtaking back His gifts, does not God violate the contract which serves asa base for all religion?

Cicero has said with reason that if God does not make Himself agreeableto man, He can not be his God. [Nisi Deus homini placuerit, Deus nonerit. ] Goodness constitutes Divinity; this Goodness can manifest itselfto man only by the advantages he derives from it. As soon as he isunfortunate, this Goodness disappears and ceases to be Divinity. Aninfinite Goodness can be neither partial nor exclusive. If God isinfinitely good, He owes happiness to all His creatures; one unfortunatebeing alone would be sufficient to annihilate an unlimited goodness. Under an infinitely good and powerful God, is it possible to conceivethat a single man could suffer? An animal, a mite, which suffers, furnishes invincible arguments against Divine Providence and itsinfinite benefactions. 

LXI. --CONTINUATION. 

According to theologians, the afflictions and evils of this life arechastisements which culpable men receive from Divinity. But why are menculpable? If God is Almighty, does it cost Him any more to say, "Leteverything remain in order!"--"let all my subjects be good, innocent, fortunate!"--than to say, "Let everything exist?" Was it more difficultfor this God to do His work well than to do it so badly? Was it anyfarther from the nonexistence of beings to their wise and happyexistence, than from their non-existence to their insensate andmiserable existence? Religion speaks to us of a hell--that is, of afearful place where, notwithstanding His goodness, God reserves eternaltorments for the majority of men. Thus, after having rendered mortalsvery miserable in this world, religion teaches them that God can makethem much more wretched in another. They meet our objections by saying, that otherwise the goodness of God would take the place of His justice. But goodness which takes the place of the most terrible cruelty, is notinfinite kindness. Besides, a God who, after having been infinitelygood, becomes infinitely wicked, can He be regarded as an immutablebeing? A God filled with implacable fury, is He a God in whom we canfind a shadow of charity or goodness?

LXII. --THEOLOGY MAKES OF ITS GOD A MONSTER OF NONSENSE, OF INJUSTICE, OFMALICE, AND ATROCITY--A BEING ABSOLUTELY HATEFUL. 

Divine justice, such as our theologians paint it, is, without doubt, aquality intended to make us love Divinity. According to the notions ofmodern theology, it appears evident that God has created the majority ofmen with the view only of punishing them eternally. Would it not havebeen more in conformity with kindness, with reason, with equity, tocreate but stones or plants, and not sentient beings, than to create menwhose conduct in this world would cause them eternal chastisements inanother? A God so perfidious and wicked as to create a single man andleave him exposed to the perils of damnation, can not be regarded as aperfect being, but as a monster of nonsense, injustice, malice, andatrocity. Far from forming a perfect God, the theologians have made themost imperfect of beings. According to theological ideas, God resemblesa tyrant who, having deprived the majority of his slaves of theireyesight, would confine them in a cell where, in order to amuse himselfhe could observe incognito their conduct through a trap-door, in orderto have occasion to cruelly punish all those who in walking should hurteach other; but who would reward splendidly the small number of those towhom the sight was spared, for having the skill to avoid an encounterwith their comrades. Such are the ideas which the dogma of gratuitouspredestination gives of Divinity!

Although men repeat to us that their God is infinitely good, it isevident that in the bottom of their hearts they can believe nothing ofit. How can we love anything we do not know? How can we love a being, the idea of whom is but liable to keep us in anxiety and trouble? Howcan we love a being of whom all that is told conspires to render himsupremely hateful?

LXIII. --ALL RELIGION INSPIRES BUT A COWARDLY AND INORDINATE FEAR OF THEDIVINITY. 

Many people make a subtle distinction between true religion andsuperstition; they tell us that the latter is but a cowardly andinordinate fear of Divinity, that the truly religious man has confidencein his God, and loves Him sincerely; while the superstitious man sees inHim but an enemy, has no confidence in Him, and represents Him as asuspicious and cruel tyrant, avaricious of His benefactions and prodigalof His chastisements. But does not all religion in reality give us thesesame ideas of God? While we are told that God is infinitely good, is itnot constantly repeated to us that He is very easily offended, that Hebestows His favors but upon a few, that He chastises with fury those towhom He has not been pleased to grant them?

LXIV. --THERE IS IN REALITY NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELIGION AND THE MOSTSOMBRE AND SERVILE SUPERSTITION. 

If we take our ideas of God from the nature of the things where we finda mixture of good and evil, this God, according to the good and evilwhich we experience, does naturally appear to us capricious, inconstant, sometimes good, sometimes wicked, and in this way, instead of excitingour love, He must produce suspicion, fear, and uncertainty in ourhearts. There is no real difference between natural religion and themost sombre and servile superstition. If the Theist sees God but on thebeautiful side, the superstitious man looks upon Him from the mosthideous side. The folly of the one is gay of the other is lugubrious;but both are equally delirious. 

LXV. --ACCORDING TO THE IDEAS WHICH THEOLOGY GIVES OF DIVINITY, TO LOVEGOD IS IMPOSSIBLE. 

If I take my ideas of God from theology, God shows Himself to me in sucha light as to repel love. The devotees who tell us that they love theirGod sincerely, are either liars or fools who see their God but inprofile; it is impossible to love a being, the thought of whom tends toexcite terror, and whose judgments make us tremble. How can we facewithout fear, a God whom we suppose sufficiently barbarous to wish todamn us forever? Let them not speak to us of a filial or respectful fearmingled with love, which men should have for their God. A son can notlove his father when he knows he is cruel enough to inflict exquisitetorments upon him; in short, to punish him for the least faults. No manupon earth can have the least spark of love for a God who holds inreserve eternal, hard, and violent chastisements for ninety-ninehundredths of His children. 

LXVI. --BY THE INVENTION OF THE DOGMA OF THE ETERNAL TORMENTS OF HELL, THEOLOGIANS HAVE MADE OF THEIR GOD A DETESTABLE BEING, MORE WICKED THANTHE MOST WICKED OF MEN, A PERVERSE AND CRUEL TYRANT WITHOUT AIM. 

The inventors of the dogma of eternal torments in hell, have made of theGod whom they call so good, the most detestable of beings. Cruelty inman is the last term of corruption. There is no sensitive soul but ismoved and revolts at the recital alone of the torments which thegreatest criminal endures; but cruelty merits the greater indignationwhen we consider it gratuitous or without motive. The most sanguinarytyrants, Caligula, Nero, Domitian, had at least some motive intormenting their victims and insulting their sufferings; these motiveswere, either their own safety, the fury of revenge, the design tofrighten by terrible examples, or perhaps the vanity to make parade oftheir power, and the desire to satisfy a barbarous curiosity. Can a Godhave any of these motives? In tormenting the victims of His wrath, Hewould punish beings who could not really endanger His immovable power, nor trouble His felicity, which nothing can change. On the other hand, the sufferings of the other life would be useless to the living, who cannot witness them; these torments would be useless to the damned, becausein hell is no more conversion, and the hour of mercy is passed; fromwhich it follows, that God, in the exercise of His eternal vengeance, would have no other aim than to amuse Himself and insult the weakness ofHis creatures. I appeal to the whole human race! Is there in nature aman so cruel as to wish in cold blood to torment, I do not say hisfellow-beings, but any sentient being whatever, without fee, withoutprofit, without curiosity, without having anything to fear? Conclude, then, O theologians! that according to your own principles, your God isinfinitely more wicked than the most wicked of men. You will tell me, perhaps, that infinite offenses deserve infinite chastisements, and Iwill tell you that we can not offend a God whose happiness is infinite. I will tell you further, that offenses of finite beings can not beinfinite; that a God who does not want to be offended, can not consentto make His creatures' offenses last for eternity; I will tell you thata God infinitely good, can not be infinitely cruel, nor grant Hiscreatures infinite existence solely for the pleasure of tormenting themforever. 

It could have been but the most cruel barbarity, the most notoriousimposition, but the blindest ambition which could have created the dogmaof eternal damnation. If there exists a God who could be offended orblasphemed, there would not be upon earth any greater blasphemers thanthose who dare to say that this God is perverse enough to take pleasurein dooming His feeble creatures to useless torments for all eternity. 

LXVII. --THEOLOGY IS BUT A SERIES OF PALPABLE CONTRADICTIONS. 

To pretend that God can be offended with the actions of men, is toannihilate all the ideas that are given to us of this being. To say thatman can disturb the order of the universe, that he can grasp thelightning from God's hand, that he can upset His projects, is to claimthat man is stronger than his God, that he is the arbiter of His will, that it depends on him to change His goodness into cruelty. Theologydoes nothing but destroy with one hand that which it builds with theother. If all religion is founded upon a God who becomes angry, and whois appeased, all religion is founded upon a palpable contradiction. 

All religions agree in exalting the wisdom and the infinite power of theDivinity; but as soon as they expose His conduct, we discover butimprudence, want of foresight, weakness, and folly. God, it is said, created the world for Himself; and so far He has not succeeded in makingHimself properly respected! God has created men in order to have in Hisdominion subjects who would render Him homage; and we continually seemen revolt against Him!

LXVIII. --THE PRETENDED WORKS OF GOD DO NOT PROVE AT ALL WHAT WE CALLDIVINE PERFECTION. 

We are continually told of the Divine perfections; and as soon as we askthe proofs of them, we are shown the works in which we are assured thatthese perfections are written in ineffaceable characters. All theseworks, however, are imperfect and perishable; man, who is regarded asthe masterpiece, as the most marvelous work of Divinity, is full ofimperfections which render him disagreeable in the eyes of the Almightyworkman who has formed him; this surprising work becomes often sorevolting and so odious to its Author, that He feels Himself compelledto cast him into the fire. But if the choicest work of Divinity isimperfect, by what are we to judge of the Divine perfections? Can a workwith which the author himself is so little satisfied, cause us to admirehis skill? Physical man is subject to a thousand infirmities, tocountless evils, to death; the moral man is full of defects; and yetthey exhaust themselves by telling us that he is the most beautiful workof the most perfect of beings. 

LXIX. --THE PERFECTION OF GOD DOES NOT SHOW TO ANY MORE ADVANTAGE IN THEPRETENDED CREATION OF ANGELS AND PURE SPIRITS. 

It appears that God, in creating more perfect beings than men, did notsucceed any better, or give stronger proofs of His perfection. Do we notsee in many religions that angels and pure spirits revolted againsttheir Master, and even attempted to expel Him from His throne? Godintended the happiness of angels and of men, and He has never succeededin rendering happy either angels or men; pride, malice, sins, theimperfections of His creatures, have always been opposed to the wishesof the perfect Creator. 

LXX. --THEOLOGY PREACHES THE OMNIPOTENCE OF ITS GOD, AND CONTINUALLY SHOWSHIM IMPOTENT. 

All religion is visibly founded upon the principle that "God proposesand man disposes. " All the theologies of the world show us an unequalcombat between Divinity on the one side, and His creatures on the other. God never relies on His honor; in spite of His almighty power, He couldnot succeed in making the works of His hands as He would like them tobe. To complete the absurdity, there is a religion which pretends thatGod Himself died to redeem the human race; and, in spite of His death, men are not in the least as this God would desire them to be!

LXXI. --ACCORDING TO ALL THE RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS OF THE EARTH, GOD WOULD BETHE MOST CAPRICIOUS AND THE MOST INSENSATE OF BEINGS. 

Nothing could be more extravagant than the role which in every countrytheology makes Divinity play. If the thing was real, we would be obligedto see in it the most capricious and the most insane of beings; onewould be obliged to believe that God made the world to be the theater ofdishonoring wars with His creatures; that He created angels, men, demons, wicked spirits, but as adversaries, against whom He couldexercise His power. He gives them liberty to offend Him, makes themwicked enough to upset His projects, obstinate enough to never give up:all for the pleasure of getting angry, and being appeased, ofreconciling Himself, and of repairing the confusion they have made. HadDivinity formed at once His creatures such as they ought to be in orderto please Him, what trouble He might have spared Himself! or, at least, how much embarrassment He might have saved to His theologians! Accordingto all the religious systems of the earth, God seems to be occupied butin doing Himself injury; He does it as those charlatans do who woundthemselves, in order to have occasion to show the public the value oftheir ointments. We do not see, however, that so far Divinity has beenable to radically cure itself of the evil which is caused by men. 

LXXII. --IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT EVIL DOES NOT COME FROM GOD. 

God is the author of all; still we are assured that evil does not comefrom God. Whence, then, does it come? From men? But who has made men? Itis God: then that evil comes from God. If He had not made men as theyare, moral evil or sin would not exist in the world. We must blame God, then, that man is so perverse. If man has the power to do wrong or tooffend God, we must conclude that God wishes to be offended; that God, who has created man, resolved that evil should be done by him: withoutthis, man would be an effect contrary to the cause from which he deriveshis being. 

LXXIII. --THE FORESIGHT ATTRIBUTED TO GOD, WOULD GIVE TO GUILTY MEN WHOMHE PUNISHES, THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN OF HIS CRUELTY. 

The faculty of foresight, or the ability to know in advance all which isto happen in the world, is attributed to God. But this foresight canscarcely belong to His glory, nor spare Him the reproaches which mencould legitimately heap upon Him. If God had the foresight of thefuture, did He not foresee the fall of His creatures whom He haddestined to happiness? If He resolved in His decrees to allow this fall, there is no doubt that He desired it to take place: otherwise it wouldnot have happened. If the Divine foresight of the sin of His creatureshad been necessary or forced, it might be supposed that God wascompelled by His justice to punish the guilty; but God, enjoying thefaculty of foresight and the power to predestinate everything, would itnot depend upon Himself not to impose upon men these cruel laws? Or, atleast, could He not have dispensed with creating beings whom He might becompelled to punish and to render unhappy by a subsequent decree? Whatdoes it matter whether God destined men to happiness or to misery by aprevious decree, the effect of His foresight, or by a subsequent decree, the effect of His justice. Does the arrangement of these decrees changethe fate of the miserable? Would they not have the right to complain ofa God who, having the power of leaving them in oblivion, brought themforth, although He foresaw very well that His justice would force Himsooner or later to punish them?

LXXIV. --ABSURDITY OF THE THEOLOGICAL FABLES UPON ORIGINAL SIN AND UPONSATAN. 

Man, say you, issuing from the hands of God, was pure, innocent, andgood; but his nature became corrupted in consequence of sin. If mancould sin, when just leaving the hands of God, his nature was then notperfect! Why did God permit him to sin, and his nature to becomecorrupt? Why did God allow him to be seduced, knowing well that he wouldbe too weak to resist the tempter? Why did God create a Satan, amalicious spirit, a tempter? Why did not God, who was so desirous ofdoing good to mankind, why did He not annihilate, once for all, so manyevil genii whose nature rendered them enemies of our happiness? Orrather, why did God create evil spirits, whose victories and terribleinfluences upon the human race He must have foreseen? Finally, by whatfatality, in all the religions of the world, has the evil principle sucha marked advantage over the good principle or over Divinity?

LXXV. --THE DEVIL, LIKE RELIGION, WAS INVENTED TO ENRICH THE PRIESTS. 

We are told a story of the simple-heartedness of an Italian monk, whichdoes him honor. This good man preaching one day felt obliged to announceto his auditory that, thanks to Heaven, he had at last discovered a suremeans of rendering all men happy. "The devil, " said he, "tempts men butto have them as comrades of his misery in hell. Let us addressourselves, then, to the Pope, who possesses the keys of paradise and ofhell; let us ask him to beseech God, at the head of the whole Church, toreconcile Himself with the devil; to take him back into His favor; tore-establish him in His first rank. This can not fail to put an end tohis sinister projects against mankind. " The good monk did not see, perhaps, that the devil is at least fully as useful as God to theministers of religion. These reap too many benefits from theirdifferences to lend themselves willingly to a reconciliation between thetwo enemies ties, upon whose contests their existence and their revenuesdepend. If men would cease to be tempted and to sin, the ministry ofpriests would become useless to them. Manicheism is evidently thesupport of all religions; but unfortunately the devil, being invented toremove all suspicion of malice from Divinity, proves to us at everymoment the powerlessness or the awkwardness of his celestial Adversary. 

LXXVI. --IF GOD COULD NOT RENDER HUMAN NATURE SINLESS, HE HAS NO RIGHT TOPUNISH MAN. 

Man's nature, it is said, must necessarily become corrupt. God could notendow him with sinlessness, which is an inalienable portion of Divineperfection. But if God could not render him sinless, why did He take thetrouble of creating man, whose nature was to become corrupt, and which, consequently, had to offend God? On the other side, if God Himself wasnot able to render human nature sinless, what right had He to punish menfor not being sinless? It is but by the right of might. But the right ofthe strongest is violence; and violence is not suited to the most Justof Beings. God would be supremely unjust if He punished men for nothaving a portion of the Divine perfections, or for not being able to beGods like Himself. 

Could not God have at least endowed men with that sort of perfection ofwhich their nature is susceptible? If some men are good or renderthemselves agreeable to their God, why did not this God bestow the samefavor or give the same dispositions to all beings of our kind? Why doesthe number of wicked exceed so greatly the number of good people? Why, for every friend, does God find ten thousand enemies in a world whichdepended upon Him alone to people with honest men? If it is true thatGod intends to form in heaven a court of saints, of chosen ones, or ofmen who have lived in this world according to His views, would He nothave had a court more numerous, more brilliant, and more honorable toHim, if it were composed of all the men to whom, in creating them, Hecould have granted the degree of goodness necessary to obtain eternalhappiness? Finally, were it not easier not to take man from nothingnessthan to create him full of defects, rebellious to his Creator, perpetually exposed to lose himself by a fatal abuse of his liberty?Instead of creating men, a perfect God ought to have created only docileand submissive angels. The angels, it is said, are free; a few amongthem have sinned; but all of them have not sinned; all have not abusedtheir liberty by revolting against their Master. Could not God havecreated only angels of the good kind? If God could create angels whohave not sinned, could He not create men sinless, or those who wouldnever abuse their liberty by doing evil. If the chosen ones areincapable of sinning in heaven, could not God have made sinless men uponthe earth?

LXXVII. --IT IS ABSURD TO SAY THAT GOD'S CONDUCT MUST BE A MYSTERY TO MAN, AND THAT HE HAS NO RIGHT TO EXAMINE AND JUDGE IT. 

We are told that the enormous distance which separates God from men, makes God's conduct necessarily a mystery for us, and that we have noright to interrogate our Master. Is this statement satisfactory? Butaccording to you, when my eternal happiness is involved, have I not theright to examine God's own conduct? It is but with the hope of happinessthat men submit to the empire of a God. A despot to whom men aresubjected but through fear, a master whom they can not interrogate, atotally inaccessible sovereign, can not merit the homage of intelligentbeings. If God's conduct is a mystery to me, it is not made for me. Mancan not adore, admire, respect, or imitate a conduct of which everythingis impossible to conceive, or of which he can not form any but revoltingideas; unless it is pretended that he should worship all the things ofwhich he is forced to be ignorant, and then all that he does notunderstand becomes admirable. 

Priests! you teach us that the designs of God are impenetrable; that Hisways are not our ways; that His thoughts are not our thoughts; that itis folly to complain of His administration, whose motives and secretways are entirely unknown to us; that there is temerity in accusing Himof unjust judgments, because they are incomprehensible to us. But do younot see that by speaking in this manner, you destroy with your own handsall your profound systems which have no design but to explain the waysof Divinity that you call impenetrable? These judgments, these ways, andthese designs, have you penetrated them? You dare not say so; and, although you season incessantly, you do not understand them more than wedo. If by chance you know the plan of God, which you tell us to admire, while there are many people who find it so little worthy of a just, good, intelligent, and rational being; do not say that this plan isimpenetrable. If you are as ignorant as we, have some indulgence forthose who ingenuously confess that they comprehend nothing of it, orthat they see nothing in it Divine. Cease to persecute for opinionswhich you do not understand yourselves; cease to slander each other fordreams and conjectures which are altogether contradictory; speak to usof intelligible and truly useful things; and no longer tell us of theimpenetrable ways of a God, about which you do nothing but stammer andcontradict yourselves. 

In speaking to us incessantly of the immense depths of Divine wisdom, inforbidding us to fathom these depths by telling us that it is insolenceto call God to the tribunal of our humble reason, in making it a crimeto judge our Master, the theologians only confess the embarrassment inwhich they find themselves as soon as they have to render account of theconduct of a God, which they tell us is marvelous, only because it istotally impossible for them to understand it themselves. 

LXXVIII. --IT IS ABSURD TO CALL HIM A GOD OF JUSTICE AND GOODNESS, WHOINFLICTS EVIL INDISCRIMINATELY ON THE GOOD AND THE WICKED, UPON THEINNOCENT AND THE GUILTY; IT IS IDLE TO DEMAND THAT THE UNFORTUNATESHOULD CONSOLE THEMSELVES FOR THEIR MISFORTUNES, IN THE VERY ARMS OF THEONE WHO ALONE IS THE AUTHOR OF THEM. 

Physical evil commonly passes as the punishment of sin. Calamities, diseases, famines, wars, earthquakes, are the means which God employs tochastise perverse men. Therefore, they have no difficulty in attributingthese evils to the severity of a just and good God. However, do we notsee these plagues fall indiscriminately upon the good and the wicked, upon the impious and the pious, upon the innocent and the guilty? Howcan we be made to admire, in this proceeding, the justice and thegoodness of a being, the idea of whom appears so consoling to theunfortunate? Doubtless the brain of these unfortunate ones has beendisturbed by their misfortunes, since they forget that God is thearbiter of things, the sole dispenser of the events of this world. Inthis case ought they not to blame Him for the evils for which they wouldfind consolation in His arms? Unfortunate father! you console yourselfin the bosom of Providence for the loss of a cherished child or of awife, who made your happiness! Alas! do you not see that your God haskilled them? Your God has rendered you miserable; and you want Him toconsole you for the fearful blows He has inflicted upon you. 

The fantastic and supernatural notions of theology have succeeded sothoroughly in overcoming the simplest, the clearest, the most naturalideas of the human spirit, that the pious, incapable of accusing God ofmalice, accustom themselves to look upon these sad afflictions asindubitable proofs of celestial goodness. Are they in affliction, theyare told to believe that God loves them, that God visits them, that Godwishes to try them. Thus it is that religion changes evil into good!Some one has said profanely, but with reason: "If the good God treatsthus those whom He loves, I beseech Him very earnestly not to think ofme. " Men must have formed very sinister and very cruel ideas of theirGod whom they call so good, in order to persuade themselves that themost frightful calamities and the most painful afflictions are signs ofHis favor! Would a wicked Genii or a Devil be more ingenious intormenting his enemies, than sometimes is this God of goodness, who isso often occupied with inflicting His chastisements upon His dearestfriends?

LXXIX. --A GOD WHO PUNISHES THE FAULTS WHICH HE COULD HAVE PREVENTED, IS AFOOL, WHO ADDS INJUSTICE TO FOOLISHNESS. 

What would we say or a father who, we are assured, watches withoutrelaxation over the welfare of his feeble and unforeseeing children, andwho, however, would leave them at liberty to go astray in the midst ofrocks, precipices, and waters; who would prevent them but rarely fromfollowing their disordered appetites; who would permit them to handle, without precaution, deadly arms, at the risk of wounding themselvesseverely? What would we think of this same father, if, instead ofblaming himself for the harm which would have happened to his poorchildren, he should punish them for their faults in the most cruel way?We would say, with reason, that this father is a fool, who joinsinjustice to foolishness. A God who punishes the faults which He couldhave prevented, is a being who lacks wisdom, goodness, and equity. A Godof foresight would prevent evil, and in this way would be saved thetrouble of punishing it. A good God would not punish weaknesses which Heknows to be inherent in human nature. A just God, if He has made man, would not punish him for not being strong enough to resist his desires. To punish weakness, is the most unjust tyranny. Is it not calumniating ajust God, to say that He punishes men for their faults, even in thepresent life? How would He punish beings whom He alone could correct, and who, as long as they had not received grace, can not act otherwisethan they do?

According to the principles of theologians themselves, man, in hisactual state of corruption, can do nothing but evil, for without Divinegrace he has not the strength to do good. Moreover, if man's nature, abandoned to itself, of destitute of Divine help, inclines himnecessarily to evil, or renders him incapable of doing good, whatbecomes of his free will? According to such principles, man can meritneither reward nor punishment; in rewarding man for the good he does, God would but recompense Himself; in punishing man for the evil he does, God punishes him for not having been given the grace, without which itwas impossible for him to do better. 

LXXX. --FREE WILL IS AN IDLE FANCY. 

Theologians tell and repeat to us that man is free, while all theirteachings conspire to destroy his liberty. Trying to justify Divinity, they accuse him really of the blackest injustice. They suppose that, without grace, man is compelled to do evil: and they maintain that Godwill punish him for not having been given the grace to do good! With alittle reflection, we will be obliged to see that man in all things actsby compulsion, and that his free will is a chimera, even according tothe theological system. Does it depend upon man whether or not he shallbe born of such or such parents? Does it depend upon man to accept ornot to accept the opinions of his parents and of his teachers? If I wereborn of idolatrous or Mohammedan parents, would it have depended upon meto become a Christian? However, grave Doctors of Divinity assure us thata just God will damn without mercy all those to whom He has not giventhe grace to know the religion of the Christians. 

Man's birth does not depend upon his choice; he was not asked if hewould or would not come into the world; nature did not consult him uponthe country and the parents that she gave him; the ideas he acquired, his opinions, his true or false notions are the necessary fruits of theeducation which he has received, and of which he has not been themaster; his passions and his desires are the necessary results of thetemperament which nature has given him, and of the ideas with which hehas been inspired; during the whole course of his life, his wishes andhis actions are determined by his surroundings, his habits, hisoccupations, his pleasures, his conversations, and by the thoughts whichpresent themselves involuntarily to him; in short, by a multitude ofevents and accidents which are beyond his control. Incapable offoreseeing the future, he knows neither what he will wish, nor what hewill do in the time which must immediately follow the present. Manpasses his life, from the moment of his birth to that of his death, without having been free one instant. Man, you say, wishes, deliberates, chooses, determines; hence you conclude that his actions are free. It istrue that man intends, but he is not master of his will or of hisdesires. He can desire and wish only what he judges advantageous forhimself; he can not love pain nor detest pleasure. Man, it will be said, sometimes prefers pain to pleasure; but then, he prefers a passing painin the hope of procuring a greater and more durable pleasure. In thiscase, the idea of a greater good determines him to deprive himself ofone less desirable. 

It is not the lover who gives to his mistress the features by which heis enchanted; he is not then the master to love or not to love theobject of his tenderness; he is not the master of the imagination or thetemperament which dominates him; from which it follows, evidently, thatman is not the master of the wishes and desires which rise in his soul, independently of him. But man, say you, can resist his desires; then heis free. Man resists his desires when the motives which turn him from anobject are stronger than those which draw him toward it; but then, hisresistance is necessary. A man who fears dishonor and punishment morethan he loves money, resists necessarily the desire to take possessionof another's money. Are we not free when we deliberate?--but has one thepower to know or not to know, to be uncertain or to be assured?Deliberation is the necessary effect of the uncertainty in which we findourselves with reference to the results of our actions. As soon as webelieve ourselves certain of these results, we necessarily decide; andthen we act necessarily according as we shall have judged right orwrong. Our judgments, true or false, are not free; they are necessarilydetermined by ideas which we have received, or which our mind hasformed. Man is not free in his choice; he is evidently compelled tochoose what he judges the most useful or the most agreeable for himself. When he suspends his choice, he is not more free; he is forced tosuspend it till he knows or believes he knows the qualities of theobjects presented to him, or until he has weighed the consequence of hisactions. Man, you will say, decides every moment on actions which heknows will endanger him; man kills himself sometimes, then he is free. Ideny it! Has man the ability to reason correctly or incorrectly? Do nothis reason and his wisdom depend either upon opinions that he hasformed, or upon his mental constitution? As neither the one nor theother depends upon his will, they can not in any wise prove his liberty. 

If I make the wager to do or not to do a thing, am I not free? Does itnot depend upon me to do or not to do it? No; I will answer you, thedesire to win the wager will necessarily determine you to do or not todo the thing in question. "But if I consent to lose the wager?" Then thedesire to prove to me that you are free will have become to you astronger motive than the desire to win the wager; and this motive willnecessarily have determined you to do or not to do what was understoodbetween us. But you will say, "I feel myself free. " It is an illusionwhich may be compared to that of the fly in the fable, which, lightingon the shaft of a heavy wagon, applauded itself as driver of the vehiclewhich carried it. Man who believes himself free, is a fly who believeshimself the master-motor in the machine of the universe, while hehimself, without his own volition, is carried on by it. The feelingwhich makes us believe that we are free to do or not to do a thing, isbut a pure illusion. When we come to the veritable principle of ouractions, we will find that they are nothing but the necessary results ofour wills and of our desires, which are never within our power. Youbelieve yourselves free because you do as you choose; but are you reallyfree to will or not to will, to desire or not to desire? Your wills andyour desires, are they not necessarily excited by objects or byqualities which do not depend upon you at all?

LXXXI. --WE SHOULD NOT CONCLUDE FROM THIS THAT SOCIETY HAS NOT THE RIGHTTO CHASTISE THE WICKED. 

If the actions of men are necessary, if men are not free, what right hassociety to punish the wicked who infest it? Is it not very unjust tochastise beings who could not act otherwise than they did? If the wickedact from the impulse of their corrupt nature, society in punishing themacts necessarily on its side from the desire to preserve itself. Certainobjects produce in us the feeling of pain; therefore our nature compelsus to hate them, and incites us to remove them. A tiger pressed byhunger, attacks the man whom he wishes to devour; but the man is not themaster of his fear of the tiger, and seeks necessarily the means ofexterminating it. 

LXXXII. --REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF FREE WILL. 

If everything is necessary, if errors, opinions, and ideas of men arefated, how or why can we pretend to reform them? The errors of men arethe necessary results of their ignorance; their ignorance, theirobstinacy, their credulity, are the necessary results of theirinexperience, of their indifference, of their lack of reflection; thesame as congestion of the brain or lethargy are the natural effects ofsome diseases. Truth, experience, reflection, reason, are the properremedies to cure ignorance, fanaticism, and follies; the same asbleeding is good to soothe congestion of the brain. But you will say, why does not truth produce this effect upon many of the sick heads?There are some diseases which resist all remedies; it is impossible tocure obstinate patients who refuse to take the remedies which are giventhem; the interest of some men and the folly of others naturally opposethem to the admission of truth. A cause produces its effect only when itis not interrupted in its action by other causes which are stronger, orwhich weaken the action of the first cause or render it useless. It isentirely impossible to have the best arguments accepted by men who arestrongly interested in error; who are prejudiced in its favor; whorefuse to reflect; but it must necessarily be that truth undeceives thehonest souls who seek it in good faith. Truth is a cause; it producesnecessarily its effect when its impulse is not interrupted by causeswhich suspend its effects. 

LXXXIII. --CONTINUATION. 

To take away from man his free will, is, we are told, to make of him apure machine, an automaton without liberty; there would exist in himneither merit nor virtue What is merit in man?

It is a certain manner of acting which renders him estimable in the eyesof his fellow beings. What is virtue? It is the disposition that causesus to do good to others. What can there be contemptible in automaticmachines capable of producing such desirable effects? Marcus Aureliuswas a very useful spring to the vast machine of the Roman Empire. Bywhat right will a machine despise another machine, whose springs wouldfacilitate its own play? Good people are springs which assist society inits tendency to happiness; wicked men are badly-formed springs, whichdisturb the order, the progress, and harmony of society. If for its owninterests society loves and rewards the good, she hates, despises, andremoves the wicked, as useless or dangerous motors. 

LXXXIV. --GOD HIMSELF, IF THERE WAS A GOD, WOULD NOT BE FREE; HENCE THEUSELESSNESS OF ALL RELIGION. 

The world is a necessary agent; all the beings which compose it areunited to each other, and can not do otherwise than they do, so long asthey are moved by the same causes and possessed of the same qualities. If they lose these qualities, they will act necessarily in a differentway. God Himself (admitting His existence a moment) can not be regardedas a free agent; if there existed a God, His manner of acting wouldnecessarily be determined by the qualities inherent in His nature;nothing would be able to alter or to oppose His wishes. This considered, neither our actions nor our prayers nor our sacrifices could suspend orchange His invariable progress and His immutable designs, from which weare compelled to conclude that all religion would be entirely useless. 

LXXXV. --EVEN ACCORDING TO THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES, MAN IS NOT FREE ONEINSTANT. 

If theologians were not constantly contradicting each other, they wouldknow, from their own hypotheses, that man can not be called free for aninstant. Is not man supposed to be in a continual dependence upon God?Is one free, when one could not have existed or can not live withoutGod, and when one ceases to exist at the pleasure of His supreme will?If God created man of nothing, if the preservation of man is a continualcreation, if God can not lose sight of His creature for an instant, ifall that happens to him is a result of the Divine will, if man isnothing of himself, if all the events which he experiences are theeffects of Divine decrees, if he can not do any good without assistancefrom above, how can it be pretended that man enjoys liberty during onemoment of his life? If God did not save him in the moment when he sins, how could man sin? If God preserves him, God, therefore, forces him tolive in order to sin. 

LXXXVI. --ALL EVIL, ALL DISORDER, ALL SIN, CAN BE ATTRIBUTED BUT TO GOD;AND CONSEQUENTLY, HE HAS NO RIGHT TO PUNISH OR REWARD. 

Divinity is continually compared to a king, the majority of whosesubjects revolt against Him and it is pretended that He has the right toreward His faithful subjects, and to punish those who revolt againstHim. This comparison is not just in any of its parts. God presides overa machine, of which He has made all the springs; these springs actaccording to the way in which God has formed them; it is the fault ofHis inaptitude if these springs do not contribute to the harmony of themachine in which the workman desired to place them. God is a creatingKing, who created all kinds of subjects for Himself; who formed themaccording to His pleasure, and whose wishes can never find anyresistance. If God in His empire has rebellious subjects, it is God whoresolved to have rebellious subjects. If the sins of men disturb theorder of the world, it is God who desired this order to be disturbed. Nobody dares to doubt Divine justice; however, under the empire of ajust God, we find nothing but injustice and violence. Power decides thefate of nations. Equity seems to be banished from the earth; a smallnumber of men enjoy with impunity the repose, the fortunes, the liberty, and the life of all the others. Everything is in disorder in a worldgoverned by a God of whom it is said that disorder displeases Himexceedingly. 

LXXXVII. --MEN'S PRAYERS TO GOD PROVE SUFFICIENTLY THAT THEY ARE NOTSATISFIED WITH THE DIVINE ECONOMY. 

Although men incessantly admire the wisdom the goodness, the justice, the beautiful order of Providence, they are, in fact, never contentedwith it. The prayers which they continually offer to Heaven, prove to usthat they are not at all satisfied with God's administration. Praying toGod, asking a favor of Him, is to mistrust His vigilant care; to prayGod to avert or to suppress an evil, is to endeavor to put obstacles inthe way of His justice; to implore the assistance of God in ourcalamities, means to appeal to the very author of these calamities inorder to represent to Him our welfare; that He ought to rectify in ourfavor His plan, which is not beneficial to our interests. The optimist, or the one who thinks that everything is good in the world, and whorepeats to us incessantly that we live in the best world possible, if hewere consistent, ought never to pray; still less should he expectanother world where men will be happier. Can there be a better worldthan the best possible of all worlds? Some of the theologians havetreated the optimists as impious for having claimed that God could nothave made a better world than the one in which we live; according tothese doctors it is limiting the Divine power and insulting it. But donot theologians see that it is less offensive for God, to pretend thatHe did His best in creating the world, than to say that He, having thepower to produce a better one, had the malice to make a very bad one? Ifthe optimist, by his system, does wrong to the Divine power, thetheologian, who treats him as impious, is himself a reprobate, whowounds the Divine goodness under pretext of taking interest in God. 

LXXXVIII. --THE REPARATION OF THE INIQUITIES AND THE MISERIES OF THISWORLD IN ANOTHER WORLD, IS AN IDLE CONJECTURE AND AN ABSURD SUPPOSITION. 

When we complain of the evils of which this world is the theater, we arereferred to another world; we are told that there God will repair allthe iniquities and the miseries which He permits for a time here below. However, if leaving His eternal justice to sleep for a time, God couldconsent to evil during the period of the existence of our globe, whatassurance have we that during the existence of another globe, Divinejustice will not likewise sleep during the misfortunes of itsinhabitants? They console us in our troubles by saying, that God ispatient, and that His justice, although often very slow, is not the lesscertain. But do you not see, that patience can not be suited to a beingjust, immutable, and omnipotent? Can God tolerate injustice for aninstant? To temporize with an evil that one knows of, evinces eitheruncertainty, weakness, or collusion; to tolerate evil which one has thepower to prevent, is to consent that evil should be committed. 

LXXXIX. --THEOLOGY JUSTIFIES THE EVIL AND INJUSTICE PERMITTED BY ITS GOD, ONLY BY CONCEDING TO THIS GOD THE RIGHT OF THE STRONGEST, THAT IS TOSAY, THE VIOLATION OF ALL RIGHTS, OR IN COMMANDING FROM MEN A STUPIDDEVOTION. 

I hear a multitude of theologians tell me on all sides, that God isinfinitely just, but that His justice is not that of men! Of what kind, or of what nature is this Divine justice then? What idea can I form of ajustice which so often resembles human injustice? Is it not confoundingall our ideas of justice and of injustice, to tell us that what isequitable in God is iniquitous in His creatures? How can we take as amodel a being whose Divine perfections are precisely contrary to humanperfections? God, you say, is the sovereign arbiter of our destinies;His supreme power, that nothing can limit, authorizes Him to do as Hepleases with His works; a worm, such as man, has not the right to murmuragainst Him. This arrogant tone is literally borrowed from the languagewhich the ministers of tyrants hold, when they silence those who sufferby their violences; it can not, then, be the language of the ministersof a God of whose equity they boast. It can not impose upon a being whoreasons. Ministers of a just God! I tell you then, that the greatestpower is not able to confer even upon your God Himself the right to beunjust to the vilest of His creatures. A despot is not a God. A God whoarrogates to Himself the right to do evil, is a tyrant; a tyrant is nota model for men. He ought to be an execrable object in their eyes. Is itnot strange that, in order to justify Divinity, they made of Him themost unjust of beings? As soon as we complain of His conduct, they thinkto silence us by claiming that God is the Master; which signifies thatGod, being the strongest, He is not subjected to ordinary rules. But theright of the strongest is the violation of all rights; it can pass as aright but in the eyes of a savage conqueror, who, in the intoxication ofhis fury, imagines he has the right to do as he pleases with theunfortunate ones whom he has conquered; this barbarous right can appearlegitimate only to slaves, who are blind enough to think that everythingis allowed to tyrants, who are too strong for them to resist. 

By a foolish simplicity, or rather by a plain contradiction of terms, dowe not see devotees exclaim, amidst the greatest calamities, that thegood Lord is the Master? Well, illogical reasoners, you believe in goodfaith that the good Lord sends you the pestilence; that your good Lordgives war; that the good Lord is the cause of famine; in a word, thatthe good Lord, without ceasing to be good, has the will and the right todo you the greatest evils you can endure! Cease to call your Lord goodwhen He does you harm; do not say that He is just; say that He is thestrongest, and that it is impossible for you to avert the blows whichHis caprice inflicts upon you. God, you say, punishes us for our highestgood; but what real benefit can result to a nation in being exterminatedby contagion, murdered by wars, corrupted by the examples of perversemasters, continually pressed by the iron scepter of merciless tyrants, subjected to the scourge of a bad government, which often for centuriescauses nations to suffer its destructive effects? The eyes of faith mustbe strange eyes, if we see by their means any advantage in the mostdreadful miseries and in the most durable evils, in the vices andfollies by which our kind is so cruelly afflicted!

XC. --REDEMPTION, AND THE CONTINUAL EXTERMINATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO JEHOVAHIN THE BIBLE, ARE SO MANY ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS INVENTIONS WHICHPRESUPPOSE AN UNJUST AND BARBAROUS GOD. 

What strange ideas of the Divine justice must the Christians have whobelieve that their God, with the view of reconciling Himself withmankind, guilty without knowledge of the fault of their parents, sacrificed His own innocent and sinless Son! What would we say of aking, whose subjects having revolted against him, in order to appeasehimself could find no other expedient than to put to death the heir tohis crown, who had taken no part in the general rebellion? It is, theChristian will say, through kindness for His subjects, incapable ofsatisfying themselves of His Divine justice, that God consented to thecruel death of His Son. But the kindness of a father to strangers doesnot give him the right to be unjust and cruel to his son. All thequalities that theology gives to its God annul each other. The exerciseof one of His perfections is always at the expense of another. 

Has the Jew any more rational ideas than the Christian of Divinejustice? A king, by his pride, kindles the wrath of Heaven. Jehovahsends pestilence upon His innocent people; seventy thousand subjects areexterminated to expiate the fault of a monarch that the kindness of Godresolved to spare. 

XCI. --HOW CAN WE DISCOVER A TENDER, GENEROUS, AND EQUITABLE FATHER IN ABEING WHO HAS CREATED HIS CHILDREN BUT TO MAKE THEM UNHAPPY?

In spite of the injustice with which all religions are pleased toblacken the Divinity, men can not consent to accuse Him of iniquity;they fear that He, like the tyrants of this world, will be offended bythe truth, and redouble the weight of His malice and tyranny upon them. They listen, then, to their priests, who tell them that their God is atender Father; that this God is an equitable Monarch, whose object inthis world is to assure Himself of the love, obedience, and respect ofHis subjects; who gives them the liberty to act, in order to give themoccasion to deserve His favors and to acquire eternal happiness, whichHe does not owe them in any way. In what way can we recognize thetenderness of a Father who created the majority of His children but forthe purpose of dragging out a life of pain, anxiety, and bitterness uponthis earth? Is there any more fatal boon than this pretended libertywhich, it is said, men can abuse, and thereby expose themselves to therisk of eternal misery?

XCII. --THE LIFE OF MORTALS, ALL WHICH TAKES PLACE HERE BELOW, TESTIFIESAGAINST MAN'S LIBERTY AND AGAINST THE JUSTICE AND GOODNESS OF APRETENDED GOD. 

In calling mortals into life, what a cruel and dangerous game does theDivinity force them to play! Thrust into the world without their wish, provided with a temperament of which they are not the masters, animatedby passions and desires inherent in their nature, exposed to snareswhich they have not the skill to avoid, led away by events which theycould neither foresee nor prevent, the unfortunate beings are obliged tofollow a career which conducts them to horrible tortures. 

Travelers assert that in some part of Asia reigns a sultan full ofphantasies, and very absolute in his will. By a strange mania thisprince spends his time sitting before a table, on which are placed sixdice and a dice-box. One end of the table is covered with a pile ofgold, for the purpose of exciting the cupidity of the courtiers and ofthe people by whom the sultan is surrounded. He, knowing the weak pointof his subjects, speaks to them in this way: "Slaves! I wish you well;my aim is to enrich you and render you all happy. Do you see thesetreasures? Well, they are for you! try to win them; let each one in turntake this box and these dice; whoever shall have the good luck to rafflesix, will be master of this treasure; but I warn you that he who has notthe luck to throw the required number, will be precipitated forever intoan obscure cell, where my justice exacts that he shall be burned by aslow fire. " Upon this threat of the monarch, they regarded each other inconsternation; no one willing to take a risk so dangerous. "What!" saidthe angry sultan, "no one wants to play? Oh, this does not suit me! Myglory demands that you play. You will raffle then; I wish it; obeywithout replying!" It is well to observe that the despot's dice areprepared in such a way, that upon a hundred thousand throws there is butone that wins; thus the generous monarch has the pleasure to see hisprison well filled, and his treasures seldom carried away. Mortals! thisSultan is your God; His treasures are heaven; His cell is hell; and youhold the dice!

XCIII. --IT IS NOT TRUE THAT WE OWE ANY GRATITUDE TO WHAT WE CALLPROVIDENCE. 

We are constantly told that we owe an infinite gratitude to Providencefor the countless blessings It is pleased to lavish upon us. They boastabove all that our existence is a blessing. But, alas! how many mortalsare really satisfied with their mode of existence? If life has itssweets, how much of bitterness is mingled with it? Is not one bittertrouble sufficient to blight all of a sudden the most peaceful and happylife? Is there a great number of men who, if it depended upon them, would wish to begin, at the same sacrifice, the painful career intowhich, without their consent, destiny has thrown them? You say thatexistence itself is a great blessing. But is not this existencecontinually troubled by griefs, fears, and often cruel and undeservedmaladies. This existence, menaced on so many sides, can we not bedeprived of it at any moment? Who is there, after having lived for sometime, who has not been deprived of a beloved wife, a beloved child, aconsoling friend, whose loss fills his mind constantly? There are veryfew mortals who have not been compelled to drink from the cup ofbitterness; there are but few who have not often wished to die. Finally, it did not depend upon us to exist or not to exist. Would the bird beunder such great obligations to the bird-catcher for having caught it inhis net and for having put it into his cage, in order to eat it afterbeing amused with it?

XCIV. --TO PRETEND THAT MAN IS THE BELOVED CHILD OF PROVIDENCE, GOD'SFAVORITE, THE ONLY OBJECT OF HIS LABORS, THE KING OF NATURE, IS FOLLY. 

In spite of the infirmities, the troubles, the miseries to which man iscompelled to submit in this world; in spite of the danger which hisalarmed imagination creates in regard to another, he is still foolishenough to believe himself to be God's favorite, the only aim of all Hisworks. He imagines that the entire universe was made for him; he callshimself arrogantly the king of nature, and ranks himself far above otheranimals. Poor mortal! upon what can you establish your high pretensions?It is, you say, upon your soul, upon your reason, upon your sublimefaculties, which place you in a condition to exercise an absoluteauthority over the beings which surround you. But weak sovereign of thisworld, art thou sure one instant of the duration of thy reign? The leastatoms of matter which you despise, are they not sufficient to depriveyou of your throne and life? Finally, does not the king of animalsterminate always by becoming food for the worms?

You speak of your soul. But do you know what your soul is? Do you notsee that this soul is but the assemblage of your organs, from which liferesults? Would you refuse a soul to other animals who live, who think, who judge, who compare, who seek pleasure, and avoid pain even as youdo, and who often possess organs which are better than your own? Youboast of your intellectual faculties, but these faculties which renderyou so proud, do they make you any happier than other creatures? Do youoften make use of this reason which you glory in, and which religioncommands you not to listen to? Those animals which you disdain becausethey are weaker or less cunning than yourself, are they subject totroubles, to mental anxieties, to a thousand frivolous passions, to athousand imaginary needs, of which your heart is continually the prey?Are they, like you, tormented by the past, alarmed for the future?

Limited solely to the present, what you call their instinct, and what Icall their intelligence, is it not sufficient to preserve and to defendthem and to provide for their needs? This instinct, of which you speakwith disdain, does it not often serve them much better than yourwonderful faculties? Their peaceable ignorance, is it not moreadvantageous than these extravagant meditations and these futileinvestigations which render you miserable, and for which you are drivento murdering beings of your own noble kind? Finally, these animals, havethey, like mortals, a troubled imagination which makes them fear notonly death, but even eternal torments? Augustus, having heard thatHerod, king of Judea, had murdered his sons, cried out: "It would bebetter to be Herod's pig than his son!" We can say as much of men; thisbeloved child of Providence runs much greater risks than all otheranimals. After having suffered a great deal in this world, do we notbelieve ourselves in danger of suffering for eternity in another?

XCV. --COMPARISON BETWEEN MAN AND ANIMALS. 

What is the exact line of demarcation between man and the other animalswhich he calls brutes? In what way does he essentially differ from thebeasts? It is, we are told, by his intelligence, by the faculties of hismind, by his reason, that man is superior to all the other animals, which in all they do, act but by physical impulsions, reason taking nopart. But the beasts, having more limited needs than men, do very wellwithout these intellectual faculties, which would be perfectly uselessin their way of living. Their instinct is sufficient for them, while allthe faculties of man are hardly sufficient to render his existenceendurable, and to satisfy the needs which his imagination, hisprejudices, and his institutions multiply to his torment. 

The brute is not affected by the same objects as man; it has neither thesame needs, nor the same desires, nor the same whims; it early reachesmaturity, while nothing is more rare than to see the human beingenjoying all of his faculties, exercising them freely, and making aproper use of them for his own happiness. 

XCVI. --THERE ARE NO MORE DETESTABLE ANIMALS IN THIS WORLD THAN TYRANTS. 

We are assured that the human soul is a simple substance; but if thesoul is such a simple substance, it ought to be the same in all theindividuals of the human race, who all ought to have the sameintellectual faculties; however, this is not the case; men differ asmuch in qualities of mind as in the features of the face. There are inthe human race, beings as different from one another as man is from ahorse or a dog. What conformity or resemblance do we find between somemen? What an infinite distance between the genius of a Locke, of aNewton, and that of a peasant, of a Hottentot, or of a Laplander!

Man differs from other animals but by the difference of hisorganization, which causes him to produce effects of which they are notcapable. The variety which we notice in the organs of individuals of thehuman race, suffices to explain to us the difference which is oftenfound between them in regard to the intellectual faculties. More or lessof delicacy in these organs, of heat in the blood, of promptitude in thefluids, more or less of suppleness or of rigidity in the fibers and thenerves, must necessarily produce the infinite diversities which arenoticeable in the minds of men. It is by exercise, by habitude, byeducation, that the human mind is developed and succeeds in rising abovethe beings which surround it; man, without culture and withoutexperience, is a being as devoid of reason and of industry as the brute. A stupid individual is a man whose organs are acted upon withdifficulty, whose brain is hard to move, whose blood circulates slowly;a man of mind is he whose organs are supple, who feels very quickly, whose brain moves promptly; a learned man is one whose organs and whosebrain have been exercised a long while upon objects which occupy him. 

The man without culture, experience, or reason, is he not moredespicable and more abominable than the vilest insects, or the mostferocious beasts? Is there a more detestable being in nature than aTiberius, a Nero, a Caligula? These destroyers of the human race, knownby the name of conquerors, have they better souls than those of bears, lions, and panthers? Are there more detestable animals in this worldthan tyrants?

XCVII. --REFUTATION OF MAN'S EXCELLENCE. 

Human extravagances soon dispel, in the eyes of reason, the superioritywhich man arrogantly claims over other animals. Do we not see manyanimals show more gentleness, more reflection and reason than the animalwhich calls itself reasonable par excellence? Are there amongst men, whoare so often enslaved and oppressed, societies as well organized asthose of ants, bees, or beavers? Do we ever see ferocious beasts of thesame kind meet upon the plains to devour each other without profit? Dowe see among them religious wars? The cruelty of beasts against otherspecies is caused by hunger, the need of nourishment; the cruelty of managainst man has no other motive than the vanity of his masters and thefolly of his impertinent prejudices. Theorists who try to make usbelieve that everything in the universe was made for man, are very muchembarrassed when we ask them in what way can so many mischievous animalswhich continually infest our life here, contribute to the welfare ofmen. What known advantage results for God's friend to be bitten by aviper, stung by a gnat, devoured by vermin, torn into pieces by a tiger?Would not all these animals reason as wisely as our theologians, if theyshould pretend that man was made for them?

XCVIII. --AN ORIENTAL LEGEND. 

At a short distance from Bagdad a dervis, celebrated for his holiness, passed his days tranquilly in agreeable solitude. The surroundinginhabitants, in order to have an interest in his prayers, eagerlybrought to him every day provisions and presents. The holy man thankedGod incessantly for the blessings Providence heaped upon him. "O Allah, "said he, "how ineffable is Thy tenderness toward Thy servants. What haveI done to deserve the benefactions which Thy liberality loads me with!Oh, Monarch of the skies! oh, Father of nature! what praises could beworthy to celebrate Thy munificence and Thy paternal cares! O Allah, howgreat are Thy gifts to the children of men!" Filled with gratitude, ourhermit made a vow to undertake for the seventh time the pilgrimage toMecca. The war, which then existed between the Persians and the Turks, could not make him defer the execution of his pious enterprise. Full ofconfidence in God, he began his journey; under the inviolable safeguardof a respected garb, he passed through without obstacle the enemies'detachments; far from being molested, he receives at every step marks ofveneration from the soldiers of both sides. At last, overcome byfatigue, he finds himself obliged to seek a shelter from the rays of theburning sun; he finds it beneath a fresh group of palm-trees, whoseroots were watered by a limpid rivulet. In this solitary place, wherethe silence was broken only by the murmuring of the waters and thesinging of the birds, the man of God found not only an enchantingretreat, but also a delicious repast; he had but to extend the hand togather dates and other agreeable fruits; the rivulet can appease histhirst; very soon a green plot invites him to take sweet repose. As heawakens he performs the holy cleansing; and in a transport of ecstasy, he exclaimed: "O Allah! HOW GREAT IS THY GOODNESS TO THE CHILDREN OFMEN!" Well rested, refreshed, full of life and gayety, our holy mancontinues on his road; it conducts him for some time through adelightful country, which offers to his sight but blooming shores andtrees filled with fruit. Softened by this spectacle, he worshipsincessantly the rich and liberal hand of Providence, which is everywhereseen occupied with the welfare of the human race. Going a littlefarther, he comes across a few mountains, which were quite hard toascend; but having arrived at their summit, a hideous sight suddenlymeets his eyes; his soul is all consternation. He discovers a vast plainentirely devastated by the sword and fire; he looks at it and finds itcovered with more than a hundred thousand corpses, deplorable remains ofa bloody battle which had taken place a few days previous. Eagles, vultures, ravens, and wolves were devouring the dead bodies with whichthe earth was covered. This sight plunges our pilgrim into a sadreverie. Heaven, by a special favor, had made him understand thelanguage of beasts. He heard a wolf, gorged with human flesh, exclaim inhis excessive joy: "O Allah! how great is Thy kindness for the childrenof wolves! Thy foreseeing wisdom takes care to send infatuation uponthese detestable men who are so dangerous to us. Through an effect ofThy Providence which watches over Thy creatures, these, our destroyers, murder each other, and thus furnish us with sumptuous repasts. O Allah!HOW GREAT IS THY GOODNESS TO THE CHILDREN OF WOLVES!"

XCIX. --IT IS FOOLISH TO SEE IN THE UNIVERSE ONLY THE BENEFACTIONS OFHEAVEN, AND TO BELIEVE THAT THIS UNIVERSE WAS MADE BUT FOR MAN. 

An exalted imagination sees in the universe but the benefactions ofHeaven; a calm mind finds good and evil in it. I exist, you will say;but is this existence always a benefit? You will say, look at this sun, which shines for you; this earth, which is covered with fruits andverdure; these flowers, which bloom Tor our sight and smell; thesetrees, which bend beneath the weight of fruits; these pure streams, which flow but to quench your thirst; these seas, which embrace theuniverse to facilitate your commerce; these animals, which a foreseeingnature produces for your use! Yes, I see all these things, and I enjoythem when I can. But in some climates this beautiful sun is most alwaysobscured from me; in others, its excessive heat torments me, producesstorm, gives rise to dreadful diseases, dries up the fields; the meadowshave no grass, the trees are fruitless, the harvests are scorched, thesprings are dried up; I can scarcely exist, and I sigh under the crueltyof a nature which you find so benevolent. If these seas bring me spices, riches, and useless things, do they not destroy a multitude of mortalswho are dupes enough to go after them?

Man's vanity persuades him that he is the sole center of the universe;he creates for himself a world and a God; he thinks himself ofsufficient consequence to derange nature at his will, but he reasons asan atheist when the question of other animals is involved. Does he notimagine that the individuals different from his species are automatonsunworthy of the cares of universal Providence, and that the beasts cannot be the objects of its justice and kindness? Mortals considerfortunate or unfortunate events, health or sickness, life and death, abundance or famine, as rewards or punishments for the use or misuse ofthe liberty which they arrogate to themselves. Do they reason on thisprinciple when animals are taken into consideration? No; although theysee them under a just God enjoy and suffer, be healthy and sick, liveand die, like themselves, it does not enter their mind to ask whatcrimes these beasts have committed in order to cause the displeasure ofthe Arbiter of nature. Philosophers, blinded by their theologicalprejudices, in order to disembarrass themselves, have gone so far as topretend that beasts have no feelings!

Will men never renounce their foolish pretensions? Will they notrecognize that nature was not made for them? Will they not see that thisnature has placed on equal footing all the beings which she produced?Will they not see that all organized beings are equally made to be bornand to die, to enjoy and to suffer? Finally, instead of pridingthemselves preposterously on their mental faculties, are they notcompelled to admit that they often render them more unhappy than thebeasts, in which we find neither opinions, prejudices, vanities, nor theweaknesses which decide at every moment the well-being of men?

C. --WHAT IS THE SOUL? WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT IT. IF THIS PRETENDED SOULWAS OF ANOTHER ESSENCE FROM THAT OF THE BODY, THEIR UNION WOULD BEIMPOSSIBLE. 

The superiority which men arrogate to themselves over other animals, isprincipally founded upon the opinion of possessing exclusively animmortal soul. But as soon as we ask what this soul is, they begin tostammer. It is an unknown substance; it is a secret force distinguishedfrom their bodies; it is a spirit of which they can form no idea. Askthem how this spirit, which they suppose like their God, totallydeprived of a physical substance, could combine itself with theirmaterial bodies? They will tell you that they know nothing about it;that it is a mystery to them; that this combination is the effect of theAlmighty power. These are the clear ideas which men form of the hidden, or, rather, imaginary substance which they consider the motor of alltheir actions! If the soul is a substance essentially different from thebody, and which can have no affinity with it, their union would be, nota mystery, but a thing impossible. Besides, this soul, being of anessence different from that of the body, ought to act necessarily in adifferent way from it. However, we see that the movements of the bodyare felt by this pretended soul, and that these two substances, sodifferent in essence, always act in harmony. You will tell us that thisharmony is a mystery; and I will tell you that I do not see my soul, that I know and feel but my body; that it is my body which feels, whichreflects, which judges, which suffers, and which enjoys, and that all ofits faculties are the necessary results of its own mechanism or of itsorganization. 

CI. --THE EXISTENCE OF A SOUL IS AN ABSURD SUPPOSITION, AND THE EXISTENCEOF AN IMMORTAL SOUL IS A STILL MORE ABSURD SUPPOSITION. 

Although it is impossible for men to have the least idea of the soul, orof this pretended spirit which animates them, they persuade themselves, however, that this unknown soul is exempt from death; everything provesto them that they feel, think, acquire ideas, enjoy or suffer, but bythe means of the senses or of the material organs of the body. Evenadmitting the existence of this soul, one can not refuse to recognizethat it depends wholly on the body, and suffers conjointly with it allthe vicissitudes which it experiences itself; and however it is imaginedthat it has by its nature nothing analogous with it; it is pretendedthat it can act and feel without the assistance of this body; thatdeprived of this body and robbed of its senses, this soul will be ableto live, to enjoy, to suffer, be sensitive of enjoyment or of rigoroustorments. Upon such a tissue of conjectural absurdities the wonderfulopinion of the immortality of the soul is built. 

If I ask what ground we have for supposing that the soul is immortal:they reply, it is because man by his nature desires to be immortal, orto live forever. But I rejoin, if you desire anything very much, is itsufficient to conclude that this desire will be fulfilled? By whatstrange logic do they decide that a thing can not fail to happen becausethey ardently desire it to happen? Man's childish desires of theimagination, are they the measure of reality? Impious people, you say, deprived of the flattering hopes of another life, desire to beannihilated. Well, have they not just as much right to conclude by thisdesire that they will be annihilated, as you to conclude that you willexist forever because you desire it?

CII. --IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE WHOLE OF MAN DIES. 

Man dies entirely. Nothing is more evident to him who is not delirious. The human body, after death, is but a mass, incapable of producing anymovements the union of which constitutes life. We no longer seecirculation, respiration, digestion, speech, or reflection. It isclaimed then that the soul has separated itself from the body. But tosay that this soul, which is unknown, is the principle of life, issaying nothing, unless that an unknown force is the invisible principleof imperceptible movements. Nothing is more natural and more simple thanto believe that the dead man lives no more, nothing more absurd than tobelieve that the dead man is still living. 

We ridicule the simplicity of some nations whose fashion is to buryprovisions with the dead--under the idea that this food might be usefuland necessary to them in another life. Is it more ridiculous or moreabsurd to believe that men will eat after death than to imagine thatthey will think; that they will have agreeable or disagreeable ideas;that they will enjoy; that they will suffer; that they will be consciousof sorrow or joy when the organs which produce sensations or ideas aredissolved and reduced to dust? To claim that the souls of men will behappy or unhappy after the death of the body, is to pretend that manwill be able to see without eyes, to hear without ears, to taste withouta palate, to smell without a nose, and to feel without hands and withoutskin. Nations who believe themselves very rational, adopt, nevertheless, such ideas. 

CIII. --INCONTESTABLE PROOFS AGAINST THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE SOUL. 

The dogma of the immortality of the soul assumes that the soul is asimple substance, a spirit; but I will always ask, what is a spirit? Itis, you say, a substance deprived of expansion, incorruptible, and whichhas nothing in common with matter. But if this is true, how came yoursoul into existence? how did it grow? how did it strengthen? how weakenitself, get out of order, and grow old with your body? In reply to allthese questions, you say that they are mysteries; but if they aremysteries, you understand nothing about them. If you do not understandanything about them, how can you positively affirm anything about them?In order to believe or to affirm anything, it is necessary at least toknow what that consists of which we believe and which we affirm. Tobelieve in the existence of your immaterial soul, is to say that you arepersuaded of the existence of a thing of which it is impossible for youto form any true idea; it is to believe in words without attaching anysense to them; to affirm that the thing is as you claim, is the highestfolly or assumption. 

CIV. --THE ABSURDITY OF SUPERNATURAL CAUSES, WHICH THEOLOGIANS CONSTANTLY

CALL TO THEIR AID. 

Are not theologians strange reasoners? As soon as they can not guess thenatural causes of things, they invent causes, which they callsupernatural; they imagine them spirits, occult causes, inexplicableagents, or rather words much more obscure than the things which theyattempt to explain. Let us remain in nature when we desire to understandits phenomena; let us ignore the causes which are too delicate to beseized by our organs; and let us be assured that by seeking outside ofnature we can never find the solution of nature's problems. Even uponthe theological hypothesis--that is to say, supposing an Almighty motorin matter--what right have theologians to refuse their God the power toendow this matter with thought? Would it be more difficult for Him tocreate combinations of matter from which results thought, than spiritswhich think? At least, in supposing a substance endowed with thought, wecould form some idea of the object of our thoughts, or of what thinks inus; while attributing thought to an immaterial being, it is impossiblefor us to form the least idea of it. 

CV. --IT IS FALSE THAT MATERIALISM CAN BE DEBASING TO THE HUMAN RACE. 

Materialism, it is objected, makes of man a mere machine, which isconsidered very debasing to the human race. But will the human race bemore honored when it can be said that man acts by the secret impulsionsof a spirit, or a certain something which animates him without hisknowing how? It is easy to perceive that the superiority which is givento mind over matter, or to the soul over the body, is based upon theignorance of the nature of this soul; while we are more familiarizedwith matter or the body, which we imagine we know, and of which webelieve we have understood the springs; but the most simple movements ofour bodies are, for every thinking man, enigmas as difficult to divineas thought. 

CVI. --CONTINUATION. 

The esteem which so many people have for the spiritual substance, appears to result from the impossibility they find in defining it in anintelligible way. The contempt which our metaphysicians show for matter, comes from the fact that "familiarity breeds contempt. " When they tellus that the soul is more excellent and noble than the body, they tell usnothing, except that what they know nothing about must be more beautifulthan that of which they have some faint ideas. 

CVII. --THE DOGMA OF ANOTHER LIFE IS USEFUL BUT FOR THOSE WHO PROFIT BY ITAT THE EXPENSE OF THE CREDULOUS PUBLIC. 

We are constantly told of the usefulness of the dogma of life hereafter. It is pretended that even if it should be a fiction, it is advantageous, because it imposes upon men and leads them to virtue. But is it truethat this dogma renders men wiser and more virtuous? The nations wherethis fiction is established, are they remarkable for the morality oftheir conduct? Is not the visible world always preferred to theinvisible world? If those who are charged to instruct and to govern menhad themselves enlightenment and virtue, they would govern them farbetter by realities than by vain chimeras; but deceitful, ambitious, andcorrupt, the legislators found it everywhere easier to put the nationsto sleep by fables than to teach them truths; than to develop theirreason; than to excite them to virtue by sensible and real motives; thanto govern them in a reasonable way. 

Theologians, no doubt, have had reasons for making the soul immaterial. They needed souls and chimeras to populate the imaginary regions whichthey have discovered in the other life. Material souls would have beensubjected, like all bodies, to dissolution. Moreover, if men believethat everything is to perish with the body, the geographers of the otherworld would evidently lose the chance of guiding their souls to thisunknown abode. They would draw no profits from the hopes with which theyfeast them, and from the terrors with which they take care to overwhelmthem. If the future is of no real utility to the human race, it is atleast of the greatest advantage to those who take upon themselves theresponsibility of conducting mankind thither. 

CVIII. --IT IS FALSE THAT THE DOGMA OF ANOTHER LIFE CAN BE CONSOLING; ANDIF IT WERE, IT WOULD BE NO PROOF THAT THIS ASSERTION IS TRUE. 

But, it will be said, is not the dogma of the immortality of the soulconsoling for beings who often find themselves very unhappy here below?If this should be an illusion, is it not a sweet and agreeable one? Isit not a benefit for man to believe that he can live again and enjoy, sometime, the happiness which is refused to him on earth? Thus, poormortals! you make your wishes the measure of the truth! Because youdesire to live forever, and to be happier, you conclude from thence thatyou will live forever, and that you will be more fortunate in an unknownworld than in the known world, in which you so often suffer! Consent, then, to leave without regret this world, which causes more trouble thanpleasure to the majority of you. Resign yourselves to the order ofdestiny, which decrees that you, like all other beings, should notendure forever. But what will become of me? you ask! What you wereseveral millions of years ago. You were then, I do not know what; resignyourselves, then, to become again in an instant, I do not know what;what you were then; return peaceably to the universal home from whichyou came without your knowledge into your material form, and pass bywithout murmuring, like all the beings which surround you!

We are repeatedly told that religious ideas offer infinite consolationto the unfortunate; it is pretended that the idea of the immortality ofthe soul and of a happier life has a tendency to lift up the heart ofman and to sustain him in the midst of the adversities with which he isassailed in this life. Materialism, on the contrary, is, we are told, anafflicting system, tending to degrade man, which ranks him among brutes;which destroys his courage, whose only hope is complete annihilation, tending to lead him to despair, and inducing him to commit suicide assoon as he suffers in this world. The grand policy of theologians is toblow hot and to blow cold, to afflict and to console, to frighten and toreassure. 

According to the fictions of theology, the regions of the other life arehappy and unhappy. Nothing more difficult than to render one worthy ofthe abode of felicity; nothing easier than to obtain a place in theabode of torments that Divinity prepares for the unfortunate victims ofHis eternal fury. Those who find the idea of another life so flatteringand so sweet, have they then forgotten that this other life, accordingto them, is to be accompanied by torments for the majority of mortals?Is not the idea of total annihilation infinitely preferable to the ideaof an eternal existence accompanied with suffering and gnashing ofteeth? The fear of ceasing to exist, is it more afflicting than thethought of having not always been? The fear of ceasing to be is but anevil for the imagination, which alone brought forth the dogma of anotherlife. 

You say, O Christian philosophers, that the idea of a happier life isdelightful; we agree; there is no one who would not desire a moreagreeable and a more durable existence than the one we enjoy here below. But, if Paradise is tempting, you will admit, also, that hell isfrightful. It is very difficult to merit heaven, and very easy to gainhell. Do you not say that one straight and narrow path leads to thehappy regions, and that a broad road leads to the regions of theunhappy? Do you not constantly tell us that the number of the chosenones is very small, and that of the damned is very large? Do we notneed, in order to be saved, such grace as your God grants to but few?Well! I tell you that these ideas are by no means consoling; I prefer tobe annihilated at once rather than to burn forever; I will tell you thatthe fate of beasts appears to me more desirable than the fate of thedamned; I will tell you that the belief which delivers me fromoverwhelming fears in this world, appears to me more desirable than theuncertainty in which I am left through belief in a God who, master ofHis favors, gives them but to His favorites, and who permits all theothers to render themselves worthy of eternal punishments. It can be butblind enthusiasm or folly that can prefer a system which evidentlyencourages improbable conjectures, accompanied by uncertainty anddesolating fear. 

CIX. --ALL RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES ARE IMAGINARY. INNATE SENSE IS BUT THEEFFECT OF A ROOTED HABIT. GOD IS AN IDLE FANCY, AND THE QUALITIES WHICHARE LAVISHED UPON HIM DESTROY EACH OTHER. 

All religious principles are a thing of imagination, in which experienceand reason have nothing to do. We find much difficulty in conqueringthem, because imagination, when once occupied in creating chimeras whichastonish or excite it, is incapable of reasoning. He who combatsreligion and its phantasies by the arms of reason, is like a man whouses a sword to kill flies: as soon as the blow is struck, the flies andthe fancies return to the minds from which we thought to have banishedthem. 

As soon as we refuse the proofs which theology pretends to give of theexistence of a God, they oppose to the arguments which destroy them, aninnate conviction, a profound persuasion, an invincible inclinationinherent in every man, which brings to him, in spite of himself, theidea of an Almighty being which he can not altogether expel from hismind, and which he is compelled to recognize in spite of the strongestreasons that we can give him. But if we wish to analyze this innateconviction, upon which so much weight is placed, we will find that it isbut the effect of a rooted habit, which, making them close their eyesagainst the most demonstrative proofs, leads the majority of men, andoften the most enlightened ones, back to the prejudices of childhood. What can this innate sense or this ill-founded persuasion prove againstthe evidence which shows us that what implies contradiction can notexist?

We are told, very gravely, that it is not demonstrated that God does notexist. However, nothing is better demonstrated, notwithstanding all thatmen have told us so far, than that this God is an idle fancy, whoseexistence is totally impossible, as nothing is more evident or moreclearly demonstrated than that a being can not combine qualities sodissimilar, so contradictory, so irreconcilable as those which all thereligions of the earth ascribe to Divinity. The theologian's God, aswell as the God of the theist, is He not evidently a cause incompatiblewith the effects attributed to Him? In whatever light we may look uponit, we must either invent another God, or conclude that the one which, for so many centuries, has been revealed to mortals, is at the same timevery good and very wicked, very powerful and very weak, immutable andchangeable, perfectly intelligent and perfectly destitute of reason, ofplan, and of means; the friend of order and permitting disorder; veryjust and very unjust; very skillful and very awkward. Finally, are wenot obliged to admit that it is impossible to reconcile the discordantattributes which are heaped upon a being of whom we can not say a singleword without falling into the most palpable contradictions? Let usattempt to attribute but a single quality to Divinity, and what is saidof it will be contradicted immediately by the effects we assign to thiscause. 

CX. --EVERY RELIGION IS BUT A SYSTEM IMAGINED FOR THE PURPOSE OFRECONCILING CONTRADICTIONS BY THE AID OF MYSTERIES. 

Theology could very properly be defined as the science ofcontradictions. Every religion is but a system imagined for the purposeof reconciling irreconcilable ideas. By the aid of habitude and terror, we come to persist in the greatest absurdities, even when they are themost clearly exposed. All religions are easy to combat, but verydifficult to eradicate. Reason can do nothing against habit, whichbecomes, as is said, a second nature. There are many persons otherwisesensible, who, even after having examined the ruinous foundations oftheir belief, return to it in spite of the most striking arguments. 

As soon as we complain of not understanding religion, finding in it atevery step absurdities which are repulsive, seeing in it butimpossibilities, we are told that we are not made to conceive the truthsof the religion which is proposed to us; that wandering reason is but anunfaithful guide, only capable of conducting us to perdition; and whatis more, we are assured that what is folly in the eyes of man, is wisdomin the eyes of God, to whom nothing is impossible. Finally, in order todecide by a single word the most insurmountable difficulties whichtheology presents to us on all sides, they simply cry out: "Mysteries!"

CXI. --ABSURDITY AND INUTILITY OF THE MYSTERIES FORGED IN THE SOLEINTEREST OF THE PRIESTS. 

What is a mystery? If I examine the thing closely, I discover very soonthat a mystery is nothing but a contradiction, a palpable absurdity, anotorious impossibility, on which theologians wish to compel men tohumbly close the eyes; in a word, a mystery is whatever our spiritualguides can not explain to us. 

It is advantageous for the ministers of religion that the people shouldnot comprehend what they are taught. It is impossible for us to examinewhat we do not comprehend. Every time that we can not see clearly, weare obliged to be guided. If religion was comprehensible, priests wouldnot have so many charges here below. 

No religion is without mysteries; mystery is its essence; a religiondestitute of mysteries would be a contradiction of terms. The God whichserves as a foundation to natural religion, to theism or to deism, isHimself the greatest mystery to a mind wishing to dwell upon Him. 

CXII. --CONTINUATION. 

All the revealed religions which we see in the world are filled withmysterious dogmas, unintelligible principles, of incredible miracles, ofastonishing tales which seem imagined but to confound reason. Everyreligion announces a concealed God, whose essence is a mystery;consequently, it is just as difficult to conceive of His conduct as ofthe essence of this God Himself. Divinity has never spoken to us but inan enigmatical and mysterious way in the various religions which havebeen founded in the different regions of our globe. It has revealeditself everywhere but to announce mysteries, that is to say, to warnmortals that it designs that they should believe in contradictions, inimpossibilities, or in things of which they were incapable of formingany positive idea. 

The more mysteries a religion has, the more incredible objects itpresents to the mind, the better fitted it is to please the imaginationof men, who find in it a continual pasturage to feed upon. The moreobscure a religion is, the more it appears divine, that is to say, inconformity to the nature of an invisible being, of whom we have no idea. 

It is the peculiarity of ignorance to prefer the unknown, the concealed, the fabulous, the wonderful, the incredible, even the terrible, to thatwhich is clear, simple, and true. Truth does not give to the imaginationsuch lively play as fiction, which each one may arrange as he pleases. The vulgar ask nothing better than to listen to fables; priests andlegislators, by inventing religions and forging mysteries from them, have served them to their taste. In this way they have attractedenthusiasts, women, and the illiterate generally. Beings of this kindresign easily to reasons which they are incapable of examining; the loveof the simple and the true is found but in the small number of thosewhose imagination is regulated by study and by reflection. Theinhabitants of a village are never more pleased with their pastor thanwhen he mixes a good deal of Latin in his sermon. Ignorant men alwaysimagine that he who speaks to them of things which they do notunderstand, is a very wise and learned man. This is the true principleof the credulity of nations, and of the authority of those who pretendto guide them. 

CXIII. --CONTINUATION. 

To speak to men to announce to them mysteries, is to give and retain, itis to speak not to be understood. He who talks but by enigmas, eitherseeks to amuse himself by the embarrassment which he causes, or finds itto his advantage not to explain himself too clearly. Every secretbetrays suspicion, weakness, and fear. Princes and their ministers makea mystery of their projects for fear that their enemies in penetratingthem would cause them to fail. Can a good God amuse Himself by theembarrassment of His creatures? A God who enjoys a power which nothingin the world can resist, can He apprehend that His intentions could bethwarted? What interest would He have in putting upon us enigmas andmysteries? We are told that man, by the weakness of his nature, is notcapable of comprehending the Divine economy which can be to him but atissue of mysteries; that God can not unveil secrets to him which arebeyond his reach. In this case, I reply, that man is not made to troublehimself with Divine economy, that this economy can not interest him inthe least, that he has no need of mysteries which he can not understand;finally, that a mysterious religion is not made for him, any more thanan eloquent discourse is made for a flock of sheep. 

CXIV. --A UNIVERSAL GOD SHOULD HAVE REVEALED A UNIVERSAL RELIGION. 

Divinity has revealed itself in the different parts of our globe in amanner of such little uniformity, that in matters of religion men lookupon each other with hatred and disdain. The partisans of the differentsects see each other very ridiculous and foolish. The most respectedmysteries in one religion are laughable for another. God, havingrevealed Himself to men, ought at least to speak in the same language toall, and relieve their weak minds of the embarrassment of seeking whatcan be the religion which truly emanated from Him, or what is the mostagreeable form of worship in His eyes. 

A universal God ought to have revealed a universal religion. By whatfatality are so many different religions found on the earth? Which isthe true one amongst the great number of those of which each onepretends to be the right one, to the exclusion of all the others? Wehave every reason to believe that not one of them enjoys this advantage. The divisions and the disputes about opinions are indubitable signs ofthe uncertainty and of the obscurity of the principles which theyprofess. 

CXV. --THE PROOF THAT RELIGION IS NOT NECESSARY, IS THAT IT ISUNINTELLIGIBLE. 

If religion was necessary to all men, it ought to be intelligible to allmen. If this religion was the most important thing for them, thegoodness of God, it seems, ought to make it for them the clearest, themost evident, and the best demonstrated of all things. Is it notastonishing to see that this matter, so essential to the salvation ofmortals, is precisely the one which they understand the least, and aboutwhich, during so many centuries, their doctors have disputed the most?Never have priests, of even the same sect, come to an agreement amongthemselves about the manner of understanding the wishes of a God who hastruly revealed Himself to them. The world which we inhabit can becompared to a public place, in whose different parts several charlatansare placed, each one straining himself to attract customers bydepreciating the remedies offered by his competitors. Each stand has itspurchasers, who are persuaded that their empiric alone possesses thegood remedies; notwithstanding the continual use which they make ofthem, they do not perceive that they are no better, or that they arejust as sick as those who run after the charlatans of another stand. Devotion is a disease of the imagination, contracted in infancy; thedevotee is a hypochondriac, who increases his disease by the use ofremedies. The wise man takes none of it; he follows a good regimen andleaves the rest to nature. 

CXVI. --ALL RELIGIONS ARE RIDICULED BY THOSE OF OPPOSITE THOUGH EQUALLYINSANE BELIEF. 

Nothing appears more ridiculous in the eyes of a sensible man than forone denomination to criticize another whose creed is equally foolish. AChristian thinks that the Koran, the Divine revelation announced byMohammed, is but a tissue of impertinent dreams and impostures injuriousto Divinity. The Mohammedan, on his side, treats the Christian as anidolater and a dog; he sees but absurdities in his religion; he imagineshe has the right to conquer his country and force him, sword in hand, toaccept the faith of his Divine prophet; he believes especially thatnothing is more impious or more unreasonable than to worship a man or tobelieve in the Trinity. The Protestant Christian, who without scrupleworships a man, and who believes firmly in the inconceivable mystery ofthe Trinity, ridicules the Catholic Christian because the latterbelieves in the mystery of the transubstantiation. He treats him as afool, as ungodly and idolatrous, because he kneels to worship the breadin which he believes he sees the God of the universe. All the Christiandenominations agree in considering as folly the incarnation of the Godof the Indies, Vishnu. They contend that the only true incarnation isthat of Jesus, Son of the God of the universe and of the wife of acarpenter. The theist, who calls himself a votary of natural religion, is satisfied to acknowledge a God of whom he has no conception; indulgeshimself in jesting upon other mysteries taught by all the religions ofthe world. 

CXVII. --OPINION OF A CELEBRATED THEOLOGIAN. 

Did not a famous theologian recognize the absurdity of admitting theexistence of a God and arresting His course? "To us, " he said, "whobelieve through faith in a true God, an individual substance, thereought to be no trouble in believing everything else. This first mystery, which is no small matter of itself, once admitted, our reason can notsuffer violence in admitting all the rest. As for myself, it is no moretrouble to accept a million of things that I do not understand, than tobelieve the first one. "

Is there anything more contradictory, more impossible, or moremysterious, than the creation of matter by an immaterial Being, whoHimself immutable, causes the continual changes that we see in theworld? Is there anything more incompatible with all the ideas of commonsense than to believe that a good, wise, equitable, and powerful Beingpresides over nature and directs Himself the movements of a world whichis filled with follies, miseries, crimes, and disorders, which He couldhave foreseen, and by a single word could have prevented or made todisappear? Finally, as soon as we admit a Being so contradictory as thetheological God, what right have we to refuse to accept the mostimprobable fables, the most astonishing miracles, the most profoundmysteries?

CXVIII. --THE DEIST'S GOD IS NO LESS CONTRADICTORY, NO LESS FANCIFUL, THANTHE THEOLOGIAN'S GOD. 

The theist exclaims, "Be careful not to worship the ferocious andstrange God of theology; mine is much wiser and better; He is the Fatherof men; He is the mildest of Sovereigns; it is He who fills the universewith His benefactions!" But I will tell him, do you not see thateverything in this world contradicts the good qualities which youattribute to your God? In the numerous family of this mild Father I seebut unfortunate ones. Under the empire of this just Sovereign I seecrime victorious and virtue in distress. Among these benefactions, whichyou boast of, and which your enthusiasm alone sees, I see a multitude ofevils of all kinds, upon which you obstinately close your eyes. 

Compelled to acknowledge that your good God, in contradiction withHimself, distributes with the same hand good and evil, you will findyourself obliged, in order to justify Him, to send me, as the priestswould, to the other life. Invent, then, another God than the one oftheology, because your God is as contradictory as its God is. A good Godwho does evil or who permits it to be done, a God full of equity and inan empire where innocence is so often oppressed; a perfect God whoproduces but imperfect and wretched works; such a God and His conduct, are they not as great mysteries as that of the incarnation? You blush, you say, for your fellow beings who are persuaded that the God of theuniverse could change Himself into a man and die upon a cross in acorner of Asia. You consider the ineffable mystery of the Trinity veryabsurd Nothing appears more ridiculous to you than a God who changesHimself into bread and who is eaten every day in a thousand differentplaces. 

Well! are all these mysteries any more shocking to reason than a God whopunishes and rewards men's actions? Man, according to your views, is hefree or not? In either case your God, if He has the shadow of justice, can neither punish him nor reward him. If man is free, it is God whomade him free to act or not to act; it is God, then, who is theprimitive cause of all his actions; in punishing man for his faults, Hewould punish him for having done that which He gave him the liberty todo. If man is not free to act otherwise than he does, would not God bethe most unjust of beings to punish him for the faults which he couldnot help committing? Many persons are struck with the detail ofabsurdities with which all religions of the world are filled; but theyhave not the courage to seek for the source whence these absurditiesnecessarily sprung. They do not see that a God full of contradictions, of oddities, of incompatible qualities, either inflaming or nursing theimagination of men, could create but a long line of idle fancies. 

CXIX. --WE DO NOT PROVE AT ALL THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD BY SAYING THAT INALL AGES EVERY NATION HAS ACKNOWLEDGED SOME KIND OF DIVINITY. 

They believe, to silence those who deny the existence of a God, bytelling them that all men, in all ages and in all centuries, havebelieved in some kind of a God; that there is no people on the earth whohave not believed in an invisible and powerful being, whom they made theobject of their worship and of their veneration; finally, that there isno nation, no matter how benighted we may suppose it to be, that is notpersuaded of the existence of some intelligence superior to humannature. But can the belief of all men change an error into truth? Acelebrated philosopher has said with all reason: "Neither generaltradition nor the unanimous consent of all men could place anyinjunction upon truth. " [Bayle. ] Another wise man said before him, that"an army of philosophers would not be sufficient to change the nature oferror and to make it truth. " [Averroës]

There was a time when all men believed that the sun revolved around theearth, while the latter remained motionless in the center of the wholesystem of the universe; it is scarcely more than two hundred years sincethis error was refuted. There was a time when nobody would believe inthe existence of antipodes, and when they persecuted those who had thecourage to sustain it; to-day no learned man dares to doubt it. Allnations of the world, except some men less credulous than others, stillbelieve in sorcerers, ghosts, apparitions, spirits; no sensible manimagines himself obliged to adopt these follies; but the most sensiblepeople feel obliged to believe in a universal Spirit!

CXX. --ALL THE GODS ARE OF A BARBAROUS ORIGIN; ALL RELIGIONS ARE ANTIQUEMONUMENTS OF IGNORANCE, SUPERSTITION, AND FEROCITY; AND MODERN RELIGIONSARE BUT ANCIENT FOLLIES REVIVED. 

All the Gods worshiped by men have a barbarous origin; they were visiblyimagined by stupid nations, or were presented by ambitious and cunninglegislators to simple and benighted people, who had neither the capacitynor the courage to examine properly the object which, by means ofterrors, they were made to worship. In examining closely the God whichwe see adored still in our days by the most civilized nations, we arecompelled to acknowledge that He has evidently barbarous features. To bebarbarous is to recognize no right but force; it is being cruel toexcess; it is but following one's own caprice; it is a lack offoresight, of prudence, and reason. Nations, who believe yourselvescivilized! do you not perceive this frightful character of the God towhom you offer your incense? The pictures which are drawn of Divinity, are they not visibly borrowed from the implacable, jealous, vindictive, blood-thirsty, capricious, inconsiderate humor of man, who has not yetcultivated his reason? Oh, men! you worship but a great savage, whom youconsider as a model to follow, as an amiable master, as a perfectsovereign. 

The religious opinions of men in every country are antique and durablemonuments of ignorance credulity, of the terrors and the ferocity oftheir ancestors. Every barbarian is a child thirsting for the wonderful, which he imbibes with pleasure, and who never reasons upon that which hefinds proper to excite his imagination; his ignorance of the ways ofnature makes him attribute to spirits, to enchantments, to magic, allthat appears to him extraordinary; in his eyes his priests aresorcerers, in whom he supposes an Almighty power; before whom hisconfused reason humiliates itself, whose oracles are for him infallibledecrees, to contradict which would be dangerous. In matters of religionthe majority of men have remained in their primitive barbarity. Modernreligions are but follies of old times rejuvenated or presented in somenew form. If the ancient barbarians have worshiped mountains, rivers, serpents, trees, fetishes of every kind; if the wise Egyptians worshipedcrocodiles, rats, onions, do we not see nations who believe themselveswiser than they, worship with reverence a bread, into which they imaginethat the enchantments of their priests cause the Divinity to descend? Isnot the God-bread the fetish of many Christian nations, as littlerational in this point as that of the most barbarous nations?

CXXI. --ALL RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES BEAR THE SEAL OF STUPIDITY OR BARBARITY. 

In all times the ferocity, the stupidity, the folly of savage men wereshown in religious customs which were often cruel and extravagant. Aspirit of barbarity has come down to our days; it intrudes itself intothe religions which are followed by the most civilized nations. Do wenot still see human victims offered to Divinity? In order to appease thewrath of a God whom we suppose as ferocious, as jealous, as vindictive, as a savage, do not sanguinary laws cause the destruction of those whoare believed to have displeased Him by their way of thinking?

Modern nations, at the instigation of their priests, have even excelledthe atrocious folly of the most barbarous nations; at least do we notfind that it never entered into a savage's mind to torment for the sakeof opinions, to meddle in thought, to trouble men for the invisibleactions of their brains? When we see polished and wise nations, such asthe English, French, German, etc. , notwithstanding all theirenlightenment, continue to kneel before the barbarous God of the Jews, that is to say, of the most stupid, the most credulous, the most savage, the most unsocial nation which ever was on the earth; when we see theseenlightened nations divide themselves into sects, tear one another, hateand despise each other for opinions, equally ridiculous, upon theconduct and the intentions of this irrational God; when we seeintelligent persons occupy themselves foolishly in meditating on thewishes of this capricious and foolish God; we are tempted to exclaim, "Oh, men! you are still savages! Oh, men! you are but children in thematter of religion!"

CXXII. --THE MORE ANCIENT AND GENERAL A RELIGIOUS OPINION IS, THE GREATERTHE REASON FOR SUSPECTING IT. 

Whoever has formed true ideas of the ignorance, credulity, negligence, and sottishness of common people, will always regard their religiousopinions with the greater suspicion for their being generallyestablished. The majority of men examine nothing; they allow themselvesto be blindly led by custom and authority; their religious opinions arespecially those which they have the least courage and capacity toexamine; as they do not understand anything about them, they arecompelled to be silent or put an end to their reasoning. Ask the commonman if he believes in God. He will be surprised that you could doubt it. Then ask him what he understands by the word God. You will confuse him;you will perceive at once that he is incapable of forming any real ideaof this word which he so often repeats; he will tell you that God isGod, and you will find that he knows neither what he thinks of Him, northe motives which he has for believing in Him. 

All nations speak of a God; but do they agree upon this God? No! Well, difference of opinion does not serve as evidence, but is a sign ofuncertainty and obscurity. Does the same man always agree with himselfin his ideas of God? No! This idea varies with the vicissitudes of hislife. This is another sign of uncertainty. Men always agree with othermen and with themselves upon demonstrated truths, regardless of theposition in which they find themselves; except the insane, all agreethat two and two make four, that the sun shines, that the whole isgreater than any one of its parts, that Justice is a benefaction, thatwe must be benevolent to deserve the love of men, that injustice andcruelty are incompatible with goodness. Do they agree in the same way ifthey speak of God? All that they think or say of Him is immediatelycontradicted by the effects which they wish to attribute to Him. Tellseveral artists to paint a chimera, each of them will form differentideas of it, and will paint it differently; you will find no resemblancein the features each of them will have given to a portrait whose modelexists nowhere. In painting God, do any of the theologians of the worldrepresent Him otherwise than as a great chimera, upon whose featuresthey never agree, each one arranging it according to his style, whichhas its origin but in his own brain? There are no two individuals in theworld who have or can have the same ideas of their God. 

CXXIII. --SKEPTICISM IN THE MATTER OF RELIGION, CAN BE THE EFFECT OF BUT ASUPERFICIAL EXAMINATION OF THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES. 

Perhaps it would be more truthful to say, that all men are eitherskeptics or atheists, than to pretend that they are firmly convinced ofthe existence of a God. How can we be assured of the existence of abeing whom we never have been able to examine, of whom it is impossibleto form any permanent idea, whose different effects upon ourselvesprevent us from forming an invariable judgment, of whom no idea can beuniform in two different brains? How can we claim to be completelypersuaded of the existence of a being to whom we are constantly obligedto attribute a conduct opposed co the ideas which we had tried to formof it? Is it possible firmly to believe what we can not conceive? Inbelieving thus, are we not adhering to the opinions of others withouthaving one of our own? The priests regulate the belief of the vulgar;but do not these priests themselves acknowledge that God isincomprehensible to them? Let us conclude, then, that the conviction ofthe existence of a God is not as general as it is affirmed to be. 

To be a skeptic, is to lack the motives necessary to establish ajudgment. In view of the proofs which seem to establish, and of thearguments which combat the existence of a God, some persons prefer todoubt and to suspend their judgment; but at the bottom, this uncertaintyis the result of an insufficient examination. Is it, then, possible todoubt evidence? Sensible people deride, and with reason, an absolutepyrrhonism, and even consider it impossible. A man who could doubt hisown existence, or that of the sun, would appear very ridiculous, orwould be suspected of reasoning in bad faith. Is it less extravagant tohave uncertainties about the non-existence of an evidently impossiblebeing? Is it more absurd to doubt of one's own existence, than tohesitate upon the impossibility of a being whose qualities destroy eachother? Do we find more probabilities for believing in a spiritual beingthan for believing in the existence of a stick without two ends? Is thenotion of an infinitely good and powerful being who permits an infinityof evils, less absurd or less impossible than that of a square triangle?

Let us conclude, then, that religious skepticism can be but the effectof a superficial examination of theological principles, which are in aperpetual contradiction of the clearest and best demonstratedprinciples! To doubt is to deliberate upon the judgment which we shouldpass. Skepticism is but a state of indecision which results from asuperficial examination of subjects. Is it possible to be skeptical inthe matter of religion when we design to return to its principles, andlook closely into the idea of the God who serves as its foundation?Doubt arises ordinarily from laziness, weakness, indifference, orincapacity. To doubt, for many people, is to dread the trouble ofexamining things to which one attaches but little interest. Althoughreligion is presented to men as the most important thing for them inthis world as well as in the other, skepticism and doubt on this subjectcan be for the mind but a disagreeable state, and offers but acomfortable cushion. No man who has not the courage to contemplatewithout prejudice the God upon whom every religion is founded, can knowwhat religion to accept; he does not know what to believe and what notto believe, to accept or to reject, what to hope or fear; finally, he isincompetent to judge for himself. 

Indifference upon religion can not be confounded with skepticism; thisindifference itself is founded upon the assurance or upon theprobability which we find in believing that religion is not made tointerest us. The persuasion which we have that a thing which ispresented to us as very important, is not so, or is but indifferent, supposes a sufficient examination of the thing, without which it wouldbe impossible to have this persuasion. Those who call themselvesskeptics in regard to the fundamental points of religion, are generallybut idle and lazy men, who are incapable of examining them. 

CXXIV. --REVELATION REFUTED. 

In all parts of the world, we are assured that God revealed Himself. What did He teach men? Does He prove to them evidently that He exists?Does He tell them where He resides? Does He teach them what He is, or ofwhat His essence consists? Does He explain to them clearly Hisintentions and His plan? What He says of this plan, does it agree withthe effects which we see? No! He informs us only that "He is the Onethat is, " [I am that I am, saith the Lord] that He is an invincible God, that His ways are ineffable, that He becomes furious as soon as one hasthe temerity to penetrate His decrees, or to consult reason in order tojudge of Him or His works. Does the revealed conduct of God correspondwith the magnificent ideas which are given to us of His wisdom, goodness, justice, of His omnipotence? Not at all; in every revelationthis conduct shows a partial, capricious being, at least, good to Hisfavorite people, an enemy to all others. If He condescends to showHimself to some men, He takes care to keep all the others in invincibleignorance of His divine intentions. Does not every special revelationannounce an unjust, partial, and malicious God?

Are the revealed wishes of a God capable of striking us by the sublimereason or the wisdom which they contain? Do they tend to the happinessof the people to whom Divinity has declared them? Examining the Divinewishes, I find in them, in all countries, but whimsical ordinances, ridiculous precepts, ceremonies of which we do not understand the aim, puerile practices, principles of conduct unworthy of the Monarch ofNature, offerings, sacrifices, expiations, useful, in fact, to theministers of God, but very onerous to the rest of mankind. I find also, that they often have a tendency to render men unsocial, disdainful, intolerant, quarrelsome, unjust, inhuman toward all those who have notreceived either the same revelations as they, or the same ordinances, orthe same favors from Heaven. 

CXXV. --WHERE, THEN, IS THE PROOF THAT GOD DID EVER SHOW HIMSELF TO MEN ORSPEAK TO THEM?

Are the precepts of morality as announced by Divinity truly Divine, orsuperior to those which every rational man could imagine? They areDivine only because it is impossible for the human mind to see theirutility. Their virtue consists in a total renunciation of human nature, in a voluntary oblivion of one's reason, in a holy hatred of self;finally, these sublime precepts show us perfection in a conduct cruel toourselves and perfectly useless to others. 

How did God show Himself? Did He Himself promulgate His laws? Did Hespeak to men with His own mouth? I am told that God did not show Himselfto a whole nation, but that He employed always the organism of a fewfavored persons, who took the care to teach and to explain Hisintentions to the unlearned. It was never permitted to the people to goto the sanctuary; the ministers of the Gods always alone had the rightto report to them what transpired. 

CXXVI. --NOTHING ESTABLISHES THE TRUTH OF MIRACLES. 

If, in the economy of all Divine revelations, I am unable to recognizeeither the wisdom, the goodness, or the equity of a God; if I suspectdeceit, ambition, selfish designs in the great personages who haveinterposed between Heaven and us, I am assured that God has confirmed, by splendid miracles, the mission of those who have spoken for Him. Butwas it not much easier to show Himself, and to explain for Himself? Onthe other hand, if I have the curiosity to examine these miracles, Ifind that they are tales void of probability, related by suspiciouspeople, who had the greatest interest in making others believe that theywere sent from the Most High. 

What witnesses are referred to in order to make us believe incrediblemiracles? They call as witnesses stupid people, who have ceased to existfor thousands of years, and who, even if they could attest the miraclesin question, would be suspected of having been deceived by their ownimagination, and of permitting themselves to be seduced by the illusionswhich skillful impostors performed before their eyes. But, you will say, these miracles are recorded in books which through constant traditionhave been handed down to us. By whom were these books written? Who arethe men who have transmitted and perpetuated them? They are either thesame people who established these religions, or those who have becometheir adherents and their assistants. Thus, in the matter of religion, the testimony of interested parties is irrefragable and can not becontested!

CXXVII. --IF GOD HAD SPOKEN, IT WOULD BE STRANGE THAT HE HAD SPOKENDIFFERENTLY TO ALL THE ADHERENTS OF THE DIFFERENT SECTS, WHO DAMN EACHOTHER, WHO ACCUSE EACH OTHER, WITH REASON, OF SUPERSTITION AND IMPIETY. 

God has spoken differently to each nation of the globe which we inhabit. The Indian does not believe one word of what He said to the Chinaman;the Mohammedan considers what He has told to the Christian as fables;the Jew considers the Mohammedan and the Christian as sacrilegiouscorruptors of the Holy Law, which his God has given to his fathers. TheChristian, proud of his more modern revelation, equally damns the Indianand the Chinaman, the Mohammedan, and even the Jew, whose holy books heholds. Who is wrong or right? Each one exclaims: "It is I!" Every oneclaims the same proofs; each one speaks of his miracles, his saints, hisprophets, his martyrs. Sensible men answer, that they are all delirious;that God has not spoken, if it is true that He is a Spirit who hasneither mouth nor tongue; that the God of the Universe could, withoutborrowing mortal organism, inspire His creatures with what He desiredthem to learn, and that, as they are all equally ignorant of what theyought to think about God, it is evident that God did not want toinstruct them. The adherents of the different forms of worship which wesee established in this world, accuse each other of superstition and ofungodliness. The Christians abhor the superstition of the heathen, ofthe Chinese, of the Mohammedans. The Roman Catholics treat theProtestant Christians as impious; the latter incessantly declaim againstRoman superstition. They are all right. To be impious, is to have unjustopinions about the God who is adored; to be superstitious, is to havefalse ideas of Him. In accusing each other of superstition, thedifferent religionists resemble humpbacks who taunt each other withtheir malformation. 

CXXVIII. --OBSCURE AND SUSPICIOUS ORIGIN OF ORACLES. 

The oracles which the Deity has revealed to the nations through Hisdifferent mediums, are they clear? Alas! there are not two men whounderstand them alike. Those who explain them to others do not agreeamong themselves; in order to make them clear, they have recourse tointerpretations, to commentaries, to allegories, to parables, in whichis found a mystical sense very different from the literal one. Men areneeded everywhere to explain the wishes of God, who could not or wouldnot explain Himself clearly to those whom He desired to enlighten. Godalways prefers to use as mediums men who can be suspected of having beendeceived themselves, or having reasons to deceive others. 

CXXIX. --ABSURDITY OF PRETENDED MIRACLES. 

The founders of all religions have usually proved their mission bymiracles. But what is a miracle? It is an operation directly opposed tothe laws of nature. But, according to you, who has made these laws? Itis God. Thus your God, who, according to you, has foreseen everything, counteracts the laws which His wisdom had imposed upon nature! Theselaws were then defective, or at least in certain circumstances theywere but in accordance with the views of this same God, for you tell usthat He thought He ought to suspend or counteract them. 

An attempt is made to persuade us that men who have been favored by theMost High have received from Him the power to perform miracles; but inorder to perform a miracle, it is necessary to have the faculty ofcreating new causes capable of producing effects opposed to those whichordinary causes can produce. Can we realize how God can give to men theinconceivable power of creating causes out of nothing? Can it bebelieved that an unchangeable God can communicate to man the power tochange or rectify His plan, a power which, according to His essence, animmutable being can not have himself? Miracles, far from doing muchhonor to God, far from proving the Divinity of religion, destroyevidently the idea which is given to us of God, of His immutability, ofHis incommunicable attributes, and even of His omnipotence. How can atheologian tell us that a God who embraced at once the whole of Hisplan, who could make but perfect laws, who can change nothing in them, should be obliged to employ miracles to make His projects successful, orgrant to His creatures the faculty of performing prodigies, in order toexecute His Divine will? Is it probable that a God needs the support ofmen? An Omnipotent Being, whose wishes are always gratified, a Being whoholds in His hands the hearts and the minds of His creatures, needs butto wish, in order to make them believe all He desires. 

CXXX. --REFUTATION OF PASCAL'S MANNER OF REASONING AS TO HOW WE SHOULDJUDGE MIRACLES. 

What should we say of religions that based their Divinity upon miracleswhich they themselves cause to appear suspicious? How can we place anyfaith in the miracles related in the Holy Books of the Christians, whereGod Himself boasts of hardening hearts, of blinding those whom He wishesto ruin; where this God permits wicked spirits and magicians to performas wonderful miracles as those of His servants; where it is prophesiedthat the Anti-Christ will have the power to perform miracles capable ofdestroying the faith even of the elect? This granted, how can we knowwhether God wants to instruct us or to lay a snare for us? How can wedistinguish whether the wonders which we see, proceed from God or theDevil? Pascal, in order to disembarrass us, says very gravely, that wemust judge the doctrine by miracles, and the miracles by the doctrine;that doctrine judges the miracles, and the miracles judge the doctrine. If there exists a defective and ridiculous circle, it is no doubt inthis fine reasoning of one of the greatest defenders of the Christianreligion. Which of all the religions in the world does not claim topossess the most admirable doctrine, and which does not bring to its aida great number of miracles?

Is a miracle capable of destroying a demonstrated truth? Although a manshould have the secret of curing all diseases, of making the lame towalk, of raising all the dead of a city, of floating in the air, ofarresting the course of the sun and of the moon, will he be able toconvince me by all this that two and two do not make four; that onemakes three and that three makes but one; that a God who fills theuniverse with His immensity, could have transformed Himself into thebody of a Jew; that the eternal can perish like man; that an immutable, foreseeing, and sensible God could have changed His opinion upon Hisreligion, and reform His own work by a new revelation?

CXXXI. --EVEN ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY ITSELF, EVERY NEWREVELATION SHOULD BE REFUTED AS FALSE AND IMPIOUS. 

According to the principles of theology itself, whether natural orrevealed, every new revelation ought to be considered false; everychange in a religion which had emanated from the Deity ought to berefuted as ungodly and blasphemous. Does not every reform suppose thatGod did not know how at the start to give His religion the requiredsolidity and perfection? To say that God in giving a first lawaccommodated Himself to the gross ideas of a people whom He wished toenlighten, is to pretend that God neither could nor would make thepeople whom He enlightened at that time, as reasonable as they ought tobe to please Him. 

Christianity is an impiety, if it is true that Judaism as a religionreally emanated from a Holy, Immutable, Almighty, grid Foreseeing God. 

Christ's religion implies either defects in the law that God Himselfgave by Moses, or impotence or malice in this God who could not, orwould not make the Jews as they ought to be to please Him. Allreligions, whether new, or ancient ones reformed, are evidently foundedon the weakness, the inconstancy, the imprudence, and the malice of theDeity. 

CXXXII. --EVEN THE BLOOD OF THE MARTYRS, TESTIFIES AGAINST THE TRUTH OFMIRACLES AND AGAINST THE DIVINE ORIGIN WHICH CHRISTIANITY CLAIMS. 

If history informs me that the first apostles, founders or reformers ofreligions, performed great miracles, history teaches me also that thesereforming apostles and their adherents have been usually despised, persecuted, and put to death as disturbers of the peace of nations. I amthen tempted to believe that they have not performed the miraclesattributed to them. Finally, these miracles should have procured to thema great number of disciples among those who witnessed them, who ought tohave prevented the performers from being maltreated. My incredulityincreases if I am told that the performers of miracles have been cruellytormented or slain. How can we believe that missionaries, protected by aGod, invested with His Divine Power, and enjoying the gift of miracles, could not perform the simple miracle of escaping from the cruelty oftheir persecutors?

Persecutions themselves are considered as a convincing proof in favor ofthe religion of those who have suffered them; but a religion whichboasts of having caused the death of many martyrs, and which informs usthat its founders have suffered for its extension unheard-of torments, can not be the religion of a benevolent, equitable, and Almighty God. Agood God would not permit that men charged with revealing His willshould be misused. An omnipotent God desiring to found a religion, wouldhave employed simpler and less fatal means for His most faithfulservants. To say that God desired that His religion should be sealed byblood, is to say that this God is weak, unjust, ungrateful, andsanguinary, and that He sacrifices unworthily His missionaries to theinterests of His ambition. 

CXXXIII. --THE FANATICISM OF THE MARTYRS, THE INTERESTED ZEAL OFMISSIONARIES, PROVE IN NOWISE THE TRUTH OF RELIGION. 

To die for a religion does not prove it true or Divine; this proves atmost that we suppose it to be so. An enthusiast in dying proves nothingbut that religious fanaticism is often stronger than the love of life. An impostor can sometimes die with courage; he makes then, as is said, "a virtue of necessity. " We are often surprised and affected at thesight of the generous courage and the disinterested zeal which have ledmissionaries to preach their doctrine at the risk even of suffering themost rigorous torments. We draw from this love, which is exhibited forthe salvation of men, deductions favorable to the religion which theyhave proclaimed; but in truth this disinterestedness is only apparent. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained!" A missionary seeks fortune by theaid of his doctrine; he knows that if he has the good fortune to retailhis commodity, he will become the absolute master of those who accepthim as their guide; he is sure to become the object of their care, oftheir respect, of their veneration; he has every reason to believe thathe will be abundantly provided for. These are the true motives whichkindle the zeal and the charity of so many preachers and missionarieswho travel all over the world. 

To die for an opinion, proves no more the truth or the soundness of thisopinion than to die in a battle proves the right of the prince, forwhose benefit so many people are foolish enough to sacrifice themselves. The courage of a martyr, animated by the idea of Paradise, is not anymore supernatural than the courage of a warrior, inspired with the ideaof glory or held to duty by the fear of disgrace. What difference do wefind between an Iroquois who sings while he is burned by a slow fire, and the martyr St. Lawrence, who while upon the gridiron insults histyrant?

The preachers of a new doctrine succumb because they are not thestrongest; the apostles usually practice a perilous business, whoseconsequences they can foresee; their courageous death does not prove anymore the truth of their principles or their own sincerity, than theviolent death of an ambitious man or a brigand proves that they had theright to trouble society, or that they believed themselves authorized todo it. A missionary's profession has been always flattering to hisambition, and has enabled him to subsist at the expense of the commonpeople; these advantages have been sufficient to make him forget thedangers which are connected with it. 

CXXXIV. --THEOLOGY MAKES OF ITS GOD AN ENEMY OF COMMON SENSE AND OFENLIGHTENMENT. 

You tell us, O theologians! that "what is folly in the eyes of men, iswisdom before God, who is pleased to confound the wisdom of the wise. "But do you not pretend that human wisdom is a gift from Heaven? Intelling us that this wisdom displeases God, is but folly in His eyes, and that He wishes to confound it, you proclaim that your God is but thefriend of unenlightened people, and that He makes to sensible people afatal gift, for which this perfidious Tyrant promises to punish themcruelly some day. Is it not very strange that we can not be the friendof your God but by declaring ourselves the enemy of reason and commonsense?

CXXXV. --FAITH IS IRRECONCILABLE WITH REASON, AND REASON IS PREFERABLE TOFAITH. 

Faith, according to theologians, is consent without evidence. From thisit follows that religion exacts that we should firmly believe, withoutevidence, in propositions which are often improbable or opposed toreason. But to challenge reason as a judge of faith, is it notacknowledging that reason can not agree with faith? As the ministers ofreligion have determined to banish reason, they must have felt theimpossibility of reconciling reason with faith, which is visibly but ablind submission to those priests whose authority, in many minds, appears to be of a greater importance than evidence itself, andpreferable to the testimony of the senses. "Sacrifice your reason; giveup experience; distrust the testimony of your senses; submit withoutexamination to all that is given to you as coming from Heaven. " This isthe usual language of all the priests of the world; they do not agreeupon any point, except in the necessity of never reasoning when theypresent principles to us which they claim as the most important to ourhappiness. 

I will not sacrifice my reason, because this reason alone enables me todistinguish good from evil, the true from the false. If, as you pretend, my reason comes from God, I will never believe that a God whom you callso good, had ever given me reason but as a snare, in order to lead me toperdition. Priests! in crying down reason, do you not see that youslander your God, who, as you assure us, has given us this reason?

I will not give up experience, because it is a much better guide thanimagination, or than the authority of the guides whom they wish to giveme. This experience teaches me that enthusiasm and interest can blindand mislead them, and that the authority of experience ought to havemore weight upon my mind than the suspicious testimony of many men whomI know to be capable of deceiving themselves, or very much interested indeceiving others. 

I will not distrust my senses. I do not ignore the fact that they cansometimes lead me into error; but on the other hand, I know that they donot deceive me always. I know very well that the eye shows the sun muchsmaller than it really is; but experience, which is only the repeatedapplication of the senses, teaches me that objects continually diminishby reason of their distance; it is by these means that I reach theconclusion that the sun is much larger than the earth; it is thus thatmy senses suffice to rectify the hasty judgments which they induced meto form. In warning me to doubt the testimony of my senses, you destroyfor me the proofs of all religion. If men can be dupes of theirimagination, if their senses are deceivers, why would you have mebelieve in the miracles which made an impression upon the deceivingsenses of our ancestors? If my senses are faithless guides, I learn thatI should not have faith even in the miracles which I might see performedunder my own eyes. 

CXXXVI. --HOW ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS IS THE SOPHISTRY OF THOSE WHO WISH TOSUBSTITUTE FAITH FOR REASON. 

You tell me continually that the "truths of religion are beyond reason. "Do you not admit, then, that these truths are not made for reasonablebeings? To pretend that reason can deceive us, is to say that truth canbe false, that usefulness can be injurious. Is reason anything else butthe knowledge of the useful and the true? Besides, as we have but ourreason, which is more or less exercised, and our senses, such as theyare, to lead us in this life, to claim that reason is an unsafe guide, and that our senses are deceivers, is to tell us that our errors arenecessary, that our ignorance is invincible, and that, without extremeinjustice, God can not punish us for having followed the only guideswhich He desired to give us. To pretend that we are obliged to believein things which are beyond our reason, is an assertion as ridiculous asto say that God would compel us to fly without wings. To claim thatthere are objects on which reason should not be consulted, is to saythat in the most important affairs, we must consult but imagination, oract by chance. 

Our Doctors of Divinity tell us that we ought to sacrifice our reason toGod; but what motives can we have for sacrificing our reason to a beingwho gives us but useless gifts, which He does not intend that we shouldmake use of? What confidence can we place in a God who, according to ourDoctors themselves, is wicked enough to harden hearts, to strike us withblindness, to place snares in our way, to lead us into temptation?Finally, how can we place confidence in the ministers of this God, who, in order to guide us more conveniently, command us to close our eyes?

CXXXVII. --HOW PRETEND THAT MAN OUGHT TO BELIEVE VERBAL TESTIMONY ON WHATIS CLAIMED TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR HIM?

Men persuade themselves that religion is the most serious affair in theworld for them, while it is the very thing which they least examine forthemselves. If the question arises in the purchase of land, of a house, of the investment of money, of a transaction, or of some kind of anagreement, you will see each one examine everything with care, take thegreatest precautions, weigh all the words of a document, to beware ofany surprise or imposition. It is not the same with religion; each oneaccepts it at hazard, and believes it upon verbal testimony, withouttaking the trouble to examine it. Two causes seem to concur insustaining men in the negligence and the thoughtlessness which theyexhibit when the question comes up of examining their religiousopinions. The first one is, the hopelessness of penetrating theobscurity by which every religion is surrounded; even in its firstprinciples, it has only a tendency to repel indolent minds, who see init but chaos, to penetrate which, they judge impossible. The second is, that each one is afraid to incommode himself by the severe preceptswhich everybody admires in the theory, and which few persons take thetrouble of practicing. Many people preserve their religion like oldfamily titles which they have never taken the trouble to examineminutely, but which they place in their archives in case they need them. 

CXXXVIII. --FAITH TAKES ROOT BUT IN WEAK, IGNORANT, OR INDOLENT MINDS. 

The disciples of Pythagoras had an implicit faith in their Master'sdoctrine: "HE HAS SAID IT!" was for them the solution of all problems. The majority of men act with as little reason. A curate, a priest, anignorant monk, will become in the matter of religion the master of one'sthoughts. Faith relieves the weakness of the human mind, for whomapplication is commonly a very painful work; it is much easier to relyupon others than to examine for one's self; examination being slow anddifficult, it is usually unpleasant to ignorant and stupid minds as wellas to very ardent ones; this is, no doubt, why faith finds so manypartisans. 

The less enlightenment and reason men possess, the more zeal theyexhibit for their religion. In all the religious factions, women, aroused by their directors, exhibit very great zeal in opinions of whichit is evident they have not the least idea. In theological quarrelspeople rush like a ferocious beast upon all those against whom theirpriest wishes to excite them. Profound ignorance, unlimited credulity, avery weak head, an irritated imagination, these are the materials ofwhich devotees, zealots, fanatics, and saints are made. How can we makethose people understand reason who allow themselves to be guided withoutexamining anything? The devotees and common people are, in the hands oftheir guides, only automatons which they move at their fancy. 

CXXXIX. --TO TEACH THAT THERE EXISTS ONE TRUE RELIGION IS AN ABSURDITY, AND A CAUSE OF MUCH TROUBLE AMONG THE NATIONS. 

Religion is a thing of custom and fashion; we must do as others do. But, among the many religions in the world, which one ought we to choose?This examination would be too long and too painful; we must then hold tothe faith of our fathers, to that of our country, or to that of theprince, who, possessing power, must be the best. Chance alone decidesthe religion of a man and of a people. The French would be to-day asgood Mussulmen as they are Christians, if their ancestors had notrepulsed the efforts of the Saracens. If we judge of the intentions ofProvidence by the events and the revolutions of this world, we arecompelled to believe that it is quite indifferent about the differentreligions which exist on earth. During thousands of years Paganism, Polytheism, and Idolatry have been the religions of the world; we areassured today, that during this period the most flourishing nations hadnot the least idea of the Deity, an idea which is claimed, however, tobe so important to all men. The Christians pretend that, with theexception of the Jewish people, that is to say, a handful of unfortunatebeings, the whole human race lived in utter ignorance of its dutiestoward God, and had but imperfect ideas of Divine majesty. Christianity, offshoot of Judaism, which was very humble in its obscure origin, becamepowerful and cruel under the Christian emperors, who, driven by a holyzeal, spread it marvelously in their empire by sword and fire, andfounded it upon the ruins of overthrown Paganism. Mohammed and hissuccessors, aided by Providence, or by their victorious arms, succeededin a short time in expelling the Christian religion from a part of Asia, Africa, and even of Europe itself; the Gospel was compelled to surrenderto the Koran. In all the factions or sects which during a great numberof centuries have lacerated the Christians, "THE REASON OF THE STRONGESTWAS ALWAYS THE BEST;" the arms and the will of the princes alone decidedupon the most useful doctrine for the salvation of the nations. Could wenot conclude by this, either that the Deity takes but little interest inthe religion of men, or that He declares Himself always in favor ofopinions which best suit the Authorities of the earth, in order that Hecan change His systems as soon as they take a notion to change?

A king of Macassar, tired of the idolatry of his fathers, took a notionone day to leave it. The monarch's council deliberated for a long timeto know whether they should consult Christian or Mohammedan Doctors. Inthe impossibility of finding out which was the better of the tworeligions, it was resolved to send at the same time for the missionariesof both, and to accept the doctrine of those who would have theadvantage of arriving first. They did not doubt that God, who disposesof events, would thus Himself explain His will. Mohammed's missionarieshaving been more diligent, the king with his people submitted to the lawwhich he had imposed upon himself; the missionaries of Christ weredismissed by default of their God, who did not permit them to arriveearly enough. God evidently consents that chance should decide thereligion of nations. 

Those who govern, always decide the religion of the people. The truereligion is but the religion of the prince; the true God is the God whomthe prince wishes them to worship; the will of the priests who governthe prince, always becomes the will of God. A jester once said, withreason, that "the true faith is always the one which has on its side'the prince and the executioner. '"

Emperors and executioners for a long time sustained the Gods of Romeagainst the God of the Christians; the latter having won over to theirside the emperors, their soldiers and their executioners succeeded insuppressing the worship of the Roman Gods. Mohammed's God succeeded inexpelling the Christian's God from a large part of the countries whichHe formerly occupied. In the eastern part of Asia, there is a largecountry which is very flourishing, very productive, thickly populated, and governed by such wise laws, that the most savage conquerors adoptedthem with respect. It is China! With the exception of Christianity, which was banished as dangerous, they followed their own superstitiousideas; while the mandarins or magistrates, undeceived long ago about thepopular religion, do not trouble themselves in regard to it, except towatch over it, that the bonzes or priests do not use this religion todisturb the peace of the State. However, we do not see that Providencewithholds its benefactions from a nation whose chiefs take so littleinterest in the worship which is offered to it. The Chinese enjoy, onthe contrary, blessings and a peace worthy of being envied by manynations which religion divides, ravages, and often destroys. We can notreasonably expect to deprive a people of its follies; but we can hope tocure of their follies those who govern the people; these will thenprevent the follies of the people from becoming dangerous. Superstitionis never to be feared except when it has the support of princes andsoldiers; it is only then that it becomes cruel and sanguinary. Everysovereign who assumes the protection of a sect or of a religiousfaction, usually becomes the tyrant of other sects, and makes himselfthe must cruel perturbator in his kingdom. 

CXL. --RELIGION IS NOT NECESSARY TO MORALITY AND TO VIRTUE. 

We are constantly told, and a good many sensible persons come to believeit, that religion is necessary to restrain men; that without it therewould be no check upon the people; that morality and virtue areintimately connected with it: "The fear of the Lord is, " we are told, "the beginning of wisdom. " The terrors of another life are salutaryterrors, and calculated to subdue men's passions. To disabuse us inregard to the utility of religious notions, it is sufficient to open theeyes and to consider what are the morals of the most religious people. We see haughty tyrants, oppressive ministers, perfidious courtiers, countless extortioners, unscrupulous magistrates, impostors, adulterers, libertines, prostitutes, thieves, and rogues of all kinds, who havenever doubted the existence of a vindictive God, or the punishments ofhell, or the joys of Paradise. 

Although very useless for the majority of men, the ministers of religionhave tried to make death appear terrible to the eyes of their votaries. If the most devoted Christians could be consistent, they would passtheir whole lives in tears, and would finally die in the most terriblealarms. What is more frightful than death to those unfortunate ones whoare constantly reminded that "it is a fearful thing to fall into thehands of a living God;" that they should "seek salvation with fear andtrembling!" However, we are assured that the Christian's death has greatconsolations, of which the unbeliever is deprived. The good Christian, we are told, dies with the firm hope of enjoying eternal happiness, which he has tried to deserve. But this firm assurance, is it not apunishable presumption in the eyes of a severe God? The greatest saints, are they not to be in doubt whether they are worthy of the love or ofthe hatred of God Priests who console us with the hope of the joys ofParadise, and close your eyes to the torments of hell, have you then hadthe advantage of seeing your names and ours inscribed in the book oflife?

CXLI. --RELIGION IS THE WEAKEST RESTRAINT THAT CAN BE OPPOSED TO THEPASSIONS. 

To oppose to the passions and present interests of men the obscurenotions about a metaphysical God whom no one can conceive of; theincredible punishments of another life; the pleasures of Heaven, ofwhich we can not form an idea, is it not combating realities withchimeras? Men have always but confused ideas of their God; they see Himonly in the clouds; they never think of Him when they wish to do wrong. Whenever ambition, fortune, or pleasure entices them or leads them away, God, and His menaces, and His promises weigh nothing in the balance. Thethings of this life have for men a degree of certainty, which the mostlively faith can never give to the objects of another life. 

Every religion, in its origin, was a restraint invented by legislatorswho wished to subjugate the minds of the common people. Like nurses whofrighten children in order to put them to sleep, ambitious men use thename of the gods to inspire fear in savages; terror seems well suited tocompel them to submit quietly to the yoke which is to be imposed uponthem. Are the ghost stories of childhood fit for mature age? Man in hismaturity no longer believes in them, or if he does, he is troubled butlittle by it, and he keeps on his road. 

CXLII. --HONOR IS A MORE SALUTARY AND A STRONGER CHECK THAN RELIGION. 

There is scarcely a man who does not fear more what he sees than what hedoes not see; the judgments of men, of which he experiences the effects, than the judgments of God, of whom he has but floating ideas. The desireto please the world, the current of custom, the fear of being ridiculed, and of "WHAT WILL THEY SAY?" have more power than all religiousopinions. A warrior with the fear of dishonor, does he not hazard hislife in battles every day, even at the risk of incurring eternaldamnation?

The most religious persons sometimes show more respect for a servantthan for God. A man that firmly believes that God sees everything, knowseverything, is everywhere, will, when he is alone, commit actions whichhe never would do in the presence of the meanest of mortals. Those evenwho claim to be the most firmly convinced of the existence of a God, actevery instant as if they did not believe anything about it. 

CXLIII. --RELIGION IS CERTAINLY NOT A POWERFUL CHECK UPON THE PASSIONS OFKINGS, WHO ARE ALMOST ALWAYS CRUEL AND FANTASTIC TYRANTS BY THE EXAMPLEOF THIS SAME GOD, OF WHOM THEY CLAIM TO BE THE REPRESENTATIVES; THEY USERELIGION BUT TO BRUTALIZE THEIR SLAVES SO MUCH THE MORE, TO LULL THEM TOSLEEP IN THEIR FETTERS, AND TO PREY UPON THEM WITH THE GREATER FACILITY. 

"Let us tolerate at least, " we are told, "the idea of a God, which alonecan be a restraint upon the passions of kings. " But, in good faith, canwe admire the marvelous effects which the fear of this God producesgenerally upon the mind of the princes who claim to be His images? Whatidea can we form of the original, if we judge it by its duplicates?Sovereigns, it is true, call, themselves the representatives of God, Hislieutenants upon earth. But does the fear of a more powerful master thanthemselves make them attend to the welfare of the peoples thatProvidence has confided to their care? The idea of an invisible Judge, to whom alone they pretend to be accountable for their actions, shouldinspire them with terror! But does this terror render them moreequitable, more humane, less avaricious of the blood and the goods oftheir subjects, more moderate in their pleasures, more attentive totheir duties? Finally, does this God, by whom we are assured that kingsreign, prevent them from vexing in a thousand ways the peoples of whomthey ought to be the leaders, the protectors, and fathers? Let us openour eyes, let us turn our regards upon all the earth, and we shall see, almost everywhere, men governed by tyrants, who make use of religion butto brutalize their slaves, whom they oppress by the weight of theirvices, or whom they sacrifice without mercy to their fatalextravagances. Far from being a restraint to the passions of kings, religion, by its very principles, gives them a loose rein. It transformsthem into Divinities, whose caprices the nations never dare to resist. At the same time that it unchains princes and breaks for them the tiesof the social pact, it enchains the minds and the hands of theiroppressed subjects. Is it surprising, then, that the gods of the earthbelieve that all is permitted to them, and consider their subjects asvile instruments of their caprices or of their ambition?

Religion, in every country, has made of the Monarch of Nature a cruel, fantastic, partial tyrant, whose caprice is the rule. The God-monarch isbut too well imitated by His representatives upon the earth. Everywherereligion seems invented but to lull to sleep the people in fetters, inorder to furnish their masters the facility of devouring them, or torender them miserable with impunity. 

CXLIV. --ORIGIN OF THE MOST ABSURD, THE MOST RIDICULOUS, AND THE MOSTODIOUS USURPATION, CALLED THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS. WISE COUNSELS TOKINGS. 

In order to guard themselves against the enterprises of a haughtyPontiff who desired to reign over kings, and in order to protect theirpersons from the attacks of the credulous people excited by theirpriests, several princes of Europe pretended to have received theircrowns and their rights from God alone, and that they should account toHim only for their actions. Civil power in its battles against spiritualpower, having at length gained the advantage, and the priests beingcompelled to yield, recognized the Divine right of kings and preached itto the people, reserving to themselves the right to change opinions andto preach revolution, every time that the divine rights of kings did notagree with the divine rights of the clergy. It was always at the expenseof the people that peace was restored between the kings and the priests, but the latter maintained their pretensions notwithstanding alltreaties. 

Many tyrants and wicked princes, whose conscience reproaches them fortheir negligence or their perversity, far from fearing their God, ratherlike to bargain with this invisible Judge, who never refuses anything, or with His priests, who are accommodating to the masters of the earthrather than to their subjects. The people, when reduced to despair, consider the divine rights of their chiefs as an abuse. When men becomeexasperated, the divine rights of tyrants are compelled to yield to thenatural rights of their subjects; they have better market with the godsthan with men. Kings are responsible for their actions but to God, thepriests but to themselves; there is reason to believe that both of themhave more faith in the indulgence of Heaven than in that of earth. It ismuch easier to escape the judgments of the gods, who can be appeased atlittle expense, than the judgments of men whose patience is exhausted. If you take away from the sovereigns the fear of an invisible power, what restraint will you oppose to their misconduct? Let them learn howto govern, how to be just, how to respect the rights of the people, torecognize the benefactions of the nations from whom they obtain theirgrandeur and power; let them learn to fear men, to submit to the laws ofequity, that no one can violate without danger; let these laws restrainequally the powerful and the weak, the great and the small, thesovereign and the subjects. 

The fear of the Gods, religion, the terrors of another life--these arethe metaphysical and supernatural barriers which are opposed to thefurious passions of princes! Are these barriers sufficient? We leave itto experience to solve the question! To oppose religion to thewickedness of tyrants, is to wish that vague speculations should be morepowerful than inclinations which conspire to fortify them in it from dayto day. 

CXLV. --RELIGION IS FATAL TO POLITICS; IT FORMS BUT LICENTIOUS ANDPERVERSE DESPOTS, AS WELL AS ABJECT AND UNHAPPY SUBJECTS. 

We are told constantly of the immense advantages which religion securesto politics; but if we reflect a moment, we will see without troublethat religious opinions blind and lead astray equally the rulers and thepeople, and never enlighten them either in regard to their true dutiesor their real interests. Religion but too often forms licentious, immoral tyrants, obeyed by slaves who are obliged to conform to theirviews. From lack of the knowledge of the true principles ofadministration, the aim and the rights of social life, the realinterests of men, and the duties which unite them, the princes arebecome, in almost every land, licentious, absolute, and perverse; andtheir subjects abject unhappy, and wicked. It was to avoid the troubleof studying these important subjects, that they felt themselves obligedto have recourse to chimeras, which so far, instead of being a remedy, have but increased the evils of the human race and withdrawn theirattention from the most interesting things. Does not the unjust andcruel manner in which so many nations are governed here below, furnishthe most visible proofs, not only of the non-effect produced by the fearof another life, but of the non-existence of a Providence interested inthe fate of the human race? If there existed a good God, would we not beforced to admit that He strangely neglects the majority of men in thislife? It would appear that this God created the nations but to be toysfor the passions and follies of His representatives upon earth. 

CXLVI. --CHRISTIANITY EXTENDED ITSELF BUT BY ENCOURAGING DESPOTISM, OFWHICH IT, LIKE ALL RELIGION, IS THE STRONGEST SUPPORT. 

If we read history with some attention, we shall see that Christianity, fawning at first, insinuated itself among the savage and free nations ofEurope but by showing their chiefs that its principles would favordespotism and place absolute power in their hands. We see, consequently, barbarous kings converting themselves with a miraculous promptitude;that is to say, adopting without examination a system so favorable totheir ambition, and exerting themselves to have it adopted by theirsubjects. If the ministers of this religion have since often moderatedtheir servile principles, it is because the theory has no influence uponthe conduct of the Lord's ministers, except when it suits their temporalinterests. 

Christianity boasts of having brought to men a happiness unknown topreceding centuries. It is true that the Grecians have not known theDivine right of tyrants or usurpers over their native country. Under thereign of Paganism it never entered the brain of anybody that Heaven didnot want a nation to defend itself against a ferocious beast whichinsolently ravaged it. The Christian religion, devised for the benefitof tyrants, was established on the principle that the nations shouldrenounce the legitimate defense of themselves. Thus Christian nationsare deprived of the first law of nature, which decrees that man shouldresist evil and disarm all who attempt to destroy him. If the ministersof the Church have often permitted nations to revolt for Heaven's cause, they never allowed them to revolt against real evils or known violences. 

It is from Heaven that the chains have come to fetter the minds ofmortals. Why is the Mohammedan everywhere a slave? It is because hisProphet subdued him in the name of the Deity, just as Moses before himsubjugated the Jews. In all parts of the world we see that priests werethe first law-givers and the first sovereigns of the savages whom theygoverned. Religion seems to have been invented but to exalt princesabove their nations, and to deliver the people to their discretion. Assoon as the latter find themselves unhappy here below, they are silencedby menacing them with God's wrath; their eyes are fixed on Heaven, inorder to prevent them from perceiving the real causes of theirsufferings and from applying the remedies which nature offers them. 

CXLVII. --THE ONLY AIM OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES IS TO PERPETUATE THETYRANNY OF KINGS AND TO SACRIFICE THE NATIONS TO THEM. 

By incessantly repeating to men that the earth is not their truecountry; that the present life is but a passage; that they were not madeto be happy in this world; that their sovereigns hold their authoritybut from God, and are responsible to Him alone for the misuse of it;that it is never permitted to them to resist, the priesthood succeededin perpetuating the misconduct of the kings and the misfortunes of thepeople; the interests of the nations have been cowardly sacrificed totheir chiefs. The more we consider the dogmas and the principles ofreligion, the more we shall be convinced that their only aim is to giveadvantage to tyrants and priests; not having the least regard for thegood of society. In order to mask the powerlessness of these deaf Gods, religion has succeeded in making mortals believe that it is alwaysiniquity which excites the wrath of Heaven. The people blame themselvesfor the disasters and the adversities which they endure continually. Ifdisturbed nature sometimes causes the people to feel its blows, theirbad governments are but too often the immediate and permanent causesfrom which spring the continual calamities that they are obliged toendure. Is it not the ambition of kings and of the great, theirnegligence, their vices, their oppression, to which are generally duesterility, mendacity, wars, contagions, bad morals, and all themultiplied scourges which desolate the earth?

In continually directing the eyes of men toward Heaven, making thembelieve that all their evils are due to Divine wrath, in furnishing thembut inefficient and futile means of lessening their troubles, it wouldappear that the only object of the priests is to prevent the nationsfrom dreaming of the true sources of their miseries, and to perpetuatethem. The ministers of religion act like those indigent mothers, who, inneed of bread, put their hungry children to sleep by songs, or whopresent them toys to make them forget the want which torments them. 

Blinded from childhood by error, held by the invincible ties of opinion, crushed by panic terrors, stupefied at the bosom of ignorance, how couldthe people understand the true causes of their troubles? They think toremedy them by invoking the gods. Alas! do they not see that it is itthe name of these gods that they are ordered to present their throat tothe sword of their pitiless tyrants, in whom they would find the mostvisible cause of the evils under which they groan, and for which theyuselessly implore the assistance of Heaven? Credulous people! in youradversities redouble your prayers, your offerings, your sacrifices;besiege your temples, strangle countless victims, fast in sackcloth andin ashes, drink your own tears; finally, exhaust yourselves to enrichyour gods: you will do nothing but enrich their priests; the gods ofHeaven will not be propitious to you, except when the gods of the earthwill recognize that they are men like yourselves, and will give to yourwelfare the care which is your due. 

CXLVIII. --HOW FATAL IT IS TO PERSUADE KINGS THAT THEY HAVE ONLY GOD TOFEAR IF THEY INJURE THE PEOPLE. 

Negligent, ambitious, and perverse princes are the real causes of publicadversities, of useless and unjust wars continually depopulating theearth, of greedy and despotic governments, destroying the benefactionsof nature for men. The rapacity of the courts discourages agriculture, blots out industry, causes famine, contagion, misery; Heaven is neithercruel nor favorable to the wishes of the people; it is their haughtychiefs, who always have a heart of brass. 

It is a notion destructive to wholesome politics and to the morals ofprinces, to persuade them that God alone is to be feared by them, whenthey injure their subjects or when they neglect to render them happy. Sovereigns! It is not the Gods, but your people whom you offend when youdo evil. It is to these people, and by retroaction, to yourselves, thatyou do harm when you govern unjustly. 

Nothing is more common in history than to see religious tyrants; nothingmore rare than to find equitable, vigilant, enlightened princes. Amonarch can be pious, very strict in fulfilling servilely the duties ofhis religion, very submissive to his priests, liberal in their behalf, and at the same time destitute of all the virtues and talents necessaryfor governing. Religion for the princes is but an instrument intended tokeep the people more firmly under the yoke. According to the beautifulprinciples of religious morality, a tyrant who, during a long reign, will have done nothing but oppress his subjects, rob them of the fruitsof their labor, sacrifice them without pity to his insatiable ambition;a conqueror who will have usurped the provinces of others, who will haveslaughtered whole nations, who will have been all his life a realscourge of the human race, imagines that his conscience can betranquillized, if, in order to expiate so many crimes, he will have weptat the feet of a priest, who will have the cowardly complaisance toconsole and reassure a brigand, whom the most frightful despair wouldpunish too little for the evil which he has done upon earth. 

CLXIX. --A RELIGIOUS KING IS A SCOURGE TO HIS KINGDOM. 

A sincerely religious sovereign is generally a very dangerous chief fora State; credulity always indicates a narrow mind; devotion generallyabsorbs the attention which the prince ought to give to the ruling ofhis people. Docile to the suggestions of his priests, he constantlybecomes the toy of their caprices, the abettor of their quarrels, theinstrument and the accomplice of their follies, to which he attaches thegreatest importance. Among the most fatal gifts which religion hasbestowed upon the world, we must consider above all, these devoted andzealous monarchs, who, with the idea of working for the salvation oftheir subjects, have made it their sacred duty to torment, to persecute, to destroy those whose conscience made them think otherwise than theydo. A religious bigot at the head of an empire, is one of the greatestscourges which Heaven in its fury could have sent upon earth. Onefanatical or deceitful priest who has the ear of a credulous andpowerful prince, suffices to put a State into disorder and the universeinto combustion. 

In almost all countries, priests and devout persons are charged withforming the mind and the heart of the young princes destined to governthe nations. What enlightenment can teachers of this stamp give? Filledthemselves with prejudices, they will hold up to their pupilsuperstition as the most important and the most sacred thing, itschimerical duties as the most holy obligations, intolerance, and thespirit of persecution, as the true foundations of his future authority;they will try to make him a chief of party, a turbulent fanatic, and atyrant; they will suppress at an early period his reason; they willpremonish him against it; they will prevent truth from reaching him;they will prejudice him against true talents, and prepossess him infavor of despicable talents; finally they will make of him an imbeciledevotee, who will have no idea of justice or of injustice, of true gloryor of true greatness, and who will be devoid of the intelligence andvirtue necessary to the government of a great kingdom. Here, in brief, is the plan of education for a child destined to make, one day, thehappiness or the misery of several millions of men. 

CL. --THE SHIELD OF RELIGION IS FOR TYRANNY, A WEAK RAMPART AGAINST THEDESPAIR OF THE PEOPLE. A DESPOT IS A MADMAN, WHO INJURES HIMSELF ANDSLEEPS UPON THE EDGE OF A PRECIPICE. 

Priests in all times have shown themselves supporters of despotism, andthe enemies of public liberty. Their profession requires vile andsubmissive slaves, who never have the audacity to reason. In an absolutegovernment, their great object is to secure control of the mind of aweak and stupid prince, in order to make themselves masters of thepeople. Instead of leading the people to salvation, priests have alwaysled them to servitude. 

For the sake of the supernatural titles which religion has forged forthe most wicked princes, the latter have generally united with thepriests, who, sure of governing by controlling the opinion of thesovereign himself, have charge of tying the hands of the people and ofkeeping them under their yoke. But it is vain that the tyrant, protectedby the shield of religion, flatters himself with being sheltered fromall the blows of fate. Opinion is a weak rampart against the despair ofthe people. Besides, the priest is the friend of the tyrant only so longas he finds his profit by the tyranny; he preaches sedition anddemolishes the idol which he has made, when he considers it no longer inconformity with the interests of Heaven, which he speaks of as hepleases, and which never speaks but in behalf of his interests. No doubtit will be said, that the sovereigns, knowing all the advantages whichreligion procures for them, are truly interested in upholding it withall their strength. If religious opinions are useful to tyrants, it isevident that they are useless to those who govern according to the lawsof reason and of equity. Is there any advantage in exercising tyranny?Does not tyranny deprive princes of true power, the love of the people, in which is safety? Should not every rational prince perceive that thedespot is but an insane man who injures himself? Will not everyenlightened prince beware of his flatterers, whose object is to put himto sleep at the edge of the precipice to which they lead him?

CLI. --RELIGION FAVORS THE ERRORS OF PRINCES, BY DELIVERING THEM FROM FEARAND REMORSE. 

If the sacerdotal flatteries succeed in perverting princes and changingthem into tyrants, the latter on their side necessarily corrupt thegreat men and the people. Under an unjust master, without goodness, without virtue, who knows no law but his caprice, a nation must becomenecessarily depraved. Will this master wish to have honest, enlightened, and virtuous men near him? No! he needs flatterers in those whoapproach him, imitators, slaves, base and servile minds, who givethemselves up to his taste; his court will spread the contagion of viceto the inferior classes. By degrees all will be necessarily corrupted, in a State whose chief is corrupt himself. It was said a long time agothat the princes seem ordained to do all they do themselves. Religion, far from being a restraint upon the sovereigns, entitles them, withoutfear and without remorse, to the errors which are as fatal to themselvesas to the nations which they govern. Men are never deceived withimpunity. Tell a prince that he is a God, and very soon he will believethat he owes nothing to anybody. As long as he is feared, he will notcare much for love; he will recognize no rights, no relations with hissubjects, nor obligations in their behalf. Tell this prince that he isresponsible for his actions to God alone, and very soon he will act asif he was responsible to nobody. 

CLII. --WHAT IS AN ENLIGHTENED SOVEREIGN?

An enlightened sovereign is he who understands his true interests; heknows they are united to those of his nation; he knows that a prince canbe neither great, nor powerful, nor beloved, nor respected, so long ashe will command but miserable slaves; he knows that equity, benevolence, and vigilance will give him more real rights over men than fabuloustitles which claim to come from Heaven. He will feel that religion isuseful but to the priests; that it is useless to society, which is oftentroubled by it; that it must be limited to prevent it from doing injury;finally, he will understand that, in order to reign with glory, he mustmake good laws, possess virtues, and not base his power on impositionsand chimeras. 

CLIII. --THE DOMINANT PASSIONS AND CRIMES OF PRIESTCRAFT. WITH THEASSISTANCE OF ITS PRETENDED GOD AND OF RELIGION, IT ASSERTS ITS PASSIONSAND COMMITS ITS CRIMES. 

The ministers of religion have taken great care to make of their God aterrible, capricious, and changeable tyrant; it was necessary for themthat He should be thus in order that He might lend Himself to theirvarious interests. A God who would be just and good, without a mixtureof caprice and perversity; a God who would constantly have the qualitiesof an honest man or of a compliant sovereign, would not suit Hisministers. It is necessary to the priests that we tremble before theirGod, in order that we have recourse to them to obtain the means to bequieted. No man is a hero to his valet de chambre. It is not surprisingthat a God clothed by His priests in such a way as to cause others tofear Him, should rarely impose upon those priests themselves, or exertbut little influence upon their conduct. Consequently we see them behavethemselves in a uniform way in every land; everywhere they devournations, debase souls, discourage industry, and sow discord under thepretext of the glory of their God. Ambition and avarice were at alltimes the dominating passions of the priesthood; everywhere the priestplaces himself above the sovereign and the laws; everywhere we see himoccupied but with the interests of his pride, his cupidity, his despoticand vindictive mood; everywhere he substitutes expiations, sacrifices, ceremonies, and mysterious practices; in a word, inventions lucrative tohimself for useful and social virtues. The mind is confounded and reasoninterdicted with the view of ridiculous practices and pitiable meanswhich the ministers of the gods invented in every country to purifysouls and render Heaven favorable to nations. Here, they practicecircumcision upon a child to procure it Divine benevolence; there, theypour water upon his head to wash away the crimes which he could not yethave committed; in other places he is told to plunge himself into ariver whose waters have the power to wash away all his impurities; inother places certain food is forbidden to him, whose use would not failto excite celestial indignation; in other countries they order thesinful man to come periodically for the confession of his faults to apriest, who is often a greater sinner than he. 

CLIV. --CHARLATANRY OF THE PRIESTS. 

What would we say of a crowd of quacks, who every day would exhibit in apublic place, selling their remedies and recommending them asinfallible, while we should find them afflicted with the sameinfirmities which they pretend to cure? Would we have much confidence inthe recipes of these charlatans, who would bawl out: "Take our remedies, their effects are infallible--they cure everybody except us?" What wouldwe think to see these same charlatans pass their lives in complainingthat their remedies never produce any effect upon the patients who takethem? Finally, what idea would we form of the foolishness of the commonman who, in spite of this confession, would continue to pay very highfor remedies which will not be beneficial to him? The priests resemblealchemists, who boldly assert that they have the secret of making gold, while they scarcely have clothing enough to cover their nudity. 

The ministers of religion incessantly declaim against the corruption ofthe age, and complain loudly of the little success of their teachings, at the same time they assure us that religion is the universal remedy, the true panacea for all human evils. These priests are sick themselves;however, men continue to frequent their stands and to have faith intheir Divine antidotes, which, according to their own confession, curenobody!

CLV. --COUNTLESS CALAMITIES ARE PRODUCED BY RELIGION, WHICH HAS TAINTEDMORALITY AND DISTURBED ALL JUST IDEAS AND ALL SOUND DOCTRINES. 

Religion, especially among modern people, in taking possession ofmorality, totally obscured its principles; it has rendered men unsocialfrom a sense of duty; it has forced them to be inhuman toward all thosewho did not think as they did. Theological disputes, equallyunintelligible for the parties already irritated against each other, have unsettled empires, caused revolutions, ruined sovereigns, devastated the whole of Europe; these despicable quarrels could not beextinguished even in rivers of blood. After the extinction of Paganismthe people established a religious principle of going into a frenzy, every time that an opinion was brought forth which their priestsconsidered contrary to the holy doctrine. The votaries of a religionwhich preaches externally but charity, harmony, and peace, have shownthemselves more ferocious than cannibals or savages every time thattheir instructors have excited them to the destruction of theirbrethren. There is no crime which men have not committed in the idea ofpleasing the Deity or of appeasing His wrath. The idea of a terrible Godwho was represented as a despot, must necessarily have rendered Hissubjects wicked. Fear makes but slaves, and slaves are cowardly, low, cruel, and think they have a right to do anything when it is thequestion of gaining the good-will or of escaping the punishments of themaster whom they fear. Liberty of thought can alone give to men humanityand grandeur of soul. The notion of a tyrant God can create but abject, angry, quarrelsome, intolerant slaves. Every religion which supposes aGod easily irritated, jealous, vindictive, punctilious about His rightsor His title, a God small enough to be offended at opinions which wehave of Him, a God unjust enough to exact uniform ideas in regard toHim, such a religion becomes necessarily turbulent, unsocial, sanguinary; the worshipers of such a God never believe they can, withoutcrime, dispense with hating and even destroying all those whom theydesignate as adversaries of this God; they would believe themselvestraitors to the cause of their celestial Monarch, if they should live ongood terms with rebellious fellow-citizens. To love what God hates, would it not be exposing one's self to His implacable hatred? Infamouspersecutors, and you, religious cannibals! will you never feel the follyand injustice of your intolerant disposition? Do you not see that man isno more the master of his religious opinions, of his credulity orincredulity, than of the language which he learns in childhood, andwhich he can not change? To tell men to think as you do, is it notasking a foreigner to express his thoughts in your language? To punish aman for his erroneous opinions, is it not punishing him for having beeneducated differently from yourself? If I am incredulous, is it possiblefor me to banish from my mind the reasons which have unsettled my faith?If God allows men the freedom to damn themselves, is it your business?Are you wiser and more prudent than this God whose rights you wish toavenge?

CLVI. --EVERY RELIGION IS INTOLERANT, AND CONSEQUENTLY DESTRUCTIVE OFBENEFICENCE. 

There is no religious person who, according to his temperament, does nothate, despise, or pity the adherents of a sect different from his own. The dominant religion (which is never but that of the sovereign and thearmies) always makes its superiority felt in a very cruel and injuriousmanner toward the weaker sects. There does not exist yet upon earth atrue tolerance; everywhere a jealous God is worshiped, and each nationbelieves itself His friend to the exclusion of all others. 

Every nation boasts itself of worshiping the true God, the universalGod, the Sovereign of Nature; but when we come to examine this Monarchof the world, we perceive that each organization, each sect, eachreligious party, makes of this powerful God but an inferior sovereign, whose cares and kindness extend themselves but over a small number ofHis subjects who pretend to have the exclusive advantage of His favors, and that He does not trouble Himself about the others. 

The founders of religions, and the priests who maintain them, haveintended to separate the nations which they indoctrinated, from othernations; they desired to separate their own flock by distinctivefeatures; they gave to their votaries Gods inimical to other Gods aswell as the forms of worship, dogmas, ceremonies, separately; theypersuaded them especially that the religions of others were ungodly andabominable. By this infamous contrivance, these ambitious impostors tookexclusive possession of the minds of their votaries, rendered themunsocial, and made them consider as outcasts all those who had not thesame ideas and form of worship as their own. This is the way religionsucceeded in closing the heart, and in banishing from it that affectionwhich man ought to have for his fellow-being. Sociability, tolerance, humanity, these first virtues of all morality are totally in compatiblewith religious prejudices. 

CLVII. --ABUSE OF A STATE RELIGION. 

Every national religion has a tendency to make man vain, unsocial, andwicked; the first step toward humanity is to permit each one to followpeacefully the worship and the opinions which suit him. But such aconduct can not please the ministers of religion, who wish to have theright to tyrannize over even the thoughts of men. Blind and bigotedprinces, you hate, you persecute, you devote heretics to torture, because you are persuaded that these unfortunate ones displease God. Butdo you not claim that your God is full of kindness? How can you hope toplease Him by such barbarous actions which He can not help disapprovingof? Besides, who told you that their opinions displease your God? Yourpriests told you! But who guarantees that your priests are not deceivedthemselves or that they do not wish to deceive you? It is these samepriests! Princes! it is upon the perilous word of your priests that youcommit the most atrocious and the most unheard-of crimes, with the ideaof pleasing the Deity!

CLVIII. --RELIGION GIVES LICENSE TO THE FEROCITY OF THE PEOPLE BY

LEGITIMIZING IT, AND AUTHORIZES CRIME BY TEACHING THAT IT CAN BE USEFULTO THE DESIGNS OF GOD. 

"Never, " says Pascal, "do we do evil so thoroughly and so willingly aswhen we do it through a false principle of conscience. " Nothing is moredangerous than a religion which licenses the ferocity of the people, andjustifies in their eyes the blackest crimes; it puts no limits to theirwickedness as soon as they believe it authorized by their God, whoseinterests, as they are told, can justify all their actions. If there isa question of religion, immediately the most civilized nations becometrue savages, and believe everything is permitted to them. The morecruel they are, the more agreeable they suppose themselves to be totheir God, whose cause they imagine can not be sustained by too muchzeal. All religions of the world have authorized countless crimes. TheJews, excited by the promises of their God, arrogated to themselves theright of exterminating whole nations; the Romans, whose faith wasfounded upon the oracles of their Gods, became real brigands, andconquered and ravaged the world; the Arabians, encouraged by theirDivine preceptor, carried the sword and the flame among Christians andidolaters. The Christians, under pretext of spreading their holyreligion, covered the two hemispheres a hundred times with blood. In allevents favorable to their own interests, which they always call thecause of God, the priests show us the finger of God. According to theseprinciples, religious bigots have the luck of seeing the finger of Godin revolts, in revolutions, massacres, regicides, prostitutions, infamies, and, if these things contribute to the advantage of religion, we can say, then, that God uses all sorts of means to secure His ends. Is there anything better calculated to annihilate every idea of moralityin the minds of men, than to make them understand that their God, who isso powerful and so perfect, is often compelled to use crime toaccomplish His designs?

CLIX. --REFUTATION OF THE ARGUMENT, THAT THE EVILS ATTRIBUTED TO RELIGIONARE BUT THE SAD EFFECTS OF THE PASSIONS OF MEN. 

When we complain about the violence and evils which generally religioncauses upon earth, we are answered at once, that these excesses are notdue to religion, but that they are the sad effect of men's passions. Iwould ask, however, what unchained these passions? It is evidentlyreligion; it is a zeal which renders inhuman, and which serves to coverthe greatest infamy. Do not these disorders prove that religion, insteadof restraining the passions of men, does but cover them with a cloakthat sanctifies them; and that nothing would be more beneficial than totear away this sacred cloak of which men make such a bad use? Whathorrors would be banished from society, if the wicked were deprived of apretext so plausible for disturbing it!

Instead of cherishing peace among men, the priests stirred up hatred andstrife. They pleaded their conscience, and pretended to have receivedfrom Heaven the right to be quarrelsome, turbulent, and rebellious. Donot the ministers of God consider themselves to be wronged, do they notpretend that His Divine Majesty is injured every time that thesovereigns have the temerity to try to prevent them from doing injury?The priests resemble that irritable woman, who cried out fire! murder!assassins! while her husband was holding her hands to prevent her frombeating him. 

CLX. --ALL MORALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. 

Notwithstanding the bloody tragedies which religion has so often causedin this world, we are constantly told that there can be no moralitywithout religion. If we judge theological opinions by their effects, wewould be right in assuming that all morality is perfectly incompatiblewith the religious opinions of men. "Imitate God, " is constantlyrepeated to us. Ah! what morals would we have if we should imitate thisGod! Which God should we imitate? Is it the deist's God? But even thisGod can not be a model of goodness for us. If He is the author of all, He is equally the author of the good and of the bad we see in thisworld; if He is the author of order, He is also the author of disorder, which would not exist without His permission; if He produces, Hedestroys; if He gives life, He also causes death; if He grantsabundance, riches, prosperity, and peace, He permits or sends famines, poverty, calamities, and wars. How can you accept as a model ofpermanent beneficence the God of theism or of natural religion, whosefavorable intentions are at every moment contradicted by everything thattranspires in the world? Morality needs a firmer basis than the exampleof a God whose conduct varies, and whom we can not call good but byobstinately closing the eyes to the evil which He causes, or permits tobe done in this world. 

Shall we imitate the good and great Jupiter of ancient Paganism? Toimitate such a God would be to take as a model a rebellious son, whowrests his father's throne from him and then mutilates his body; it isimitating a debauchee and adulterer, an incestuous, intemperate man, whose conduct would cause any reasonable mortal to blush. What wouldhave become of men under the control of Paganism if they had imagined, according to Plato, that virtue consisted in imitating the gods?

Must we imitate the God of the Jews? Will we find a model for ourconduct in Jehovah? He is truly a savage God, really created for anignorant, cruel, and immoral people; He is a God who is constantlyenraged, breathing only vengeance; who is without pity, who commandscarnage and robbery; in a word, He is a God whose conduct can not serveas a model to an honest man, and who can be imitated but by a chief ofbrigands. 

Shall we imitate, then, the Jesus of the Christians? Can this God, whodied to appease the implacable fury of His Father, serve as an examplewhich men ought to follow? Alas! we will see in Him but a God, or rathera fanatic, a misanthrope, who being plunged Himself into misery, andpreaching to the wretched, advises them to be poor, to combat andextinguish nature, to hate pleasure, to seek sufferings, and to despisethemselves; He tells them to leave father, mother, all the ties of life, in order to follow Him. What beautiful morality! you will say. It isadmirable, no doubt; it must be Divine, because it is impracticable formen. But does not this sublime morality tend to render virtuedespicable? According to this boasted morality of the man-God of theChristians, His disciples in this lower world are, like Tantalus, tormented with burning thirst, which they are not permitted to quench. Do not such morals give us a wonderful idea of nature's Author? If Hehas, as we are assured, created everything for the use of His creatures, by what strange caprice does He forbid the use of the good things whichHe has created for them? Is the pleasure which man constantly desiresbut a snare that God has maliciously laid in his path to entrap him?

CLXI. --THE MORALS OF THE GOSPEL ARE IMPRACTICABLE. 

The votaries of Christ would like to make us regard as a miracle theestablishment of their religion, which is in every respect contrary tonature, opposed to all the inclinations of the heart, an enemy tophysical pleasures. But the austerity of a doctrine has a tendency torender it more wonderful to the ignorant. The same reason which makes usrespect, as Divine and supernatural, inconceivable mysteries, causes usto admire, as Divine and supernatural, a morality impracticable andbeyond the power of man. To admire morals and to practice them, are twovery different things. All the Christians continually admire the moralsof the Gospel, but it is practiced but by a small number of saints;admired by people who themselves avoid imitating their conduct, underthe pretext that they are lacking either the power or the grace. 

The whole universe is infected more or less with a religious moralitywhich is founded upon the opinion that to please the Deity it isnecessary to render one's self unhappy upon earth. We see in all partsof our globe penitents, hermits, fakirs, fanatics, who seem to havestudied profoundly the means of tormenting themselves for the glory of aBeing whose goodness they all agree in celebrating. Religion, by itsessence, is the enemy of joy and of the welfare of men. "Blessed arethose who suffer!" Woe to those who have abundance and joy! These arethe rare revelations which Christianity teaches!

CLXII. --A SOCIETY OF SAINTS WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. 

In what consists the saint of all religions? It is a man who prays, fasts, who torments himself, who avoids the world, who, like an owl, ispleased but in solitude, who abstains from all pleasure, who seemsfrightened at every object which turns him a moment from his fanaticalmeditations. Is this virtue? Is a being of this stamp of any use tohimself or to others? Would not society be dissolved, and would not menretrograde into barbarism, if each one should be fool enough to wish tobe a saint?

It is evident that the literal and rigorous practice of the Divinemorality of the Christians would lead nations to ruin. A Christian whowould attain perfection, ought to drive away from his mind all that canalienate him from heaven--his true country. He sees upon earth buttemptations, snares, and opportunities to go astray; he must fearscience as injurious to faith; he must avoid industry, as it is a meansof obtaining riches, which are fatal to salvation; he must renouncepreferments and honors, as things capable of exciting his pride andcalling his attention away from his soul; in a word, the sublimemorality of Christ, if it were not impracticable, would sever all theties of society. 

A saint in the world is no more useful than a saint in the desert; thesaint has an unhappy, discontented, and often irritable, turbulentdisposition; his zeal often obliges him, conscientiously, to disturbsociety by opinions or dreams which his vanity makes him accept asinspirations from Heaven. The annals of all religions are filled withaccounts of anxious, intractable, seditious saints, who havedistinguished themselves by ravages that, for the greater glory of God, they have scattered throughout the universe. If the saints who live insolitude are useless, those who live in the world are very oftendangerous. The vanity of performing a role, the desire of distinguishingthemselves in the eyes of the stupid vulgar by a strange conduct, constitute usually the distinctive characteristics of great saints;pride persuades them that they are extraordinary men, far above humannature; beings who are more perfect than others; chosen ones, which Godlooks upon with more complaisance than the rest of mortals. Humility ina saint is, is a general rule, but a pride more refined than that ofcommon men. It must be a very ridiculous vanity which can determine aman to continually war with his own nature!

CLXIII. --HUMAN NATURE IS NOT DEPRAVED; AND A MORALITY WHICH CONTRADICTSTHIS FACT IS NOT MADE FOR MAN. 

A morality which contradicts the nature of man is not made for him. Butyou will say that man's nature is depraved. In what consists thispretended depravity? Is it because he has passions? But are not passionsthe very essence of man? Must he not seek, desire, love that which is, or that which he believes to be, essential to his happiness? Must he notfear and avoid that which he judges injurious or fatal to him? Excitehis passions by useful objects; let him attach himself to these sameobjects, divert him by sensible and known motives from that which can dohim or others harm, and you will make of him a reasonable and virtuousbeing. A man without passions would be equally indifferent to vice andto virtue. 

Holy doctors! you constantly tell us that man's nature is perverted; youtell us that the way of all flesh is corrupt; you tell us that naturegives us but inordinate inclinations. In this case you accuse your God, who has not been able or willing to keep this nature in its originalperfection. If this nature became corrupted, why did not this God repairit? The Christian assures me that human nature is repaired, that thedeath of his God has reestablished it in its integrity. How comes itthen, that human nature, notwithstanding the death of a God, is stilldepraved? Is it, then, a pure loss that your God died? What becomes ofHis omnipotence and His victory over the Devil, if it is true that theDevil still holds the empire which, according to you, he has alwaysexercised in the world?

Death, according to Christian theology, is the penalty of sin. Thisopinion agrees with that of some savage Negro nations, who imagine thatthe death of a man is always the supernatural effect of the wrath of theGods. The Christians firmly believe that Christ has delivered them fromsin, while they see that, in their religion as in the others, man issubject to death. To say that Jesus Christ has delivered us from sin, isit not claiming that a judge has granted pardon to a guilty man, whilewe see him sent to torture?

CLXIV. --OF JESUS CHRIST, THE PRIEST'S GOD. 

If, closing our eyes upon all that transpires in this world, we shouldrely upon the votaries of the Christian religion, we would believe thatthe coming of our Divine Saviour has produced the most wonderfulrevolution and the most complete reform in the morals of nations. TheMessiah, according to Pascal, [See Thoughts of Pascal] ought of Himselfalone to produce a great, select, and holy people; conducting andnourishing it, and introducing it into the place of repose and sanctity, rendering it holy to God, making it the temple of God, saving it fromthe wrath of God, delivering it from the servitude of sin, giving lawsto this people, engraving these laws upon their hearts, offering Himselfto God for them, crushing the head of the serpent, etc. This great manhas forgotten to show us the people upon whom His Divine Messiah hasproduced the miraculous effects of which He speaks with so muchemphasis; so far, it seems, they do not exist upon the earth!

If we examine ever so little the morals of the Christian nations, andlisten to the clamors of their priests, we will be obliged to concludethat their God, Jesus Christ, preached without fruit, without success;that His Almighty will still finds in men a resistance, over which thisGod either can not or does not wish to triumph. The morality of thisDivine Doctor which His disciples admire so much, and practice solittle, is followed during a whole century but by half a dozen ofobscure saints, fanatical and ignorant monks, who alone will have theglory of shining in the celestial court; all the remainder of mortals, although redeemed by the blood of this God, will be the prey of eternalflames. 

CLXV. --THE DOGMA OF THE REMISSION OF SINS HAS BEEN INVENTED IN THEINTEREST OF THE PRIESTS. 

When a man has a great desire to sin, he thinks very little about hisGod; more than this, whatever crimes he may have committed, he alwaysflatters himself that this God will mitigate the severity of hispunishments. No mortal seriously believes that his conduct can damn him. Although he fears a terrible God, who often makes him tremble, everytime he is strongly tempted he succumbs and sees but a God of mercy, theidea of whom quiets him. Does he do evil? He hopes to have the time tocorrect himself, and promises earnestly to repent some day. 

There are in the religious pharmacy infallible receipts for calming theconscience; the priests in every country possess sovereign secrets fordisarming the wrath of Heaven. However true it may be that the anger ofDeity is appeased by prayers, by offerings, by sacrifices, bypenitential tears, we have no right to say that religion holds in checkthe irregularities of men; they will first sin, and afterward seek themeans to reconcile God. Every religion which expiates, and whichpromises the remission of crimes, if it restrains any, it encourages thegreat number to commit evil. Notwithstanding His immutability, God is, in all the religions of this world, a veritable Proteus. His priestsshow Him now armed with severity, and then full of clemency andgentleness; now cruel and pitiless, and then easily reconciled by therepentance and the tears of the sinners. Consequently, men face theDeity in the manner which conforms the most to their present interests. An always wrathful God would repel His worshipers, or cast them intodespair. Men need a God who becomes angry and who can be appeased; ifHis anger alarms a few timid souls, His clemency reassures thedetermined wicked ones who intend to have recourse sooner or later tothe means of reconciling themselves with Him; if the judgments of Godfrighten a few faint-hearted devotees who already by temperament and byhabitude are not inclined to evil, the treasures of Divine mercyreassure the greatest criminals, who have reason to hope that they willparticipate in them with the others. 

CLXVI. --THE FEAR OF GOD IS POWERLESS AGAINST HUMAN PASSIONS. 

The majority of men rarely think of God, or, at least, do not occupythemselves much with Him. The idea of God has so little stability, it isso afflicting, that it can not hold the imagination for a long time, except in some sad and melancholy visionists who do not constitute themajority of the inhabitants of this world. The common man has noconception of it; his weak brain becomes perplexed the moment heattempts to think of Him. The business man thinks of nothing but hisaffairs; the courtier of his intrigues; worldly men, women, youth, oftheir pleasures; dissipation soon dispels the wearisome notions ofreligion. The ambitious, the avaricious, and the debauchee sedulouslylay aside speculations too feeble to counterbalance their diversepassions. 

Whom does the idea of God overawe? A few weak men disappointed anddisgusted with this world; some persons whose passions are alreadyextinguished by age, by infirmities, or by reverses of fortune. Religionis a restraint but for those whose temperament or circumstances havealready subjected them to reason. The fear of God does not prevent anyfrom committing sin but those who do not wish to sin very much, or whoare no longer in a condition to sin. To tell men that Divinity punishescrime in this world, is to claim as a fact that which experiencecontradicts constantly The most wicked men are usually the arbiters ofthe world, and those whom fortune blesses with its favors. To convinceus of the judgments of God by sending us to the other life, is to makeus accept conjectures in order to destroy facts which we can notdispute. 

CLXVII. --THE INVENTION OF HELL IS TOO ABSURD TO PREVENT EVIL. 

No one dreams about another life when he is very much absorbed inobjects which he meets on earth. In the eyes of a passionate lover, thepresence of his mistress extinguishes the fires of hell, and her charmsblot out all the pleasures of Paradise. Woman! you leave, you say, yourlover for your God? It is that your lover is no longer the same in yourestimation; or your lover leaves you, and you must fill the void whichis made in your heart. Nothing is more common than to see ambitious, perverse, corrupt, and immoral men who are religious, and who sometimesexhibit even zeal in its behalf; if they do not practice religion, theypromise themselves they will practice it some day; they keep it inreserve as a remedy which, sooner or later, will be necessary to quietthe conscience for the evil which they intend yet to do. Besides, devotees and priests being a very numerous, active, and powerful party, it is not astonishing to see impostors and thieves seek for its supportin order to gain their ends. We will be told, no doubt, that many honestpeople are sincerely religious without profit; but is uprightness ofheart always accompanied with intelligence? We are cited to a greatnumber of learned men, men of genius, who are very religious. Thisproves that men of genius can have prejudices, can be pusillanimous, canhave an imagination which seduces them and prevents them from examiningobjects coolly. Pascal proves nothing in favor of religion, except thata man of genius can possess a grain of weakness, and is but a child whenhe is weak enough to listen to prejudices. Pascal himself tells us "thatthe mind can be strong and narrow, and just as extended as it is weak. "He says more: "We can have our senses all right, and not be equally ablein all things; because there are men who, being right in a certainsphere of things, lose themselves in others. "

CLXVIII. --ABSURDITY OF THE MORALITY AND OF THE RELIGIOUS VIRTUESESTABLISHED SOLELY IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRIESTS. 

What is virtue according to theology? It is, we are told, the conformityof men's actions with the will of God. But who is God? He is a beingwhom no one is able to conceive of, and whom, consequently, each onemodifies in his own way. What is the will of God? It is what men whohave seen God, or whom God has inspired, have told us. Who are those whohave seen God? They are either fanatics, or scoundrels, or ambitiousmen, whose word we can not rely upon. To found morality upon a God thateach man represents differently, that each one composes by his own idea, whom everybody arranges according to his own temperament and his owninterest, is evidently founding morality upon the caprice and upon theimagination of men; it is basing it upon the whims of a sect, faction, or party, who, excluding all others, claim to have the advantage ofworshiping the true God. 

To establish morality, or the duties of man, upon the Divine will, isfounding it upon the wishes, the reveries, or the interests of those whomake God talk without fear of contradiction. In every religion thepriests alone have the right to decide upon what pleases or displeasestheir God; we may rest assured that they will decide upon what pleasesor displeases themselves. 

The dogmas, ceremonies, the morality and the virtues which all religionsof the world prescribe, are visibly calculated only to extend the poweror to increase the emoluments of the founders and of the ministers ofthese religions; the dogmas are obscure, inconceivable, frightful, and, thereby, very liable to cause the imagination to wander, and to renderthe common man more docile to those who wish to domineer over him; theceremonies and practices procure fortune or consideration to thepriests; the religious morals and virtues consist in a submissive faith, which prevents reasoning; in a devout humility, which assures to thepriests the submission of their slaves; in an ardent zeal, when thequestion of religion is agitated; that is to say, when the interest ofthese priests is considered, all religious virtues having evidently fortheir object the advantage of the priests. 

CLXIX. --WHAT DOES THAT CHRISTIAN CHARITY AMOUNT TO, SUCH AS THEOLOGIANSTEACH AND PRACTICE?

When we reproach the theologians with the sterility of their religiousvirtues, they praise, with emphasis, charity, that tender love of ourneighbor which Christianity makes an essential duty for its disciples. But, alas! what becomes of this pretended charity as soon as we examinethe actions of the Lord's ministers? Ask if you must love your neighborif he is impious, heretical, and incredulous, that is to say, if he doesnot think as they do? Ask them if you must tolerate opinions contrary tothose which they profess? Ask them if the Lord can show indulgence tothose who are in error? Immediately their charity disappears, and thedominating clergy will tell you that the prince carries the sword but tosustain the interests of the Most High; they will tell you that for loveof the neighbor, you must persecute, imprison, exile, or burn him. Youwill find tolerance among a few priests who are persecuted themselves, but who put aside Christian charity as soon as they have the power topersecute in their turn. 

The Christian religion which was originally preached by beggars and byvery wretched men, strongly recommends alms-giving under the name ofcharity; the faith of Mohammed equally makes it an indispensable duty. Nothing, no doubt, is better suited to humanity than to assist theunfortunate, to clothe the naked, to lend a charitable hand to whoeverneeds it. But would it not be more humane and more charitable to foreseethe misery and to prevent the poor from increasing? If religion, insteadof deifying princes, had but taught them to respect the property oftheir subjects, to be just, and to exercise but their legitimate rights, we should not see such a great number of mendicants in their realms. Agreedy, unjust, tyrannical government multiplies misery; the rigor oftaxes produces discouragement, idleness, indigence, which, on theirpart, produce robbery, murders, and all kinds of crime. If thesovereigns had more humanity, charity, and justice, their States wouldnot be peopled by so many unfortunate ones whose misery becomesimpossible to soothe. 

The Christian and Mohammedan States are filled with vast and richlyendowed hospitals, in which we admire the pious charity of the kings andof the sultans who erected them. Would it not have been more humane togovern the people well, to procure them ease, to excite and to favorindustry and trade, to permit them to enjoy in safety the fruits oftheir labors, than to oppress them under a despotic yoke, to impoverishthem by senseless wars, to reduce them to mendicity in order to gratifyan immoderate luxury, and afterward build sumptuous monuments which cancontain but a very small portion of those whom they have renderedmiserable? Religion, by its virtues, has but given a change to men;instead of foreseeing evils, it applies but insufficient remedies. Theministers of Heaven have always known how to benefit themselves by thecalamities of others; public misery became their element; they madethemselves the administrators of the goods of the poor, the distributorsof alms, the depositaries of charities; thereby they extended andsustained at all times their power over the unfortunates who usuallycompose the most numerous, the most anxious, the most seditious part ofsociety. Thus the greatest evils are made profitable to the ministersof the Lord. 

The Christian priests tell us that the goods which they possess are thegoods of the poor, and pretend by this title that their possessions aresacred; consequently, the sovereigns and the people press themselves toaccumulate lands, revenues, treasures for them; under pretext ofcharity, our spiritual guides have become very opulent, and enjoy, inthe sight of the impoverished nations, goods which were destined but forthe miserable; the latter, far from murmuring about it, applaud adeceitful generosity which enriches the Church, but which very rarelyalleviates the sufferings of the poor. 

According to the principles of Christianity, poverty itself is a virtue, and it is this virtue which the sovereigns and the priests make theirslaves observe the most. According to these ideas, a great number ofpious Christians have renounced with good-will the perishable riches ofthe earth; have distributed their patrimony to the poor, and haveretired into a desert to live a life of voluntary indigence. But verysoon this enthusiasm, this supernatural taste for misery, must surrenderto nature. The successors to these voluntary poor, sold to the religiouspeople their prayers and their powerful intercession with the Deity;they became rich and powerful; thus, monks and hermits lived inidleness, and, under the pretext of charity, devoured insultingly thesubstance of the poor. Poverty of spirit was that of which religion madealways the greatest use. The fundamental virtue of all religion, that isto say, the most useful one to its ministers, is faith. It consists inan unlimited credulity, which causes men to believe, withoutexamination, all that which the interpreters of the Deity wish them tobelieve. With the aid of this wonderful virtue, the priests became thearbiters of justice and of injustice; of good and of evil; they found iteasy to commit crimes when crimes became necessary to their interests. Implicit faith has been the source of the greatest outrages which havebeen committed upon the earth. 

CLXX. --CONFESSION, THAT GOLDEN MINE FOR THE PRIESTS, HAS DESTROYED THETRUE PRINCIPLES OF MORALITY. 

He who first proclaimed to the nations that, when man had wronged man, he must ask God's pardon, appease His wrath by presents, and offer Himsacrifices, obviously subverted the true principles of morality. According to these ideas, men imagine that they can obtain from the Kingof Heaven, as well as from the kings of the earth, permission to beunjust and wicked, or at least pardon for the evil which they mightcommit. 

Morality is founded upon the relations, the needs, and the constantinterests of the inhabitants of the earth; the relations which subsistbetween men and God are either entirely unknown or imaginary. Thereligion associating God with men has visibly weakened or destroyed theties which unite men. 

Mortals imagine that they can, with impunity, injure each other bymaking a suitable reparation to the Almighty Being, who is supposed tohave the right to remit all the injuries done to His creatures. Is thereanything more liable to encourage wickedness and to embolden to crime, than to persuade men that there exists an invisible being who has theright to pardon injustice, rapine, perfidy, and all the outrages theycan inflict upon society? Encouraged by these fatal ideas, we see themost perverse men abandon themselves to the greatest crimes, and expectto repair them by imploring Divine mercy; their conscience rests inpeace when a priest assures them that Heaven is quieted by sincererepentance, which is very useless to the world; this priest consolesthem in the name of Deity, if they consent in reparation of their faultsto divide with His ministers the fruits of their plunderings, of theirfrauds, and of their wickedness. Morality united to religion, becomesnecessarily subordinate to it. In the mind of a religious person, Godmust be preferred to His creatures; "It is better to obey Him than men!"The interests of the Celestial Monarch must be above those of weakmortals. But the interests of Heaven are evidently the interests of theministers of Heaven; from which it follows evidently, that in allreligions, the priests, under pretext of Heaven's interest's, or ofGod's glory, will be able to dispense with the duties of human moralswhen they do not agree with the duties which God is entitled to impose. 

Besides, He who has the power to pardon crimes, has He not the right toorder them committed?

CLXXI. --THE SUPPOSITION OF THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD IS NOT NECESSARY TOMORALITY. 

We are constantly told that without a God, there can be no moralobligation; that it is necessary for men and for the sovereignsthemselves to have a lawgiver sufficiently powerful to compel them to bemoral; moral obligation implies a law; but this law arises from theeternal and necessary relations of things among themselves, which havenothing in common with the existence of a God. The rules which governmen's conduct spring from their own nature, which they are supposed toknow, and not from the Divine nature, of which they have no conception;these rules compel us to render ourselves estimable or contemptible, amiable or hateful, worthy of reward or of punishments, happy orunhappy, according to the extent to which we observe them. The law thatcompels man not to harm himself, is inherent in the nature of a sensiblebeing, who, no matter how he came into this world, or what can be hisfate in another, is compelled by his very nature to seek his welfare andto shun evil, to love pleasure and to fear pain. The law which compels aman not to harm others and to do good, is inherent in the nature ofsensible beings living in society, who, by their nature, are compelledto despise those who do them no good, and to detest those who opposetheir happiness. Whether there exists a God or not, whether this God hasspoken or not, men's moral duties will always be the same so long asthey possess their own nature; that is to say, so long as they aresensible beings. Do men need a God whom they do not know, or aninvisible lawgiver, or a mysterious religion, or chimerical fears inorder to comprehend that all excess tends ultimately to destroy them, and that in order to preserve themselves they must abstain from it; thatin order to be loved by others, they must do good; that doing evil is asure means of incurring their hatred and vengeance? "Before the lawthere was no sin. " Nothing is more false than this maxim. It is enoughfor a man to be what he is, to be a sensible being in order todistinguish that which pleases or displeases him. It is enough that aman knows that another man is a sensible being like himself, in orderfor him to know what is useful or injurious to him. It is enough thatman needs his fellow-creature, in order that he should fear that hemight produce unfavorable impressions upon him. Thus a sentient andthinking being needs but to feel and to think, in order to discover thatwhich is due to him and to others. I feel, and another feels, likemyself; this is the foundation of all morality. 

CLXXII. --RELIGION AND ITS SUPERNATURAL MORALITY ARE FATAL TO THE PEOPLE, AND OPPOSED TO MAN'S NATURE. 

We can judge of the merit of a system of morals but by its conformitywith man's nature. According to this comparison, we have a right toreject it, if we find it detrimental to the welfare of mankind. Whoeverhas seriously meditated upon religion and its supernatural morality, whoever has weighed its advantages and disadvantages, will becomeconvinced that they are both injurious to the interests of the humanrace, or directly opposed to man's nature. 

"People, to arms! Your God's cause is at stake! Heaven is outraged!Faith is in danger! Down upon infidelity, blasphemy, and heresy!"

By the magical power of these valiant words, which the people neverunderstand, the priests in all ages were the leaders in the revolts ofnations, in dethroning kings, in kindling civil wars, and in imprisoningmen. When we chance to examine the important objects which have excitedthe Celestial wrath and produced so many ravages upon the earth, it isfound that the foolish reveries and the strange conjectures of sometheologian who did not understand himself, or, the pretensions of theclergy, have severed all ties of society and inundated the human race inits own blood and tears. 

CLXXIII. --HOW THE UNION OF RELIGION AND POLITICS IS FATAL TO THE PEOPLEAND TO THE KINGS. 

The sovereigns of this world in associating the Deity in the governmentof their realms, in pretending to be His lieutenants and Hisrepresentatives upon earth, in admitting that they hold their power fromHim, must necessarily accept His ministers as rivals or as masters. Isit, then, astonishing that the priests have often made the kings feelthe superiority of the Celestial Monarch? Have they not more than oncemade the temporal princes understand that the greatest physical power iscompelled to surrender to the spiritual power of opinion? Nothing ismore difficult than to serve two masters, especially when they do notagree upon what they demand of their subjects. The anion of religionwith politics has necessarily caused a double legislation in the States. The law of God, interpreted by His priests, is often contrary to the lawof the sovereign or to the interest of the State. When the princes arefirm, and sure of the love of their subjects, God's law is sometimesobliged to comply with the wise intentions of the temporal sovereign;but more often the sovereign authority is obliged to retreat before theDivine authority, that is to say, before the interests of the clergy. Nothing is more dangerous for a prince, than to meddle withecclesiastical affairs (to put his hands into the holy-water pot), thatis to say, to attempt the reform of abuses consecrated by religion. Godis never more angry than when the Divine rights, the privileges, thepossessions, and the immunities of His priests are interfered with. 

Metaphysical speculations or the religious opinions of men, neverinfluence their conduct except when they believe them conformed to theirinterests. Nothing proves this truth more forcibly than the conduct of agreat number of princes in regard to the spiritual power, which we seethem very often resist. Should not a sovereign who is persuaded of theimportance and the rights of religion, conscientiously feel himselfobliged to receive with respect the orders of his priests, and considerthem as commandments of the Deity? There was a time when the kings andthe people, more conformable, and convinced of the rights of thespiritual power, became its slaves, surrendered to it on all occasions, and were but docile instruments in its hands; this happy time is nomore. By a strange inconsistency, we sometimes see the most religiousmonarchs oppose the enterprises of those whom they regard as God'sministers. A sovereign who is filled with religion or respect for hisGod, ought to be constantly prostrate before his priests, and regardthem as his true sovereigns. Is there a power upon the earth which hasthe right to measure itself with that of the Most High?

CLXXIV. --CREEDS ARE BURDENSOME AND RUINOUS TO THE MAJORITY OF NATIONS. 

Have the princes who believe themselves interested in propagating theprejudices of their subjects, reflected well upon the effects which areproduced by privileged demagogues, who have the right to speak when theychoose, and excite in the name of Heaven the passions of many millionsof their subjects? What ravages would not these holy haranguers causeshould they conspire to disturb a State, as they have so often done?

Nothing is more onerous and more ruinous for the greatest part of thenations than the worship of their Gods! Everywhere their ministers notonly rank as the first order in the State, but also enjoy the greaterportion of society's benefits, and have the right to levy continualtaxes upon their fellow-citizens. What real advantages do these organsof the Most High procure for the people in exchange for the immenseprofits which they draw from them? Do they give them in exchange fortheir wealth and their courtesies anything but mysteries, hypotheses, ceremonies, subtle questions, interminable quarrels, which very oftentheir States must pay for with their blood?

CLXXV. --RELIGION PARALYZES MORALITY. 

Religion, which claims to be the firmest support of morality, evidentlydeprives it of its true motor, to substitute imaginary motors, inconceivable chimeras, which, being obviously contrary to common sense, can not be firmly believed by any one. Everybody assures us that hebelieves firmly in a God who rewards and punishes; everybody claims tobe persuaded of the existence of a hell and of a Paradise; however, dowe see that these ideas render men better or counterbalance in the mindsof the greatest number of them the slightest interest? Each one assuresus that he is afraid of God's judgments, although each one gives vent tohis passions when he believes himself sure of escaping the judgments ofmen. The fear of invisible powers is rarely as great as the fear ofvisible powers. Unknown or distant sufferings make less impression uponpeople than the erected gallows, or the example of a hanged man. Thereis scarcely any courtier who fears God's anger more than the displeasureof his master. A pension, a title, a ribbon, are sufficient to make oneforget the torments of hell and the pleasures of the celestial court. Awoman's caresses expose him every day to the displeasure of the MostHigh. A joke, a banter, a bon-mot, make more impression upon the man ofthe world than all the grave notions of his religion. Are we not assuredthat a true repentance is sufficient to appease Divinity? However, we donot see that this true repentance is sincerely expressed; at least, wevery rarely see great thieves, even in the hour of death, restore thegoods which they know they have unjustly acquired. Men persuadethemselves, no doubt, that they will submit to the eternal fire, if theycan not guarantee themselves against it. But as settlements can be madewith Heaven by giving the Church a portion of their fortunes, there arevery few religious thieves who do not die perfectly quieted about themanner in which they gained their riches in this world. 

CLXXVI. --FATAL CONSEQUENCES OF PIETY. 

Even by the confession of the most ardent defenders of religion and ofits usefulness, nothing is more rare than sincere conversions; to whichwe might add, nothing is more useless to society. Men do not becomedisgusted with the world until the world is disgusted with them; a womangives herself to God only when the world no longer wants her. Her vanityfinds in religious devotion a role which occupies her and consoles herfor the ruin of her charms. She passes her time in the most triflingpractices, parties, intrigues, invectives, and slander; zeal furnishesher the means of distinguishing herself and becoming an object ofconsideration in the religious circle. If the bigots have the talent toplease God and His priests, they rarely possess that of pleasing societyor of rendering themselves useful to it. Religion for a devotee is aveil which covers and justifies all his passions, his pride, his badhumor, his anger, his vengeance, his impatience, his bitterness. Religion arrogates to itself a tyrannical superiority which banishesfrom commerce all gentleness, gaiety, and joy; it gives the right tocensure others; to capture and to exterminate the infidels for the gloryof God; it is very common to be religious and to have none of thevirtues or the qualities necessary to social life. 

CLXXVII. --THE SUPPOSITION OF ANOTHER LIFE IS NEITHER CONSOLING TO MAN NORNECESSARY TO MORALITY. 

We are assured that the dogma of another life is of the greatestimportance to the peace of society; it is imagined that without it menwould have no motives for doing good. Why do we need terrors and fablesto teach any reasonable man how he ought to conduct himself upon earth?Does not each one of us see that he has the greatest interest indeserving the approbation, esteem, and kindness of the beings whichsurround him, and in avoiding all that can cause the censure, thecontempt, and the resentment of society? No matter how short theduration of a festival, of a conversation, or of a visit may be, doesnot each one of us wish to act a befitting part in it, agreeable tohimself and to others? If life is but a passage, let us try to make iteasy; it can not be so if we lack the regards of those who travel withus. 

Religion, which is so sadly occupied with its gloomy reveries, represents man to us as but a pilgrim upon earth; it concludes that inorder to travel with more safety, he should travel alone; renounce thepleasures which he meets and deprive himself of the amusements whichcould console him for the fatigues and the weariness of the road. Astoical and morose philosophy sometimes gives us counsels as senselessas religion; but a more rational philosophy inspires us to strew flowerson life's pathway; to dispel melancholy and panic terrors; to link ourinterests with those of our traveling companions; to divert ourselves bygaiety and honest pleasures from the pains and the crosses to which weare so often exposed. We are made to feel, that in order to travelpleasantly, we should abstain from that which could become injurious toourselves, and to avoid with great care that which could make us odiousto our associates. 

CLXXVIII. --AN ATHEIST HAS MORE MOTIVES FOR ACTING UPRIGHTLY, MORE

CONSCIENCE, THAN A RELIGIOUS PERSON. 

It is asked what motives has an atheist for doing right. He can have themotive of pleasing himself and his fellow-creatures; of living happilyand tranquilly; of making himself loved and respected by men, whoseexistence and whose dispositions are better known than those of a beingimpossible to understand. Can he who fears not the Gods, fear anything?He can fear men, their contempt, their disrespect, and the punishmentswhich the laws inflict; finally, he can fear himself; he can be afraidof the remorse that all those experience whose conscience reproachesthem for having deserved the hatred of their fellow-beings. Conscienceis the inward testimony which we render to ourselves for having acted insuch a manner as to deserve the esteem or the censure of those with whomwe associate. This conscience is based upon the knowledge which we haveof men, and of the sentiments which our actions must awaken in them. Areligious person's conscience persuades him that he has pleased ordispleased his God, of whom he has no idea, and whose obscure anddoubtful intentions are explained to him only by suspicious men, whoknow no more of the essence of Divinity than he does, and who do notagree upon what can please or displease God. In a word, the conscienceof a credulous man is guided by men whose own conscience is in error, orwhose interest extinguishes intelligence. 

Can an atheist have conscience? What are his motives for abstaining fromsecret vices and crimes of which other men are ignorant, and which arebeyond the reach of laws? He can be assured by constant experience thatthere is no vice which, in the nature of things, does not bring its ownpunishment. If he wishes to preserve himself, he will avoid all thoseexcesses which can be injurious to his health; he would not desire tolive and linger, thus becoming a burden to himself and others. In regardto secret crimes, he would avoid them through fear of being ashamed ofhimself, from whom he can not hide. If he has reason, he will know theprice of the esteem that an honest man should have for himself. He willknow, besides, that unexpected circumstances can unveil to the eyes ofothers the conduct which he feels interested in concealing. The otherworld gives no motive for doing well to him who finds no motive for ithere. 

CLXXIX. --AN ATHEISTICAL KING WOULD BE PREFERABLE TO ONE WHO IS RELIGIOUSAND WICKED, AS WE OFTEN SEE THEM. 

The speculating atheist, the theist will tell us, may be an honest man, but his writings will cause atheism in politics. Princes and ministers, being no longer restrained by the fear of God, will give themselves upwithout scruple to the most frightful excesses. But no matter what wecan suppose of the depravity of an atheist on a throne, can it ever beany greater or more injurious than that of so many conquerors, tyrants, persecutors, of ambitious and perverse courtiers, who, without beingatheists, but who, being very often religious, do not cease to makehumanity groan under the weight of their crimes? Can an atheistical kinginflict more evil on the world than a Louis XI. , a Philip II. , aRichelieu, who have all allied religion with crime? Nothing is rarerthan atheistical princes, and nothing more common than very bad and veryreligious tyrants. 

CLXXX. --THE MORALITY ACQUIRED BY PHILOSOPHY IS SUFFICIENT TO VIRTUE. 

Any man who reflects can not fail of knowing his duties, of discoveringthe relations which subsist between men, of meditating upon his ownnature, of discerning his needs, his inclinations, and his desires, andof perceiving what he owes to the beings necessary to his own happiness. These reflections naturally lead to the knowledge of the morality whichis the most essential for society. Every man who loves to retire withinhimself in order to study and seek for the principles of things, has novery dangerous passions; his greatest passion will be to know the truth, and his greatest ambition to show it to others. Philosophy is beneficialin cultivating the heart and the mind. In regard to morals, has not hewho reflects and reasons the advantage over him who does not reason?

If ignorance is useful to priests and to the oppressors of humanity, itis very fatal to society. Man, deprived of intelligence, does not enjoythe use of his reason; man, deprived of reason and intelligence, is asavage, who is liable at any moment to be led into crime. Morality, orthe science of moral duties, is acquired but by the study of man and hisrelations. He who does not reflect for himself does not know truemorals, and can not walk the road of virtue. The less men reason, themore wicked they are. The barbarians, the princes, the great, and thedregs of society, are generally the most wicked because they are thosewho reason the least. The religious man never reflects, and avoidsreasoning; he fears examination; he follows authority; and very often anerroneous conscience makes him consider it a holy duty to commit evil. The incredulous man reasons, consults experience, and prefers it toprejudice. If he has reasoned justly, his conscience becomes clear; hefinds more real motives for right-doing than the religious man, who hasno motives but his chimeras, and who never listens to reason. Are notthe motives of the incredulous man strong enough to counterbalance hispassions? Is he blind enough not to recognize the interests which shouldrestrain him? Well! he will be vicious and wicked; but even then he willbe no worse and no better than many credulous men who, notwithstandingreligion and its sublime precepts, continue to lead a life which thisvery religion condemns. Is a credulous murderer less to be feared than amurderer who does not believe anything? Is a religious tyrant any less atyrant than an irreligious one?

CLXXXI. --OPINIONS RARELY INFLUENCE CONDUCT. 

There is nothing more rare in the world than consistent men. Theiropinions do not influence their conduct, except when they conform totheir temperament, their passions, and to their interests. Religiousopinions, according to daily experience, produce much more evil thangood; they are injurious, because they very often agree with thepassions of tyrants, fanatics, and priests; they produce no effect, because they have not the power to balance the present interests of themajority of men. Religious principles are always put aside when they areopposed to ardent desires; without being incredulous, they act as ifthey believed nothing. We risk being deceived when we judge the opinionsof men by their conduct or their conduct by their opinions. A veryreligious man, notwithstanding the austere and cruel principles of abloody religion, will sometimes be, by a fortunate inconsistency, humane, tolerant, moderate; in this case the principles of his religiondo not agree with the mildness of his disposition. A libertine, adebauchee, a hypocrite, an adulterer, or a thief will often show us thathe has the clearest ideas of morals. Why do they not practice them? Itis because neither their temperament, their interests, nor their habitsagree with their sublime theories. The rigid principles of Christianmorality, which so many attempt to pass off as Divine, have but verylittle influence upon the conduct of those who preach them to others. Dothey not tell us every day to do what they preach, and not what theypractice?

The religious partisans generally designate the incredulous aslibertines. It may be that many incredulous people are immoral; thisimmorality is due to their temperament, and not to their opinions. Butwhat has their conduct to do with these opinions? Can not an immoral manbe a good physician, a good architect, a good geometer, a good logician, a good metaphysician? With an irreproachable conduct, one can beignorant upon many things, and reason very badly. When truth ispresented, it matters not from whom it comes. Let us not judge men bytheir opinions, or opinions by men; let us judge men by their conduct;and their opinions by their conformity with experience, reason, andtheir usefulness for mankind. 

CLXXXII. ---REASON LEADS MEN TO IRRELIGION AND TO ATHEISM, BECAUSERELIGION IS ABSURD, AND THE GOD OF THE PRIESTS IS A MALICIOUS ANDFEROCIOUS BEING. 

Every man who reasons soon becomes incredulous, because reasoning provesto him that theology is but a tissue of falsehoods; that religion iscontrary to all principles of common sense; that it gives a false colorto all human knowledge. The rational man becomes incredulous, because hesees that religion, far from rendering men happier, is the first causeof the greatest disorders, and of the permanent calamities with whichthe human race is afflicted. The man who seeks his well-being and hisown tranquillity, examines his religion and is undeceived, because hefinds it inconvenient and useless to pass his life in trembling atphantoms which are made but to intimidate silly women or children. If, sometimes, libertinage, which reasons but little, leads to irreligion, the man who is regular in his morals can have very legitimate motivesfor examining his religion, and for banishing it from his mind. Too weakto intimidate the wicked, in whom vice has become deeply rooted, religious terrors afflict, torment, and burden imaginative minds. Ifsouls have courage and elasticity, they shake off a yoke which they bearunwillingly. If weak or timorous, they wear the yoke during their wholelife, and they grow old, trembling, or at least they live underburdensome uncertainty. 

The priests have made of God such a malicious, ferocious being, so readyto be vexed, that there are few men in the world who do not wish at thebottom of their hearts that this God did not exist. We can not livehappy if we are always in fear. You worship a terrible God, O religiouspeople! Alas! And yet you hate Him; you wish that He was not. Can weavoid wishing the absence or the destruction of a master, the idea ofwhom can but torment the mind? It is the dark colors in which thepriests paint the Deity which revolt men, moving them to hate andreject Him. 

CLXXXIII. --FEAR ALONE CREATES THEISTS AND BIGOTS. 

If fear has created the Gods, fear still holds their empire in the mindof mortals; they have been so early accustomed to tremble even at thename of the Deity, that it has become for them a specter, a goblin, awere-wolf which torments them, and whose idea deprives them even of thecourage to attempt to reassure themselves. They are afraid that thisinvisible specter will strike them if they cease to be afraid. Thereligious people fear their God too much to love Him sincerely; theyserve Him as slaves, who can not escape His power, and take the part offlattering their Master; and who, by continually lying, persuadethemselves that they love Him. They make a virtue of necessity. The loveof religious bigots for their God, and of slaves for their despots, isbut a servile and simulated homage which they render by compulsion, inwhich the heart has no part. 

CLXXXIV. --CAN WE, OR SHOULD WE, LOVE OR NOT LOVE GOD?

The Christian Doctors have made their God so little worthy of love, thatseveral among them have thought it their duty not to love Him; this is ablasphemy which makes less sincere doctors tremble. Saint Thomas, havingasserted that we are under obligation to love God as soon as we can useour reason, the Jesuit Sirmond replied to him that that was very soon;the Jesuit Vasquez claims that it is sufficient to love God in the hourof death; Hurtado says that we should love God at all times; Henriquezis content with loving Him every five years; Sotus, every Sunday. "Uponwhat shall we rely?" asks Father Sirmond, who adds: "that Suarez desiresthat we should love God sometimes. But at what time? He allows you tojudge of it; he knows nothing about it himself; for he adds: 'What alearned doctor does not know, who can know?'" The same Jesuit Sirmondcontinues, by saying: "that God does not command us to love Him withhuman affection, and does not promise us salvation but on condition ofgiving Him our hearts; it is enough to obey Him and to love Him, byfulfilling His commandments; that this is the only love which we oweHim, and He has not commanded so much to love Him as not to hate Him. "[See "Apology, Des Lettres Provinciales, " Tome II. ] This doctrineappears heretical, ungodly, and abominable to the Jansenists, who, bythe revolting severity which they attribute to their God, render Himstill less lovable than their adversaries, the Jesuits. The latter, inorder to make converts, represent God in such a light as to giveconfidence to the most perverse mortals. Thus, nothing is lessestablished among the Christians than the important question, whether wecan or should love or not love God. Among their spiritual guides somepretend that we must love God with all the heart, notwithstanding allHis severity; others, like the Father Daniel, think that an act of purelove of God is the most heroic act of Christian virtue, and that humanweakness can scarcely reach so high. The Jesuit Pintereau goes stillfurther; he says: "The deliverance from the grievous yoke of Divine loveis a privilege of the new alliance. "

CLXXXV. --THE VARIOUS AND CONTRADICTORY IDEAS WHICH EXIST EVERYWHERE UPONGOD AND RELIGION, PROVE THAT THEY ARE BUT IDLE FANCIES. 

It is always the character of man which decides upon the character ofhis God; each one creates a God for himself, and in his own image. Thecheerful man who indulges in pleasures and dissipation, can not imagineGod to be an austere and rebukeful being; he requires a facile God withwhom he can make an agreement. The severe, sour, bilious man wants a Godlike himself; one who inspires fear; and regards as perverse those thataccept only a God who is yielding and easily won over. Heresies, quarrels, and schisms are necessary. Can men differently organized andmodified by diverse circumstances, agree in regard to an imaginary beingwhich exists but in their own brains? The cruel and interminabledisputes continually arising among the ministers of the Lord, have not atendency to attract the confidence of those who take an impartial viewof them. How can we help our incredulity, when we see principles aboutwhich those who teach them to others, never agree? How can we avoiddoubting the existence of a God, the idea of whom varies in such aremarkable way in the mind of His ministers? How can we avoid rejectingtotally a God who is full of contradictions? How can we rely uponpriests whom we see continually contending, accusing each other of beinginfidels and heretics, rending and persecuting each other without mercy, about the way in which they understand the pretended truths which theyreveal to the world?

CLXXXVI. --THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF ALL RELIGION, HASNOT YET BEEN DEMONSTRATED. 

However, so far, this important truth has not yet been demonstrated, notonly to the incredulous, but in a satisfactory way to theologiansthemselves. In all times, we have seen profound thinkers who thoughtthey had new proofs of the truth most important to men. What have beenthe fruits of their meditations and of their arguments? They left thething at the same point; they have demonstrated nothing; nearly alwaysthey have excited the clamors of their colleagues, who accuse them ofhaving badly defended the best of causes. 

CLXXXVII. --PRIESTS, MORE THAN UNBELIEVERS, ACT FROM INTEREST. 

The apologists of religion repeat to us every day that the passionsalone create unbelievers. "It is, " they say, "pride, and a desire todistinguish themselves, that make atheists; they seek also to efface theidea of God from their minds, because they have reason to fear Hisrigorous judgments. " Whatever may be the motives which cause men to beirreligious, the thing in question is whether they have found truth. Noman acts without motives; let us first examine the arguments--we shallexamine the motives afterward--and we shall find that they are morelegitimate, and more sensible, than those of many credulous devotees whoallow themselves to be guided by masters little worthy of men'sconfidence. 

You say, O priests of the Lord! that the passions cause unbelievers; youpretend that they renounce religion through interest, or because itinterferes with their irregular inclinations; you assert that theyattack your Gods because they fear their punishments. Ah! yourselves indefending this religion and its chimeras, are you, then, really exemptfrom passions and interests? Who receive the fees of this religion, onwhose behalf the priests are so zealous? It is the priests. To whom doesreligion procure power, credit, honors, wealth? To the priests! In allcountries, who make war upon reason, science, truth, and philosophy andrender them odious to the sovereigns and to the people? Who profit bythe ignorance of men and their vain prejudices? The priests! You are, Opriests, rewarded, honored, and paid for deceiving mortals, and youpunish those who undeceive them. The follies of men procure youblessings, offerings, expiations; the most useful truths bring to thosewho announce them, chains, sufferings, stakes. Let the world judgebetween us. 

CLXXXVIII. --PRIDE, PRESUMPTION, AND CORRUPTION OF THE HEART ARE MOREOFTEN FOUND AMONG PRIESTS THAN AMONG ATHEISTS AND UNBELIEVERS. 

Pride and vanity always were and always will be the inherent vices ofthe priesthood. Is there anything that has a tendency to render menhaughty and vain more than the assumption of exercising Heavenly power, of possessing a sacred character, of being the messengers of the MostHigh? Are not these dispositions continually increased by the credulityof the people, by the deference and the respect of the sovereigns, bythe immunities, the privileges, and the distinctions which the clergyenjoy? The common man is, in every country, more devoted to hisspiritual guides, whom he considers as Divine men, than to his temporalsuperiors, whom he considers as ordinary men. Village priests enjoy morehonor than the lord or the judge. A Christian priest believes himselffar above a king or an emperor. A Spanish grandee having spoken hastilyto a monk, the latter said to him, arrogantly, "Learn to respect a manwho has every day your God in his hands and your queen at his feet. "

Have the priests any right to accuse the unbelievers of pride? Do theydistinguish themselves by a rare modesty or profound humility? Is it notevident that the desire to domineer over men is the essence of theirprofession? If the Lord's ministers were truly modest, would we see themso greedy of respect, so easily irritated by contradictions, so promptand so cruel in revenging themselves upon those whose opinions offendthem? Does not modest science impress us with the difficulty ofunraveling truth? What other passion than frenzied pride can render menso ferocious, so vindictive, so devoid of toleration and gentleness?What is more presumptuous than to arm nations and cause rivers of blood, in order to establish or to defend futile conjectures?

You say, O Doctors of Divinity! that it is presumption alone which makesatheists. Teach them, then, what your God is; instruct them about Hisessence; speak of Him in an intelligible way; tell of Him reasonablethings, which are not contradictory or impossible! If you are not in thecondition to satisfy them; if, so far, none of you have been able todemonstrate the existence of a God in a clear and convincing way; if, according to your own confession, His essence is as much hidden from youas from the rest of mortals, pardon those who can not admit that whichthey can neither understand nor reconcile. Do not accuse of presumptionand vanity those who have the sincerity to confess their ignorance;accuse not of folly those who find it impossible to believe incontradictions. You should blush at the thought of exciting the hatredof the people and the vengeance of the sovereigns against men who do notthink as you do upon a Being of whom you have no idea yourselves. Isthere anything more audacious and more extravagant than to reason aboutan object which it is impossible to conceive of?

You tell us it is corruption of the heart which produces atheists; thatthey shake off the yoke of the Deity because they fear His terriblejudgments. But why do you paint your God in such black colors? Why doesthis powerful God permit that such corrupt hearts should exist? Whyshould we not make efforts to break the yoke of a Tyrant who, being ableto make of the hearts of men what He pleases, allows them to becomeperverted and hardened; blinds them; refuses them His grace, in order tohave the satisfaction of punishing them eternally for having beenhardened, blinded, and not having received the grace which He refusedthem? The theologians and the priests must feel themselves very sure ofHeaven's grace and of a happy future, in order not to detest a Master socapricious as the God whom they announce to us. A God who damnseternally must be the most odious Being that the human mind couldimagine. 

CLXXXIX. --PREJUDICES ARE BUT FOR A TIME, AND NO POWER IS DURABLE EXCEPTIT IS BASED UPON TRUTH, REASON, AND EQUITY. 

No man on earth is truly interested in sustaining error; sooner or laterit is compelled to surrender to truth. General interest tends to theenlightenment of mortals; even the passions sometimes contribute to thebreaking of some of the chains of prejudice. Have not the passions ofsome sovereigns destroyed, within the past two centuries in somecountries of Europe, the tyrannical power which a haughty Pontiffformerly exercised over all the princes of his sect? Politics, becomingmore enlightened, has despoiled the clergy of an immense amount ofproperty which credulity had accumulated in their hands. Should not thismemorable example make even the priests realize that prejudices are butfor a time, and that truth alone is capable of assuring a substantialwell-being?

Have not the ministers of the Lord seen that in pampering thesovereigns, in forging Divine rights for them, and in delivering to themthe people, bound hand and foot, they were making tyrants of them? Havethey not reason to fear that these gigantic idols, whom they have raisedto the skies, will crush them also some day? Do not a thousand examplesprove that they ought to fear that these unchained lions, after havingdevoured nations, will in turn devour them?

We will respect the priests when they become citizens. Let them makeuse, if they can, of Heaven's authority to create fear in those princeswho incessantly desolate the earth; let them deprive them of the rightof being unjust; let them recognize that no subject of a State enjoysliving under tyranny; let them make the sovereigns feel that theythemselves are not interested in exercising a power which, renderingthem odious, injures their own safety, their own power, their owngrandeur; finally, let the priests and the undeceived kings recognizethat no power is safe that is not based upon truth, reason, and equity. 

CXC. --HOW MUCH POWER AND CONSIDERATION THE MINISTERS OF THE GODS WOULDHAVE, IF THEY BECAME THE APOSTLES OF REASON AND THE DEFENDERS OFLIBERTY!

The ministers of the Gods, in warring against human reason, which theyought to develop, act against their own interest. What would be theirpower, their consideration, their empire over the wisest men; what wouldbe the gratitude of the people toward them if, instead of occupyingthemselves with their vain quarrels, they had applied themselves to theuseful sciences; if they had sought the true principles of physics, ofgovernment, and of morals. Who would dare reproach the opulence andcredit of a corporation which, consecrating its leisure and itsauthority to the public good, should use the one for studying andmeditating, and the other for enlightening equally the minds of thesovereigns and the subjects?

Priests! lay aside your idle fancies, your unintelligible dogmas, yourdespicable quarrels; banish to imaginary regions these phantoms, whichcould be of use to you only in the infancy of nations; take the tone ofreason, instead of sounding the tocsin of persecution against youradversaries; instead of entertaining the people with foolish disputes, of preaching useless and fanatical virtues, preach to them humane andsocial morality; preach to them virtues which are really useful to theworld; become the apostles of reason, the lights of the nations, thedefenders of liberty, reformers of abuses, the friends of truth, and wewill bless you, we will honor you, we will love you, and you will besure of holding an eternal empire over the hearts of your fellow-beings. 

CXCI. --WHAT A HAPPY AND GREAT REVOLUTION WOULD TAKE PLACE IN THEUNIVERSE, IF PHILOSOPHY WAS SUBSTITUTED FOR RELIGION!

Philosophers, in all ages, have taken the part that seemed destined forthe ministers of religion. The hatred of the latter for philosophy wasnever more than professional jealousy. All men accustomed to think, instead of seeking to injure each other, should unite their efforts incombating errors, in seeking truth, and especially in dispelling theprejudices from which the sovereigns and subjects suffer alike, andwhose upholders themselves finish, sooner or later, by becoming thevictims. 

In the hands of an enlightened government the priests would become themost useful of citizens. Could men with rich stipends from the State, and relieved of the care of providing for their own subsistence, doanything better than to instruct themselves in order to be able toinstruct others? Would not their minds be better satisfied indiscovering truth than in wandering in the labyrinths of darkness? Wouldit be any more difficult to unravel the principles of man's morals, thanthe imaginary principles of Divine and theological morals? Wouldordinary men have as much trouble in understanding the simple notions oftheir duties, as in charging their memories with mysteries, unintelligible words, and obscure definitions which are impossible forthem to understand? How much time and trouble is lost in trying to teachmen things which are of no use to them. What resources for the publicbenefit, for encouraging the progress of the sciences and theadvancement of knowledge, for the education of youth, are presented towell-meaning sovereigns through so many monasteries, which, in a greatnumber of countries devour the people's substance without an equivalent. But superstition, jealous of its exclusive empire, seems to have formedbut useless beings. What advantage could not be drawn from a multitudeof cenobites of both sexes whom we see in so many countries, and who areso well paid to do nothing. Instead of occupying them with sterilecontemplations, with mechanical prayers, with monotonous practices;instead of burdening them with fasts and austerities, let there beexcited among them a salutary emulation that would inspire them to seekthe means of serving usefully the world, which their fatal vows obligethem to renounce. Instead of filling the youthful minds of their pupilswith fables, dogmas, and puerilities, why not invite or oblige thepriests to teach them true things, and so make of them citizens usefulto their country? The way in which men are brought up makes them usefulbut to the clergy, who blind them, and to the tyrants, who plunder them. 

CXCII. --THE RETRACTION OF AN UNBELIEVER AT THE HOUR OF DEATH, PROVESNOTHING AGAINST INCREDULITY. 

The adherents of credulity often accuse the unbelievers of bad faithbecause they sometimes waver in their principles, changing opinionsduring sickness, and retracting them at the hour of death. When the bodyis diseased, the faculty of reasoning is generally disturbed also. Theinfirm and decrepit man, in approaching his end, sometimes perceiveshimself that reason is leaving him, he feels that prejudice returns. There are diseases which have a tendency to lessen courage, to makepusillanimous, and to enfeeble the brain; there are others which, indestroying the body, do not affect the reason. However, an unbelieverwho retracts in sickness, is not more rare or more extraordinary than adevotionist who permits himself, while in health, to neglect the dutiesthat his religion prescribes for him in the most formal manner. 

Cleomenes, King of Sparta, having shown little respect for the Godsduring his reign, became superstitious in his last days; with the viewof interesting Heaven in his favor, he called around him a multitude ofsacrificing priests. One of his friends expressing his surprise, Cleomenes said: "What are you astonished at? I am no longer what I was, and not being the same, I can not think in the same way. "

The ministers of religion in their daily conduct, often belie therigorous principles which they teach to others, so that the unbelieversin their turn think they have a right to accuse them of bad faith. Ifsome unbelievers contradict, in sight of death or during sickness, theopinions which they entertained in health, do not the priests in healthbelie opinions of the religion which they hold? Do we see a greatmultitude of humble, generous prelates devoid of ambition, enemies ofpomp and grandeur, the friends of poverty? In short, do we see theconduct of many Christian priests corresponding with the austeremorality of Christ, their God and their model?

CXCIII. --IT IS NOT TRUE THAT ATHEISM SUNDERS ALL THE TIES OF SOCIETY. 

Atheism, we are told, breaks all social ties. Without belief in God, what becomes of the sacredness of the oath? How can we bind an atheistwho can not seriously attest the Deity? But does the oath place us understronger obligations to the engagements which we make? Whoever dares tolie, will he not dare to perjure himself? He who is base enough toviolate his word, or unjust enough to break his promises in contempt ofthe esteem of men, will not be more faithful for having taken all theGods as witnesses to his oaths. Those who rank themselves above thejudgments of men, will soon put themselves above the judgments of God. Are not princes, of all mortals, the most prompt in taking oaths, andthe most prompt in violating them?

CXCIV. --REFUTATION OF THE ASSERTION THAT RELIGION IS NECESSARY FOR THEMASSES. 

Religion, they tell us, is necessary for the masses; that thoughenlightened persons may not need restraint upon their opinions, it isnecessary at least for the common people, in whom education has notdeveloped reason. Is it true, then, that religion is a restraint for thepeople? Do we see that this religion prevents them from intemperance, drunkenness, brutality, violence, frauds, and all kinds of excesses?

Could a people who had no idea of the Deity, conduct itself in a moredetestable manner than many believing people in whom we see dissolutehabits, and the vices most unworthy of rational beings? Do we not seethe artisan or the man of the people go from his church and plungeheadlong into his usual excesses, persuading himself all the while thathis periodical homage to God gives him the right to follow withoutremorse his vicious practices and habitual inclinations? If the peopleare gross and ignorant, is not their stupidity due to the negligence ofthe princes who do not attend to the public education, or who oppose theinstruction of their subjects? Finally, is not the irrationality of thepeople plainly the work of the priests, who, instead of interesting themin a rational morality, do nothing but entertain them with fables, phantoms, intrigues, observances, idle fancies, and false virtues, uponwhich they claim that everything depends?

Religion is, for the people, but a vain attendance upon ceremonies, towhich they cling from habit, which amuses their eyes, which enlivenstemporarily their sleepy minds, without influencing the conduct, andwithout correcting their morals. By the confession even of the ministersat the altars, nothing is more rare than the interior and spiritualreligion, which is alone capable of regulating the life of man, and oftriumphing over his inclinations. In good faith, among the most numerousand the most devotional people, are there many capable of understandingthe principles of their religious system, and who find them ofsufficient strength to stifle their perverse inclinations?

Many people will tell us that it is better to have some kind of arestraint than none at all. They will pretend that if religion does notcontrol the great mass, it serves at least to restrain some individuals, who, without it, would abandon themselves to crime without remorse. Nodoubt it is necessary for men to have a restraint; but they do not needan imaginary one; they need true and visible restraints; they need realfears, which are much better to restrain them than panic terrors andidle fancies. Religion frightens but a few pusillanimous minds, whoseweakness of character already renders them little to be dreaded by theirfellow-citizens. An equitable government, severe laws, a sound morality, will apply equally to everybody; every one would be forced to believe init, and would feel the danger of not conforming to it. 

CXCV. --EVERY RATIONAL SYSTEM IS NOT MADE FOR THE MULTITUDE. 

We may be asked if atheism can suit the multitude? I reply, that everysystem which demands discussion is not for the multitude. What use isthere, then, in preaching atheism? It can at least make those whoreason, feel that nothing is more extravagant than to make ourselvesuneasy, and nothing more unjust than to cause anxiety to others onaccount of conjectures, destitute of all foundation. As to the commonman, who never reasons, the arguments of an atheist are no better suitedto him than a philosopher's hypothesis, an astronomer's observations, achemist's experiments, a geometer's calculations, a physician'sexaminations, an architect's designs, or a lawyer's pleadings, who alllabor for the people without their knowledge. 

The metaphysical arguments of theology, and the religious disputes whichhave occupied for so long many profound visionists, are they made anymore for the common man than the arguments of an atheist? More thanthis, the principles of atheism, founded upon common sense, are they notmore intelligible than those of a theology which we see bristling withinsolvable difficulties, even for the most active minds? The people inevery country have a religion which they do not understand, which theydo not examine, and which they follow but by routine; their priestsalone occupy themselves with the theology which is too sublime for them. If, by accident, the people should lose this unknown theology, theycould console them selves for the loss of a thing which is not onlyentirely useless, but which produces among them very dangerousebullitions. 

It would be very foolish to write for the common man or to attempt tocure his prejudices all at once. We write but for those who read andreason; the people read but little, and reason less. Sensible andpeaceable people enlighten themselves; their light spreads itselfgradually, and in time reaches the people. On the other hand, those whodeceive men, do they not often take the trouble themselves ofundeceiving them?

CXCVI. --FUTILITY AND DANGER OF THEOLOGY. WISE COUNSELS TO PRINCES. 

If theology is a branch of commerce useful to theologians, it has beendemonstrated to be superfluous and injurious to the rest of society. Theinterests of men will succeed in opening their eyes sooner or later. Thesovereigns and the people will some day discover the indifference andthe contempt that a futile science deserves which serves but to troublemen without making them better. They will feel the uselessness of manyexpensive practices, which do not at all contribute to public welfare;they will blush at many pitiful quarrels, which will cease to disturbthe tranquillity of the States as soon as they cease to attach anyimportance to them. 

Princes! instead of taking part in the senseless contentions of yourpriests, instead of espousing foolishly their impertinent quarrels, instead of striving to bring all your subjects to uniform opinions, occupy yourselves with their happiness in this world, and do not troubleyourselves about the fate which awaits them in another. Govern themjustly, give them good laws, respect their liberty and their property, superintend their education, encourage them in their labors, rewardtheir talents and their virtues, repress their licentiousness, and donot trouble yourselves upon what they think about objects useless tothem and to you. Then you will no longer need fictions to makeyourselves obeyed; you will become the only guides of your subjects;their ideas will be uniform about the feelings of love and respect whichwill be your due. Theological fables are useful but to tyrants, who donot understand the art of ruling over reasonable beings. 

CXCVII. --FATAL EFFECTS OF RELIGION UPON THE PEOPLE AND THE PRINCES. 

Does it require the efforts of genius to comprehend that what is beyondman, is not made for men; that what is supernatural, is not made fornatural beings; that impenetrable mysteries are not made for limitedminds? If theologians are foolish enough to dispute about subjects whichthey acknowledge to be unintelligible to themselves, should society takea part in their foolish quarrels? Must human blood flow in order to givevalue to the conjectures of a few obstinate visionists? If it is verydifficult to cure the theologians of their mania and the people of theirprejudices, it is at least very easy to prevent the extravagances of theone and the folly of the other from producing pernicious effects. Leteach one be allowed to think as he chooses, but let him not be allowedto annoy others for their mode of thinking. If the chiefs of nationswere more just and more sensible, theological opinions would not disturbthe public tranquillity any more than the disputes of philosophers, physicians, grammarians, and of critics. It is the tyranny of princeswhich makes theological quarrels have serious consequences. When kingsshall cease to meddle with theology, theological quarrels will no longerbe a thing to fear. 

Those who boast so much upon the importance and usefulness of religion, ought to show us its beneficial results, and the advantages that thedisputes and abstract speculations of theology can bring to porters, toartisans, to farmers, to fishmongers, to women, and to so many depravedservants, with whom the large cities are filled. People of this kind areall religious, they have implicit faith; their priests believe for them;they accept a faith unknown to their guides; they listen assiduously tosermons; they assist regularly in ceremonies; they think it a greatcrime to transgress the ordinances to which from childhood they havebeen taught to conform. What good to morality results from all this?None whatever; they have no idea of morality, and you see them indulgein all kinds of rogueries, frauds, rapine, and excesses which the lawdoes not punish. The masses, in truth, have no idea of religion; what iscalled religion, is but a blind attachment to unknown opinions andmysterious dealings. In fact, to deprive the people of religion, isdepriving them of nothing. If we should succeed in destroying theirprejudices, we would but diminish or annihilate the dangerous confidencewhich they have in self-interested guides, and teach them to beware ofthose who, under the pretext of religion, very often lead them intofatal excesses. 

CXCVIII. --CONTINUATION. 

Under pretext of instructing and enlightening men, religion really holdsthem in ignorance, and deprives them even of the desire of understandingthe objects which interest them the most. There exists for the people noother rule of conduct than that which their priests indicate to them. Religion takes the place of everything; but being in darkness itself, ithas a greater tendency to misguide mortals, than to guide them in theway of science and happiness. Philosophy, morality, legislation, andpolitics are to them enigmas. Man, blinded by religious prejudices, finds it impossible to understand his own nature, to cultivate hisreason, to make experiments; he fears truth as soon as it does not agreewith his opinions. Everything tends to render the people devout, but allis opposed to their being humane, reasonable, and virtuous. Religionseems to have for its object only to blunt the feeling and to dull theintelligence of men. 

The war which always existed between the priests and the best minds ofall ages, comes from this, that the wise men perceived the fetters whichsuperstition wished to place upon the human mind, which it fain wouldkeep in eternal infancy, that it might be occupied with fables, burdenedwith terrors, and frightened by phantoms which would prevent it fromprogressing. Incapable of perfecting itself, theology opposedinsurmountable barriers to the progress of true knowledge; it seemed tobe occupied but with the care to keep the nations and their chiefs inthe most profound ignorance of their true interests, of their relations, of their duties, of the real motives which can lead them to prosperity;it does but obscure morality; renders its principles arbitrary, subjectsit to the caprices of the Gods, or of their ministers; it converts theart of governing men into a mysterious tyranny which becomes the scourgeof nations; it changes the princes into unjust and licentious despots, and the people into ignorant slaves, who corrupt themselves in order toobtain the favor of their masters. 

CXCIX. --HISTORY TEACHES US THAT ALL RELIGIONS WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE AIDOF IGNORANCE, AND BY MEN WHO HAD THU EFFRONTERY TO STYLE THEMSELVES THEENVOYS OF DIVINITY. 

If we take the trouble to follow the history of the human mind, we willdiscover that theology took care not to extend its limits. It began byrepeating fables, which it claimed to be sacred truths; it gave birth topoesy, which filled the people's imagination with puerile fictions; itentertained them but with its Gods and their incredible feats; in aword, religion always treated men like children, whom they put to sleepwith tales that their ministers would like still to pass asincontestable truths. If the ministers of the Gods sometimes made usefuldiscoveries, they always took care to hide them in enigmas and toenvelope them in shadows of mystery. The Pythagorases and the Platos, inorder to acquire some futile attainments, were obliged to crawl to thefeet of the priests, to become initiated into their mysteries, to submitto the tests which they desired to impose upon them; it is at this costthat they were permitted to draw from the fountain-head their exaltedideas, so seducing still to all those who admire what is unintelligible. It was among Egyptian, Indian, Chaldean priests; it was in the schoolsof these dreamers, interested by profession in dethroning human reason, that philosophy was obliged to borrow its first rudiments. Obscure orfalse in its principles, mingled with fictions and fables, solely madeto seduce imagination, this philosophy progressed but waveringly, andinstead of enlightening the mind, it blinded it, and turned it away fromuseful objects. The theological speculations and mystical reveries ofthe ancients have, even in our days, the making of the law in a greatpart of the philosophical world. Adopted by modern theology, we canscarcely deviate from them without heresy; they entertain us with aerialbeings, with spirits, angels, demons, genii, and other phantoms, whichare the object of the meditations of our most profound thinkers, andwhich serve as a basis to metaphysics, an abstract and futile science, upon which the greatest geniuses have vainly exercised themselves forthousands of years. Thus hypotheses, invented by a few visionists ofMemphis and of Babylon, continue to be the basis of a science reveredfor the obscurity which makes it pass as marvelous and Divine. The firstlegislators of nations were priests; the first mythologists and poetswere priests; the first philosophers were priests; the first physicianswere priests. In their hands science became a sacred thing, prohibitedto the profane; they spoke only by allegories, emblems, enigmas, andambiguous oracles--means well-suited to excite curiosity, to put to workthe imagination, and especially to inspire in the ignorant man a holyrespect for those whom he believed instructed by Heaven, capable ofreading the destinies of earth, and who boldly pretended to be theorgans of Divinity. 

CC. --ALL RELIGIONS, ANCIENT AND MODERN, HAVE MUTUALLY BORROWED THEIRABSTRACT REVERIES AND THEIR RIDICULOUS PRACTICES. 

The religions of these ancient priests have disappeared, or, rather, they have changed their form. Although our modern theologians regard theancient priests as impostors, they have taken care to gather up thescattered fragments of their religious systems, the whole of which doesnot exist any longer for us; we will find in our modern religions, notonly the metaphysical dogmas which theology has but dressed in anotherform, but we still find remarkable remains of their superstitiouspractices, of their theurgy, of their magic, of their enchantments. 

Christians are still commanded to regard with respect the monuments ofthe legislators, the priests, and the prophets of the Hebrew religion, which, according to appearances, has borrowed from Egypt the fantasticnotions with which we see it filled. Thus the extravagances invented byfrauds or idolatrous visionists, are still regarded as sacred opinionsby the Christians!

If we but look at history, we see striking resemblances in allreligions. Everywhere on earth we find religious ideas periodicallyafflicting and rejoicing the people; everywhere we see rites, practicesoften abominable, and formidable mysteries occupying the mind, andbecoming objects of meditation. We see the different superstitionsborrowing from each other their abstract reveries and their ceremonies. Religions are generally unformed rhapsodies combined by new Doctors ofDivinity, who, in composing them, have used the materials of theirpredecessors, reserving the right of adding or subtracting what suits ordoes not suit their present views. The religion of Egypt servedevidently as a basis for the religion of Moses, who expunged from it theworship of idols. Moses was but an Egyptian schismatic, Christianity isbut a reformed Judaism. Mohammedanism is composed of Judaism, ofChristianity, and of the ancient religion of Arabia. 

CCI. --THEOLOGY HAS ALWAYS TURNED PHILOSOPHY FROM ITS TRUE COURSE. 

From the most remote period theology alone regulated the march ofphilosophy. What aid has it lent it? It changed it into anunintelligible jargon, which only had a tendency to render the clearesttruth uncertain; it converted the art of reasoning into a science ofwords; it threw the human mind into the aerial regions of metaphysics, where it unsuccessfully occupied itself in sounding useless anddangerous abysses. For physical and simple causes, this philosophysubstituted supernatural causes, or, rather, causes truly occult; itexplained difficult phenomena by agents more inconceivable than thesephenomena; it filled discourse with words void of sense, incapable ofgiving the reason of things, better suited to obscure than to enlighten, and which seem invented but to discourage man, to guard him against thepowers of his own mind, to make him distrust the principles of reasonand evidence, and to surround the truth with an insurmountable barrier. 

CCII. ---THEOLOGY NEITHER EXPLAINS NOR ENLIGHTENS ANYTHING IN THE WORLD ORIN NATURE. 

If we would believe the adherents of religion, nothing could beexplicable in the world without it; nature would be a continual enigma;it would be impossible for man to comprehend himself. But, at thebottom, what does this religion explain to us? The more we examine it, the more we find that theological notions are fit but to perplex all ourideas; they change all into mysteries; they explain to us difficultthings by impossible things. Is it, then, explaining things to attributethem to unknown agencies, to invisible powers, to immaterial causes? Isit really enlightening the human mind when, in its embarrassment, it isdirected to the "depths of the treasures of Divine Wisdom, " upon whichthey tell us it is in vain for us to turn our bold regards? Can theDivine Nature, which we know nothing about, make us understand man'snature, which we find so difficult to explain?

Ask a Christian philosopher what is the origin of the world. He willanswer that God created the universe. What is God? We do not knowanything about it. What is it to create? We have no idea of it! What isthe cause of pestilences, famines, wars, sterility, inundations, earthquakes? It is God's wrath. What remedies can prevent thesecalamities? Prayers, sacrifices, processions, offerings, ceremonies, are, we are told, the true means to disarm Celestial fury. But why isHeaven angry? Because men are wicked. Why are men wicked? Because theirnature is corrupt. What is the cause of this corruption? It is, atheologian of enlightened Europe will reply, because the first man wasseduced by the first woman to eat of an apple which his God hadforbidden him to touch. Who induced this woman to do such a folly? TheDevil. Who created the Devil? God! Why did God create this Devildestined to pervert the human race? We know nothing about it; it is amystery hidden in the bosom of the Deity. 

Does the earth revolve around the sun? Two centuries ago a devoutphilosopher would have replied that such a thought was blasphemy, because such a system could not agree with the Holy Book, which everyChristian reveres as inspired by the Deity Himself. What is the opinionto-day about it? Notwithstanding Divine Inspiration, the Christianphilosophers finally concluded to rely upon evidence rather than uponthe testimony of their inspired books. 

What is the hidden principle of the actions and of the motions of thehuman body? It is the soul. What is a soul? It is a spirit. What is aspirit? It is a substance which has neither form, color, expansion, norparts. How can we conceive of such a substance? How can it move a body?We know nothing about it. Have brutes souls? The Carthusian assures youthat they are machines. But do we not see them act, feel, and think in amanner which resembles that of men? This is a pure illusion, you say. But why do you deprive the brutes of souls, which, without understandingit, you attribute to men? It is that the souls of the brutes wouldembarrass our theologians, who, content with the power of frighteningand damning the immortal souls of men, do not take the same interest indamning those of the brutes. Such are the puerile solutions whichphilosophy, always guided by the leading-strings of theology, wasobliged to bring forth to explain the problems of the physical and moralworld. 

CCIII. --HOW THEOLOGY HAS FETTERED HUMAN MORALS AND RETARDED THE PROGRESSOF ENLIGHTENMENT, OF REASON, AND OF TRUTH. 

How many subterfuges and mental gymnastics all the ancient and modernthinkers have employed, in order to avoid falling out with the ministersof the Gods, who in all ages were the true tyrants of thought! HowDescartes, Malebranche, Leibnitz, and many others have been compelled toinvent hypotheses and evasions in order to reconcile their discoverieswith the reveries and the blunders which religion had rendered sacred!With what prevarications have not the greatest philosophers guardedthemselves even at the risk of being absurd, inconsistent, andunintelligible whenever their ideas did not correspond with theprinciples of theology! Vigilant priests were always ready to extinguishsystems which could not be made to tally with their interests. Theologyin every age has been the bed of Procrustes upon which this brigandextended his victims; he cut off the limbs when they were too long, orstretched them by horses when they were shorter than the bed upon whichhe placed them. 

What sensible man who has a love for science, and is interested in thewelfare of humanity, can reflect without sorrow and pain upon the lossof so many profound, laborious, and subtle heads, who, for manycenturies, have foolishly exhausted themselves upon idle fancies thatproved to be injurious to our race? What light could have been throwninto the minds of many famous thinkers, if, instead of occupyingthemselves with a useless theology, and its impertinent disputes, theyhad turned their attention upon intelligible and truly importantobjects. Half of the efforts that it cost the genius that was able toforge their religious opinions, half of the expense which theirfrivolous worship cost the nations, would have sufficed to enlightenthem perfectly upon morality, politics, philosophy, medicine, agriculture, etc. Superstition nearly always absorbs the attention, theadmiration, and the treasures of the people; they have a very expensivereligion; but they have for their money, neither light, virtue, norhappiness. 

CCIV. --CONTINUATION. 

Some ancient and modern philosophers have had the courage to acceptexperience and reason as their guides, and to shake off the chains ofsuperstition. Lucippe, Democritus, Epicurus, Straton, and some otherGreeks, dared to tear away the thick veil of prejudice, and to deliverphilosophy from theological fetters. But their systems, too simple, toosensible, and too stripped of wonders for the lovers of fancy, wereobliged to surrender to the fabulous conjectures of Plato, Socrates, andZeno. Among the moderns, Hobbes, Spinoza, Bayle, and others havefollowed the path of Epicurus, but their doctrine found but few votariesin a world still too much infatuated with fables to listen to reason. 

In all ages one could not, without imminent danger, lay aside theprejudices which opinion had rendered sacred. No one was permitted tomake discoveries of any kind; all that the most enlightened men could dowas to speak and write with hidden meaning; and often, by a cowardlycomplaisance, to shamefully ally falsehood with truth. A few of them hada double doctrine--one public and the other secret. The key of this lasthaving been lost, their true sentiments often became unintelligible and, consequently, useless to us. How could modern philosophers who, beingthreatened with the most cruel persecution, were called upon to renouncereason and to submit to faith--that is to say, to priestly authority--Isay, how could men thus fettered give free flight to their genius, perfect reason, or hasten human progress? It was but in fear andtrembling that the greatest men obtained glimpses of truth; they rarelyhad the courage to announce it; those who dared to do it have generallybeen punished for their temerity. Thanks to religion, it was neverpermitted to think aloud or to combat the prejudices of which man iseverywhere the victim or the dupe. 

CCV. --WE COULD NOT REPEAT TOO OFTEN HOW EXTRAVAGANT AND FATAL RELIGIONIS. 

Every man who has the boldness to announce truths to the world, is sureto receive the hatred of the priests; the latter loudly call upon thepowers that be, for assistance; they need the assistance of kings tosustain their arguments and their Gods. These clamors show the weaknessof their cause. 

"They are in embarrassment when they cry for help. "

It is not permitted to err in the matter of religion; on every othersubject we can be deceived with impunity; we pity those who go astray, and we have some liking for the persons who discover truths new to us. But as soon as theology supposes itself concerned, be it in errors ordiscoveries, a holy zeal is kindled; the sovereigns exterminate; thepeople fly into frenzy; and the nations are all stirred up withoutknowing why. Is there anything more afflicting than to see public andindividual welfare depend upon a futile science, which is void ofprinciples, which has no standing ground but imagination, and whichpresents to the mind but words void of sense? What good is a religionwhich no one understands; which continually torments those who troublethemselves about it; which is incapable of rendering men better; andwhich often gives them the credit of being unjust and wicked? Is there amore deplorable folly, and one that ought more to be abated, than thatwhich, far from doing any good to the human race, does but blind it, cause transports, and render it miserable, depriving it of truth, whichalone can soften the rigor of fate?

CCVI. --RELIGION IS PANDORA'S BOX, AND THIS FATAL BOX IS OPEN. 

Religion has in every age kept the human mind in darkness and held it inignorance of its true relations, of its real duties and its trueinterests. It is but in removing its clouds and phantoms that we mayfind the sources of truth, reason, morality, and the actual motiveswhich inspire virtue. This religion puts us on the wrong track for thecauses of our evils, and the natural remedies which we can apply. Farfrom curing them, it can but multiply them and render them more durable. 

Let us, then, say, with the celebrated Lord Bolingbroke, in hisposthumous works: "Theology is the Box of Pandora; and if it isimpossible to close it, it is at least useful to give warning that thisfatal box is open. "

*****

I believe, my dear friends, that I have given you a sufficientpreventative against all these follies. Your reason will do more than mydiscourses, and I sincerely wish that we had only to complain of beingdeceived! But human blood has flowed since the time of Constantine forthe establishment of these horrible impositions. The Roman, the Greek, and the Protestant churches by vain, ambitious, and hypocriticaldisputes have ravaged Europe, Asia, and Africa. Add to these men, whomthese quarrels murdered, the multitudes of monks and of nuns, who becamesterile by their profession, and you will perceive that the Christianreligion has destroyed half of the human race. 

I conclude with the desire that we may return to Nature, whose declaredenemy the Christian religion is, and which necessarily instructs us todo unto others as we would wish them to do unto us. Then the universewill be composed of good citizens, just fathers, obedient children, tender friends. Nature has given us this Religion, in giving us Reason. May fanaticism pervert it no more! I die filled with these desires morethan with hope. 

ETREPIGNY, March 15, 1732

JOHN MESLIER

ABSTRACT OF THE TESTAMENT OF JOHN MESLIER

By Voltaire;

OR, SENTIMENTS OF THE CURATE OF ETREPIGNY ADDRESSED TO HIS PARISHIONERS. 

I. --OF RELIGIONS. 

As there is no one religious denomination which does not pretend to betruly founded upon the authority of God, and entirely exempt from allthe errors and impositions which are found in the others, it is forthose who purpose to establish the truth of the faith of their sect, toshow, by clear and convincing proofs, that it is of Divine origin; asthis is lacking, we must conclude that it is but of human invention, andfull of errors and deceptions; for it is incredible that an Omnipotentand Infinitely good God would have desired to give laws and ordinancesto men, and not have wished them to bear better authenticated marks oftruth, than those of the numerous impostors. Moreover, there is not oneof our Christ-worshipers, of whatever sect he may be, who can make ussee, by convincing proofs, that his religion is exclusively of Divineorigin; and for want of such proof they have been for many centuriescontesting this subject among themselves, even to persecuting each otherby fire and sword to maintain their opinions; there is, however, not onesect of them all which could convince and persuade the others by suchwitnesses of truth; this certainly would not be, if they had, on oneside or the other, convincing proofs of Divine origin. For, as no one ofany religious sect, enlightened and of good faith, pretends to hold andto favor error and falsehood; and as, on the contrary, each, on hisside, pretends to sustain truth, the true means of banishing all errors, and of uniting all men in peace in the same sentiments and in the sameform of religion, would be to produce convincing proofs and testimoniesof the truth; and thus show that such religion is of Divine origin, andnot any of the others; then each one would accept this truth; and noperson would dare to question these testimonies, or sustain the side oferror and imposition, lest he should be, at the same time, confounded bycontrary proofs: but, as these proofs are not found in any religion, itgives to impostors occasion to invent and boldly sustain all kinds offalsehoods. 

Here are still other proofs, which will not be less evident, of thefalsity of human religions, and especially of the falsity of our own. Every religion which relies upon mysteries as its foundation, and whichtakes, as a rule of its doctrine and its morals, a principle of errors, and which is at the same time a source of trouble and eternal divisionsamong men, can not be a true religion, nor a Divine Institution. Now, human religions, especially the Catholic, establish as the basis oftheir doctrine and of their morals, a principle of errors; then, itfollows that these religions can not be true, or of Divine origin. I donot see that we can deny the first proposition of this argument; it istoo clear and too evident to admit of a doubt. I pass to the proof ofthe second proposition, which is, that the Christian religion takes forthe rule of its doctrine and its morals what they call faith, a blindtrust, but yet firm, and secured by some laws or revelations of someDeity. We must necessarily suppose that it is thus, because it is thisbelief in some Deity and in some Divine Revelations, which gives all thecredit and all the authority that it has in the world, and without whichwe could make no use of what it prescribes. This is why there is noreligion which does not expressly recommend its votaries to be firm intheir faith. ["Estate fortes in fide!"] This is the reason that allChristians accept as a maxim, that faith is the commencement and thebasis of salvation, that it is the root of all justice and of allsanctification, as it is expressed at the Council of Trent. --Sess. 6, Ch. VIII. 

Now it is evident that a blind faith in all which is proposed in thename and authority of God, is a principle of errors and falsehoods. As aproof, we see that there is no impostor in the matter of religion, whodoes not pretend to be clothed with the name and the authority of God, and who does not claim to be especially inspired and sent by God. Notonly is this faith and blind belief which they accept as a basis oftheir doctrine, a principle of errors, etc. , but it is also a source oftrouble and division among men for the maintenance of their religion. There is no cruelty which they do not practice upon each other underthis specious pretext. 

Now then, it is not credible that an Almighty, All-Kind, and All-WiseGod desired to use such means or such a deceitful way to inform men ofHis wishes; for this would be manifestly desiring to lead them intoerror and to lay snares in their way, in order to make them accept theside of falsehood. It is impossible to believe that a God who lovedunity and peace, the welfare and the happiness of men, would ever haveestablished as the basis of His religion, such a fatal source of troubleand of eternal divisions among them. Such religions can not be true, neither could they have been instituted by God. But I see that ourChrist-worshipers will not fail to have recourse to their pretendedmotives for credulity, and that they will say, that although their faithand belief may be blind in one sense, they are nevertheless supported bysuch clear and convincing testimonies of truth, that it would be notonly imprudence, but temerity and folly not to surrender one's self. They generally reduce these pretended motives to three or four leadingfeatures. The first, they draw from the pretended holiness of theirreligion, which condemns vice, and which recommends the practice ofvirtue. Its doctrine is so pure, so simple, according to what they say, that it is evident it could spring but from the sanctity of aninfinitely good and wise God. 

The second motive for credulity, they draw from the innocence and theholiness of life in those who embraced it with love, and defended it bysuffering death and the most cruel torments, rather than forsake it: itnot being credible that such great personages would allow themselves tobe deceived in their belief, that they would renounce all the advantagesof life, and expose themselves to such cruel torments and persecutions, in order to maintain errors and impositions. Their third motive forcredulity, they draw from the oracles and prophecies which have so longbeen rendered in their favor, and which they pretend have beenaccomplished in a manner which permits no doubt. Finally, their fourthmotive for credulity, which is the most important of all, is drawn fromthe grandeur and the multitude of the miracles performed, in all ages, and in every place, in favor of their religion. 

But it is easy to refute all these useless reasonings and to show thefalsity of all these evidences. For, firstly, the arguments which ourChrist-worshipers draw from their pretended motives for credulity canserve to establish and confirm falsehood as well as truth; for we seethat there is no religion, no matter how false it may be, which does notpretend to have a sound and true doctrine, and which, in its way, doesnot condemn all vices and recommend the practice of all virtues; thereis not one which has not had firm and zealous defenders who havesuffered persecution in order to maintain their religion; and, finally, there is none which does not pretend to have wonders and miracles thathave been performed in their favor. The Mohammedans, the Indians, theheathen, as well as the Christians, claim miracles in their religions. If our Christ-worshipers make use of their miracles and theirprophecies, they are found no less in the Pagan religions than intheirs. Thus the advantage we might draw from all these motives forcredulity, is found about the same in all sorts of religions. This beingestablished, as the history and practice of all religions demonstrate, it evidently follows that all these pretended motives for credulity, upon which our Christ-worshipers place so much value, are found equallyin all religions; and, consequently, can not serve as reliable evidencesof the truth of their religion more than of the truth of any other. Theresult is clear. 

Secondly. In order to give an idea of the resemblance of the miracles ofPaganism to those of Christianity, could we not say, for example, thatthere would be more reason to believe Philostratus in what he recites ofthe life of Apollonius than to believe all the evangelists in what theysay of the miracles of Jesus Christ; because we know, at least thatPhilostratus was a man of intelligence, eloquence, and fluency; that hewas the secretary of the Empress Julia, wife of the Emperor Severus, andthat he was requested by this empress to write the life and thewonderful acts of Apollonius? It is evident that Apollonius renderedhimself famous by great and extraordinary deeds, since an empress wassufficiently interested in them to desire a history of his life. This iswhat can not be said of Jesus Christ, nor of those who have furnished usHis biography, for they were but ignorant men of the common people, poorworkmen, fishermen, who had not even the sense to relate consistentlythe facts which they speak of, and which they mutually contradict veryoften. In regard to the One whose life and actions they describe, if Hehad really performed the miracles attributed to Him, He would haverendered Himself notable by His beautiful acts; every one would haveadmired Him, and there would be statues erected to Him as was done forthe Gods; but instead of that, He was regarded as a man of noconsequence, as a fanatic, etc. Josephus, the historian, after havingspoken of the great miracles performed in favor of his nation and hisreligion, immediately diminishes their credibility and renders itsuspicious by saying that he leaves to each one the liberty of believingwhat he chooses; this evidently shows that he had not much faith inthem. It also gives occasion to the more judicious to regard thehistories which speak of this kind of things as fabulous narrations. [See Montaigne, and the author of the "Apology for Great Men. "] All thatcan be said upon this subject shows us clearly that pretended miraclescan be invented to favor vice and falsehood as well as justice andtruth. 

I prove it by the evidence of what even our Christ-worshipers call theWord of God, and by the evidence of the One they adore; for their books, which they claim contain the Word of God, and Christ Himself, whom theyadore as a God-made man, show us explicitly that there are not onlyfalse prophets--that is to say, impostors--who claim to be sent by God, and who speak in His name, but which show as explicitly that these falseprophets can perform such great and prodigious miracles as shall deceivethe very elect. [See Matthew, chapter xxiv. , verses 5, 21-27. ] More thanthis, all these pretended performers of miracles wish us to put faithonly in them, and not in those who belong to an opposite party. 

On one occasion one of these pretended prophets, named Sedecias, beingcontradicted by another, named Michea, the former struck the latter andsaid to him, pleasantly, "By what way did the Spirit of God pass from meto you?"

But how can these pretended miracles be the evidences of truth? for itis clear that they were not performed. For it would be necessary toknow: Firstly, If those who are said to be the first authors of thesenarrations truly are such. Secondly, If they were honest men, worthy ofconfidence, wise and enlightened; and to know if they were notprejudiced in favor of those of whom they speak so favorably. Thirdly, If they have examined all the circumstances of the facts which theyrelate; if they know them well; and if they make a faithful report ofthem. Fourthly, If the books or the ancient histories which relate allthese great miracles have not been falsified and changed in course oftime, as many others have been?

If we consult Tacitus and many other celebrated historians, in regard toMoses and his nation, we shall see that they are considered as a hordeof thieves and bandits. Magic and astrology were in those days the onlyfashionable sciences; and as Moses was, it is said, instructed in thewisdom of the Egyptians, it was not difficult for him to inspireveneration and attachment for himself in the rustic and ignorantchildren of Jacob, and to induce them to accept, in their misery, thediscipline he wished to give them. That is very different from what theJews and our Christ-worshipers wish to make us believe. By what certainrule can we know that we should put faith in these rather than in theothers? There is no sound reason for it. There is as little of certaintyand even of probability in the miracles of the New Testament as in thoseof the Old. 

It will serve no purpose to say that the histories which relate thefacts contained in the Gospels have been regarded as true and sacred;that they have always been faithfully preserved without any alterationof the truths which they contain; since this is perhaps the very reasonwhy they should be the more suspected, having been corrupted by thosewho drew profit from them, or who feared that they were not sufficientlyfavorable to them. 

Generally, authors who transcribe this kind of histories, take the rightto enlarge or to retrench all they please, in order to serve their owninterests. This is what even our Christ-worshipers can not deny; for, without mentioning several other important personages who recognized theadditions, the retrenchments, and the falsifications which have beenmade at different times in their Holy Scriptures, their saint Jerome, afamous philosopher among them, formally said in several passages of his"Prologues, " that they had been corrupted and falsified; being, even inhis day, in the hands of all kinds of persons, who added and suppressedwhatever they pleased; so, "Thus there were, " said he, "as manydifferent models as different copies of the Gospels. "

In regard to the books of the Old Testament, Esdras, a priest of thelaw, testifies himself to having corrected and completed wholly thepretended sacred books of his law, which had partly been lost and partlycorrupted. He divided them into twenty-two books, according to thenumber of the Hebraic letters, and wrote several other books, whosedoctrine was to be revealed to the learned men alone. If these bookshave been partly lost and partly corrupted, as Esdras and St. Jerometestify in so many passages, there is then no certainty in regard towhat they contain; and as for Esdras saying he had corrected andcompiled them by the inspiration of God Himself there is no certainty ofthat, since there is no impostor who would not make the same claim. Allthe books of the law of Moses and of the prophets which could be found, were burned in the days of Antiochus. The Talmud, considered by the Jewsas a holy and sacred book, and which contains all the Divine laws, withthe sentences and notable sayings of the Rabbins, of theirinterpretation of the Divine and of the human laws, and a prodigiousnumber of other secrets and mysteries in the Hebraic language, isconsidered by the Christians as a book made up of reveries, fables, impositions, and ungodliness. In the year 1559 they burned in Rome, according to the command of the inquisitors of the faith, twelve hundredof these Talmuds, which were found in a library in the city of Cremona. The Pharisees, a famous sect among the Jews, accepted but the five booksof Moses, and rejected all the prophets. Among the Christians, Marcionand his votaries rejected the books of Moses and the prophets, andintroduced other fashionable Scriptures. Carpocrates and his followersdid the same, and rejected the whole of the Old Testament, and contendedthat Jesus Christ was but a man like all others. The Marcionitesrepudiated as bad, the whole of the Old Testament, and rejected thegreater part of the four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. TheEbionites accepted but the Gospel of St. Matthew, rejecting the threeothers, and the Epistles of St. Paul. The Marcionites published a Gospelunder the name of St. Matthias, in order to confirm their doctrine. Theapostles introduced other Scriptures in order to maintain their errors;and to carry out this, they made use of certain Acts, which theyattributed to St. Andrew and to St. Thomas. 

The Manicheans wrote a gospel of their own style, and rejected theScriptures of the prophets and the apostles. The Etzaites sold a certainbook which they claimed to have come from Heaven; they cut up the otherScriptures according to their fancy. Origen himself, with all his greatmind, corrupted the Scriptures and forged changes in the allegorieswhich did not suit him, thus corrupting the sense of the prophets andapostles, and even some of the principal points of doctrine. His booksare now mutilated and falsified; they are but fragments collected byothers who have appeared since. The Ellogians attributed to the hereticCorinthus the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John; this is why theyreject them. The heretics of our last centuries reject as apocryphalseveral books which the Roman Catholics consider as true and sacred--suchas the books of Tobias, Judith, Esther, Baruch, the Song of the ThreeChildren in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, and that of the IdolBel, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the first and second book ofMaccabees; to which uncertain and doubtful books we could add severalothers that have been attributed to the other apostles; as, for example, the Acts of St. Thomas, his Circuits, his Gospel, and his Apocalypse;the Gospel of St. Bartholomew, that of St. Matthias, of St. Jacques, ofSt. Peter and of the Apostles, as also the Deeds of St. Peter, his bookon Preaching, and that of his Apocalypse; that of the Judgment, that ofthe Childhood of the Saviour, and several others of the same kind, whichare all rejected as apocryphal by the Roman Catholics, even by the PopeGelasee, and by the S. S. F. F. Of the Romish Communion. That which mostconfirms that there is no foundation of truth in regard to the authoritygiven to these books, is that those who maintain their Divinity arecompelled to acknowledge that they have no certainty as a basis, iftheir faith did not assure them and oblige them to believe it. Now, asfaith is but a principle of error and imposture, how can faith, that isto say, a blind belief, render the books reliable which are themselvesthe foundation of this blind belief? What a pity and what insanity! Butlet us see if these books have of themselves any feature of truth; as, for example, of erudition, of wisdom, and of holiness, or some otherperfections which are suited only to a God; and if the miracles whichare cited agree with what we ought to think of the grandeur, goodness, justice, and infinite wisdom of an Omnipotent God. 

There is no erudition, no sublime thought, nor any production whichsurpasses the ordinary capacities of the human mind. On the contrary, weshall see on one side fabulous tales similar to that of a woman formedof a man's rib; of the pretended terrestrial Paradise; of a serpentwhich spoke, which reasoned, and which was more cunning than man; of anass which spoke, and reprimanded its master for ill-treating it; of auniversal deluge, and of an ark where animals of all kinds wereinclosed; of the confusion of languages and of the division of thenations, without speaking of numerous other useless narrations upon lowand frivolous subjects which important authors would scorn to relate. All these narrations appear to be fables, as much as those inventedabout the industry of Prometheus, the box of Pandora, the war of theGiants against the Gods, and similar others which the poets haveinvented to amuse the men of their time. 

On the other hand we will see a mixture of laws and ordinances, orsuperstitious practices concerning sacrifices, the purifications of theold law, the senseless distinctions in regard to animals, of which itsupposes some to be pure and others to be impure. These laws are no morerespectable than those of the most idolatrous nations. We shall see butsimple stories, true or false, of several kings, princes, orindividuals, who lived right or wrong, or who performed noble or meanactions, with other low and frivolous things also related. 

From all this, it is evident that no great genius was required, norDivine Revelations to produce these things. It would not be creditableto a God. 

Finally, we see in these books but the discourses, the conduct, and theactions of those renowned prophets who proclaimed themselves especiallyinspired by God. We will see their way of acting and speaking, theirdreams, their illusions, their reveries; and it will be easy to judgewhether they do not resemble visionaries and fanatics much more thanwise and enlightened persons. 

There are, however, in a few of these books, several good teachings andbeautiful maxims of morals, as in the Proverbs attributed to Solomon, inthe book of Wisdom and of Ecclesiastes; but this same Solomon, thewisest of their writers, is also the most incredulous; he doubts eventhe immortality of the soul, and concludes his works by saying thatthere is nothing good but to enjoy in peace the fruits of one's labor, and to live with those whom we love. 

How superior are the authors who are called profane, such as Xenophon, Plato, Cicero, the Emperor Antoninus, the Emperor Julian, Virgil, etc. , to the books which we are told are inspired of God. I can truly say thatthe fables of Aesop, for example, are certainly more ingenious and moreinstructive than all these rough and poor parables which are related inthe Gospels. 

But what shows us that this kind of books is not of Divine Inspiration, is, that aside from the low order, coarseness of style, and the lack ofsystem in the narrations of the different facts, which are very badlyarranged, we do not see that the authors agree; they contradict eachother in several things; they had not even sufficient enlightenment ornatural talents to write a history. 

Here are some examples of the contradictions which are found among them. The Evangelist Matthew claims that Jesus Christ descended from kingDavid by his son Solomon through Joseph, reputed to be His father; andLuke claims that He is descended from the same David by his son Nathanthrough Joseph. 

Matthew says, in speaking of Jesus, that, it being reported in Jerusalemthat a new king of the Jews was born, and that the wise men had come toadore Him, the king Herod, fearing that this pretended new king wouldrob him of his crown some day, caused the murder of all the new-bornchildren under two years, in all the neighborhood of Bethlehem, where hehad been told that this new king was born; and that Joseph and themother of Jesus, having been warned in a dream by an angel, of thiswicked intention, took flight immediately to Egypt, where they stayeduntil the death of Herod, which happened many years afterward. 

On the contrary, Luke asserts that Joseph and the mother of Jesus livedpeaceably during six weeks in the place where their child Jesus wasborn; that He was circumcised according to the law of the Jews, eightdays after His birth; and when the time prescribed by the law for thepurification of His mother had arrived, she and Joseph, her husband, carried Him to Jerusalem in order to present Him to God in His temple, and to offer at the same time a sacrifice which was ordained by God'slaw; after which they returned to Galilee, into their town of Nazareth, where their child Jesus grew every day in grace and in wisdom. Luke goeson to say that His father and His mother went every year to Jerusalem onthe solemn days of their Easter feast, but makes no mention of theirflight into Egypt, nor of the cruelty of Herod toward the children ofthe province of Bethlehem. In regard to the cruelty of Herod, as neitherthe historians of that time speak of it, nor Josephus, the historian whowrote the life of this Herod, and as the other Evangelists do notmention it, it is evident that the journey of those wise men, guided bya star, this massacre of little children, and this flight to Egypt, werebut absurd falsehoods. For it is not credible that Josephus, who blamedthe vices of this king, could have been silent on such a dark anddetestable action, if what the Evangelist said had been true. 

In regard to the duration of the public life of Jesus Christ, accordingto what the first three Evangelists say, there could be scarcely morethan three months from the time of His baptism until His death, supposing He was thirty years old when He was baptized by John, according to Luke, and that He was born on the 25th of December. For, from this baptism, which was in the year 15 of Tiberius Caesar, and inthe year when Anne and Caiaphas were high-priests, to the first Easterfollowing, which was in the month of March, there was but about threemonths; according to what the first three Evangelists say, He wascrucified on the eve of the first Easter following His baptism, and thefirst time He went to Jerusalem with His disciples; because all thatthey say of His baptism, of His travels, of His miracles, of Hispreaching, of His death and passion, must have taken place in the sameyear of His baptism, for the Evangelists speak of no other yearfollowing, and it appears even by the narration of His acts that Heperformed them consecutively immediately after His baptism, and in avery short time, during which we see but an interval of six days beforehis Transfiguration; during these six days we do not see that He didanything. We see by this that He lived but about three months after Hisbaptism, from which, if we subtract the forty days and forty nightswhich He passed in the desert immediately after His baptism, it wouldfollow that the length of His public life from His first preaching tillHis death, would have lasted but about six weeks; and according to whatJohn says, it would have lasted at least three years and three months, because it appears by the Gospel of this apostle, that, during thecourse of His public life He might have been three or four times atJerusalem at the Easter feast which happened but once a year. 

Now if it is true that He had been there three or four times after Hisbaptism, as John testifies, it is false that He lived but three monthsafter His baptism, and that He was crucified the first time He went toJerusalem. 

If it is said that these first three Evangelists really mean but oneyear, but that they do not indicate distinctly the others which elapsedsince His baptism; or that John understood that there was but oneEaster, although he speaks of several, and that he only anticipated thetime when he repeatedly tells us that the Easter feast of the Jews wasnear at hand, and that Jesus went to Jerusalem, and, consequently, thatthere is but an apparent contradiction upon this subject between theEvangelists, I am willing to accept this; but it is certain that thisapparent contradiction springs from the fact, that they do not explainthemselves in all the circumstances that are noted in the narrationwhich they make. Be that as it may, there will always be this inferencemade, that they were not inspired by God when they wrote theirbiographies of Christ. 

Here is another contradiction in regard to the first thing which Jesus

Christ did immediately after His baptism; for the first threeEvangelists state, that He was transported immediately by the Spiritinto the desert, where He fasted forty days and forty nights, and whereHe was several times tempted by the Devil; and, according to what Johnsays, He departed two days after His baptism to go into Galilee, whereHe performed His first miracle by changing water into wine at thewedding of Cana, where He found Himself three days after His arrival inGalilee, more than thirty leagues from the place in which He had been. 

In regard to the place of His first retreat after His departure from thedesert, Matthew says that He returned to Galilee, and that leaving thecity of Nazareth, He went to live at Capernaum, a maritime city; andLuke says, that He came at first to Nazareth, and afterward went toCapernaum. 

They contradict each other in regard to the time and manner in which theapostles followed Him; for the first three say that Jesus, passing onthe shore of the Sea of Galilee, saw Simon and Andrew his brother, andthat He saw at a little distance James and his brother John with theirfather, Zebedee. John, on the contrary, says that it was Andrew, brotherof Simon Peter, who first followed Jesus with another disciple of Johnthe Baptist, having seen Him pass before them, when they were with theirMaster on the shores of the Jordan. 

In regard to the Lord's Supper, the first three Evangelists note thatJesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of His body and His blood, in theform of bread and wine, the same as our Roman Christ-worshipers say; andJohn does not mention this mysterious sacrament. John says that afterthis supper, Jesus washed His apostles' feet, and commanded them to dothe same thing to each other, and relates a long discourse which Hedelivered then. But the other Evangelists do not speak of the washing ofthe feet, nor of the long discourse He gave them then. On the contrary, they testify that immediately after this supper, He went with Hisapostles upon the Mount of Olives, where He gave up His Spirit tosadness, and was in anguish while His apostles slept, at a shortdistance. They contradict each other upon the day on which they say theLord's Supper took place; because on one side, they note that it tookplace Easter-eve, that is, the evening of the first day of Azymes, or ofthe feast of unleavened bread; as it is noted (1) in Exodus, (2) inLeviticus, and (3) in Numbers; and, on the other hand, they say that Hewas crucified the day following the Lord's Supper, about midday afterthe Jews had His trial during the whole night and morning. Now, according to what they say, the day after this supper took place, oughtnot to be Easter-eve. Therefore, if He died on the eve of Easter, towardmidday, it was not on the eve of this feast that this supper took place. There is consequently a manifest error. 

They contradict each other, also, in regard to the women who followedJesus from Galilee, for the first three Evangelists say that thesewomen, and those who knew Him, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary, mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's children, werelooking on at a distance when He was hanged and nailed upon the cross. John says, on the contrary, that the mother of Jesus and His mother'ssister, and Mary Magdalene were standing near His cross with John, Hisapostle. The contradiction is manifest, for, if these women and thisdisciple were near Him, they were not at a distance, as the others saythey were. 

They contradict each other upon the pretended apparitions which theyrelate that Jesus made after His pretended resurrection; for Matthewspeaks of but two apparitions: the one when He appeared to MaryMagdalene and to another woman, also named Mary, and when He appeared toHis eleven disciples who had returned to Galilee upon the mountain whereHe had appointed to meet them. Mark speaks of three apparitions: Thefirst, when He appeared to Mary Magdalene; the second, when He appearedto His two disciples, who went to Emmaus; and the third, when Heappeared to His eleven disciples, whom He reproaches for theirincredulity. Luke speaks of but two apparitions the same as Matthew; andJohn the Evangelist speaks of four apparitions, and adds to Mark'sthree, the one which He made to seven or eight of His disciples who werefishing upon the shores of the Tiberian Sea. 

They contradict each other, also, in regard to the place of theseapparitions; for Matthew says that it was in Galilee, upon a mountain;Mark says that it was when they were at table; Luke says that He broughtthem out of Jerusalem as far as Bethany, where He left them by rising toHeaven; and John says that it was in the city of Jerusalem, in a houseof which they had closed the doors, and another time upon the borders ofthe Tiberian Sea. 

Thus is much contradiction in the report of these pretended apparitions. They contradict each other in regard to His pretended ascension toheaven; for Luke and Mark say positively that He went to heaven inpresence of the eleven apostles, but neither Matthew nor John mentionsat all this pretended ascension. More than this, Matthew testifiessufficiently that He did not ascend to heaven; for he said positivelythat Jesus Christ assured His apostles that He would be and remainalways with them until the end of the world. "Go ye, " He said to them, in this pretended apparition, "and teach all nations, and be assuredthat I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. " Lukecontradicts himself upon the subject; for in his Gospel he says that itwas in Bethany where He ascended to heaven in the presence of Hisapostles, and in his Acts of the Apostles (supposing him to have beenthe author) he says that it was upon the Mount of Olives. He contradictshimself again about this ascension; for he notes in his Gospel that itwas the very day of His resurrection, or the first night following, thatHe ascended to heaven; and in the Acts of the Apostles he says that itwas forty days after His resurrection; this certainly does notcorrespond. If all the apostles had really seen their Master gloriouslyrise to heaven, how could it be possible that Matthew and John, whowould have seen it as well as the others, passed in silence such aglorious mystery, and which was so advantageous to their Master, considering that they relate many other circumstances of His life and ofHis actions which are much less important than this one? How is it thatMatthew does not mention this ascension? And why does Christ not explainclearly how He would live with them always, although He left themvisibly to ascend to heaven? It is not easy to comprehend by what secretHe could live with those whom He left. 

I pass in silence many other contradictions; what I have said issufficient to show that these books are not of Divine Inspiration, noreven of human wisdom, and, consequently, do not deserve that we shouldput any faith in them. 

II. --OF MIRACLES. 

But by what privilege do these four Gospels, and some other similarbooks, pass for Holy and Divine more than several others, which bear noless the title of Gospels, and which have been published under the nameof some other apostles? If it is said that the reputed Gospels arefalsely attributed to the apostles, we can say the same of the firstones; if we suppose the first ones to be falsified and changed, we canthink the same of the others. Thus there is no positive proof to make usdiscern the one from the other; in spite of the Church, which assumes toderide the matter, it is not credible. 

In regard to the pretended miracles related in the Old Testament, theycould have been performed but to indicate on the part of God an unjustand odious discrimination between nations and between individuals;purposely injuring the one in order to especially favor the other. Thevocation and the choice which God made of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in order to make for Himself of their posterity apeople which He would sanctify and bless above all other peoples of theearth, is a proof of it. But it will be said God is the absolute masterof His favors and of His benefits; He can grant them to whomsoever Hepleases, without any one having the right to complain or to accuse Himof injustice. This reason is useless; for God, the Author of nature, theFather of all men, ought to love them all alike as His own work, and, consequently, He ought to be equally their protector and theirbenefactor; giving them life, He ought to give all that is necessary forthe well-being of His creatures. 

If all these pretended miracles of the Old and of the New Testament weretrue, we could say that God would have had more care in providing forthe least good of men than for their greatest and principal good; thatHe would have punished more severely trifling faults in certain personsthan He would have punished great crimes in others; and, finally, thatHe would not have desired to show Himself as beneficent in the mostpressing needs as in the least. This is easy enough to show as much bythe miracles which it is pretended that He performed, as by those whichHe did not perform, and which He would have performed rather than anyother, if it is true that He performed any at all. For example, it isclaimed that God had the kindness to send an angel to console and toassist a simple maid, while He left, and still leaves every day, acountless number of innocents to languish and starve to death; it isclaimed that He miraculously preserved during forty years the clothesand the shoes of a few people, while He will not watch over the naturalpreservation of the vast quantities of goods which are useful andnecessary for the subsistence of great nations, and that are lost everyday by different accidents. It is claimed that He sent to the firstbeings of the human race, Adam and Eve, a devil, or a simple serpent, toseduce them, and by this means ruin all men. This is not credible! It isclaimed, that by a special providence, He prevented the King of Gerais, a Pagan, from committing sin with a strange woman, although there wouldbe no results to follow; and yet He did not prevent Adam and Eve fromoffending Him and falling into the sin of disobedience--a sin which, according to our Christ-worshipers was to be fatal, and cause thedestruction of the human race. This is not credible!

Let us come to the pretended miracles of the New Testament. Theyconsist, as is pretended, in this: that Jesus Christ and His apostlescured, through the Deity, all kinds of diseases and infirmities, givingsight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to the dumb, making thelame to walk, curing the paralytics, driving the devils from those whowere possessed, and bringing the dead to life. 

We find several of these miracles in the Gospels, but we see a good manymore of them in the books that our Christ-worshipers have written of theadmirable lives of their saints; for in these lives we nearly everywhereread that these pretended blessed ones cured diseases and infirmities, expelled the devils wherever they encountered them, solely in the nameof Jesus or by the sign of the cross; that they controlled the elements;that God favored them so much that He even preserved to them His Divinepower after their death, and that this Divine power could becommunicated even to the least of their clothing, even to their shadows, and even to the infamous instruments of their death. It is said that theshoe of St. Honorius raised a dead man on the sixth of January; that thestaff of St. Peter, that of St. James, and that of St. Bernard performedmiracles. The same is said of the cord of St. Francis, of the staff ofSt. John of God, and of the girdle of St. Melanie. It is said that St. Gracilien was divinely instructed as to what he ought to believe and toteach, and that he, by the influence of his prayer, removed a mountainwhich prevented him from building a church; that from the sepulchre ofSt. Andrew flowed incessantly a liquor which cured all sorts ofdiseases; that the soul of St. Benedict was seen ascending to Heavenclothed with a precious cloak and surrounded by burning lamps; that St. Dominic said that God never refused him anything he asked; that St. Francis commanded the swallows, swans, and other birds to obey him, andthat often the fishes, rabbits, and the hares came and placed themselveson his hands and on his lap; that St. Paul and St. Pantaleon, havingbeen beheaded, there flowed milk instead of blood; that the blessedPeter of Luxembourg, in the first two years after his death (1388 and1389), performed two thousand four hundred miracles, among whichforty-two dead were brought to life, not including more than threethousand other miracles which he has performed since; that the fiftyphilosophers whom St. Catherine converted, having all been thrown into agreat fire, their whole bodies were afterward found and not a singlehair was scorched; that the body of St. Catherine was carried off byangels after her death, and buried by them upon Mount Sinai; that theday of the canonization of St. Antoine de Padua, all the bells of thecity of Lisbon rang of themselves, without any one knowing how it wasdone; that this saint being once near the sea-shore, and calling thefishes, they came to him in a great multitude, and raised their headsout of the water and listened to him attentively. We should never cometo an end if we had to report all this idle talk; there is no subject, however vain, frivolous, and even ridiculous, on which the authors ofthese "LIVES OF THE SAINTS" do not take pleasure in heaping miraclesupon miracles, for they are skillful in forging absurd falsehoods. 

It is certainly not without reason that we consider these things aslies; for it is easy to see that all these pretended miracles have beeninvented but by imitating the fables of the Pagan poets. This issufficiently obvious by the resemblance which they bear one to another. 

III. --SIMILARITY BETWEEN ANCIENT AND MODERN MIRACLES. 

If our Christ-worshipers claim that God endowed their saints with powerto perform the miracles related in their lives, some of the Pagans claimalso that the daughters of Anius, high-priest of Apollo, had reallyreceived from the god Bacchus the power to change all they desired intowheat, into wine, or into oil, etc. ; that Jupiter gave to the nymphs whotook care of his education, a horn of the goat which nursed him in hisinfancy, with this virtue, that it could give them an abundance of allthey wished for. 

If our Christ-worshipers assert that their saints had the power ofraising the dead, and that they had Divine revelations, the Pagans hadsaid before them that Athalide, son of Mercury, had obtained from hisfather the gift of living, dying, and coming to life whenever he wished, and that he had also the knowledge of all that transpired in this worldas well as in the other; and that Esculapius, son of Apollo, had raisedthe dead, and, among others, he brought to life Hyppolites, son ofTheseus, by Diana's request; and that Hercules, also, raised from thedead Alceste, wife of Admetus, King of Thessalia, to return her to herhusband. 

If our Christ-worshipers say that Christ was miraculously born of avirgin, the Pagans had said before them that Remus and Romulus, thefounders of Rome, were miraculously born of a vestal virgin named Ilia, or Silvia, or Rhea Silvia; they had already said that Mars, Argus, Vulcan, and others were born of the goddess Juno without sexual union;and, also, that Minerva, goddess of the sciences, sprang from Jupiter'sbrain, and that she came out of it, all armed, by means of a blow whichthis god gave to his own head. 

If our Christ-worshipers claim that their saints made water gush fromrocks, the Pagans pretend also that Minerva made a fountain of oilspring forth from a rock as a recompense for a temple which had beendedicated to her. 

If our Christ-worshipers boast of having received images from Heavenmiraculously, as, for example, those of Notre-Dame de Loretto, and ofLiesse and several other gifts from Heaven, as the pretended Holy Vialof Rheims, as the white Chasuble which St. Ildefonse received from theVirgin Mary, and other similar things: the Pagans boasted before them ofhaving received a sacred shield as a mark of the preservation of theircity of Rome, and the Trojans boasted before them of having receivedmiraculously from Heaven their Palladium, or their Idol of Pallas, whichcame, they said, to takes its place in the temple which they had erectedin honor of this Goddess. 

If our Christ-worshipers pretend that Jesus Christ was seen by Hisapostles ascending to Heaven, and that several of their pretended saintswere transported to Heaven by angels, the Roman Pagans had said beforethem, that Romulus, their founder, was seen after his death; thatGanymede, son of Troas, king of Troy, was transported to Heaven byJupiter to serve him as cup-bearer that the hair of Berenice, beingconsecrated to the temple of Venus, was afterward carried to Heaven;they say the same thing of Cassiope and Andromedes, and even of the assof Silenus. 

If our Christ-worshipers pretend that several of their saints' bodieswere miraculously saved from decomposition after death, and that theywere found by Divine Revelations, after having been lost for a longtime, the Pagans say the same of the holy of Orestes, which they pretendto have found through an oracle, etc. 

If our Christ-worshipers say that the seven sleeping brothers sleptduring one hundred and seventy-seven years, while they were shut up in acave, the Pagans claim that Epimenides, the philosopher, slept duringfifty-seven years in a cave where he fell asleep. 

If our Christ-worshipers claim that several of their saints continued tospeak after losing the head, or having the tongue cut out, the Pagansclaim that the head of Gambienus recited a long poem after separationfrom his body. 

If our Christ-worshipers glorify themselves that their temples andchurches are ornamented with several pictures and rich gifts which showmiraculous cures performed by the intercession of their saints, we alsosee, or at least we formerly saw in the temple of Esculapius atEpidaurus, many paintings of miraculous cures which he had performed. 

If our Christ-worshipers claim that several of their saints have beenmiraculously preserved in the flames without having received any injuryto their bodies or their clothing, the Pagans claim that the Holy womenof the temple of Diana walked upon burning coals barefooted withoutburning or hurting their feet, and that the priests of the GoddessFeronie and of Hirpicus walked in the same way upon burning coals in thefires which were made in honor of Apollo. 

If the angels built a chapel for St. Clement at the bottom of the sea, the little house of Baucis and of Philemon was miraculously changed intoa superb temple as a reward of their piety. If several of their saints, as St. James and St. Maurice, appeared several times in their armies, mounted and equipped in ancient style, and fought for them, Castor andPollux appeared several times in battles and fought for the Romansagainst their enemies; if a ram was miraculously found to be offered asa sacrifice in the place of Isaac, whom his father Abraham was about tosacrifice, the Goddess Vesta also sent a heifer to be sacrificed in theplace of Metella, daughter of Metellus: the Goddess Diana sent a hind inthe place of Iphigenie when she was at the stake to be sacrificed toher, and by this means Iphigenie was saved. 

If St. Joseph went into Egypt by the warning of an angel, Simonides, thepoet, avoided several great dangers by miraculous warnings which hadbeen given to him. 

If Moses forced a stream of water to flow from a rock by striking itwith his staff, the horse Pegasus did the same: by striking a rock withhis foot a fountain issued. 

If St. Vincent Ferrier brought to life a dead man hacked into pieces, whose body was already half roasted and half broiled, Pelops, son ofTantalus king of Phrygia, having been torn to pieces by his father to besacrificed to the Gods, they gathered all the pieces, joined them, andbrought them to life. 

If several crucifixes and other images have miraculously spoken andanswered, the Pagans say that their oracles have spoken and givenanswers to those who consulted them, and that the head of Orpheus andthat of Policrates gave oracles after their death. 

If God revealed by a voice from Heaven that Jesus Christ was His Son, asthe Evangelists say, Vulcan showed by the apparition of a miraculousflame, that Coceculus was really his son. 

If God has miraculously nourished some of His saints, the Pagan poetspretend that Triptolemus was miraculously nourished with Divine milk byCeres, who gave him also a chariot drawn by two dragons, and thatPhineus, son of Mars, being born after his mother's death, wasnevertheless miraculously nourished by her milk. 

If several saints miraculously tamed the ferocity of the most cruelbeasts, it is said that Orpheus attracted to him, by the sweetness ofhis voice and by the harmony of his instruments, lions, bears, andtigers, and softened the ferocity of their nature; that he attractedrocks and trees, and that even the rivers stopped their course to listento his song. 

Finally, to abbreviate, because we could report many others, if ourChrist-worshipers pretend that the walls of the city of Jericho fell bythe sound of their trumpets, the Pagans say that the walls of the cityof Thebes were built by the sound of the musical instruments ofAmphion; the stones, as the poets say, arranging themselves to thesweetness of his harmony; this would be much more miraculous and moreadmirable than to see the walls demolished. 

There is certainly a great similarity between the Pagan miracles and ourown. As it would be great folly to give credence to these pretendedmiracles of Paganism, it is not any the less so to have faith in thoseof Christianity, because they all come from the same source of error. Itwas for this that the Manicheans and the Arians, who existed at thecommencement of the Christian Era, derided these pretended miraclesperformed by the invocation of saints, and blamed those who invoked themafter death and honored their relics. 

Let us return at present to the principal end which God proposed toHimself, in sending His Son into the world to become man; it must havebeen, as they say, to redeem the world from sin and to destroyentirely the works of the pretended Devil, etc. This is what ourChrist-worshipers claim also, that Jesus Christ died for them accordingto His Father's intention, which is plainly stated in all the pretendedHoly Books. What! an Almighty God, who was willing to become a mortalman for the love of men, and to shed His blood to the last drop, to savethem all, would yet have limited His power to only curing a few diseasesand physical infirmities of a few individuals who were brought to Him;and would not have employed His Divine goodness in curing theinfirmities of the soul! that is to say, in curing all men of theirvices and their depravities, which are worse than the diseases of theirbodies! This is not credible. What! such a good God would desire topreserve dead corpses from decay and corruption; and would not keep fromthe contagion and corruption of vice and sin the souls of a countlessnumber of persons whom He sought to redeem at the price of His blood, and to sanctify by His grace! What a pitiful contradiction!

IV. --OF THE FALSITY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 

Let us proceed to the pretended visions and Divine Revelations, uponwhich our Christ-worshipers establish the truth and the certainty oftheir religion. 

In order to give a just idea of it, I believe it is best to say ingeneral, that they are such, that if any one should dare now to boast ofsimilar ones, or wish to make them valued, he would certainly beregarded as a fool or a fanatic. 

Here is what the pretended Visions and Divine Revelations are:

God, as these pretended Holy Books claim, having appeared for the firsttime to Abraham, said to him: "Get thee out of thy country, and from thykindred and from thy father's house, into a land that I will show thee. "Abraham, having gone there, God, says the Bible, appeared the secondtime to him, and said, "Unto thy seed will I give this land, " and therebuilded he an altar unto the Lord, who appeared unto him. After thedeath of Isaac, his son, Jacob going one day to Mesopotamia to look fora wife that would suit him, having walked all the day, and being tiredfrom the long distance, desired to rest toward evening; lying upon theground, with his head resting upon a few stones, he fell asleep, andduring his sleep he saw a ladder set upon the earth, and the top of itreached to Heaven; and beheld the angels of God ascending and descendingon it. And behold, the Lord stood above it, and said: "I am the Lord, God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land whereon thouliest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed. And thy seed shall be asthe dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west and tothe east, and to the north and to the south and in thee and in thy seedshall all the nations of the earth be blessed. And behold, I am withthee and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bringthee again into this land: for I will not leave thee until I have donethat which I have spoken to thee of. " And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said: "Surely the Lord is in this place, and I knew it not. " Andhe was afraid, and said: "How dreadful is this place! this is none otherthan the house of God, and this is the gate of Heaven. " And Jacob roseup early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for hispillow, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil on the top of it, andmade at the same time a vow to God, that if he should return safe andsound, he would give Him a tithe of all he might possess. 

Here is yet another vision. Watching the flocks of his father-in-law, Laban, who had promised him that all the speckled lambs produced by hissheep should be his recompense, he dreamed one night that he saw all themales leap upon the females, and all the lambs they brought forth werespeckled. In this beautiful dream, God appeared to him, and said: "Liftup now thine eyes and see that the rams which leap upon the cattle arering-streaked, speckled, and grizzled; for I have seen all that Labandoes unto thee. Now arise, get thee out from this land, and return untothe land of thy kindred. " As he was returning with his whole family, andwith all he obtained from his father-in-law, he had, says the Bible, awrestle with an unknown man during the whole night, until the breakingof the day, and as this man had not been able to subdue him, He askedhim who he was. Jacob told Him his name; and He said: "Thy name shall becalled no more Jacob, but Israel; for as a prince hast thou power withGod and with men, and hast prevailed. "

This is a specimen of the first of these pretended Visions and DivineRevelations. We can judge of the others by these. Now, what appearanceof Divinity is there in dreams so gross and illusions so vain? As ifsome foreigners, Germans, for instance, should come into our France, and, after seeing all the beautiful provinces of our kingdom, shouldclaim that God had appeared to them in their country, that He had toldthem to go into France, and that He would give to them and to theirposterity all the beautiful lands, domains, and provinces of thiskingdom which extend from the rivers Rhine and Rhone, even to the sea;that He would make an everlasting alliance with them, that He wouldmultiply their race, that He would make their posterity as numerous asthe stars of Heaven and as the sands of the sea, etc. , who would notlaugh at such folly, and consider these strangers as insane fools!

Now there is no reason to think otherwise of all that has been said bythese pretended Holy Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in regard tothe Divine Revelations which they claim to have had. As to theinstitution of bloody sacrifices, the Holy Scriptures attribute it toGod. As it would be too wearisome to go into the disgusting details ofthis kind of sacrifices, I refer the reader to Exodus. [See chaptersxxv. , xxvii. , xxyiii. , and xxix. ]

Were not men insane and blind to believe they were honoring God bytearing into pieces, butchering, and burning His own creatures, underthe pretext of offering them as sacrifices to Him? And even now, how isit that our Christ-worshipers are so extravagant as to expect to pleaseGod the Father, by offering up to Him the sacrifice of His Divine Son, in remembrance of His being shamefully nailed to a cross upon which Hedied? Certainly this can spring only from an obstinate blindness ofmind. 

In regard to the detail of the sacrifices of animals, it consists but incolored clothing, blood, plucks, livers, birds' crops, kidneys, claws, skins, in the dung, smoke, cakes, certain measures of oil and wine, thewhole being offered and infected by dirty ceremonies as filthy andcontemptible as the most extravagant performances of magic. What is mosthorrible of all this is, that the law of this detestable Jewish peoplecommanded that even men should be offered up as sacrifices. Thebarbarians, whoever they were, who introduced this horrible law, commanded to put to death any man who had been consecrated to the God ofthe Jews, whom they called Adonai: and it is according to this execrableprecept that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, and that Saul wanted tosacrifice his son. 

But here is yet another proof of the falsity of these revelations ofwhich we have spoken. It is the lack of the fulfillment of the great andmagnificent promises by which they were accompanied, for it is evidentthat these promises never have been fulfilled. 

The proof of this consists in three principal points:

Firstly. Their posterity was to be more numerous than all the othernations of the world. 

Secondly. The people who should spring from their race were to be thehappiest, the holiest, and the most victorious of all the people of theearth. 

Thirdly. His covenant was to be everlasting, and they should possessforever the country He should give them. Now it is plain that thesepromises-never were fulfilled. 

Firstly. It is certain that the Jewish people, or the people ofIsrael--which is the only one that can be regarded as having descendedfrom the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the only ones to whomthese promises should have been fulfilled--have never been so numerousthat it could be compared with the other nations of the earth, much lesswith the sands of the sea, etc. , for we see that in the very time whenit was the most numerous and the most flourishing, it never occupiedmore than the little sterile provinces of Palestine and its environs, which are almost nothing in comparison with the vast extent of amultitude of flourishing kingdoms which are on all sides of the earth. 

Secondly. They have never been fulfilled concerning the great blessingswith which they were to be favored; for, although they won a few smallvictories over some poor nations whom they plundered, this did notprevent them from being conquered and reduced to servitude; theirkingdom destroyed as well as their nation, by the Roman army; and evennow the remainder of this unfortunate nation is looked upon as thevilest and most contemptible of all the earth, having no country, nodominion, no superiority. 

Finally, these promises have not been fulfilled in respect to thiseverlasting covenant, which God ought to have fulfilled to them; becausewe do not see now, and we have never seen, any evidence of thiscovenant; and, on the contrary, they have been for many centuriesexcluded from the possession of the small country they pretended God hadpromised that they should enjoy forever. Thus, since these pretendedpromises were never fulfilled, it is certain evidence of their falsity;which proves, plainly, that these pretended Holy Books which containthem were not of Divine inspiration. Therefore it is useless for ourChrist-worshipers to pretend to make use of them as infallible testimonyto prove the truth of their religion. 

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 

V. --(1) OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

Our Christ-worshipers add to their reasons for credulity and to theproofs of the truth of their testimony, the prophecies which are, asthey pretend, sure evidences of the truth of the revelations orinspirations of God, there being no one but God who could predict futureevents so long before they came to pass, as those which have beenpredicted by the prophets. 

Let us see, then, who these pretended prophets are, and if we ought toconsider them as important as our Christ-worshipers pretend they are. These men were but visionaries and fanatics, who acted and spokeaccording to the impulsions of their ruling passions, and who imaginedthat it was the Spirit of God by which they spoke and acted; or theywere impostors who feigned to be prophets, and who, in order to moreeasily deceive the ignorant and simple-minded, boasted of acting andspeaking by the Spirit of God. I would like to know how an Ezekiel wouldbe received who should say that God made him eat for his breakfast aroll of parchment; commanded him to be tied like an insane man, and liethree hundred and ninety days upon his right side, and forty days uponhis left, and commanded him to eat man's dung upon his bread, andafterward, as an accommodation, cow's dung? I ask how such a filthystatement would be received by the most stupid people of our provinces?

What can be yet a greater proof of the falsity of these pretendedprophecies, than the violence with which these prophets reproach eachother for speaking falsely in the name of God, reproaches which theyclaim to make in behalf of God. All of them say, "Beware of the falseprophets!" as the quacks say, "Beware of the counterfeit pills!" Howcould these insane impostors tell the future? No prophecy in favor oftheir Jewish nation was ever fulfilled. The number of prophecies whichpredict the prosperity and the greatness of Jerusalem is almostinnumerable; in explanation of this, it will be said that it is verynatural that a subdued and captive people should comfort themselves intheir real afflictions by imaginary hopes--as a year after King James wasdeposed, the Irish people of his party forged several prophecies inregard to him. 

But if these promises made to the Jews had been really true, the Jewishnation long ago would have been, and would still be, the most numerous, the most powerful, the most blessed, and the most victorious of allnations. 

VI. --(2) THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Let us examine the pretended prophecies which are contained in theGospels. 

Firstly. An angel having appeared in a dream to a man named Joseph, father, or at least so reputed, of Jesus, son of Mary, said unto him:

"Joseph, thou son of David fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, forthat which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bringforth a Son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS; for He shall save Hispeople from their sins. " This angel said also to Mary:

"Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor with God. And behold, thoushalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a Son, and shalt call Hisname Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of theHighest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His fatherDavid. And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of Hiskingdom there shall be no end!" Jesus began to preach and to say:

"Repent, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Take no thought for yourlife, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your bodywhat ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body thanraiment, for your Heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all thesethings. But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, andall these things shall be added unto you. "

Now, let every man who has not lost common sense, examine if this Jesusever was a king, or if His disciples had abundance of all things. ThisJesus promised to deliver the world from sin. Is there any prophecywhich is more false? Is not our age a striking proof of it? It is saidthat Jesus came to save His people. In what way did He save it? It isthe greatest number which rules any party. For example, one dozen or twoof Spaniards or Frenchmen do not constitute the French or Spanishpeople; and if an army of a hundred and twenty thousand men were takenprisoners of war by an army of enemies which was stronger, and if thechief of this army should redeem only a few men, as ten or twelvesoldiers or officers, by paying their ransom, it could not be claimedthat he had delivered or redeemed his army. Then, who is this God whohas been sacrificed, who died to save the world, and leaves so manynations damned? What a pity! and what horror!

Jesus Christ says that we have but to ask and we shall receive, and toseek and we shall find. He assures us that all we ask of God in His nameshall be granted, and that if we have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, we could by one word remove mountains. If this promise is true, nothingappears impossible to our Christ-worshipers who have faith in Jesus. However, the contrary happens. If Mohammed had made the promises to hisvotaries that Christ made to His, without success, what would not besaid about it. They would cry out, "Ah, the cheat! ah, the impostor!"These Christ-worshipers are in the same condition: they have been blind, and have not even yet recovered from their blindness; on the contrary, they are so ingenious in deceiving themselves, that they pretend thatthese promises have been fulfilled from the beginning of Christianity;that at that time it was necessary to have miracles, in order toconvince the incredulous of the truth of religion; but that thisreligion being sufficiently established, the miracles were no longernecessary. Where, then, is their proof of all this?

Besides, He who made these promises did not limit them to a certaintime, or to certain places, or to certain persons; but He made themgenerally to everybody. The faith of those who believe, says He, shallbe followed by these miracles; "They shall cast out devils in My name, they shall speak in divers tongues, they shall handle serpents, " etc. 

In regard to the removal of mountains, He positively says that "whoevershall say to a mountain: 'Be thou removed, and be thou cast into thesea;' it shall be done;" provided that he does not doubt in his heart, but believes all he commands will be done. Are not all these promisesgiven in a general way, without restriction as to time, place, orpersons?

It is said that all the sects which are founded in errors and imposturewill come to a shameful end. But if Jesus Christ intends to say that Hehas established a society of followers who will not fall either intovice or error, these words are absolutely false, as there is inChristendom no sect, no society, and no church which is not full oferrors and vices, especially the Roman Church, although it claims to bethe purest and the holiest of all. It was born into error, or rather itwas conceived and formed in error; and even now it is full of delusionswhich are contrary to the intentions, the sentiments, or the doctrine ofits Founder, because it has, contrary to His intention, abolished thelaws of the Jews, which He approved, and which He came Himself, as Hesaid, to fulfill and not to destroy. It has fallen into the errors andidolatry of Paganism, as is seen by the idolatrous worship which isoffered to its God of dough, to its saints, to their images, and totheir relics. 

I know well that our Christ-worshipers consider it a lack ofintelligence to accept literally the promises and prophecies as they areexpressed; they reject the literal and natural sense of the words, togive them a mystical and spiritual sense which they call allegorical andfigurative; claiming, for example, that the people of Israel and Judea, to whom these promises were made, were not understood as the Israelitesafter the body, but the Israelites in spirit: that is to say, theChristians which are the Israel of God, the true chosen people that bythe promise made to this enslaved people, to deliver it from captivity, it is understood to be not the corporal deliverance of a single captivepeople, but the spiritual deliverance of all men from the servitude ofthe Devil, which was to be accomplished by their Divine Saviour; that bythe abundance of riches, and all the temporal blessings promised to thispeople, is meant the abundance of spiritual graces; and finally, that bythe city of Jerusalem, is meant not the terrestrial Jerusalem, but thespiritual Jerusalem, which is the Christian Church. 

But it is easy to see that these spiritual and allegorical meaningshaving only a strange, imaginary sense, being a subterfuge of theinterpreters, can not serve to show the truth or the falsehood of aproposition, or of any promises whatever. It is ridiculous to forge suchallegorical meanings, since it is only by the relations of the naturaland true sense that we can judge of their truth or falsehood. Aproposition, a promise, for example, which is considered true in theproper and natural sense of the terms in which it is expressed, will notbecome false in itself under cover of a strange sense, one which doesnot belong to it. By the same reasoning, that which is manifestly falsein its proper and natural sense, will not become true in itself, although we give it a strange sense, one foreign to the true. 

We can say that the prophecies of the Old Testament adjusted to the New, would be very absurd and puerile things. For example, Abraham had twowives, of which the one, who was but a servant, represented thesynagogue, and the other one, his lawful wife, represented the ChristianChurch; and that this Abraham had two sons, of which the one born ofHagar, the servant, represented the Old Testament; and the other, bornof Sarah, the wife, represented the New Testament. Who would not laughat such a ridiculous doctrine?

Is it not amusing that a piece of red cloth, exhibited by a prostituteas a signal to spies, in the Old Testament is made to represent theblood of Jesus Christ shed in the New? If--according to this manner ofinterpreting allegorically all that is said, done, and practiced in theancient law of the Jews--we should interpret in the same allegorical wayall the discourses, the actions, and the adventures of the famous DonQuixote de la Mancha, we would find the same sort of mysteries andridiculous figures. 

It is nevertheless upon this absurd foundation that the whole Christianreligion rests. Thus it is that there is scarcely anything in thisancient law that the Christ-worshiping doctors do not try to explain ina mystical way to build up their system. The most false and the mostridiculous prophecy ever made is that of Jesus, in Luke, where it ispretended that there will be signs in the sun and in the moon, and thatthe Son of Man will appear in a cloud to judge men; and this ispredicted for the generation living at that time. Has it come to pass?Did the Son of Man appear in a cloud?

VII. --ERRORS OF DOCTRINE AND OF MORALITY. 

The Christian Apostolical Roman Religion teaches, and compels belief, that there is but one God, and, at the same time, that there are threeDivine persons, each one being God. This is absurd; for if there arethree who are truly God, then there are three Gods. It is false, then, to say that there is but one God; or if this is true, it is false to saythat there are really three who are God, for one and three can not beclaimed to be one and the same number. It is also said that the first ofthese pretended Divine persons, called the Father, has brought forth thesecond person, which is called the Son, and that these first two personstogether have produced the third, which is called the Holy Ghost, and, nevertheless, these three pretended Divine persons do not depend the oneupon the other, and even that one is not older than the other. This, too, is manifestly absurd; because one thing can not receive itsexistence from another thing without some dependence on this other; anda thing must necessarily exist in order to give birth to another. If, then, the Second and the Third persons of Divinity have received theirexistence from the First person, they must necessarily depend for theirexistence on this First person, who gave them birth, or who begot them, and it is necessary also that the First person of the Divinity, who gavebirth to the two other persons, should have existed before them; becausethat which does not exist can not beget anything. Nevertheless, it isrepugnant as well as absurd to claim that anything could be begottenor born without having had a beginning. Now, according to ourChrist-worshipers, the Second and Third persons of Divinity werebegotten and born; then they had a beginning, and the First person hadnone, not being begotten by another; it therefore follows necessarilythat one existed before the other. 

Our Christ-worshipers, who feel these absurdities and can not avoid themby any good reasoning, have no other resource than to say that we mustignore human reason and humbly adore these sublime mysteries withoutwishing to understand them; but that which they call faith is refutedwhen they tell us that we must submit; it is telling us that we mustblindly believe that which we do not believe. Our Christ-worshiperscondemn the blindness of the ancient Pagans, who worshiped severalGods; they deride the genealogy of those Gods, their birth, theirmarriages, and the generating of their children; yet they do not observethat they themselves say things which are much more ridiculous andabsurd. 

If the Pagans believed that there were Goddesses as well as Gods, thatthese Gods and Goddesses married and begat children, they thought ofnothing, then, but what is natural; for they did not believe yet thatthe Gods were without body or feeling; they believed they were similarto men. Why should there not be females as well as males? It is not morereasonable to deny or to recognize the one than the other; and supposingthere were Gods and Goddesses, why should they not beget children in theordinary way? There would be certainly nothing ridiculous or absurd inthis doc trine, if it were true that their Gods existed. But in thedoctrine of our Christ-worshipers there is something absolutelyridiculous and absurd; for besides claiming that one God forms Three, and that these Three form but One, they pretend that this Triple andUnique God has neither body, form, nor face; that the First person ofthis Triple and Unique God, whom they call the Father, begot of Himselfa Second person, which they call the Son, and which is the same as HisFather, being, like Him, without body, form, or face. If this is true, why is it that the First one is called Father rather than mother, or theSecond called Son rather than daughter? For if the First one is reallyfather instead of mother, and if the Second is son instead of daughter, there must be something in both of these two persons which causes theone to be father rather than mother, and the other to be son rather thandaughter. Now who can assert that they are males and not females? Buthow should they be rather males than females, as they have neither body, form, nor face? That is not an imaginable thing, and destroys itself. Nomatter, they claim chat these two Persons, without body, form, or face, and, consequently, without difference of sex, are nevertheless Fatherand Son, and that they produced by their mutual love a third person, whom they called the Holy Ghost, who has, like the other two, no body, no form, and no face. What abominable nonsense!

As our Christ-worshipers limit the power of God the Father to begettingbut one Son, why do they not desire that this Second person, and theThird, should have the same power to beget a Son like themselves? Ifthis power to beget a son is perfection in the First person, it is, then, a perfection and a power which does not exist in the Second and inthe Third person. Thus these two Persons, lacking a perfection and apower which is found in the First one, they are consequently not equalwith Him. If, on the contrary, they say that this power to beget a sonis no perfection, they should not attribute it, then, to the Firstperson any more than to the other two; for we should attributeperfections only to an absolutely perfect being. Besides, they would notdare to say that the power to beget a Divine person is not a perfection;and if they claim that this First person could have begotten severalsons and daughters, but that He desired but this only Son, and that thetwo other persons did not desire to beget any others, we could ask them, firstly, from whence they know this, for we do not see in theirpretended Holy Scriptures that any One of these Divine personagesreveals any such assertions; how, then, can our Christ-worshipers knowanything about it? They speak but according to their ideas and to theirhollow imaginations. Secondly, We could not avoid saying, that if thesepretended Divine personages had the power of begetting several children, and did not wish to make use of it, the consequence would be that thisDivine power was ineffectual. It would be entirely without effect in theThird person, who did not beget or produce any, and would be almostwithout effect in the two others, because they limited it. Then thispower of begetting or producing an unlimited number of children wouldremain idle and useless; it would be inconsistent to suppose this ofDivine Personages, One of whom had already produced a Son. 

Our Christ-worshipers blame and condemn the Pagans because theyattribute Divinity to mortal men, and worship them as Gods after theirdeath; they are right in doing this. But these Pagans did only what ourChrist-worshipers still do in attributing Divinity to their Christ;doing which, they condemn themselves also, because they are in the sameerror as these Pagans, in that they worship a man who was mortal, and sovery mortal that He died shamefully upon a cross. 

It would be of no use for our Christ-worshipers to say that there was agreat difference between their Jesus Christ and the Pagan Gods, underthe pretense that their Christ was, as they claim, really God and man atthe same time, while the Divinity was incarnated in Him, by means ofwhich, the Divine nature found itself united personally, as they say, with human nature; these two natures would have made of Jesus Christ atrue God and a true man; this is what never happened, they claim, in thePagan Gods. 

But it is easy to show the weakness of this reply; for, on the one hand, was it not as easy to the Pagans as to the Christians, to say that theDivinity was incarnated in the men whom they worshiped as Gods? On theother hand, if the Divinity wanted to incarnate and unite in the humannature of their Jesus Christ, how did they know that this Divinity wouldnot wish to also incarnate and unite Himself personally to the humannature of those great men and those admirable women, who, by theirvirtue, by their good qualities, or by their noble actions, haveexcelled the generality of people, and made themselves worshiped as Godsand Goddesses? And if our Christ-worshipers do not wish to believe thatDivinity ever incarnated in these great personages, why do they wish topersuade us that He was incarnated in their Jesus? Where is the proof?Their faith and their belief; but as the Pagans rely on the same proof, we conclude both to be equally in error. 

But what is more ridiculous in Christianity than in Paganism, is thatthe Pagans have generally attributed Divinity but to great men, authorsof arts and sciences, and who excelled in virtues useful to theircountry. But to whom do our God-Christ-worshipers attribute Divinity? Toa nobody, to a vile and contemptible man, who had neither talent, science, nor ability; born of poor parents, and who, while He figured inthe world, passed but for a monomaniac and a seditious fool, who wasdisdained, ridiculed, persecuted, whipped, and, finally, was hanged likemost of those who desired to act the same part, when they had neitherthe courage nor skill. About that time there were several otherimpostors who claimed to be the true promised Messiah; amongst others acertain Judas, a Galilean, a Theodorus, a Barcon, and others who, underthis vain pretext, abused the people, and tried to excite them, in orderto win them, but they all perished. 

Let us pass now to His discourses and to some of His actions, which arethe most singular of this kind: "Repent, " said He to the people, "forthe kingdom of Heaven is at hand; believe these good tidings. " And Hewent all over Galilee preaching this pretended approach of the kingdomof Heaven. As no one has seen the arrival of this kingdom of Heaven, itis evident that it was but imaginary. But let us see other predictions, the praise, and the description of this beautiful kingdom. 

Behold what He said to the people:

The kingdom of Heaven is likened unto a man who sowed good seed in hisfield. But while he slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among thewheat, and went his way. Again, the kingdom of Heaven is like untotreasure hidden in a field, the which, when a man has found, he hidethagain, and for joy thereof goes and sells all that he has, and buys thatfield. Again, the kingdom of Heaven is like unto a merchantman seekinggoodly pearls, who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went andsold all he had, and bought it. Again, the kingdom of Heaven is likeunto a net that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind;which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down and gatheredthe good into vessels, but cast the bad away. It is like a grain ofmustard-seed, which a man took and sowed in his field which, indeed, isthe least of all seeds, but when it is grown it is the greatest amongherbs, etc. 

Is this a language worthy of a God? We will pass the same judgment uponHim if we examine. His actions more closely. Because, firstly, He isrepresented as running all over a country preaching the approach of apretended kingdom; Secondly, As having been transported by the Devilupon a high mountain, from which He believed He saw all the kingdoms ofthe world; this could only happen to a visionist; for it is certain, there is no mountain upon the earth from which He could see even oneentire kingdom, unless it was the little kingdom of Yvetot, which is inFrance; thus it was only in imagination that He saw all these kingdoms, and was transported upon this mountain, as well as upon the pinnacle ofthe temple. Thirdly, When He cured the deaf-mute, spoken of in St. Mark, it is said that He placed His fingers in the ears, spit, and touched histongue, then casting His eyes up to Heaven, He sighed deeply, and saidunto him: "Ephphatha!" Finally, let us read all that is related of Him, and we can judge whether there is anything in the world more ridiculous. 

Having considered some of the silly things attributed to God by ourChrist-worshipers, let us look a little further into their mysteries. They worship one God in three persons, or three persons in one God, andthey attribute to themselves the power of forming Gods out of dough, andof making as many as they want. For, according to their principles, theyhave only to say four words over a certain quantity of wine or overthese little images of paste, to make as many Gods of them as theydesire. What folly! With all the pretended power of their Christ, theywould not be able to make the smallest fly, and yet they claim theability to produce millions of Gods. One must be struck by a strangeblindness to maintain such pitiable things, and that upon such vainfoundation as the equivocal words of a fanatic. Do not these blindtheologians see that it means opening a wide door to all sorts ofidolatries, to adore these paste images under the pretext that thepriests have the power of consecrating them and changing them into Gods?

Can not the priests of the idols boast of having a similar ability?

Do they not see, also, that the same reasoning which demonstrates thevanity of the gods or idols of wood, of stone, etc. , which the Pagansworshiped, shows exactly the same vanity of the Gods and idols of pasteor of flour which our Christ-worshipers adore? By what right do theyderide the falseness of the Pagan Gods? Is it not because they are butthe work of human hands, mute and insensible images? And what kind ofGods are those which we preserve in boxes for fear of the mice?

What are these boasted resources of the Christ-worshipers? Theirmorality? It is the same as in all religions, but their cruel dogmasproduced and taught persecution and trouble. Their miracles? But whatpeople has not its own, and what wise men do not disdain these fables?Their prophecies? Have we not shown their falsity? Their morals? Arethey not often infamous? The establishment of their religion? but didnot fanaticism begin, and has not intrigue visibly sustained thisedifice? The doctrine? but is it not the height of absurdity?

End Of The Abstract By Voltaire. 

PUBLISHER'S PREFACE. 

By translating into both the English and German languages Le Bon Sens, containing the Last Will and Testament of the French curate JEANMESLIER, Miss Anna Knoop has performed a most useful and meritorioustask, and in issuing a new edition of this work, it is but justice toher memory [Miss Knoop died Jan. 11, 1889. ] to state that hertranslation has received the endorsement of our most competent critics. 

In a letter dated Newburyport, Mass. , Sep. 23, 1878, Mr. James Parton, the celebrated author, commends Miss Knoop for "translating Meslier'sbook so well, " and says that:

"This work of the honest pastor is the most curious and the mostpowerful thing of the kind which the last century produced. . . . . Paine and Voltaire had reserves, but Jean Meslier had none. He keepsnothing back; and yet, after all, the wonder is not that there shouldhave been one priest who left that testimony at his death, but that allpriests do not. True, there is a great deal more to be said aboutreligion, which I believe to be an eternal necessity of human nature, but no man has uttered the negative side of the matter with so muchcandor and completeness as Jean Meslier. "

The value of the testimony of a catholic priest, who in his last momentsrecanted the errors of his faith and asked God's pardon for havingtaught the catholic religion, was fully appreciated by Voltaire, whohighly commended this grand work of Meslier. He voluntarily made everyeffort to increase its circulation, and even complained to D' Alembert"that there were not as many copies in all Paris as he himself haddispersed throughout the mountains of Switzerland. " [See Letter 504, Voltaire to D'Alembert] He earnestly entreats his associates to printand distribute in Paris an edition of at least four or five thousandcopies, and at the suggestion of D'Alembert, made an abstract orabridgment of The Testament "so small as to cost no more than fivepence, and thus to be fitted for the pocket and reading of everyworkman. " [Letter 146, from D'Alembert. ]

The Abbé Barruel claims in his Memoirs [See History of Jacobinism by theAbbé Barruel, 4 vols. 8 VO, translated by the Hon. Robert Clifford, F. R. S. , and printed in London in 1798. The learned Abbé definesJacobinism as "the error of every man who, judging of all things by thestandard of his own reason, rejects in religious matters every authoritythat is not derived from the light of nature. It is the error of everyman who denies the possibility of any mystery beyond the limits of hisreason, of every one who, discarding revelation in defence of thepretended rights of Reason, Equality, and Liberty, seeks to subvert thewhole fabric of the Christian religion. " B. 4. ] to detect in thewritings of Voltaire and of the leading Encyclopedists, a conspiracy notonly against the Altar but also against the Throne. He severelydenounces the "Last Will of Jean Meslier, --that famous Curate ofEtrepigni, --whose apostasy and blasphemies made so strong an impressionon the minds of the populace, " and he styles the plan of D'Alembert forcirculating a few thousand copies of the Abstract of the Will, as a "baseproject against the doctrines of the Gospel. " [Ibid, page 145] He evenasserts his belief that:

"The Jacobins will one day declare that all men are free, that all menare equal; and as a consequence of this Equality and Liberty they willconclude that every man must be left to the light of reason. That everyreligion subjecting man's reason to mysteries, or to the authority ofany revelation speaking in God's name, is a religion of constraint andslavery; that as such it should be annihilated in order to reestablishthe indefeasible rights of Equality and Liberty as to the belief ordisbelief of all that the reason of man approves or disapproves: andthey will call this Equality and Liberty the reign of Reason and theempire of Philosophy. " [History of Jacobinism, page 51. ]

The results which the Abbé Barruel so clearly foresaw have at lengthbeen realized. The labors of the Jacobins have not been in vain, and theRevolution they incited has restored France to the government of thepeople!

"With ardent hope for the future, " says President Carnot in hiscentennial address, May 5, 1889, "I greet in the palace of the monarchythe representatives of a nation that is now in complete possession ofherself, that is mistress of her destinies, and that is in the fullsplendor and strength of liberty. The first thoughts on this solemnmeeting turn to our fathers. The immortal generation of 1789, by dintof courage and many sacrifices, secured for us benefits which we mustbequeath to our sons as a most precious inheritance. Never can ourgratitude equal the grandeur of the services rendered by our fathers toFrance and to the human race. . . . The Revolution was based upon therights of man. It created a new era in history and founded modernsociety. "

This is literally true. The freethinkers of France have taught mankindthe doctrines of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. They have taught thedignity of human reason, and the sacredness of human rights. They havebroken the bondage of the altar, and severed the shackles of the throne;and it is to be regretted that at the centennial celebration held inthis city on April 30th, 1889, the appointed orator [See the CentennialAddress of the Hon. Chauncey M. Depew. ] did not realize the grandeur ofthe occasion, and did not, like Carnot, pay a just tribute to ourallies, the reformers of Europe, as well as to the fathers of therepublic. But the people of America will remember what the politicianhas forgotten. They will remember the names and deeds of their foreignbenefactors as well as of the American patriots of '76. When they recallthe illustrious Europeans who fought for our liberties they willremember the name of Lafayette; when they think of the Declaration ofIndependence they will not forget the name of Thomas Jefferson; and whenthey speak of "the times that tried men's souls" they will recall withgratitude the name of Thomas Paine. 

Although the ecclesiastical conclave at Rome claims the power of workingmiracles in defiance of Nature's laws, yet with or without miracles, they have never answered the simple arguments advanced by Jean Meslier;although they claim to hold the keys of Paradise, and bind on earth thesouls that are to be bound in heaven, yet year by year their waningpower refutes their senseless boast; although they boldly assert thedogma of popish infallibility, yet the loss of the temporal power oncewielded by Rome, and the death of each succeeding pontiff, attest boththe Pope's fallibility and the Pope's mortality. Indeed, the successorof St. Peter is but human--the sacred college at Rome is but mortal; andfaith and dogma cannot forever resist the influence of light andknowledge. The power of Catholicism is surely declining throughoutEurope; and if it has become aggressive in our American cities, is itnot because the friends of freedom have forgotten the well-known axiomthat "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"?

PETER ECKLER. 

New York, May 21, 1889. 

PREFATORY NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR

Some years ago a copy of John Meslier fell into my hands. I was struckwith the simple truthfulness of his arguments, and the thought neverleft me of the happy change that would be produced all over the worldwhen the religious prejudices should be dispelled, and when all thedifferent nations and sects would unite and lend each other a friendlyhand. 

Since I had the opportunity of hearing the speeches and lectures ofliberal men, it has seemed to me that the time has come for this work ofJohn Meslier to be appreciated, and I concluded to translate it into thelanguage of my adopted country, presuming that many would be happy tostudy it. 

In this faith I offer it now to the public, and I hope that the name ofJohn Meslier will be honored as one of the greatest benefactors ofhumanity. 

ANNA KNOOP. 

PREFACE OF THE EDITOR OF THE FRENCH EDITION OF 1830. 

It is said that truth is generally revealed by dying lips. When men fullof health and enjoying all the pleasures of life, exert themselveswithout ceasing, to excite minds and to take advantage of theirfanaticism by wearing the mask of religion, it will not be withoutinterest or importance to know what other men, invested with the sameministry, have taught under the impulse of a conscience quickened by theapproach of the final hour. Their confessions are more valuable becausethey carry with them the spirit of contrition. It is then that thetruth, which is no longer obscured by narrow passions and sordidinterests, presents itself in all its brilliancy, and imposes upon himwho has kept it hidden during his life, the duty, and even thenecessity, of unveiling it fully at his death. It is then that humanspeech, losing in a measure its terrestrial nature, becomes persuasiveand convincing. 

We know this fact of a celebrated preacher who in the beginning of theRevolution stood in the same pulpit which we are pleased to call thepulpit of truth, and with his hand upon his heart declared that tillthen he had taught only falsehood. He did more; he implored hisparishioners to forgive him for the gross errors in which he had keptthem, and congratulated them upon having at last arrived at a periodwhen it was permitted to establish the empire of reason upon the ruinsof prejudice. Times have changed very much, it is true; however, so longas the press shall be able to combat the fatal errors of religiousfanaticism, and perhaps even to some extent prevent its violence, itwill be the duty of every friend of humanity to reproduce continuallythe full retractions which opposed the sincerity and conscience of thedying to the bad faith and hypocritical avidity of the living. Guided bythis intention, and ashamed to see the human race, in a land just freedfrom the yoke of prejudice, give birth to a disgraceful juggling whichwill terminate in dominating authority, and associate itself with thepersecutions of which our incredulous or dissenting ancestors were thesad victims, we believe it useful to reprint the last lessons of apriest--an honest man--bequeathed to his fellow-citizens and to posterity. The service we render to Philosophy will be so much the greater when wecan consider as immutable, perpetual, permanent, and ready to appear inthe hour of need, the edition which we are preparing of "COMMON SENSE, BY THE PRIEST JEAN MESLIER, AND HIS DYING CONFESSION. "

To do justice to these two works, to which we have added analyticalnotes, which will greatly facilitate our researches, we will limitourselves by giving the imposing approbation of two philosophers of theeighteenth century--Voltaire and d'Alembert. They certainly understoodmuch better the sublimity of evangelical morality, and spoke of it in amanner more worthy of its author, than did those who deified it toprofit by its divinity, and who abused so cruelly the ignorance andbarbarity of the first centuries, to establish, in the interest of theirfortunes and power, so many base prejudices, so many puerile andsuperstitious practices. 

Here is what Voltaire and d'Alembert thought of the curate Meslier andof his work. Their letters are presented here in order to excitecuriosity and convince the judgment:

VOLTAIRE TO D'ALEMBERT. 

FERNEY, February, 1762. 

They have printed in Holland the Testament of Jean Meslier. I trembledwith horror in reading it. The testimony of a priest, who, in dying, asks God's pardon for having taught Christianity, must be a great weightin the balance of Liberals. I will send you a copy of this Testament ofthe anti-Christ, because you desire to refute it. You have but to tellme by what manner it will reach you. It is written with greatsimplicity, which unfortunately resembles candor. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

FERNEY, February 25, 1762. 

Meslier also has the wisdom of the serpent. He sets an example for you;the good grain was hidden in the chaff of his book. A good Swiss hasmade a faithful abstract and this abstract can do a great deal of good. What an answer to the insolent fanatics who treat philosophers likelibertines. What an answer to you, wretches that you are, this testimonyof a priest, who asks God's pardon for having been a Christian!

D'ALEMBERT'S ANSWER. 

PARIS, March 31, 1762. 

A misunderstanding has been the cause, my dear philosopher, that Ireceived but a few days since the work of Jean Meslier, which you hadsent almost a month ago. I waited till I received it to write to you. Itseems to me that we could inscribe upon the tombstone of this curate:"Here lies a very honest priest, curate of a village in Champagne, who, in dying, asks God's pardon for having been a Christian, and who hasproved by this, that ninety-nine sheep and one native of Champagne donot make a hundred beasts. " I suspect that the abstract of his work iswritten by a Swiss, who understands French very well, though he affectsto speak it badly. This is neat, earnest, and concise, and I bless theauthor of the abstract, whoever he may be. "It is of the Lord tocultivate the vine. " After all, my dear philosopher, a little longer, and I do not know whether all these books will be necessary, and whetherman will not have enough sense to comprehend by himself that three donot make one, and that bread is not God. The enemies of reason areplaying a very foolish part at this moment, and I believe that we cansay as in the song:

"To destroy all these peopleYou should let them alone. "

I do not know what will become of the religion of Christ, but itsprofessors are in false garb. What Pascal, Nicole, and Arnaud could notdo, there is an appearance that three or four absurd and ignorantfanatics will accomplish. The nation will give this vigorous blowwithin, while she is doing so little outside, and we will put in theabbreviated chronological pages of the year 1762: "This year France lostall its colonies and expelled the Jesuits. " I know nothing but powder, which with so little apparent force, could produce such great results. 

VOLTAIRE TO D'ALEMBERT. 

DELICES, July 12, 1762. 

It appears to me that the Testament of Jean Meslier has a great effect;all those who read it are convinced; this man discusses and proves. Hespeaks in the moment of death, at the moment when even liars tell thetruth fully. This is the strongest of all arguments. Jean Meslier is toconvert the world. Why is his gospel in so few hands? How lukewarm youare at Paris! You hide your tight under a bushel!

D'ALEMBERT'S ANSWER. 

PARIS, July 31, 1762. 

You reproach us with lukewarmness, but I believe I have told you alreadythat the fear of the fagot is very cooling. You would like us to printthe Testament of Jean Meslier and distribute four or five thousandcopies. The infamous fanaticism, for infamous it is, would lose littleor nothing, and we should be treated as fools by those whom we wouldhave converted. Man is so little enlightened to-day only because we hadthe precaution or the good fortune to enlighten him little by little. Ifthe sun should appear all of a sudden in a cave, the inhabitants wouldperceive only the harm it would do their eyes. The excess of light wouldresult only in blinding them. 

D'ALEMBERT TO VOLTAIRE. 

PARIS, July 9, 1764. 

Apropos, they have lent me that work attributed to St. Evremont, andwhich is said to be by Dumarsais, of which you spoke to me some timeago; it is good, but the Testament of Meslier is still better!

VOLTAIRE TO D'ALEMBERT. 

FERNEY, July 16, 1764. 

The Testament of Meslier ought to be in the pocket of all honest men; agood priest, full of candor, who asks God's pardon for deceivinghimself, must enlighten those who deceive themselves. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE COUNT D'ARGENTAL. 

AUX DELICES, February 6, 1762. 

But no little bird told me of the infernal book of that curate, JeanMeslier; a very important work to the angels of darkness. An excellentcatechism for Beelzebub. Know that this book is very rare; it is atreasure!

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

AUX DEUCES, May 31, 1762. 

It is just that I should send you a copy of the second edition ofMeslier. In the first edition they forgot the preface, which is verystrange. You have wise friends who would not be sorry to have this bookin their secret cabinet. It is excellent to form youthful minds. Thebook, which was sold in manuscript form for eight Louis-d'or, isillegible. This little abstract is very edifying. Let us thank the goodsouls who give it gratuitously, and let us pray God to extend Hisbenedictions upon this useful reading. 

VOLTAIRE TO D'AMILAVILLE. 

AUX DEUCES, February 8, 1762. 

My brother shall have a Meslier soon as I shall have received the order;it would seem that my brother has not the facts. Fifteen to twenty yearsago the manuscript of this work sold for eight Louis-d'or; it was a verylarge quarto. There are more than a hundred copies in Paris. BrotherThiriot understands the facts. It is not known who made the abstract, but it is taken wholly, word for word, from the original. There arestill many persons who have seen the curate Meslier. It would be veryuseful to make a new edition of this little work in Paris; it can bedone easily in three or four days. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

FERNEY, December 6, 1762. 

But I believe there will never be another impression of the little bookof Meslier. Think of the weight of the testimony of one dying, of apriest, of a good man. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

FERNEY, July 6, 1764. 

Three hundred Mesliers distributed in a province have caused manyconversions. Ah, if I was assisted!

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

FERNEY, September 29, 1764. 

There are too few Mesliers and too many swindlers. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE SAME. 

AUX DELICES, October 8, 1764. 

Names injure the cause; they awaken prejudice. Only the name of JeanMeslier can do good, because the repentance of a good priest in the hourof death must make a great impression. This Meslier should be in thehands of all the world. 

VOLTAIRE TO MADAM DE FLORIAN. 

AUX DELICES, May 20, 1762. 

My dear niece, it is very sad to be so far from you. Read and read againJean Meslier; he is a good curate. 

VOLTAIRE TO THE MARQUIS D'ARGENCE. 

March 2, 1763. 

I have found a Testament of Jean Meslier, which I send you. Thesimplicity of this man, the purity of his manners, the pardon which heasks of God, and the authenticity of his book, must produce a greateffect. I will send you as many copies as you want of the Testament ofthis good curate. 

VOLTAIRE TO HELVETIUS. 

AUX DEUCES, May 1, 1763. 

They have sent me the two abstracts of Jean Meslier. It is true that itis written in the style of a carriage-horse, but it is well suited tothe street. And what testimony! that of a priest who asks pardon indying, for having taught absurd and horrible things! What an answer tothe platitudes of fanatics who have the audacity to assert thatphilosophy is but the fruit of libertinage!