Good Sense - The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia (2024)

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

Le Bon Sens, ou Idées naturelles opposées aux idées surnaturelles (1772), Good Sense: or, Natural Ideas Opposed to Supernatural) is a book by Baron d'Holbach. It was an abridged version of The System of Nature. It was published anonymously in Amsterdam.

Full text in English

TO MR. RICHARD CARLILE.

DEAR SIR,

Having read through this American translation, Icannot help making a few remarks about it, whichmay be useful to your readers . The translation isconsiderably too literal, abounding in Gallicisms.This defect is the more to be regretted, as even theoriginal is composed in so rough a style, that, to usea very appropriate though perhaps vulgar simile, theauthor may be said to remind one of a cart horse,whose trotting is inelegant, though his kicks are mostformidable *. I have ventured to anglicize some ofthe translator's phrases, though in consequence of particular circ*mstances, I have been obliged to leavethe first sheet, and a great part of two others, intheir primitive state of barbarism. But the translation is at anyratefaithful; though heAmerican twicemistook between " décrets" and sécrets, " andomitted, through negligence, half a dozer lines at theend of a few chapters . Sometimes however I haveadopted his omissions, considering them judicious;and indeed I regret that he was not more daring inthem; as languid , or ill placed, sentences may beoccasionally found, such as that about Pandora'sbox, which terminates this energetic work in amanner which appears to me disgraceful.At your request, I translate the Index, which isgiven in the edition I use (Paris 1802 or 1822, ) andwhich I suppose was wanting in the edition used byVoltaire says in a letter to Helvetius ( AD. 1763) " Il est vrai que cela est écrit du style d'un cheval de carrosse , mais qu'il rue bien à propos! But this is apparently said of a work of Voltaire's own, different from the Bon Sens, though both may perhaps be abridged from the same original publication.ivthe American translator, or he would not have omitted presenting his readers with so concise and forciable an abstract of the work. On the other hand,the edition I use does not contain the two lastparagraphs of the preface, being apparently omittedby an oversight of the printer.

Appended to this French edition is an extractfrom the " Testament of the Curé Meslier" by Voltaire, which would occupy about forty of your pages, and which I have not thought worth translating,because, like all Voltaire's works, it is merely Deistical, and enters into a minute criticism of religiousbooks, best criticised by the silence of disdain .Far different from the " Testament, " the" Bon Sens"is the strongest atheistical work I ever read. Many of the sentences remind one of Diderot: indeed weknow, from a letter of Grimm's, that Diderot assisted d'Holbach in the " System of Nature. " Nowthe Bon Sens is attributed to d'Holbach by Barbier, as we may learn from the following extract(from Barbier's Dictionary) given in the prefaceto the last edition of the Système de la Nature(Paris 1822.)30+ Le Bon Sens, or Natural ideas opposedto Supernatural. London. ( Amsterdam. MichaelRey.) 1772 in 12 mo. " An excellent abridgmentof the Système de la Nature, free'd from arbitraryideas, and, by the clearness, facility, and precisionof its style, adapted to the meanest comprehension.Thus Barbier: but I leave all persons to formtheir own opinion . You have rightly observed tome, that the diffuse style of the " System of Nature"is too much opposed to the concise style of the"Bon Sens" for any one to attribute them to the sameti, e. The thirtieth of d'Holbach's fifty works, (all I belieye, anonymous or pseu donymous, ) upon Religion, Politics , Agriculture, and Mineralogy.Vauthor. It is also my opinion, that no man can writeinelegantly on purpose. It is true, d' Holbach wasthe most simple and modest of all men: but it musthave been a great, and almost inconceivable, triumphover literary vanity, to assume the barbarous styleof the Bon Sens. And what was to be gained by it?A book is not the better adapted to dull comprehensions, because the relative parts of phrases are devoidof all parallelism, and because the first sentence ofparagraphs so repeatedly begins with " Pour peuque" and the last sentence with (an often very illogical) " enfin, " or " en un mot. " Whoever thereforewrote the book, the style would induce me to imagine that we ought really to attribute it to some poorcountry clergyman.Voltaire has always mentioned the Curé's work insuch a mysterious manner, that one might almostdoubt whether the nominal author was not a mereens rationis. His existence however is fully provedby the formal account given ofhim in the DictionnaireUniversel. (Paris 1810)

Jean Meslier, cure of Etrepigny, a village in Champagne, was the son of a serge- weaver* of the village of Mazerni . He is well known by a writing published, after his death, under the title of the Testament of John Meslier. It is a declamation against all the doctrines of Christianity. The style is such as one might expect from a country curé. The Work may be found in the " Evangile de la Raison" in 8vo, and in the " Recueil necessaire" 1765 in 8vo .

Meslier was always a man ofpure morals; and everyyear gave his poor parishoners the surplus of hisincome. Some persons represent him as a proudand misanthropical man, who endeavoured to disturbthe repose of his flock by disseminating dangerousopinions among them. He died in 1733, Aged 55 .Anacharsis Clootz proposed to the National Convention that a statue should be erected to this Curé;

• D'un ouvrier en Serge.

vibut nothing to that effect was executed. " Thus theauthor of the Dictionnaire Universel, whose articlevery much resembles that given by Ladvocat, altho'the Librarian of the Sorbonne is of course more bigotted. Clootz's proposition, above alluded to, produced the following decree, made on the 27th. Bru- maire, year II. "The National Convention refers,to its committee of public instruction, the proposition made by one of its members, to erect a statueto Jean Meslier, curé of Etrepigny in Champagne,the first priest who had the courage and good faithto abjure the errors of religion .""To conclude: I think it very possible, that JohnMeslier might have left behind him a last will andtestament of 366 8vo pages, accordingly as is statedin his life, collected from Voltaire , and given at thebeginning of the last Paris edition of the Bon Sens.But how far the Bon Sens itself may be derivedfromthis Testament, I know not. Ifthis Testamenthad been as strongly Atheistical as the work nowbefore us, I do not think so pious a Deist as Voltairewould have given himself the trouble of abridgingit . Again: d' Holbach, in the title page, does notsay that his work is an abridgment: for surely whenhe gave it the title of " Le Bon Sens (or CommonSense) of the Curé Meslier, " he could not wish toimply, that it was the Esprit of the Curé Meslier, ora judicious abstract of some larger work of theCuré's.Hoping that some better informed person willthrow more light upon the subject,I remain &c, &c.N. T.P. S. I regret that I have left so many Barbarismsin the American translation; but I was afraid thatI might be accused of presumption, and of alteringmerely for the sake of altering..THEAUTHOR'S PREFACE.WHEN We coolly examine the opinions of men, we are surprisedto find, that even in those opinions, which they regard as themost essential, nothing is more uncommon, than common sense;or, in other words, nothing is more uncommon, than a degree ofjudgment sufficient to discover the most simple truths, or rejectthe most striking absurdities, and to be shocked with palpablecontradictions. We have an example of it in Theológy, a sciencerevered in all times and countries, by the greatest number ofmen; an object regarded by them the most important, the mostuseful, and the most indispensable to the happiness of society.An examination however slight, ofthe principles upon which thispretended science is founded , forces us to acknowledge, that theseprinciples, formerly judged incontestable, are only hazardoussuppositions, imagined by ignorance, propagated by enthusiasmor knavery, adopted by timid credulity, preserved by customwhich never reasons, and revered solely because not understood ,"Some," says Montaigne,* " make the world think, that theybelieve what they do not; others, in greater number, makethemselves think, that they believe what they do not, not knowing what belief is. "In a word, whoever will deign to consult common sense uponreligious opinions , and will bestow on this inquiry the attentionthat is commonly given to any objects we presume interesting,will easily perceive that those opinions have no foundation; thatReligion is a mere castle in the air. Theology is but the ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system; a long tissue of fallacies and contradictions. In every country, it presents uswith romances void of probability, the hero of which is himselfcomposed of qualities impossible to combine. His name, excitingin all hearts respect and fear, is only a vague word , which menhave continually in their mouths, without being able to affix to it

• Essays, B. 2. ch. 12.

vill PREFACE.ideas or qualities, which are not contradicted by facts, or evidently inconsistent with one another.Our notions of this being (of whom we have no idea , ) or rather, the word by which he is designated, would be a matter ofindifference, if it did not cause innumerable ravages in the world .Prepossessed with the opinion that this phantom is a reality ofthe greatest interest to them, men, instead of concluding wiselyfrom its incomprehensibility, that they are not bound to regardit, infer on the contrary, that they cannot sufficiently meditateupon it, that they must contemplate it, and reason upon it,without ceasing, and never lose sight of it. Their invincible ignorance, upon this subject, far from discouraging them, irritatestheir curiosity; instead of putting them upon guard againsttheir imagination, this ignorance renders them decisive, dogmatical, imperious, and even exasperates them against all, who oppose doubts to the reveries which their brains have begotten.What perplexity arises, when it is required to solve an insolvable problem; unceasing meditation upon an object, impossibleto understand, but in which however he thinks himself muchconcerned, cannot but excite man to be ill humoured, and pro- duce a fever in his brain. Let interest, vanity, and ambition,co-operate ever so little with this unfortunate turn of mind, andsociety must necessarily be disturbed . This is the reason that somany nations have often been the scene of the extravagances ofsenseless visionaries , who, believing their empty speculations tobe eternal truths, and publishing them as such, have kindled thezeal of princes and their subjects, and made them take up armsfor opinions, represented to them as essential to the glory of theDeity, and to the happiness of empires. In all parts of ourglobe, fanatics have cut each other's throats, publicly burnt eachother, commited without a scruple and even as a duty, the greatestcrimes, and shed torrents of blood. For what? To strengthen,support, or propagate the impertinent conjectures of some enthusiasts, or to give validity to the cheats of some impostors, in thename and behalf of a being, who exists only in their imagination,and who has made himself known only by the ravages , disputes,and follies, he has caused upon the earth.Savage and furious nations, perpetually at war, adore, underdivers names, some God, conformable to their ideas, that is tosay, cruel, carnivorous, selfish, blood-thirsty. We find, in allthe religions of the earth, " a God of armies," a " jealous God,"an " avenging God," a " destroying God," a " God," who ispleased with carnage, and whom his worshipers consider it as aduty to serve to his taste. Lambs, bulls , children, men, heretics ,PREFACE. ixinfidels, kings, whole nations, are sacrificed to him. Do not thezealous servants of this barbarous God think themselves obligedeven to offer up themselves as a sacrifice to him? Madmen mayevery where be seen, who, after meditating upon their terrible God,imagine that to please himthey must do themselves all possible injury, and inflict on themselves, for his honour, the most exquisite torments. The gloomy ideas more usefully formed of the deity, far fromconsoling them under the evils of life, have every where disquieted their minds, and produced follies destructive to their happiness.How could the human mind make any considerable progress ,while tormented with frightful phantoms, and guided by men,interested in perpetuating its ignorance and fears? Man hasbeen forced to vegetate in his primitive stupidity: he has beentaught nothing but stories about invisible powers upon whom hishappiness was supposed to depend. Occupied solely by hisfears , and by unintelligible reveries, he has always been at themercy of his priests, who have reserved to themselves the rightof thinking for him, and of directing his actions.Thus man has remained a child without experience, a slavewithout courage, fearing to reason, and unable to extricate himself from the labyrinth, in which he has so long been wandering.He believes himself forced to bend under the yoke of his gods,known to him only by the fabulous accounts given by his ministers, who, after binding each unhappy mortal in the chains ofprejudice, remain his masters, or else abandon him defencelessto the absolute power of tyrants, no less terrible than the gods,of whom they are the representatives upon earth.Oppressed bythe double yoke of spiritual and temporal power,it has been impossible for the people to know and pursue their happiness. As Religion, so Politics and Morality became sacredthings, which the profane were not permitted to handle. Menhave had no other Morality, than what their legislators andpriests brought down from the unknown regions of heaven. Thehuman mind, confused by its theological opinions, ceased toknow its own powers, mistrusted experience, feared truth and disdained reason, in order to follow authority. Manhas been a mere machine in the hands of tyrants and priests,who alone have had the right of directing his actions. Alwaystreated as a slave, he has contracted the vices of a slave.Such are the true causes of the corruption of morals, towhich Religion opposes only ideal and ineffectual barriers . Ig- norance and servitude are calculated to make men wicked and4X PREFACE.Priests cheatunhappy. Knowledge, Reason, and Liberty, can alone reformthem, and make them happier, But every thing conspires toblind them, and to confirm them in their errors.them, tyrants corrupt, the better to enslave them. Tyranny everwas, and ever will be, the true cause of man's depravity, and also of his habitual calamities. Almost always fascinated byreligious fiction, poor mortals turn not their eyes to the naturaland obvious causes of their misery; but attribute their vices tothe imperfection of their natures, and their unhappiness to theanger ofthe gods. They offer up to heaven vows, sacrifices , andpresents, to obtain the end of their sufferings, which in reality,are attributable only to the neligence , ignorance, and perversityof their guides, to the folly of their customs, to the unreasonableness of their laws, and above all, to the general want of knowledge. Let men's minds be filled with true ideas; let theirreason be cultivated; let justice govern them; and there will beno need of opposing to the passions, such a feeble barrier, as thefear of the gods. Men will be good, when they are well instructed, well governed, and when they are punished or despised forthe evil, and justly rewarded for the good , which they do to their fellow citizens .In vain should we attempt to cure men of their vices , unless.we begin by curing them of their prejudices. It is only by shewing them the truth, that they will perceive their true interests,and the real motives that ought to incline them to do good. Instructors have long enough fixed men's eyes upon heaven; letthem now turn them upon earth. An incomprehensible theology,ridiculous fables, impenetrable mysteries, puerile ceremonies , aretoo fatiguing to be any longer endured . Let the human mindapply itself to what is natural, to intelligible objects, sensibletruths, and useful knowledge. Let vain chimeras be banished;and reasonable opinions will of their own accord enter into heads,thought to be destined to perpetual error.Does it not suffice to annihilate or shake religious prejudice,to shew, that what is inconceivable to man, cannot be made for him? Does it require any thing, but plain common sense, toperceive, that a being, incompatible with the most evident notions - that a cause continually opposed to the effects which weattribute to it-that a being, of whom we can say nothing, without falling into contradiction -that a being, who, far from explaining the enigmas of the universe, only makes them moreinexplicable that a being, whom for so many ages men have sovainly addressed to obtain their happiness, and the end of theirsufferings- does it require, I say, any thing but plain, common sense, to perceive--that the idea of such a being is an idea with-PREFACE. xiout model, and that he himself is merely a phantom of theimagination? Is any thing necessary but common sense to perceive, at least, that it is folly and madness for men to hate andtorment one another about unintelligible opinions concerning abeing of this kind? In short, does not every thing prove, thatMorality and Virtue are totally incompatible with the notions ofa God, whom his ministers and interpreters have described, inevery country, as the most capricious, unjust, and cruel oftyrants, whose pretended will, however, must serve as law audrule to the inhabitants of the earth?To discover the true principles of Morality, men have no needof theology, of revelation , or of gods: They have need only ofcommon sense . They have only to commune with themselves ,to reflect upon their own nature, to consult their visible interests ,to consider the objects of society, and of the individuals , whocompose it; and they will easily perceive, that virtue is advantageous, and vice disadvantageous to such beings as themselves.Let us persuade men to be just, beneficent, moderate, sociable;not because such conduct is demanded by the gods, but, because it is pleasure to men. Let us advise them to abstain from viceand crime; not because they will be punished in the other world,but because they will suffer for it in this. - These are, says agreat man, * means to prevent crimes —these are punishments; theseare those to reform manners —these are good examples.Truth is simple; error is complex, uncertain and circuitous.The voice of nature is intelligible; that of falsehood is ambiguous,enigmatical, mysterious . The way of truth is straight; that ofimposture is crooked and dark. Truth, forever necessary to man, must necessarily be felt by all upright minds; the lessonsof reason are formed to be followed by all honest men.unhappy, only because they are ignorant; they are ignorant, onlybecause every thing conspires to prevent their being enlightened;they are wicked only because their reason is not sufficientlydeveloped.Men areBy what fatality then , have the first founders of all sects given to their gods ferocious characters , at which nature revolts? Canwe imagine a conduct more abominable, than that which Mosestells us his God showed towards the Egyptians, where thatassassin proceeds boldly to declare, in the name and by the order of his God, that Egypt shall be afflicted with the greatest

• Montesquieu.

xii PREFACE.calamities, that can happen to man? Of all the different ideas,which they wish to give us of a supreme being, of a God, creatorand preserver of mankind, there are none more horrible, thanthose ofthe impostors, who represented themselves as inspired bya divine spirit.Why, O theologians! do you presume to inquire into theimpenetrable mysteries of a great being, whom you consider inconceivable to the human mind? You are the first blasphemers,when you imagine that a being, perfect a@cording to you , couldbe guilty of such cruelty towards creatures whom he has madeout of nothing. Confess, with us, your ignorance of a creatingGod; and forbear, in your turn, to meddle with mysteries, whichman seems unworthy of knowing.THEFOLLOWING IS A TRANSLATIONOF THETABLE OF CONTENTS ,GIVEN IN THE FRENCH EDITION OF 1822.Chap.1. APOLOGUE.2, 3. What is Theology?4. Man is not born with any ideas of Religion,5. It is not necessary to believe in a God6. Religion is founded on credulityPage12, 33347. All religion is an absurdity •8. The idea of God is impossible9. On the Origin of Superstition10. On the Origin of all Religion1446615511. Religious fears expose men to become a prey to impostors12, 13. Religion seduces ignorance by the aid of the mar5vellous 514. There would never have been any Religion, if there hadnot been ages of Stupidity and Barbarism15. All Religion was produced by the desire of domination16. What serves as a basis to Religion is of all things the most uncertain .17, 18. It is impossible to be convinced ofthe existence of aGod19. The existence of God is not proved .20. It explains nothing to say, that God is a spirit21. Spirituality is an absurdity- 22. Whatever exists is derived from Matter •66 CO 78∞∞o∞23. Whatis the metaphysical God of modern Theology?• 924. It would be less unreasonable to adore the Sun, than toadore a spiritual Deity .25. A spiritual Deity is incapable of volition and action 26. What is God?27. Some remarkable Contradictions in Theology28. To adore God, is to adore a fiction . .••· 99101010 29. Atheism is authorised by the infinity of God, and theimpossibility of knowing the Divine essence . •xivChap.30. Believing iu God is neither (less)* safe, nor (more)*criminal than not believing in him .31. Belief in God is merely a habit mechanically acquired ininfancy ..32. Belief in God is a prejudice established by passing thro'successive generations33, On the Origin of Prejudices •34. On the effects of Prejudices .35. The Religious principles of modern Theology could notbe believed if they were not instilled into the mind before the age of reason ·36. The wonders of nature do not prove the existence of God37, 38. The wonders of nature may be explained by naturalPage1112223131333causes 1439, 40. The world has never been created: Matter moves of itself .1541. Additional proofs that motion is essential to Matter, andthat consequently it is unnecessary to imagine a Spiritual Mover . 1642. The existence of Man by no means proves the existence ofGod:: 1743. Nevertheless, neither Man nor the Universe are the effects of chance:: 1844, 45. The order of the Universe does not prove the exis- tence ofa God ..46. A pure Spirit cannot be intelligent: it is absurd to adorea divine intelligence .47, 48. All the qualities, which Theology gives to its Godare contrary to the Essence which is attributed tohim: •49. It is absurd to say that the human race is the object and end of the formation of the Universe .50. God is not made for Man, nor Man for God19,202122222351. It is not true that the object of the formation of the Universe was to render Man happy: 232452. What is called Providence is but a word without meaning ..53. This pretended Providence is less occupied in preservingthan in disturbing the world, and is less the friendthan the enemy of Man54. The world is not governed by an intelligent being 55. God cannot be considered immutableses·56. Good and evil are the necessary effects of natural cau- What is a God that cannot change any thing?57. The vanity of the consolations which Theology opposes to the evils of this life . The hope of a paradise and

• I think the author means exactly the contrary. - Ed.

25262727XVChup .of a future life, is but imaginary58. Another romantic revery 59. It is in vain that Theology attempts to clear its God from human defects: either this God is not free , orelse he is more wicked than good •60, 61. It is impossible to believe that there exists a God ofinfinite goodness and power .. in- 62. Theology makes of its God a monster of absurdity,justice, malice, and atrocity-a being supremely execrable63. All Religion inspires contemptible fears 64. There is no real difference between Religion , and themost sombre and servile Superstition .·Page 2830303233343465. Tojudge from the ideas which Theology gives us oftheDeity, the love of God is impossible 3566. An eternally tormenting God is a most detestable being .3567. Theology is a tissue of palpable contradictions68. The pretended works of God by no means prove whatare called the Divine Perfections363769. The perfection of God is not rendered more evident bythe pretended creation of angels . 3770. Theology preaches the Omnipotence of its God, yet constantly makes him appear impotent .3871. According to all religious systems, God would be the.most capricious and most foolish of beings .3872. It is absurd to say that Evil does not proceed from God 3973. The foreknowledge attributed to God would give themen, whom he punishes for their guilt, a right tocomplain of his cruelty .74. Absurdity of the theological stories concerning OriginalSin, and concerning Satan.394075. The Devil, like Religion , was invented to enrich thepriests • 4076. IfGod has been unable to render human nature incapable of sin , he has no right to punish man 4177. It is absurd to say, that the conduct of God ought to bea mystery for man ·• 44 78. Oughtthe unfortunate to look for consolation, to the soleauthor of their misery79. A God, who punishes the faults which he might haveprevented, is a mad tyrant, who joins injustice to folly 4580. What is called Free Will is an absurdity25424681. But we must not hence conclude that Society has norightto punish the wicked 4982, 83. Refutation of the arguments in favour of Free Will 49, 5084. God himself, if there were a God, would not be free:xviChap.hence the inutility of all Religion .85. According even to the principles of Theology, man is notfree a single instant .86. There is no evil, no disorder, and no sin, but must beattributed to God: consequently God has no righteither topunish or recompence .Page 50515152587. The prayers which men offer to God sufficiently prove,that they are not satisfied with the divine economy 5288. It is the height of absurdity to imagine, that the injuriesand misfortunes, which man endures in this world,will be repaired in another world89. Theology justifies the evil and the wickedness, permitted by its God, only by attributing to him the principle,that " Might makes Right," which is the violation of all Right·3335353• 5590. Ths absurd doctrine of Redemption, and the frequentexterminations attributed to Jehovah, impress one.with the idea of an unjust and barbarous God .91. Can a being, who has called us into existence merely to make us miserable, be a generous, equitable, and ten- der father? ·92. Man's whole life , and all that occurs here below, deposesagainst the liberty of Man, and against the justice andgoodness of a pretended God .93. It is not true, that we owe any gratitude to what is call- " ed Providence56565794. It is folly to suppose that Man is the king of nature, thefavourite of God, and unique object of his labours 58• 95. A comparison between Man and brutes96. There are no animals so detestable as Tyrants97. A refutation ofthe excellence of Man .98. An oriental Tale.99. It is madness to see nothing in the universe but thegoodness of God, or to think that this universe is onlymade for Man•100. What is the Sonl? We know not. If this pretendedSoul were of a different essence than the Body, their. union would be impossible101. The existence of a Soul is an absurd supposition; and the existence of an immortal Soul a still more absurd supposition102. It is evident that Man dies in toto103. Incontestible . arguments against the Spirituality of theSoul .104. On the absurdity of the supernatural causes, to whichTheologians are constantly having recourse105, 106. It is false that Materialism degrades the humanrace•95 800

8596061626465666768@8286869xviiChap.107. The idea of a future life is only useful to those, whothereby make a trade of public credulity .108. It is false that the idea of a future life is consoling:and, even if it were consoling, it would not follow,that it was therefore true.109. All religious principles are derived from the imagina- tion. What is called internal conviction is but theeffect of habit. God is a chimera; and the qualities, attributed to him, reciprocally destroy one another110. Religion is but a system imagined in order to reconcile contradictions by the aid of mysteries111 , 112, 113. Absurdity and inutility of all Mysteries,which were only invented for the interests of PriestsPage6970727474,75,76114. An universal God ought to have revealed an universalReligion .115. What proves, that Religion is unnecessary, is, that it isunintelligible116. All Religions are rendered ridiculous by the multitudeof creeds, all opposite to one another, and all equally foolish .117. Opinion of a famous Theologian7712777879118. The God of the Deists is not less contradictory, nor lesschimerical than the God ofthe Theologians 79119. It by no means proves the existence of God to say,that, in every age, all nations have acknowledgedsome Deity or other120. All Gods are of a savage origin: all Religions are monuments of the ignorance, superstition, and ferocityof former times: modern Religions are but ancientfollies, re- edited with additions and corrections .121. All religious usages bear marks of stupidity and barba- rism .818183122. The more a religious opinion is ancient and general, themore it ought to be suspected 84123. Mere scepticism in religious matters, can only be theeffect of a very superficial examination 87124. Revelations examined . · 87125. Where is the proof that God ever shewed himself toMen, or ever spoke to them?· 88126. There is nothing that proves miracles to have been everperformed . · 88127. If God has spoken, is it not strange that he should havespoken so differently to the different religious sects?128. Obscurity and suspicious origin of our oracles129. Absurdity ofall miracles .130. Refutation of the reasoning of Pascal concerning the8990911xviiiChap,manner in which we must judge of miracles .131. Every new revelation is necessarily false and impious132. The blood of the martyrs testifies against the truth ofthe miracles, and against the divine origin attributedto ChristianityPage 919293133. The fanaticism of martyrs, and the interested zeal ofmissionaries, by no means prove the truth of Religion 94134. Theology makes of its God an enemy to Reason and Common Sense135. Faith is irreconcileable with Reason; and Reason ispreferable to Faith ..136. To what absurd and ridiculous sophisms every one isreduced, who would substitute Faith for Reason!137. Ought a man to believe, on the assurance of anotherman, what is of the greatest importance to himself138. Faith can take root only in feeble, ignorant, or sloth- ful minds ..139. To teach, that any one Religion has greater preten- sions to truth than another, is.not only an absurdity,but is a cause of discontent and tumult in states959597989899140. Religion is unnecessary to Morality .141. Religion.is. the weakest barrier that can be opposed to the passions .· 102103142. Honour is a more salutary and powerful bond than Re- · 103 ligion.143 Religion does not restrain the passions of kings , who,in general, are cruel and capricious tyrants, like himwhose representatives they call themselves .144. Origin of "the divine right of kings," the most absurd,ridiculous, and odious , of usurpations104105145. Religion is fatal to political ameliorations: it makesdespots licentious and wicked, and their subjeets abject and miserable .146. Christianism has propagated itself by preaching implicitobedience to despotism , of which, like every otherReligion, it is the firmest support . .107107147. The only object of religious principles is to eternize thetyranny ofkings .109148. How fatal it is to persuade kings that they are responsible for their actions to God alone! . 110149. A devout king is the scourge of his kingdom150. Tyranny sometimes finds the aegis of Religion a weakobstacle to the despair of the people .111112151. Religion favours the wickedness of princes by delivering them from fear and remorse 113152. What is an enlightened Sovereign?. 114153. Ofthe prevailing passions and crimes of the priesthood 115154. The quackery of priests .115xixChap.155. Religion has corrupted Morality, and produced innumerable evils .156. Every Religion is intolerant, and is consequently destructive to benevolence . ·• 157. The evils of a state Religion 158. Religion legitimates and authorizes crime, by teachingthat God sometimes made use of national ferocity forthe attainment of his objectPage116118119119159. Refutation of the argument, that the evils attributed toReligion are but the bad effects of human passions 120160. Religion is incompatible with Morality .161. The Morality of the Gospel is impracticable162. A society of Saints would be impossible 163. Human nature is not depraved: a Morality, which opposes human nature, is not made for human beings .121123124125164. Concerning the effects of Jesus Christ's mission165. The dogma of the remission of sins was invented for theinterest of the priests• 126127166. Who fear God? 128167. Hell is too absurd an invention to be able to preventcrime 129 .168. On the bad foundation of religious morals and religiousvirtues 169. Christian Charity, as it is preached and practised byTheologians!!! . 170. Confession, priescraft's mine of gold, is the destructionof the true principles of Morality130131· • 134171. The supposition of the existence of a God is by nomeans necessary to Morality .135172. Religion and its supernatural Morality are fatal to thepublic welfare .136173. The union of Church and State is a calamity both to thesubject and the sovereign 137 • 174. National Religions are generally burthensome and rui138 nous .•139140 175. Religion paralyses Morality176. Fatal consequences of Devotion 177. The idea of a future life is neither consoling to man,nor necessary to Morality . 178. An Atheist is fully as conscientious as a religious man,and has as many motives for doing good . 179. An Atheistical king would be far preferable to the manyvery religious and very wicked kings .180. Philosophy produces Morality 181. Religious opinions have but little influence upon the •conduct3140• 141• 143143144XXChap.182. Reason conducts man to Irreligion and Atheism; because Religion is absurd, and the God of the Priestsis a malicious and savage beingPage145183. Fear alone makes Theists and devotees • 146184. Can we, and ought we, to love God?185. God and Religion are proved to be absurdities by thedifferent ideas every where formed of them .186. The existence of God, which is the basis of Religion,has not yet been demonstrated .187. Priests are more actuated by self- interest, than unbe- lievers are188. Pride, presumption, and badness of heart, are oftener147148149149found in priests, than in Atheists and Unbelievers 150189. Prejudices last but for a time: no power is durable. 153which is not founded upon truth, reason, and equity 152190. What an honourable power the ministers of the Godswould obtain, if they became the apostles of reason and the defenders of liberty! .191. What a glorious and happy revolution it would be forthe world, if Philosophy were substituted for Religion! .192. The recantation of an unbeliever at the point of death proves nothing against the reasonableness of unbelief 155193. It is by no means true that Atheism breaks all the bondsof society. . ...154194. Refutation of the often repeated opinion, that Religion.is necessary for the vulgar . 156195. Logical and argumentative systems are not adapted tothe capacity of the vulgar · 158196. On the futility and danger of Theology · 159197, 198. On the evils produced by implicit faith 160 161199. History teaches us, that all Religions were establishedby impostors, in days of ignoranceally borrowed from one another their abstract revéries and ridiculous ceremonies 163162 .200. All Religions, whether ancient or modern, have mutu201. Theology has always diverted philosophy from its rightpath 164202. Theology explains nothing 165203, 204. Theology has always fettered Morality, and retarded the progress of intellect . 166167205. It cannot be too often repeated and proved, that Religion is an extravagance and a calamity . . 168206. Religion prevents us from seeing the true causes of our misfortunes 169GOOD SENSE.APOLOGUE.§. 1. THERE is a vast empire, governed by a monarch, whose strange conduct is very proper toconfound the minds of his subjects. He wishes tobe known, loved, respected, obeyed; but nevershews himself to his subjects, and every thing conspires to render uncertain the ideas formed of hischaracter.The people, subjected to his power, have, of thecharacter and laws of their invisible sovereign, suchideas only, as his ministers give them. They, however, confess, that they have no idea of their master;that his ways are impenetrable; his views and nature totally incomprehensible .These ministers,likewise, disagree upon the commands which theypretend have been issued by the sovereign, whoseinstruments they call themselves. They announcethem differently to each province of the empire.They defame one another, and mutually treat eachother as impostors and false teachers . The decreesand ordinances, they take upon themselves to promulgate, are obscure; they are enigmas, little calculated to be understood, or even divined, by thesubjects, for whose instruction they were intended .The laws of the concealed monarch require interpreters; but the interpreters are always disputingupon the true manner of understanding them. Besides, they are not consistent with themselves; allthey relate of their concealed prince is only a threadof contradiction. They utter concerning him not a22single word, that does not immediately confute itself. They call him supremely good; yet there isno one, who does not complain of his decrees. Theysuppose him infinitely wise; and under his administration every thing appears to contradict reasonand good sense. They extol his justice; and thebest of his subjects are generally the least favoured.They assert, he sees every thing; yet his presenceavails nothing. He is, say they, the friend of order;yet throughout his dominions, all is in confusion anddisorder. He makes all for himself; and the eventsseldom answer his designs . He foresees everything; but cannot prevent any thing. He impatiently suffers offence, yet gives every one the powerof offending him. Men admire the wisdom and perfection of his works; yet his works, full of imperfection, are of short duration . He is continuallydoing and undoing; repairing what he has made;but is never pleased with his work. In all his undertakings, he proposes only his own glory; yet isnever glorified . His only end is the happiness ofhis subjects; and his subjects, for the most part.want necessaries. Those, whom he seems to favourare generally least satisfied with their fate; almostall appear in perpetual revolt against a master, whosegreatness they never cease to admire, whose wisdomto extol, whose goodness to adore, whose justice tofear, and whose laws to reverence, though neverobeyed!This EMPIRE is the WORLD; this MONARCH GOD;his MINISTERS are the PRIESTS; his SUBJECTS, MANKIND.2. There is a science that has for its object onlythings incomprehensible. Contrary to all other sciences, it treats only of what cannot fall under oursenses. Hobbes calls it the kingdom of darkness.It is a country, where every thing is governed bylaws, contrary to those which mankind are permitted to know in the world they inhabit. In this mar-3vellous region, light is only darkness; evidence isdoubtful or false; impossibilities are credible: reasonis a deceitful guide; and good sense becomes madness. This science is called theology, and this theology is a continual insult to the reason of man.3. Bythe magical power of " ifs, " " buts," " perhaps's,'"" what do we know, " &c. heaped together,a shapeless and unconnected system is formed, perplexing mankind, by obliterating from their minds,ideas the most clear, and rendering uncertain truthsthe most evident. By reason of this systematicconfusion, nature is become an enigma, inexplicableto man; the visible world has disappeared, to giveplace to regions invisible; reason is compelled toyield to imagination, who leads to the country of herself-invented chimeras.4. The principles of every religion are foundedupon the idea of a GOD. Now, it is impossible tohave true ideas of a being, who acts upon none ofour senses: All our ideas are representations of sensible objects. What then can represent to us theidea of God, which is evidently an idea without anobject? Is not such an idea as impossible, as aneffect without a cause? Can an idea without anarchetype be any thing, but a chimera? Thereare, however, divines, who assure us that the ideaofGod is innate; or that we have this idea in ourmother's womb. Every principle is the result ofreason; all reason is the effect of experience; experience is acquired only by the exercise of oursenses: therefore, religious principles are not foundedupon reason, and are not innate.5. Every system of religion can be founded only"upon the nature of God and man; and upon the relations, which subsist between them . But to judgeof the reality of those relations, we must have someidea ofthe divine nature. Now, the world exclaims,the divine nature is incomprehensible to man; yetceases not to assign attributes to this incomprehen-4sible God, and to assure us, that it is our indispensable duty to find out that God, whom it is impossible to comprehend.The most important concern of man is what hecan least comprehend. If God is incomprehensibleto man, it would seem reasonable never to think ofhim; but religion maintains, man cannot with impunity cease a moment to think (or rather dream) ofhis God.6. We are told, that divine qualities are not of anature to be comprehended by finite minds. Thenatural consequence must be, that divine qualitiesare not made to occupy finite minds. But religiontells us, that the poor finite mind of man ought neverto lose sight of an inconceivable being, whose qualities he can never comprehend . Thus, we see, religion is the art of turning the attention of mankindupon subjects they can never comprehend.7. Religion unites man with God, or forms acommunication between them; yet do you not say,God is infinite? If God be infinite, no finite beingcan have communication or relation with him.Where there is no relation, there can be no union,communication, or duties. If there be no dutiesbetween man and his God, there is no religion forman. Thus, in saying God is infinite, you annihilate religion for man, who is a finite being. Theidea of infinity is to us an idea without model, without archetype, without object.8. If God be an infinite being, there cannot be,either in the present or future world, any relativeproportion between man and his God. Thus, theidea of God can never enter the human mind. Insupposition of a life, in which man would be muchmore enlightened, than in this, the idea of the infinity of God would ever remain the same distancefrom his finite mind. Thus the idea of God will be:no more clear in the future, than in the present life .Thus, intelligences, superior to man, can have no5more complete ideas of God, than man, who has notthe least conception of him in his present life .9. How has it been possible to persuade reasonable beings, that the thing, the most impossible tocomprehend, was the most essential to them? It isbecause they have been greatly terrified; because,when they fear, they cease to reason; because, theyhave been taught to mistrust their own understanding; because, when the brain is troubled, they believe every thing, and examine nothing.10. Ignorance and fear are the two hinges of allreligion. The uncertainty in which man finds himself in relation to his God, is precisely the motivethat attaches him to his religion . Man is fearful inthe dark-in moral, as well as physical darkness .His fear becomes habitual, and habit makes it natural; he would think that he wanted something, ifhe had nothing to fear.11. He, who from infancy has habituated himself to tremble when he hears pronounced certainwords, requires those words and needs to tremble .He is therefore more disposed to listen to one, whoentertains him in his fears, than to one, who dissuades him from them. The superstitious man wishesto fear; his imagination demands it; one might say.that he fears nothing so much, as to have nothing tofear.Men are imaginary invalids, whose weakness empirics are interested to encourage, in order to havesale for their drugs . They listen rather to the physician, who prescribes a variety of remedies, than tohim, who recommends good regimen, and leavesnature to herself.12. If religion were more clear, it would haveless charms for the ignorant, who are pleased onlywith obscurity, terrors, fables, prodigies, and thingsincredible. Romances, silly stories, and the talesof ghosts and wizards, are more pleasing to vulgarminds than true histories.13. In point of religion, men are only great chil-6dren. The more a religion is absurd and filled withwonders, the greater ascendancy it acquires overthem. The devout man thinks himself obliged toplace no bounds to his credulity; the more thingsare inconceivable, they appear to him divine; themore they are incredible, the greater merit, he imagines, there is in believing them.14. The origin of religious opinions is generallydated from the time, when savage nations were yetin infancy. It was to gross, ignorant, and stupidpeople, that the founders of religion have in all agesaddressed themselves, when they wished to givethem their Gods, their mode of worship, their mythology, their marvellous and frightful fables. Thesechimeras, adopted without examination by parents,are transmitted, with more or less alteration , totheir children , who seldom reason any more thantheir parents.15. The object of the first legislators was to governthe people; and the easiest method to effect it wasto terrify their minds, and to prevent the exerciseof reason. They led them through winding byepaths, lest they might perceive the designs of theirguides; they forced them to fix their eyes in the air,for fear they should look at their feet; they amusedthem on the way with idle stories; in a word, theytreated them as nurses do children, who sing lullabies, and scold, to put them to sleep, or make thembe quiet.16. The existence of a God is the basis of all religion. Few appear to doubt his existence; yetthis fundamental article utterly embarrasses everymind that reasons. The first question of every catechism has been, and ever will be, the most difficult to resolve .In the year 1701 , the holy fathers of the oratory of Vendomemaintained in a thesis, this proposition--that, according to St.Thomas, the existence of God is not, and cannot be, a subject of faith.Dei existentia nec ad fidem attinet, nec attinere potest juxta717. Can we imagine ourselves sincerely convincedof the existence of a being, whose nature we knownot; who is inaccessible to all our senses; whoseattributes, we are assured every moment, are incomprehensible to us? To persuade me that a being exists or can exist, I must be first told what thatbeing is . To induce me to believe the existence orthe possibility of such a being, it is necessary totell me things concerning him that are not contradictory, and do not destroy one another. In short,fully to convince me of the existence of that being,it is necessary to tell me things that I can understand, and to prove to me, that it is impossible thatsuch a being should not exist.18. A thing is impossible, when it includes twoideas that mutually destroy one another, and whichcan neither be conceived nor united in thought.Conviction can be founded only upon the constanttestimony of our senses, which alone give birth toour ideas, and enable us to judge of their agreementor disagreement. That, which exists necessarily, isthat, whose non-existence implies a contradiction .These principles, universally acknowledged, becomeerroneous, when applied to the existence ofa God.Whatever has been hitherto said upon the subject,is either unintelligible, or perfect contradiction , andmust therefore appear absurd to every rational man.19. All human knowledge is more or less clearand perfect. By what strange fatality have we neverbeen able to elucidate the science of God? Themost civilized nations, and among them the mostprofound thinkers, are in this respect no more enlightened than the most savage tribes and ignorantpeasants; and, examining the subject closely, weshall find , that, by the idle speculations and subtlerefinements of men, the divine science has been onlymore and more obscured . Every religion has hiSanctum Thomam. Vide Basnage, History of the Works ofLearned Men, vol. xvii. p. 277.8therto been founded only upon what is called, inlogic, begging the question; it takes things for granted,and then proves, by suppositions, instead of principles.20. Metaphysics teach us, that God is a pure spirit. But, herein is modern theology superior tothat of the savages? The savages acknowledge agreat spirit, for the master of the world . The savages, like all ignorant people, attribute to spirits allthe effects, of which their experience cannot discover the true causes . Ask a savage, what movesyour watch? He will answer you, it is a spirit.Ask our divines, what moves the universe? Theyanswer, it is a spirit.21. The savage, when he speaks of a spirit, affixes, at least, some idea to the word; he meansthereby an agent, like the air, the breeze, the breath,that invisibly produces discernible effects. By subtilizing every thing, the modern theologian becomesas unintelligible to himself as to others. Ask him,what he understands by a spirit? He will answeryou, that it is an unknown substance, perfectly simple, that has no extension, that has nothing commonwith matter. Indeed, is there any one, who canform the least idea of such a substance? What thenis a spirit, to speak in the language of modern theology, but the absence of an idea? The idea ofspirituality is yet an idea without model.22. Is it not more natural and intelligible to drawuniversal existence from the bosom of matter, whoseexistence is demonstrated by all the senses, andwhose effects we experience every moment, which wesee act, move, communicate motion, and incessantlygenerate, than to attribute the formation of things toan unknown power, to a spiritual being, who cannot derive from his nature what he has not himself,and who, by his spiritual essence, can create neithermatter nor motion? Nothing is more evident, thanthat the idea they endeavour to give us, of the ac-9tion of mind upon matter, represents no object, oris an idea without model.23. The material Jupiter of the ancients couldmove, compose, destroy, and create beings, similarto himself; but the God of modern theology is asterile being. He can neither occupy any place inspace, nor move matter, nor form a visible world,nor create men or gods. The metaphysical God isa worker without hands, fit only to produce confusion, reveries, follies , and disputes.24. Since a God was indispensably requisite tomen, why did they not worship the Sun, that visibleGod, adored by so many nations? What being hadgreater claim to the homage of men, than the daystar, who enlightens, warms, and vivifies all beings;whose presence enlivens and regenerates nature,whose absence seems to cast her into gloom andlanguor? If any being announced to mankind,power, activity, beneficence, and duration, it wascertainly the Sun, whom they ought to have regardedas the parent of nature, as the soul of the world, asthe divinity. At least, they could not, without folly,dispute his existence, or refuse to acknowledge hisinfluence and his blessings..25. The theologian exclaims to us, that God wantsneither hands nor arms to act; that he acts by hiswill. But pray, who or what is that God, who has awill, and what can be the subject of his divine will?Are the stories of witches, sylphs, ghosts, wizards,hobgoblins, &c. more absurd and difficult to believe than the magical or impossible action of mindupon matter? When we admit such a God, fablesand reveries may claim belief. Theologians treatmen as children, whose simplicity makes thembelieve all the stories they hear.26. To shake the existence of God, we need onlyto ask a theologian to speak of him. As soon as hehas said a word upon the subject, the least reflection will convince us, that his observations are10totally incompatible with the essence he ascribes tohis God. What then is God? It is an abstractword, denoting the hidden power of nature; or it isa mathematical point, that has neither length,breadth, nor thickness . A philosopher, speaking oftheologians, has ingeniously observed, that they havediscovered the solution of the famous problem of Archimedes-a point in the heavens, whence they move the world. *27. Religion prostrates men before a being, who,without extension, is infinite, and fills all with hisimmensity; a being, all- powerful, who never executes his will; a being, sovereignly good, whocreates only disquietudes; a being, the friend oforder, and in whose government all is in confusionand disorder. What then, can we imagine, can bethe God of theology?28. To avoid all embarrassment, we are told ,"that it is not necessary to know what God is;that we must adore without knowing him; that weare not permitted to extend our rash views to hisattributes . " But, before we know that we mustadore a God, must we not know certainly, that heexists? But, how can we assure ourselves, that heexists, if we never examine whether the various qualities, attributed to him, do really exist and agree inhim? Indeed, to adore God, is to adore only thefictions of one's own imagination, or rather, it is toadore nothing.29. In view, without doubt, of confounding thingsthe more, theologians have not been pleased to declare, what their God is; they tell us only what heis not. By means of negations and abstractions,they think they have composed a real and perfectbeing, while, in truth, it is only ideal. Mind isthat, which is not body. An infinite being is abeing, who is not finite. Aperfect being is a being,who is not imperfect. Indeed, is there any one,

• David Hume.

11who can form real ideas of such a mass of privations,or absence of ideas? That, which excludes all idea,can it be any thing but nothing?To pretend, that the divine attributes are beyondthe reach of human conception, is to grant, that Godis not made for man. To assure us, that, in God,all is infinite, is to own that there can be nothingcommon to him and his creatures. If there be nothing common to God and his creatures, God is annihilated for man, or, at least, rendered useless tohim. " God," they will say, " has made man intelligent, but he has not made him omniscient; " henceit is inferred, that he has not been able to give himfaculties sufficiently enlarged to know his divine essence. In this case, it is evident, that God has notbeen able nor willing to be known by his creatures.By what right then would God be angry with beings, who were naturally incapable of knowing thedivine essence? God would be evidently the mostunjust and capricious of tyrants, if he should punishan Atheist for not having known, what, by his nature, it was impossible he should know.30. To the generality of men, nothing renders anargument more convincing than fear. It is therefore, that theologians assure us, we must take thesafest part; that nothing is so criminal as incredulity; that God will punish without pity every onewho has the temerity to doubt his existence; thathis severity is just, since madness or perversity onlycan make us deny the existence of an enraged monarch, who without mercy avenges himself onAtheists. If we coolly examine these threatenings,we shall find, they always suppose the thing in question. They must first prove the existence of a God,before they assure us, it is safest to believe, and horrible to doubt or deny his existence. They mustthen prove, that it is possible and consistent, that ajust God cruelly punish men for having been in astate of madness, that prevented their believing the12existence of a being, whom their perverted reasoncould not conceive . In a word, they must prove,that an infinitely just God can infinitely punish theinvincible and natural ignorance of man with respectto the divine nature. Do not theologians reasonvery strangely? They invent phantoms, they compose them of contradictions; they then assure us, itis safest not to doubt the existence of these phantoms they themselves have invented . According tothis mode of reasoning, there is no absurdity, whichit would not be more safe to believe, than not tobelieve .All children are Atheists; they have no idea ofGod. Are they then criminal on account of theirignorance? At what age must they begin to believein God? It is, you say, at the age of reason. Butat what time should this age commence? Besides,if the profoundest theologians lose themselves in thedivine nature, which they do not presume to comprehend, what ideas must the people of the world ,women, artisans, in a word, those who compose themass of mankind, have of him?31. Men believe in God only upon the word ofthose, who have no more idea of him than themselves . Our nurses are our first theologians. Theytalk to children of God as if he were a scarecrow;they teach them from the earliest age to join theirhands mechanically. Have nurses then more trueideas of God than the children whom they teach topray to him?32. Religion, like family- estate, passes, with itsincumbrances, from parents to children. Few menin the world would have a God, had not pains beentaken in infancy to give them one. Each wouldreceive from his parents and teachers the God whomthey received from theirs; but each, agreeably tohis disposition, would arrange, modify, and painthim in his own manner.33. The brain of man, especially in infancy, is13like soft wax, fit to receive every impression that ismade upon it. Education furnishes him with almostall his ideas at a time, when he is incapable ofjudging for himself. We believe we have received fromnature, or have brought with us in our birth, thetrue or false ideas, which, in a tender age, had beeninstilled into our minds; and this persuasion is oneof the greatest sources of our errors .34. Prejudice contributes to cement in us theopinions of those who have been charged with ourinstruction. We believe them much more experienced than ourselves; we suppose they are fullyconvinced of the things which they teach us; wehave the greatest confidence in them; by the carethey have taken of us in infancy, we judge them in- capable of wishing to deceive us. These are themotives that make us adopt a thousand errors, without other foundation than the hazardous authorityof those by whom we have been brought up. Theprohibition likewise of reasoning upon what theyteach us, by no means lessens our confidence; butoften contributes to increase our respect for theiropinions.35. Divines act very wisely in teaching men theirreligious principles before they are capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood, or their left handfrom their right. It would be as difficult to instilinto the mind of a man, forty years old , the extravagant notions that are given us of the divinity, as toeradicate them from the mind of him who had imbibed them from infancy.36. It is observed, that the wonders of nature aresufficient to lead us to the existence of a God, andfully to convince us of this important truth . Buthow many are there in the world who have the time,capacity, or disposition , necessary to contemplateNature and meditate her progress? Men, for themost part, pay no regard to it. The peasant is notstruck with the beauty of the sun, which he sees14every day. The sailor is not surprised at the regular motion of the ocean; he will never draw from ittheological conclusions. The phenomena of natureprove the existence of a God only to some prejudiced men, who have been early taught to beholdthe finger of God in every thing whose mechanismcould embarrass them. In the wonders of nature,the unprejudiced philosopher sees nothing but thepower of nature, the permanent and various laws,the necessary effects of different combinations ofmatter infinitely diversified .37. Is there any thing more surprising than thelogic of these divines, who, instead of confessingtheir ignorance of natural causes, seek beyond nature, in imaginary regions, a cause much more unknown than that nature, of which they can form atleast some idea? To say, that God is the author ofthe phenomena of nature, is it not to attribute themto an occult cause? What is God? What is a spirit? They are causes of which we have no idea. Owise divines! Study nature and her laws; andsince you can there discover the action of naturalcauses, go not to those that are supernatural, which,far from enlightening, will only darken your ideas,and make it utterly impossible that you shouldunderstand yourselves.38. Nature, you say, is totally inexplicable without a God. That is to say, to explain what you understand very little, you have need of a cause whichyou understand not at all . You think to elucidatewhat is obscure, by doubling the obscurity; to solvedifficulties, by multiplying them.. O enthusiasticphilosophers! To prove the existence of a God,write complete treatises of botany; enter into aminute detail of the parts ofthe human body; launchforth into the sky, to contemplate the revolution ofthe stars; then return to the earth to admire thecourse of waters; behold with transport the butterflies, the insects, the polypi, and the organized atoms,15in which you think you discern the greatness of yourGod. All these things will not prove the existenceof that God; they will prove only, that you havenot just ideas of the immense variety of matter, andof the effects, producible by its infinitely diversifiedcombinations, that constitute the universe. Theywill prove only your ignorance of nature; that youhave no idea of her powers, when you judge her incapable of producing a multitude of forms and beings, of which your eyes, even with the assistanceof microscopes, never discern but the smallest part.In a word, they will prove, that, for want of knowing sensible agents, or those possible to know, youfind it shorter to have recourse to a word, expressing an inconceivable agent.39. We are gravely and repeatedly told, that,there is no effect without a cause; that, the world didnot make itself. But the universe is a cause, it is notan effect; it is not a work; it has not been made,because it is impossible that it should have beenmade. The world has always been; its existenceis necessary; it is its own cause. Nature, whoseessence is visibly to act and produce, requires not,to discharge her functions, an invisible mover, muchmore unknown than herself. Matter moves by itsown energy, by a necessary consequence of its heterogeneity. The diversity of motion, or modes ofmutual action, constitutes alone the diversity ofmatter. We distinguish beings from one anotheronly by the different impressions or motions whichthey communicate to our organs .40. You see, that all is action in nature, and yetpretend that nature, by itself, is dead and withoutpower. You imagine, that this all, essentially acting, needs a mover! What then is this mover? Itis a spirit; a being absolutely incomprehensible andcontradictory. Acknowledge then, that matter actsof itself, and cease to reason of your spiritual mover,who has nothing that is requisite to put it in action.16Return from your useless excursions; enter againinto a real world; keep to second causes, and leave todivines their first cause, of which nature has no need,to produce all the effects you observe in the world .41. It can be only by the diversity of impressionsand effects, which bodies make upon us, that wefeel them; that we have perceptions and ideas ofthem; that we distinguish one from another; thatwe assign them properties. Now, to see or feel anobject, the object must act upon our organs; thisobject cannot act upon us, without exciting somemotion in us; it cannot excite motion in us, if it benot in motion itself. At the instant I see an object,my eyes are struck by it; I can have no conceptionof light and vision, without motion, communicatedto my eye, from the luminous, extended, colouredbody. At the instant I smell a body, my smell isirritated, or put in motion, by the parts that exhalefrom the odoriferous body. At the moment I heara sound, the tympanum of my ear is struck by theair, put in motion by a sonorous body, which wouldnot act if it were not in motion itself. Whence itevidently follows, that, without motion, I can neitherfeel, see, distinguish, compare, judge, nor occupymy thoughts upon any subject whatever.We are taught in the schools, that the essence ofathing is that from which all its properties flow. * Now,it is evident, that all the properties of bodies , ofwhich we have ideas, are owing to motion, whichalone informs us of their existence, and gives us thefirst conceptions of them. I cannot be informed ofmy own existence but by the motions I experiencein myself. I am therefore forced to conclude, thatmotion is as essential to matter as extension, andthat matter cannot be conceived without it.Should any person deny, that motion is essentialand necessary to matter; they cannot, at least, help

• Essentia est quid primum in re , fons et radix omnium rei

proprietatum.17acknowledging that bodies, which seem dead andinert, produce motion of themselves, when placedin a fit situation to act upon one another. For instance; phosphorus, when exposed to the air, immediately takes fire. Meal and water, when mixed,ferment. Thus dead matter begets motion of itself.Matter has then the power of self-motion; and nature, to act, has no need of a mover, whose pretended essence would hinder him from acting.42. Whence comes man? What is his origin? Ishe then the effect of a fortuitous concourse of atoms?Did the first man spring, ready formed, from the dust of the earth? I know not. Man appears tome, like all other beings, a production of nature.I should be equally embarrassed to tell, whencecame the first stones, the first trees, the first lions,the first elephants, the first ants, the first acorns,&c. as to explain the origin of man . We are incessantly told to acknowledge and revere the handof God, of an infinitely wise, intelligent and powerful maker, in so wonderful a work as the humanmachine. I readily confess, that the human machine appears to me surprising. But as man existsin nature, I am not authorized to say that his formation, is above the power of nature. But I canmuch less conceive of this formation, when to explain it, I am told, that a pure spirit, who has neither eyes, feet, hands, head, lungs, mouth nor breath,made man by taking a little clay, and breathingupon it.We laugh at the savage inhabitants of Paraguay,for calling themselves the descendants of the moon.The divines of Europe call themselves the descendants, or the creation, of a pure spirit. Is this pretension much more rational? Man is intelligent;thence it is inferred , that he can be the work onlyof an intelligent being, and not of a nature, which isvoid of intelligence. Although nothing is more rare,than to see man make use of this intelligence, of318which he seems so proud, I will grant that he is intelligent, that his wants develope this faculty, thatsociety especially contributes to cultivate it . ButI see nothing in the human machine, and in the intelligence with which it is endued, that announcesvery precisely the infinite intelligence of the makerto whom it is ascribed . I see that this admirablemachine is liable to be deranged; I see, that hiswonderful intelligence is then disordered, and sometimes totally disappears; I infer, that human intelligence depends upon a certain disposition of thematerial organs of the body, and that we cannot infer the intelligence of God, any more from the intelligence of man, than from his materiality. All thatwe can infer from it, is, that God is material.intelligence of man no more proves the intelligenceof God, than the malice of man proves the malice ofthat God, who is the pretended maker of man. Inspite of all the arguments of divines, God willalways be a cause contradicted by its effects, or ofwhich it is impossible to judge by its works. Weshall always see evil, imperfection and folly resultfrom such a cause, that is said to be full of goodness,perfection and wisdom .The43. "What!" you will say, "is intelligent man, isthe universe, and all it contains, the effect of chance?"No; I repeat it, the universe is not an effect; it is thecause of all effects; every being it contains is thenecessary effect of this cause, which sometimesshews us its manner of acting, but generally concealsits operations. Men use the word chance to hidetheir ignorance of true causes, which, though notunderstood, act not less according to certain laws.There is no effect without a cause. Nature is aword, used to denote the immense assemblage ofbeings, various matter, infinite combinations, anddiversified motions, that we behold . All bodies,organized or unorganized, are necessary effects ofcertain causes. Nothing in nature can happen by19chance. Every thing is subject to fixed laws.These laws are only the necessary connexion of certain effects with their causes. Öne atom of mattercannot meet another by chance; this meeting is theeffect of permanent laws, which cause every beingnecessarily to act as it does, and hinder it from acting otherwise, in given circ*mstances. To talk ofthe fortuitous concourse of atoms, or to attribute someeffects to chance, is merely saying that we are ignorant of the laws, by which bodies act, meet, combine, or separate.Those, who are unacquainted with nature, the properties of beings, and the effects which must necessarily result from the concurrence of certain causes,think, that every thing takes place by chance. Itis not chance, that has placed the sun in the centreof our planetary system; it is by its own essence,that the substance, of which it is composed, mustoccupy that place, and thence be diffused to vivifythe beings, inhabiting the planets.44. The worshippers of a God find, above all inthe order of the universe, an invincible proof of theexistence of an intelligent and wise being, who governs it. But this order is nothing but a series ofmovements necessarily produced by causes or circ*mstances, which are sometimes favourable, andsometimes hurtful to us: we approve of some, andcomplain of others.Nature uniformly follows the same round; thatis, the same causes produce the same effects, as longas their action is not disturbed by other causes,which force them to produce different effects. Whenthe operation of causes, whose effects we experience,is interrupted by causes, which, though unknown,are not the less natural and necessary, we are confounded; we cry out, a miracle! and attribute it to acause much more unknown, than any ofthose acting before our eyes.The universe is always in order. It cannot be in20disorder. It is our machine alone, that suffers, whenwe complain of disorder. The bodies, causes, andbeings, which this world contains, necessarily act inthe manner in which we see them act, whether weapprove or disapprove of their effects. Earthquakes,volcanos, inundations, pestilences, and famines areeffects as necessary, or as much in the order ofnature, as the fall of heavy bodies, the courses ofrivers, the periodical motions of the seas, the blowing of the winds, the fruitful rains, and the favourable effects, for which men praise God, and thankhim for his goodness.To be astonished that a certain order reigns in theworld, is to be surprised that the same causes constantly produce the same effects . To be shocked atdisorder, is to forget, that when things change, orare interrupted in their actions, the effects can nolonger be the same. To wonder at the order of nature, is to wonder that any thing can exist; it is tobe surprised at any one's own existence . What isorder to one being, is disorder to another. Allwicked beings find that every thing is in order, whenthey can with impunity put every thing in disorder.They find, on the contrary, that every thing is indisorder, when they are disturbed in the exercise oftheir wickedness.45. Upon supposition that God is the author andmover ofnature, there could be no disorder with respect to him. Would not all the causes, that heshould have made, necessarily act according to theproperties, essences, and impulses given them? IfGod should change the ordinary course of nature, hewould not be immutable. If the order of the universe, in which man thinks he sees the most convincing proof of the existence, intelligence, power andgoodness ofGod, should happen to contradict itself,one might suspect his existence, or, at least, accusehim of inconstancy, impotence, want of foresightand wisdom in the arrangement of things; one would21have a right to accuse him of an oversight in thechoice of the agents and instruments, which hemakes, prepares, and puts in action. In short, ifthe order of nature proves the power and intelligenceof the Deity, disorder must prove his weakness, instability, and irrationality.You say, that God is omnipresent, that he fillsthe universe with his immensity, that nothing isdone without him, that matter could not act without his agency. But in this case, you admit, thatyour God is the author of disorder, that it is he whoderanges nature, that he is the father of confusion,that he is in man, and moves him at the moment hesins . If God is every where, he is in me, he actswith me, he is deceived with me, he offends Godwith me, and combats with me the existence of God.O theologians! you never understand yourselves,when you speak of God.46. In order to have what we call intelligence, it isnecessary to have ideas, thoughts, and wishes; tohave ideas, thoughts, and wishes, it is necessary tohave organs; to have organs, it is necessary to havea body; to act upon bodies, it is necessary to havea body; to experience disorder, it is necessary to becapable of suffering. Whence it evidently follows,that a pure spirit can neither be intelligent, nor affected by what passes in the universe.Divine intelligence, ideas, and views, have, yousay, nothing common with those of men. Very well.How then can men judge, right or wrong, of theseviews; reason upon these ideas; or admire this intelligence? This would be to judge, admire, and adorethat, of which we can have no ideas . To adore theprofound views of divine wisdom, it is not to adorethat, ofwhich we cannot possibly judge? To admirethese views, is it not to admire without knowingwhy?Admiration is always the daughter of ignorance.Men admire and adore only what they do not comprehend.2247. All those qualities, ascribed to God, are totally`incompatible with a being, who, by his very essence, is void of all analogy with human beings.It is true, the divines imagine they extricate themselves from this difficulty, by exaggerating thehuman qualities, attributed to the Divinity; they enlarge them to infinity, where they cease to understand themselves. What results from this combination of man with God, or from this theanthropy? Amere chimera, ofwhich, if any thing be affirmed, thephantom, combined with so much pains, instantlyvanishes.Dante, in his poem upon Paradise, relates, thatthe Deity appeared to him under the figure of threecircles, forming an iris, whose lively colours generated each other; but that, looking steadily upon thedazzling light, he saw only his own figure. Whileadoring God, it is himself, that man adores.48. Ought not the least reflection suffice to prove,that God can have none ofthe human qualities, virtues, or perfections? Our virtues and perfections areconsequences of the modifications of our passions,But has God passions as we have? Again: our goodqualities consist in our dispositions towards thebeings with whom we live in society. God, according to you, is aninsulated being. God has no equals-no fellow-beings. God does not live in society.He wants the assistance of no one. He enjoys anunchangeable felicity . Admit then, according toyour own principles, that God cannot have what wecall virtues, and that man cannot be virtuous withrespect to him.49. Man, wrapped up in his own merit, imaginesthe human race to be the sole object of God in creating the universe. Upon what does he found thisflattering opinion? Upon this we are told: that manis the only being endued with an intelligence, whichenables him to know the Deity, and to render homage worthy of him. We are assured, that God23made the world only for his own glory, and that itwas necessary that the human species should comeinto this plan, that there might be some one to admire his works, and glorify him for them . But, according to these suppositions, has not God evidentlymissed his object? 1st. Man, according to yourselves,will always labour under the completest impossibilityof knowing his God, and the most invincible ignorance of his divine essence. 2dly. A being, who hasno equal, cannot be susceptible of glory; for glorycan result only from the comparison of one's ownexcellence with that of others. 3dly. If God be infinitely happy, if he be self- sufficient, what need hashe of the homage of his feeble creatures? 4thly. God,notwithstanding all his endeavours, is not glorified;but, on the contrary, all the religions in the worldrepresent him as perpetually offended; their soleobject is to reconcile sinful, ungrateful, rebelliousman with his angry God.50. If God be infinite, he has much less relationwith man, than man with ants. Would the ants of agarden reason pertinently concerning the intentions,desires, and projects of the gardener? Could theyjustly imagine, that the park ofVersailles was plantedfor them alone, by an ostentatious monarch, and thatthe sole object of his goodness was to furnish themwith a superb residence? But, according to theology, man is, with respect to God, far below what thevilest insect is to man. Thus, by theology itself,which is wholly devoted to the attributes and viewsof the Divinity, theology appears a complete folly.51. We are told, that, in the formation of the universe, God's only object was the happiness of man.But, in a world made purposely for him, and governed by an omnipotent God, is man in reality veryhappy? Are his enjoyments durable? Are not hispleasures mixed with pains? Are many persons satisfied with their fate? Is not man continually the victim of physical and moral evils? Is not the human24machine, which is represented as a master-piece ofthe Creator's skill, liable to derangement in a thousand ways? Should we be surprised at the workmanship of a mechanician, who should shew us acomplex machine, ready to stop every moment, andwhich, in a short time, would break in pieces ofitself?52. The generous care, displayed by the Deity inproviding for the wants, and watching over the happiness of his beloved creatures, is called Providence.But, when we open our eyes, we find that Godprovides for nothing. Providence sleeps over thegreater part of the inhabitants of this world . For avery small number of men who are supposed to behappy, what an immense multitude groan underoppression, and languish in misery! Are not wholenations forced to deprive themselves of bread, toadminister to the extravagances of a few gloomytyrants, who are no happier than their oppressedslaves?At the same time that our divines emphaticallyexpatiate upon the goodness of Providence, whilethey exhort us to repose our confidence in her, do wenot hear them, at the sight of unforeseen catastrophes,exclaim, that Providence sports with the vain projectsof man, that she frustrates their designs, that shelaughs at their efforts, that profound wisdom delightsto bewilder the minds of mortals? But, shall we putconfidence in a malignant Providence, who laughs at,who sports with mankind? How will one have meadmire the unknown ways of a hidden wisdom, whosemanner of acting is to me inexplicable? Judge of itby effects, you will say. I do; and I find , that theseeffects are sometimes useful, and sometimes hurtfulto me.Men think they justify Providence, by saying, that,in this world, there is much more good than evil toevery individual of mankind. Supposing the goods,we enjoy from Providence, are to the evils, as a hun-25dredto ten; will it not still follow, that, for a hundreddegrees of goodness, Providence possesses ten ofmalignity; which is incompatible with the supposedperfection of the divine nature.Almost all books are filled with the most flatteringpraises of Providence, whose attentive care is highlyextolled. It would seem as if man, to live happyhere below, needed not his own exertions . Yet,without his own labour, man could subsist hardly aday. To live, he is obliged to sweat, toil, hunt,fish, and labour without intermission . Without thesesecond causes, the first cause, at least in mostcountries, would provide for none of our wants. Inall parts of the globe, we see savage and civilizedman in a perpetual struggle with Providence. Heis necessitated to ward offthe strokes directed againsthim by Providence, in hurricanes, tempests, frosts,hail- storms, inundations, droughts, and the variousaccidents, which so often render useless all his labours. In a word, we see man continually occupiedin guarding against the ill offices of that Providence,which is supposed to be attentive to his happiness.A bigot admired divine Providence for wisely ordering rivers to pass through those places, wheremen have built large cities. Is not this man's reasoning as rational, as that of many learned men,who incessantly talk of final causes, or who pretendthat they clearly perceive the beneficent views ofGod in the formation of all things.53. Do we see then, that Providence so verysensibly manifests herself in the preservation ofthose admirable works, which we attribute to her?If it is she, who governs the world , we find her asactive in destroying, as in forming; in exterminating,as in producing. Does she not every moment destroy, by thousands, the very men, to whose preservation and welfare we suppose her continuallyattentive? Every moment she loses sight of herbeloved creature. Sometimes she shakes his dwell-26ing, sometimes she annihilates his harvests, sometimes she inundates his fields, sometimes shedesolates them by a burning drought. She arms allnature against man. She arms man himself againsthis own species, and commonly terminates his existence in anguish. Is this then what is calledpreserving the universe?If we could view, without prejudice, the equivocalconduct of Providence towards the human race andall sensible beings, we should find, that far from resembling a tender and careful mother, she resembles rather those unnatural mothers, who instantlyforgetting the unfortunates of their licentious love,abandon their infants, as soon as they are born,and who, content with having borne them, exposethem, helpless, to the caprice of fortune.The Hottentots, in this respect much wiser thanother nations, who treat them as barbarians, refuse,it is said, to worship God; because, say they, ifheoften does good, he often does evil. Is not this mannerof reasoning more just and conformable to experience, than that of so many men, who are determined to see, in their God, nothing but goodness, wisdom, and foresight, and who refuse to see that theinnumerable evils, of which this world is the theatre,must come from the same hand, which they kisswith transport?54. The logic of common sense teaches, that wecannot, and ought not, to judge of a cause, but byits effects . A cause can be reputed constantlygood, only when it constantly produces good, use--ful, and agreeable effects . A cause, which produces both good and evil, is sometimes good, andsometimes evil. But the logic of theology destroysall this. According to that, the phenomena of nature, or the effects we behold in this world, proveto us the existence of a cause infinitely good; andthis cause is God. Although this world is full ofevils; although disorder often reigns in it; although27men incessantly repine at their hard fate; we mustbe convinced, that these effects are owing to abeneficent and immutable cause; and many people believe it, or feign to believe it.Every thing that passes in the world, provesto us, in the clearest manner, that it is not governedby an intelligent being. We can judge of the intelligence of a being only by the conformity of themeans, which he employs to attain his proposedobject. The object of God, is it is said , the happiness of man. Yet, a like necessity governs thefate of all sensible beings, who are born only tosuffer much, enjoy little, and die. The cup of manis filled with joy and bitterness; good is everywhere attended with evil; order gives place to disorder; generation is followed by destruction. Ifyoutell me, that the designs of God are mysterious andthat his ways are impenetrable; I answer, that, inthis case, it is impossible for me to judge whetherGod be intelligent.55. You pretend, that God is immutable! Whatthen produces a continual instability in this world,which you make his empire? Is there a state, subject to more frequent and cruel revolutions, thanthat of this unknown monarch? How can we attribute to an immutable God, sufficiently powerful togive solidity to his works, the government ofa nature,in which every thing is in continual vicissitude? IfI imagine I see a God of uniform character in all theeffects favourable to my species, what kind of a Godcan I see in their continual misfortunes? You tellme, it is our sins, which compel him to punish. Ianswer, that God, according to yourselves, is thennot immutable, since the sins of men force him tochange his conduct towards them. Can a being,who is sometimes provoked, and sometimes appeased, be constantly the same?56. The universe can be only what it is; all sensible beings there enjoy and suffer, that is, are28moved sometimes in an agreeable, and sometimes in adisagreeable manner.These effects are necessary;theyresult necessarily from causes, which act only according to their properties. These effects necessarilyplease, or displease me, by a consequence of my ownnature. This same nature compels me to avoid, avert,and resist some things, and to seek, desire, andprocure others. In a world, where every thing isnecessary, a God, who remedies nothing, wholeaves things to run in their necessary course, -ishe any thing but destiny, or necessity personified?It is a deaf and useless God, who can effect nochange in general laws, to which he is himselfsubject. Of what importance to me is the infinitepower of a being, who will do but very little inmy favour? Where is the infinite goodness of a being, indifferent to my happiness? Of what serviceto me is the favour of a being, who, being able to dome an infinite good, does not do me even a finiteone?57. When we ask, why so many miserable objects appear under the government of a good God,we are told, by way of consolation, that the presentworld is only a passage, designed to conduct manto a happier one. The divines assure us, that theearth we inhabit, is a state of trial . In short, theyshut our mouths, by saying, that God could communicate to his creatures neither impossibility nor infinite happiness, which are reserved for himself alone.Can such answers be satisfactory? 1st. The existenceof another life is guaranteed to us only by the imagination of man, who, by supposing it, have only realized the desire they have of surviving themselves, inorder to enjoy hereafter a purer and more durablehappiness. 2dly. How can we conceive that aGod, who knows every thing, and must be fullyacquainted with the dispositions of his creatures,should yet want so many experiments, in order tobe sure of their dispositions? 3dly. According to29the calculations of our chronologists, our earth hasexisted six or seven thousand years. During thattime, nations have, under different forms, incessantly experienced afflicting vicissitudes and calamities .History exhibits the human species at all timestormented and ravaged by tyrants, conquerors, andheroes; by wars, inundations, famines, plagues, &c.Are such long trials then likely to inspire us withvery great confidence in the secret views of theDeity? Do such numerous and constant evils give avery exalted idea of the future state, his goodness ispreparing for us? 4thly. If God is so kindly disposed, as he is asserted to be, without giving meninfinite happiness, could he not at least have communicated the degree of happiness, of which finitebeings are susceptible here below? To be happy,must we have an infinite or divine happiness? 5thly.If God could not make men happier than they arehere below, what will become of the hope of aparadise, where it is pretended, that the elect willfor ever enjoy ineffable bliss? If God neithercould nor would avert evil from the earth, the onlyresidence we can know, what reason have we topresume, that he can or will avert evil from another world, of which we have no idea? It is morethan two thousand years, since, according to Lactantius, the sage Epicurus observed: " either God wouldremove evil out of this world, and cannot; or hecan, and will not; or he has neither the power norwill; or, lastly, he has both the power and will.If he has the will, and not the power, this shewsweakness, which is contrary to the nature of God.If he has the power, and not the will, it is malignity; and this is no less contrary to his nature. Ifhe is neither able nor willing, he is both impotentand malignant, and consequently cannot be God.If he be both willing and able (which alone is consonant to the nature of God) whence comes evil, orwhy does he not prevent it?" Reflecting minds have30been waiting a reasonable solution of these difficulties, for more than two thousand years; and ourdivines tell us, that they will be removed only in afuture life.58. We are told of a pretended scale of beings.It is supposed, that God has divided his creaturesinto different classes, in which each enjoys the degree of happiness, of which it is susceptible. According to this romantic arrangement, from theoyster to the celestial angels, all beings enjoy a happiness, which is suitable to their nature. Experienceexplicitly contradicts this sublime reverie. In thisworld, all sensible beings suffer and live in themidst of dangers. Man cannot walk without hurting, tormenting, or killing a multitude of sensiblebeings, who are in his way; while he himself is exposed, at every step, to a multitude of evils , foreseen or unforeseen, which may lead him to hisdestruction. Is not the idea of death alone sufficient to disturb him in his most exquisite enjoyments?During the whole course of his life, he is exposed topains; he is not sure, a moment, of his existence,to which he is so strongly attached, and which heregards as the greatest present of the Divinity.59. The world, it will be said, has all the perfection, ofwhich it is susceptible: since it is notthe Godwho made it, it must have great qualities and greatdefects . But we answer, that, as the world mustnecessarily have great defects, it would have beenmore conformable to the nature of a good God, notto have created a world, which he could not makecompletely happy. If God, who was, according toyou, supremely happy, before the creation of theworld, could have continued to be supremely happy,withouter eating the world, Why did he not remainat rest? Why must man suffer? Why must man exist? What imports his existence to God? Nothing,or something? Ifhis existence is not useful or necessary to him, why did he not suffer him to remain in31nothing? If his existence is necessary to his glory,he had need of man; he was deficient in somethingbefore man existed . We can pardon an unskilfulworkman for making an imperfect work; because hemust work, well or ill , upon penalty of starving.This workman is excusable, but your God is not.According to you, he is self- sufficient; if so, whydoes he make men? He has, you say, every thingrequisite to make man happy. Why then does henot do it? Confess, that your God has more malicethan goodness, unless you admit, that God, was necessitated to do what he has done, without being ableto do it otherwise. Yet, you assure us, that yourGod is free. You say also, that he is immutable, although it was in Time that he began and ceased toexercise his power, like the inconstant beings of thisworld. O theologians! Vain are your efforts to freeyour God from all the defects of man. This perfectGod has always some human imperfection.دو60. " Is not God master of his favours? Can henot give them? Can he not take them away? It doesnot belong to his creatures to require reasons for hisconduct. He can dispose of the works of his ownhands as he pleases . Absolute sovereign of mortals,he distributes happiness or misery, according to hisgood pleasure. Such are the solutions given bytheologians to console us for the evils which Godinflicts upon us. We reply, that a God, who is infinitely good, cannot be master ofhisfavours, but wouldby his nature be obliged to bestow them upon hiscreatures; that a being, truly beneficent, cannot refrain from doing good; that a being, truly generous,does not take backwhat he has given; and that everyman, who does so, dispenses with gratitude, and hasno right to complain of finding ungrateful men.How can the odd and capricious conduct, whichtheologians ascribe to God, be reconciled with religion ,which supposes a covenant, or mutual engagementsbetween God and men? If God owes nothing to his32creatures, they, on their part, can owe nothing totheir God. All religion is founded upon the happiness that men think they have a right to expect fromthe Deity, who is supposed to say to them: Loveme, adore me, obey me: and I will make you happy.Men, on their part, say to him: Make us happy, befaithful to your promises, and we will love you, we willadore you, andobeyyour laws. Byneglecting the happiness of his creatures, distributing his favours according to his caprice, and retracting his gifts, does notGod break the covenant, which serves as the basisof all religion? Cicero has justly observed, that ifGod is not agreeable to man, he cannot be his God. *Goodness constitutes deity; this goodness can bemanifested to man only by the blessings he enjoys;as soon as he is unhappy, this goodness disappears,and with it the divinity. An infinite goodness canbe neither limited, partial, nor exclusive. If Godbe infinitely good, he owes happiness to all his creatures. The unhappiness of a single being wouldsuffice to annihilate unbounded goodness. Underan infinitely good and powerful God, it is possibleto conceive that a single man should suffer? Oneanimal, or mite, that suffers, furnishes invinciblearguments against divine providence and its infinitegoodness .61. According to theology, the afflictions andevils of this life are chastisem*nts, which guilty merincur from the hand of God. But why are menguilty? If God is omnipotent, does it cost him moreto say: "Let every thing in the world be in order; letall my subjects be good, innocent, fortunate," thanto say: " Letevery thing exist?" Was it more difficultfor this God to do his work well, than to do it so ill?Was it farther from the non- existence of beings totheir wise and happy existence, than from theirnon-existence to their senseless and miserable ex-

• Nisi Deus homini placuerit, Deus non erit.

33istence? Religion tells us of a hell; that is, a frightful abode, where, notwithstanding his goodness, Godreserves infinite torments for the majority of men.Thus after having rendered mortals very unhappyin this world, religion tells them, that God can render them still more unhappy in another! The theologian gets over this, by saying, that the goodnessof God will then give place to his justice. But agoodness, which gives place to the most terrible cruelty, is not an infinite goodness. Besides, can aGod, who, after having been infinitely good , becomesinfinitely bad, be regarded as an immutable being?Can we discern the shadow of clemency or goodness,in a God filled with implacable fury?62. Divine justice, as painted by our divines, isundoubtedly a quality very proper to cherish in usthe love of the Divinity. According to the ideas ofmodern theology, it is evident, that God has createdthe majority of men, with the sole view of puttingthem in a fair way to incur eternal punishment.Would it not have been more conformable to goodness, reason, and equity, to have created only stonesor plants, and not to have created sensible beings;than to have formed men, whose conduct in thisworld might subject them to endless punishment inthe other? A God perfidious and malicious enoughto create a single man, and then to abandon him tothe danger of being damned, cannot be regarded asa perfect being; but as an unreasonable, unjust, illnatured, and atrocious monster. Very far fromcomposing a perfect God, theologians have formedthe most imperfect of beings . According to theological notions, God would resemble a tyrant, who,having put out the eyes of the greater part of hisslaves, should shut them up in a dungeon, where,for his amusem*nt, he would, incognito, observe theirconduct through a trap-door, in order to punish withrigour all those, who, while walking about, should hitagainst each other; but who would magnificently434reward the few whom he had not deprived ofsight, for their address in avoiding to run againsttheir comrades. Such are the ideas, which thedogma of gratuitous predestination gives us of thedivinity!Although men are continually repeating that theirGod is infinitely good; yet it is evident, that in reality, they can believe nothing of the kind . How canwe love what we do not know? How can we love abeing, whose character is only fit to throw us intoinquietude and trouble? How can we love a being,of whom all that is said tends to render him anobject of utter detestation?63. Many people make a subtle distinction between true religion and superstition. They say, thatthe latter is only a base and inordinate fear of theDeity; butthat the truly religious man has confidencein his God, and loves him sincerely; whereas, thesuperstitious man sees in him only an enemy, has noconfidence in him, and represents him to himself as adistrustful, cruel tyrant, sparing ofhis benefits, lavishof his chastisem*nts. But, in reality, does not allreligion give us the same ideas of God? At the sametime that we are told, that God is infinitely good,are we not also told , that he is very easily provoked,that he grants his favours to a few people only, andthat he furiously chastises those, to whom he hasnot been pleased to grant them?64. If we take our ideas of God from the natureof things, where we find a mixture of good and evil,this God, just like the good and evil which we experience, must naturally appear capricious, inconstant, sometimes good, and sometimes malevolent;and therefore, instead of exciting our love, must generate distrust, fear, and uncertainty. There isthen no real difference between natural religion, andthe most gloomy and servile superstition. If thetheist sees God only in a favourable light; the bigotviews him in the most hideous light. The folly of35the one is cheerful, that of the other is melancholy;but both are equally delirious.65. If I draw my ideas of God from theology, heappears in the character most proper to inspireaversion . Devotees, who tell us, that they sincerely love their God, are either liars or fools, who seetheir God only in profile. It is impossible to lovea being, the very idea of whom strikes us with terror, and whose judgments make us tremble. Howcan we, without being alarmed, look upon a God,who is reputed to be barbarous enough to damn us?Let not divines talk to us of a filial, or respectfulfear, mixed with love, which men ought to have fortheir God. A son can by no means love his father,when he knows him to be cruel enough to inflictupon him studied torments for the least faults hemay commit. No man upon earth can have the leastspark of love for a God, who reserves chastisem*nts,infinite in duration and violence, for ninety- ninehundredths of his children.66. The inventors of the dogma of eternal helltorments have made of that God, whom they call sogood, the most detestable of beings. Cruelty inmen is the last act of wickedness . Every sensiblemind must revolt at the bare recital of the torments,inflicted on the greatest criminal; but cruelty ismuch more apt to excite indignation, when void ofmotives. The most sanguinary tyrants, the Caligulas, the Neros, the Domitians, had, at least, somemotives for tormenting their victims, and insultingtheir sufferings. These motives were, either theirown safety, or the fury of revenge, or the design offrightening by terrible examples, or perhaps the vanity of making a display oftheir power, and the desire of satisfying a barbarous curiosity. Can a Godhave any of these motives? In tormenting the victims ofhis wrath, he would punish beings, who couldneither endanger his immoveable power, nor disturbhis unchangeable felicity . On the other hand, the36punishments of the other life would be useless to theliving, who cannot be witnesses of them. Thesepunishments would be useless to the damned, sincein hell there is no longer room for conversion, andthe time ofmercy is past. Whence it follows, thatGod, in the exercise of his eternal vengeance, couldhave no other end than to amuse himself, and insultthe weakness of his creatures. I appeal to thewhole human race; -is there in nature a man whofeels cruel enough coolly to torment, I do not sayhis fellow- creature, but any sensible being whatever,without emolument, without profit, without curiosity, without having any thing to fear? Confess then,O theologians! that, even according to your ownprinciples, your God is infinitely more malevolentthan the worst of men.Perhaps youwill say, that infinite offences deserveinfinite punishments. I answer, that we cannot offenda God, whose happiness is infinite; that the offencesof finite beings cannot be infinite; that a God, who isunwilling to be offended, cannot consent that theoffences of his creatures should be eternal; that aGod; infinitely good, can neither be infinitely cruel,nor grant his creatures an infinite duration, solelyfor the pleasure of eternizing their torments.Nothing but the most savage barbarity, the mostegregious roguery, or the blindest ambition couldhave imagined the doctrine of eternal punishments.If there is a God, whom we can offend or blaspheme,there are not upon earth greater blasphemers thanthose, who dare to say, that this same God is a tyrant, perverse enough to delight, during eternity, inthe useless torments of his feeble creatures.67. To pretend, that God can be offended at theactions of men, is to annihilate all the ideas, whichdivines endeavour to give us, in other respects, ofthisbeing. To say, that man can trouble the order ofthe universe; that he can kindle the thunder in thehand of his God; that he can defeat his projects, is to37say, that man is stronger than his God, that he isthe arbiter of his will, that it depends upon him tochange his goodness into cruelty . Theology continually pulls down, with one hand, what it erectswith the other. If all religion is founded upon aGod, who is provoked and appeased, all religion isfounded on a palpable contradiction .All religions agree in exalting the wisdom and infinite power of the Deity. But no sooner do theydisplay to us his conduct, than we see nothing butimprudence, want of foresight, weakness and folly.God, it is said, created the world for himself; andyet, hitherto, he has never been able to make himself suitably honoured by it. God created men inorder to have, in his dominions, subjects to renderhim their homage; and yet, we see men in continualrevolt against him.68. They incessantly extol the divine perfections;and when we demand proofs of them, they point usto his works, in which, they assure us, these perfections are written in indelible characters. All theseworks are, however, imperfect and perishable.Man, who is ever regarded as the most marvellouswork, as the master-piece of the Deity, is full ofimperfections, which render him disagreeable to theeyes ofthe almighty Being, who formed him. Thissurprising work often becomes so revolting and odious to its author, that he is obliged to throw it intothe fire. But, ifthe fairest of God's works is imperfect, how can we judge ofthe divine perfections?Can a work, with which the author himself is so little pleased, induce us to admire the ability of itsMaker? Man, considered in a physical sense, issubject to a thousand infirmities, to numberlessevils, and to death . Man, considered in a moralsense, is full of faults; yet we are unceasingly told,that he is the most beautiful work of the most perfect of beings.69. In creating beings more perfect than men, it38appears, that heretofore God has not better succeeded, nor given stronger proofs of his perfection.Do we not see, in many religions, that angels, purespirits, have even attempted to dethrone him? Godproposed the happiness of angels and men; yet, hehas never been able to render happy either angelsor men; -the pride, malice, sins, and imperfectionsof the creatures have always opposed the will of theperfect Creator.70. All religion is obviously founded upon thisprinciple, that God does what he can, and man whathe will. Every system of religion presents to us anunequal combat between the Deity on one part, andhis creatures on the other, in which the former never comes off to his honour. Notwithstanding hisomnipotence, he cannot succeed in rendering theworks of his hands such as he would have them.To complete the absurdity, there is a religion, whichpretends, that God himself has died to redeem mankind; and yet, men are not farther from any thing,than they are from what God would have them.71. Nothing is more extravagant, than the part,theology makes the Divinity to act in every country. Did he really exist, we should see in him themost capricious, and senseless being. We shouldbe compelled to believe, that God made the worldonly to be the theatre of his disgraceful wars withhis creatures; that he created angels, men, demons,and evil spirits only to make himself adversaries,against whom he might exercise his power. He renders men free to offend him, malicious enough todefeat his projects, too obstinate to submit; and allthis merely for the pleasure of being angry, appeased, reconciled, and of repairing the disorder theyhave made. Had the Deity at once formed his creatures such as he would have them, what pains wouldhe not have spared himself, or, at least, from whatembarrassments would he not have relieved his theologians!39Every religion represents God as busy only indoing himself evil. He resembles those empirics,who inflict upon themselves wounds, to have an opportunity of exhibiting to the public the efficacy oftheir ointment. But we see not, that the Deity hash*therto been able radically to cure himself oftheevil, which he suffers from man.72. God is the author of all; and yet, we are assured that evil does not come from God . Whencethen does it come? From man. But, who mademan? God. Evil then comes from God. If hehad not made man as he is, moral evil or sin wouldnot have existed in the world. The perversity ofman is therefore chargeable to God. If man haspower to do evil, or to offend God, we are forced toinfer, that God chooses to be offended; that God,who made man, has resolved that man shall do evil;otherwise man would be an effect contrary to theause, from which he derives his being.If73. Man ascribes to God the faculty of foreseeing, or knowing beforehand whatever will happen;but this prescience seldom turns to his glory, norprotects him from the lawful reproaches of man.God foreknows the future, must he not have foreseen the fall of his creatures, whom he had destinedto happiness? If he resolved in his decrees to permit this fall, it is undoubtedly because it was hiswill that this fall should take place, otherwise itcould not have happened. If God's foreknowledgeof the sins of his creatures had been necessary orforced, one might suppose, that he has been constrained by his justice to punish the guilty; but,enjoying the faculty of foreseeing, and the power ofpredetermining every thing, did it not depend uponGod not to impose upon himself cruel laws, or, atleast, could he not dispense with creating beings,whom he might be under the necessity of punishing,and rendering unhappy by a subsequent decree?Ofwhat consequence is it, whether God has destined40men to happiness or misery by an anterior decree, aneffect of his prescience, or by a posterior decree, aneffect of his justice? Does the arrangement of hisdecrees alter the fate of the unhappy? Would theynot have the same right to complain of a God, who,being able to omit their creation, has notwithstanding created them, although he plainly foresaw thathis justice would oblige him, sooner or later, topunish them?74. " Man, you say, when he came from thehands of God, was pure, innocent, and good; buthis nature has been corrupted , as a punishment forsin . " If man, when just out of the hands of hisGod, could sin, his nature was imperfect. Whydid God suffer him to sin, and his nature to be corrupted? Why did God permit him to be seduced,well knowing that he was too feeble to resist temptation? Why did God create a satan, an evil spirit, atempter? Why did not God, who wishes so muchgood to the human race, annihilate once for all somany evil genii, who are naturally enemies of ourhappiness; or rather, why did God create evilspirits, whose victories and fatal influence over mankind, he must have foreseen? In fine, by whatstrange fatality in all religions of the world, has theevil principle such a decided advantage over thegood principle, or the divinity?75. There is related an instance of simplicity,which does honour to the heart of an Italian monk.One day, while preaching, this pious man thoughthe must announce to his audience, that he had,thank heaven, at last discovered, by dint of meditation, a sure way of rendering all men happy. “ Thedevil, " said he, "tempts men only to have in hell companions of his misery. Let us therefore apply tothe Pope, who has the keys of heaven and hell; letus prevail upon him to pray to God, at the head ofthe whole church, to consent to a reconciliation withthe devil, to restore him to favour, to re-instate him

41in his former rank, which cannot fail to put an endto his malicious projects against mankind. " Perhaps the honest monk did not see, that the devil isat least as useful as God to the ministers of religion . They have too much interest in their dissensions, to be instrumental in an accommodationbetween two enemies, upon whose combats theirown existence and revenues depend. Let men ceaseto be tempted and to sin, and the ministry of priestswill be useless. Manicheism is evidently the hingeof every religion; but unhappily, the devil, inventedto clear the deity from the suspicion of malice,proves to us, every moment, the impotence or unskilfulness of his celestial adversary.76. The nature of man, it is said, was necessarilyliable to corruption . God could not communicateto him impeccability, which is an inalienable attributeof his divine perfection. But if God could notmake man impeccable, why did he give himself thepains to make man, whose nature must necessarilybe corrupted, and who must consequently offendGod? On the other hand, if God himself could notmake human nature impeccable, by what right doeshe punish men for not being impeccable? It canbe only by the right of the strongest; but the rightof the strongest is called violence, and violence cannot be compatible with the justest of beings. Godwould be supremely unjust, should he punish menfor not sharing with him his divine perfections, orfor not being able to be gods like him.Could not God, at least, have communicated toall men that kind of perfection, ofwhich their natureis susceptible? If some men are good, or renderthemselves agreeable to their God, why has notthat God done the same favour, or given the samedispositions to all beings of our species? Why doesthe number of the wicked so much exceed the number of the good? Why, for one friend, has Godten thousand enemies, in a world, which it depended42entirely upon him to people with honest men? Ifit be true, that, in heaven, God designs to form acourt of saints, of elect, or of men who shall havelived upon earth conformably to his views, would henot have had a more numerous, brilliant, and honourable assembly, had he composed it of all men, towhom, in creating them, he could grant the degreeof goodness, necessary to attain eternal happiness?Finally, would it not have been shorter not to havemade man, than to have created him a being full offaults, rebellious to his creator, perpetually exposedto cause his own destruction by a fatal abuse of hisliberty?Instead of creating men, a perfect God ought tohave created only angels very docile and submissive.Angels, it is said, are free; some have sinned; but,at any rate, all have not abused their liberty by revolting against their master. Could not God havecreated only angels of the good kind? If God hascreated angels, who have not sinned, could he nothave created impeccable men, or men who shouldnever abuse their liberty? If the elect are incapableof sinning in heaven, could not God have made impeccable men upon earth?77. Divines never fail to persuade us, that theenormous distance which separates God and man,necessarily renders the conduct of God a mysteryto us, and that we have no right to interrogate ourmaster. Is this answer satisfactory? Since, according to you, my eternal happiness is at stake,have I not a right to examine the conduct of Godhimself? It is only in hope of happiness that mensubmit to the authority of a God. Adespot, to whommen submit only through fear, a master, whom theycannot interrogate, a sovereign totally inaccessible,can never merit the homage of intelligent beings.If the conduct of God is a mystery to us, it is notmade for us. Man can neither adore, admire, respect, nor imitate a conduct, in which every thing is43your proinconceivable, or, of which he can often form onlyrevolting ideas; unless it is pretended, that weought to adore every thing of which we are forcedto be ignorant, and that every thing, which we do notknow, becomes for that reason an object of admiration . Divines! You never cease telling us, that thedesigns of God are impenetrable; that his ways arenot our ways, nor his thoughts our thoughts; that it isabsurd to complain of his administration, of the motives and springs of which we are totally ignorant;that it is presumption to tax his judgments with injustice, because we cannot comprehend them. Butwhen you speak in this strain, do you not perceive,that you destroy with your own hands allfound systems, whose only end is to explain to usthe ways of the divinity, which, you say, are impenetrable? Have you penetrated his judgments, hisways, his designs? You dare not assert it, andthough you reason about them without end, you donot comprehend them any more than we do. If,by chance, you know the plan of God, which youwish us to admire, while most people find it so littleworthy of a just, good, intelligent, and reasonablebeing, no longer say, this plan is impenetrable. Ifyou are as ignorant of it as we are, have some indulgence for those who ingenuously confess, theycomprehend nothing in it, or that they see in it nothing divine . Cease to persecute for opinions, ofwhich you understand nothing yourselves; cease, todefame each other for dreams and conjectures,which every thing seems to contradict. Talk to usof things intelligible and really useful to men; andno longer talk to us of the impenetrable ways ofGod, about which you only stammer and contradict,yourselves.By continually speaking of the immense depthsof divine wisdom, forbidding us to sound them, saying it is insolence to cite God before the tribunal ofour feeble reason, making it a crime to judge our44master, divines teach us nothing but the embarrassment they are in, when it is required to account forthe conduct of a God, whose conduct they thinkmarvellous only because they are utterly incapableof comprehending it themselves.78. Physical evil is commonly regarded as a punishment for sin . Diseases, famines, wars, earthquakes, are means which God uses to chastisewicked men. Thus, they make no scruple of attributing these evils to the severity of a just and goodGod. But, do not these scourges fall indiscriminately upon the good and bad, upon the impiousand devout, upon the innocent and guilty? How,in this proceeding, would they have us admire thejustice and goodness of a being, the idea of whomseems comforting to so many wretches, whose brainmust undoubtedly be disordered by their misfortunes, since they forget, that their God is the arbiter, the sole disposer of the events of this world.This being the case, ought they not to impute theirsufferings to him, into whose arms they fly for comfort? Unfortunate father! Thou consolest thyselfin the bosom of Providence, for the loss of a dearchild, or beloved wife, who made thy happiness.Alas! Dost thou not see, that thy God has killedthem? Thy God has rendered thee miserable, andthou desirest thy God to comfort thee for the dreadful afflictions he has sent thee!The chimerical or supernatural notions of theology have so succeeded in destroying, in the mindsof men, the most simple, clear, and natural ideas,that the devout, unable to accuse God of malice,accustom themselves to regard the several strokesof fate as indubitable proofs of celestial goodness.Are they in affliction, they are ordered to believethat God loves them, that God visits them, that Godwishes to try them. Thus religion has attained theart of converting evil into good! A profane personsaid with reason- If God Almighty thus treats those45whom he loves, I earnestly beseech him never to think ofme.Men must have received very gloomy and cruelideas of their God, who is called so good, to believethat the most dreadful calamities and piercing afflictions are marks of his favour! Would an evil genius,a demon, be more ingenious in tormenting his enemies, than the God of goodness sometimes is, whoso often exercises his severity upon his dearestfriends?79. What shall we say of a father, who, we areassured, watches without intermission over the preservation and happiness of his weak and shortsighted children, and who yet leaves them at libertyto wander at random among rocks, precipices, andwaters; who rarely hinders them from followingtheir inordinate appetites; who permits them tohandle, without precaution, murderous arms, at the risk of their life? What should we think of thesame father, if, instead of imputing to himself theevil that happens to his poor children, he shouldpunish them for their wanderings in the most cruelmanner? We should say, with reason, that thisfather is a madman, who unites injustice to folly.21A God, who punishes faults, which he could haveprevented, is a being deficient in wisdom, goodness,and equity. A foreseeing God would prevent evil,and thereby avoid having to punish it. A good Godwould not punish weaknesses, which he knew to beinherent in human nature. A just God, if he mademan, would not punish him for not being made strongenough to resist his desires . To punish weaknessis the most unjust tyranny. Is it not calumniatinga just God, to say, that he punishes men for theirfaults, even in the present life? How could he punish beings, whom it belonged to him alone to reform , and who, while they have not grace, cannotact otherwise than they do?According to the principles of theologians them-46selves, man, in his present state of corruption, cando nothing but evil, since, without divine grace, heis never able to do good. Now, if the nature ofman, left to itself, or destitute of divine aid, necessarily determines him to evil, or renders him incapableof good, what becomes of the free-will of man?According to such principles, man can neither meritnor demerit. By rewarding man for the good he does,God would only reward himself; by punishing manfor the evil he does, God would punish him for notgiving him grace, without which he could not possibly do better.80. Theologians repeatedly tell us, that man isfree, while all their principles conspire to destroyhis liberty. By endeavouring to justify the Divinity,they in reality accuse him ofthe blackest injustice.They suppose, that without grace, man is necessitated to do evil. They affirm, that God will punishhim, because God has not given him grace to dogood!Little reflection will suffice to convince us, thatman is necessitated in all his actions, that his free willis a chimera, even in the system of theologians. Doesit depend upon man to be born of such or such parents? Does it depend upon man to imbibe or not toimbibe the opinions of his parents or instructors?IfI had been born of idolatrous or Mahometan parents, would it have depended upon me to become aChristian? Yet, divines gravely assure us, that a justGod will damn without pity all those, to whom hehas not given grace to know the Christian religion!Man's birth is wholly independent of his choice.He is not asked whether he is willing, or not, tocome into the world. Nature does not consult himupon the country and parents she gives him. Hisacquired ideas, his opinions, his notions true orfalse, are necessary fruits of the education which hehas received, and of which he has not been the director. His passions and desires are necessary con-47sequences of the temperament given him by nature,and of the ideas with which he has been inspired.During his whole life, his volitions and actions aredetermined by his connexions, habits, occupations,pleasures, and conversations; by the thoughts, thatare involuntarily presented to his mind; in a word,by a multitude of events and accidents, which it isout of his power to foresee or prevent. Incapableof looking into futurity, he knows not what he shallwill, or do, the succeeding moment. From the instant of his birth to that of his death, he is never free.You will say, that he wills, deliberates, chooses, determines; and you will hence conclude, that hisactions are free. It is true, that man wills, but heis not master of his will or his desires; he can desire and will only what he judges advantageous tohimself; he can neither love pain, nor detest pleasure. It will be said, that he sometimes prefers painto pleasure; but then he prefers a momentary painwith the view of procuring a greater and more durable pleasure. In this case, the prospect of a greatergood necessarily determines him to forego a lessconsiderable good.The lover does not give his mistress the featureswhich captivate him; he is not then master of loving,or not loving the object of his tenderness; he is notmaster ofhis imagination or temperament. Whenceit evidently follows, that man is not master of hisvolitions and desires. " But man, you will say, canresist his desires; therefore he is free." Man resistshis desires, when the motives, which divert him froman object, are stronger than those, which incline himtowards it; but then his resistance is necessary.A man, whose fear of dishonour or punishment isgreater than his love of money, necessarily resiststhe desire of stealing.66 Are we not free, when we deliberate?" But, arewe masters of knowing or not knowing, of being indoubt or certainty? Deliberation is a necessary effect48ofour uncertainty respecting the consequences ofouractions. When we are sure, or think we are sure, ofthese consequences, we necessarily decide, and wethen act necessarily according to our true or falsejudgment. Ourjudgments, true or false, are not free;they are necessarily determined by the ideas, wehave received, or which our minds have formed.2Man is not free in his choice; he is evidently necessitated to choose what he judges most useful andagreeable. Neither is he free, when he suspendshis choice; he is forced to suspend it until he knows,or thinks he knows, the qualities of the objects presented to him, or, until he has weighed the consequences of his actions . " Man, you will say, oftendecides in favour of actions, which he knows must bedetrimental to himself; man sometimes kills himself;therefore he is free. " I deny it. Is man master ofreasoning well or ill? Do not his reason and wisdom.depend upon the opinions he has formed, or uponthe conformation of his machine? As neither one northe other depends upon his will, they are no proof ofliberty. " If I lay a wager, that I shall do, or not doa thing, am I not free; Does it not depend upon meto do it or not?" No, I answer; the desire ofwinningthe wager will necessarily determine you to do, ornot to do the thing in question. " But, supposing Iconsent to lose the wager?" Then the desire of provingto me, that you are free, will have become a strongermotive than the desire of winning the wager; andthis motive will have necessarily determined you todo, or not to do, the thing in question.66 But, you will say, I feel free." This is an illusion, that may be compared to that of the fly in thefable, who, lighting upon the pole of a heavy earriage, applauded himself for directing its course.Man, who thinks himself free , is a fly, who imagines he has power to move the universe, while heis himself unknowingly carried along by it.The inward persuasion that we are free to do, or&49not to do a thing, is but a mere illusion. If wetrace the true principle of our actions, we shallfind, that they are always necessary consequencesof our volitions and desires, which are never in ourpower. You think yourself free, because you dowhat you will; but are you free to will, or not towill; to desire, or not to desire? Are not your volitions and desires necessarily excited by objects orqualities totally independent of you?81. " If the actions of men are necessary, if menare not free, by what right does society punish criminals, who infest it? Is it not very unjust to chastise beings, who could not act otherwise than theyhave done?" Ifthe wicked act necessarily accordingto the impulses of their evil nature, society, in punishing them, acts necessarily by the desire of selfpreservation. Certain objects necessarily producein us the sensation of pain; our nature then forcesus to hate them, and avert them from us. A tyger,pressed by hunger, springs upon the man, whomhe wishes to devour; but this man is not masterof his fear, and necessarily seeks means to destroythe tyger.82. " If every thing be necessary, the errors,opinions, and ideas of men are fatal; and, if so, howor why should we attempt to reform them?" Theerrors of men are necessary consequences of theirignorance; their ignorance, prejudice, and credulityare necessary consequences of their inexperience,negligence, and want of reflection , in the samemanner as delirium or lethargy are necessary effects of certain diseases. Truth, experience, reflection, and reason, are remedies calculated to cureignorance, fanaticism and follies, in the same manner as bleeding is proper to calm delirium. But,you will ask, why does not truth produce this effectupon many disordered heads? It is because somediseases resist all remedies; because it is impossible to cure obstinate patients , who refuse the reme550dies presented to them; because the interest ofsome men, and the folly of others, necessarily oppose the admission of truth .A cause produces its effect, only when its actionis not interrupted by stronger causes, which thenweakens or render useless, the action of the former.It is impossible that the best arguments should beadopted by men, who are interested in error, prejudiced in its favour, and who decline all reflection;but truth must necessarily undeceive honest minds,who seek her sincerely. Truth is a cause; It necessarily produces its effects, when its impulse is notintercepted by causes, which suspend its effects.66 83. To deprive man of his free will , is, it issaid, to make him a mere machine, an automaton.Without liberty, he will no longer have either meritor virtue . " What is merit in man? It is a mannerof acting, which renders him estimable in the eyesofhis fellow-beings. What is virtue? It is a disposition, which inclines us to do good to others.What can there be contemptible in machines, or automatons, capable of producing effects so desirable?Marcus Aurelius was a very useful spring to thevast machine of the Roman empire. By what rightwould a machine despise a machine, whose springsfacilitate its action? Good men are springs, whichsecond society in its tendency to happiness; thewicked are ill- formed springs, which disturb the order,progress, and harmony of society. If, for its own utility, society cherishes and rewards the good, it alsoharasses and destroys the wicked, as useless or hurtful.84. The world is a necessary agent. All the beings, that compose it, are united to each other, andcannot act otherwise than they do, so long as theyare moved by the same causes, and endued with thesame properties. Do they lose properties? Theywill necessarily act in a different way. God himself, admitting for a moment his existence, cannotbe considered as a free agent. If there existed a51•God, his manner of acting would necessarily be determined by the properties inherent in his nature;nothing would be capable of arresting or altering hiswill. This being granted, neither our actions , prayers, nor sacrifices could suspend, or change his invariable conduct and immutable designs; whence weare forced to infer, that all religion would be useless.85. Were not divines in perpetual contradictionwith themselves, they would see, that, accordingto their hypothesis, man cannot be reputed free aninstant. Do they not suppose man continually dependant on his God? Are we free, when we cannotexist and be preserved without God, and when wecease to exist at the pleasure of his supreme will?If God has made man out of nothing; if his preservation is a continued creation; if God cannot, an instant, lose sight of his creature; if whatever happensto him, is an effect of the divine will; if man cando nothing of himself; if all the events, whichhe experiences, are effects of the divine decrees; ifhe does no good without grace from on high, howcan they maintain, that a man enjoys a moment'sliberty? If God did not preserve him in the momentof sin, how could man sin? If God then preserveshim, God forces him to exist, that he may sin.86. The Divinity is frequently compared to aking, whose revolted subjects are the greater partof mankind; and it is said, he has a right to rewardthe subjects who remain faithful to him, and to punish the rebellious . This comparison is not just inany of its parts. God presides over a machine, everyspring of which he has created . These springs actagreeably to the manner, in which God has formedthem; he ought to impute it to his own unskilfulness, if these springs do not contribute to the harmony of the machine, into which it was his will toinsert them. God is a created king, who has createdto himself subjects of every description; who hasformed them according to his own good pleasure52whose will can never find resistance . If God hasrebellious subjects in his empire, it is because Godhas resolved to have rebellious subjects . If the sinsof men disturb the order of the world, it is becauseit is the will of God that this order should be disturbed.Nobody dares to call in question the divine justice;yet, under the government of a just God, we seenothing but acts of injustice and violence. Forcedecides the fate of nations, equity seems banishedfrom the earth; a few men sport, unpunished, withthe peace, property, liberty, and life of others. Allis disorder in a world governed by a God who issaid to be infinitely displeased with disorder.87. Although men are for ever admiring the wisdom, goodness, justice, and beautiful order of Providence, they are, in reality, never satisfied with it. Donot the prayers, continually addressed to heaven,shew, that men are by no means satisfied with thedivine dispensations? To pray to God for a favour,shews diffidence of his watchful care; to pray to himto avert or put an end to an evil, is to endeavour toobstruct the course of his justice; to implore theassistance of God in our calamities, is to address theauthor himself of these calamities, to represent tohim, that he ought, for our sake, to rectify his plan,which does not accord with our interest.The Optimist, or he who maintains that all is well,and who incessantly cries that we live in the bestworld possible, to be consistent, should never pray;neither ought he to expect another world, whereman will be happier. Can there be a better worldthan the best world possible? Some theologians havetreated the Optimists as impious, for having intimated that God could not produce a better world, thanthat in which we live. According to these doctors,it is to limit the power of God, and to offer him insult. But do not these divines see, that it shewsmuch less indignity to God, to assert that hehas53done his best in producing this world, than to say,that, being able to produce a better, he has hadmalice enough to produce a very bad one? IftheOptimist, by his system, detracts from the divinepower, the theologian, who treats him as a blasphemer, is himself a blasphemer, who offends thegoodness of God in espousing the cause of hisomnipotence.88. When we complain of the evils, of which ourworld is the theatre, we are referred to the otherworld, where it is said, God will make reparationfor all the iniquity and misery, which, for a time, hepermits here below. But ifGod, suffering his eternal justice to remain at rest for a long time, couldconsent to evil during the whole continuance of ourpresent world, what assurance have we, that, during the continuance of another world, divine justicewill not, in like manner, sleep over the misery ofits inhabitants?The divines console us for our sufferings by saying, that God is patient, and that his justice, thoughoften slow, is not the less sure. But do they notsee, that patience is incompatible with a just, immutable, and omnipotent being? Can God thenpermit injustice, even for an instant? To temporizewith a known evil, announces either weakness, uncertainty, or collusion . To tolerate evil, when onehas power to prevent it, is to consent to the commission of evil.89. Divines every where exclaim, that God isinfinitely just; but that his justice is not thejustice ofman. Of what kind or nature then is this divine justice? What idea can I form of a justice, which sooften resembles injustice? Is it not to confound allideas ofjust and unjust, to say, that what is equitable in God is iniquitous in his creatures? How canwe receive for our model a being, whose divine perfections are precisely the reverse of human?is God, it is said, is sovereign arbiter of our desti-54nies. His supreme power, which nothing can limit,justly permits him to do with the works of his ownhands according to his good pleasure. A worm ofearth, like man, has no right even to complain."This arrogant style is evidently borrowed from thelanguage, used by the ministers of tyrants, whenthey stop the mouths of those who suffer from theirviolences. It cannot then be the language of theministers of a God, whose equity is highly extolled;it is not made to be imposed upon a being, who, reasons. Ministers of a just God! I will inform youthen, that the greatest power cannot confer uponyour God himself the right of being unjust even tothe vilest of his creatures. A despot is not a God.A God, who arrogates to himself the right of doingevil, is a tyrant; a tyrant is not a model for men; hemust be an object execrable to their eyes.Is it not indeed strange, that in order to justifythe Divinity, they make him every moment the most.unjust of beings! As soon as we complain of hisconduct, they think to silence us by alledging, thatGod is master; which signifies, that God, being thestrongest, is not bound by ordinary rules. But theright of the strongest is the violation ofall rights. Itcan seem a right only to the eyes of a savage conqueror, who in the heat of his fury imagines, that hemay do whatever he pleases with the unfortunatevictims, whom he has conquered . This barbarousright can appear legitimate only to slaves blindenough to believe that every thing is lawful to tyrantswhom to resist they feel too weak.In the bosom of the greatest calamities, do notdevout persons, through a ridiculous simplicity, orrather a sensible contradiction in terms, exclaim,that the Almighty is master. Thus, inconsistent reasoners, you sincerely believe, that the Almighty (aBeing, one of whose first attributes is goodness, )sends you pestilence, war, and famine! You believe that the Almighty, this good being, has the will55and right to inflict the greatest evils, you can bear!>Cease, at least, to call your God good, when he doesyou evil; say not, that he is just, say that he is thestrongest, and that it is impossible for you to wardoff the blows of his caprice.God, say you, chastises onlyfor our good. But whatreal good can result to a people from being exterminated bythe plague, ravaged by wars, corrupted bythe examples of perverse rulers, continually crushed ,under the iron sceptre of a succession of mercilesstyrants, annihilated by the scourges of a bad government, whose destructive effects are often felt for agesThe eyes offaith must be strange eyes, if with themwe can see advantages in the most dreadful and durable calamities, in the vices and follies with whichour species is afflicted .?90. What strange ideas of divine justice mustChristians have, who are taught to believe, that theirGod, in view of reconciling to himselfthe humanrace, guilty, though unconscious, of the sin of theirfathers, has put to death his own son, who was innocent and incapable of sinning? What should we sayof a king, whose subjects should revolt, and who, toappease himself, should find no other expedient thanto put to death the heir of his crown, who had notparticipated in the general rebellion? " It is, theChristian will say, through goodness to his subjects,unable ofthemselves to satisfy divine justice, thatGod has consented to the cruel death of his son. "But the goodness of a father to strangers does notgive him the right of being unjust and barbarous tohis own son. All the qualities, which theology ascribes to God, reciprocally destroy one another.The exercise of one of his perfections is always atthe expence of the exercise of another.Has the Jew more rational ideas of divine justicethan the Christian? The pride of a king kindles theanger of heaven; Jehovah causes the pestilence todescend upon his innocent people; seventy thousand56Asubjects are exterminated to expiate the fault of amonarch, whom the goodness of God resolved tospare.91. Notwithstanding the various acts ofinjustice,with which all religions delight to blacken the Divinity, men cannot consent to accuse him of iniquity.They fear, that, like the tyrants of this world, truthwill offend him, and redouble upon them the weightof his malice and tyranny. They hearken thereforeto their priests, who tell them, that their God is atender father; that this God is an equitable monarchwhose object in this world is to assure himself of thelove, obedience and respect of his subjects; whogives them liberty of acting only to afford them anopportunity ofmeriting his favours, and of acquiringan eternal happiness, which he does not owe them.By what signs can men discover the tenderness ofafather, who has given life to the greater part of hischildren merely to drag out upon the earth a painful, restless, bitter existence? Is there a more unfortunate present, than that pretended liberty, which,we are told, men are very liable to abuse, andthereby to incur eternal misery?92. By calling mortals to life, what a cruel anddangerous part has not the Deity forced them toact? Thrown into the world without their consent,provided with a temperament of which they are notmasters, animated by passions and desires inherentin their nature, exposed to snares which they havenot power to escape, hurried away by events whichthey could not foresee or prevent, unhappy mortals are compelled to run a career, which may leadthem to punishments horrible in duration and vio- lence.Travellers inform us, that, in a country of Asia,reigns a Sultan, full of fantastical ideas, and veryabsolute even in his whims. By a strange madness,this prince spends his time seated at a table, uponwhich are placed three dice and a dice-box.One57end of the table is covered with pieces of silver, designed to excite the avarice of his courtiers and people, by whom the Sultan is surrounded . He, knowing the foible of his subjects, addresses them nearlyas follows: Slaves, I wish your happiness. Mygoodness proposes to enrich you, and make you all happy.Doyou see these treasures? Well, they arefor you; striveto gain them; let each, in his turn, take the box and dice;whoever has the fortune to throw sixes, shall be masterofthe treasure. But, Iforewarn you, that he who hasnot the happiness to throw the number required, shall beprecipitated for ever into a dark dungeon, where myjustice demands that he be burned with a slowfire. Uponthis discourse of the monarch, the company look ateach other affrighted . No one wishes to expose himself to so dangerous a chance. What! says the enraged Sultan, does no one offer to play? Itellyou thenyou must; Myglory requires that you shouldplay. Playthen; obey without replying. It is well to observe, thatthe dice of the despot are so prepared, that out of ahundred thousand throws, there is but one, whichcan gain the number required. Thus the generousmonarch has the pleasure of seeing his prison wellfilled , and his riches seldom ravished from him. Mortals! this SULTAN is your GOD; his TREASURE ISHEAVEN; his DUNGEON IS HELL, and it is you whohold the DICE!93. Divines repeatedly assure us, that we owetoProvidence infinite gratitude for the numberless blessings she bestows upon us. They loudly extol thehappiness of existence. But, alas! how many mortals are truly satisfied with their mode of existence?If life has sweets, with howmuch bitterness is it notmixed? Does not a single chagrin often suffice suddenly to empoison the most peaceable and fortunatelife? Are there many, who, if it were in their powerwould begin again, at the same price, the painfulcareer, in which, without their consent, destiny hasplaced them?58You say, that existence alone is a great blessing,But is not this existence continually troubled withchagrins, fears, and maladies, often cruel and littledeserved? May not this existence, threatened on somany sides, be torn from us every moment? Where:is the man, who, after living some time in the world,has not been deprived of a dear spouse, beloved child,or consoling friend, whose loss every moment intrudes upon his thoughts? There are few, who havenot been forced to drink of the cup of misfortune;there are few, who have not desired their end.nally, it did not depend upon us to exist or not toexist. Should the bird then be so very grateful tothe fowler for taking him in his net and confining himin his cage for his diversion and afterwards for hisnourishment?Fi94. Notwithstanding the infirmities, chagrin andmisery, which man is forced to undergo in this world;in spite of the dangers, his alarmed imaginationshews him in another, he has nevertheless the follyto think himself the favourite of his God, the objectof all his cares, the sole end of all his works. Heimagines, that the whole universe is made for him;he arrogantly calls himself the king of nature, andvalues himself far above other animals . Mortal!upon what canst thou found thy haughty pretensions?It is, sayest thou, upon thy soul, upon thy reason,upon the sublime faculties, which enable thee toexercise an absolute empire over the beings, whichsurround thee. But, weak sovereign of the world;art thou sure, a moment, ofthe continuance of thyreign? Do not the smallest atoms of matter, whichthou despisest, suffice to tear thee from thy throne,and deprive thee of life? Finally, does not the kingof animals at last become the food of worms? Thouspeakest ofthy soul! But dost thou know what asoul is? Dost thou not see, that this soul is only theassemblage of thy organs, from which results life?Wouldst thou then refuse a soul to other animals,59who live, think, judge, and compare, like thee; whoseek pleasure, and avoid pain, like thee; and whooften have organs, which serve them better thanthine? Thou boastest of thy intellectual faculties;but do these faculties, of which thou art so proud,make thee happier than other animals? Dost thouoften make use ofthat reason, in which thou gloriest,and to which religion commands thee not to listen?Are those brutes, which thou disdainest, becausethey are less strong or less cunning than thou art,subject to chagrin, to mental pains, to a thousandfrivolous passions, to a thousand imaginary wants,to which thou art a continual prey? Are they, likethee, tormented by the past, alarmed at the future?Confined solely to the present, does not what youcall their instinct, and what I call their intelligence,suffice to preserve and defend them, and to supplythem with all they want? Does not this instinct, ofwhich thou speakest with contempt, often servethem better than thy wonderful faculties? Is nottheir peaceful ignorance more advantageous to them,than those extravagant meditations and worthlessresearches, which render thee unhappy, and forwhich thy zeal urges thee even to massacre the beings of thy so noble species? Finally, have thesebeasts, like so many mortals, a troubled imagination,which makes them fear, not only death, but likewiseeternal torments, by which they think it followed?Augustus, hearing that Herod, king of Judea,had put to death his sons, exclaimed; It is muchbetter to be Herod's hog, than his son. As much maybe said of man. This dear child of Providence runsfar greater risks than all other animals; -after having suffered much in this world, does he not imagine, that he is in danger of suffering eternally inanother?95. Where is the precise line of distinction betweenman and the animals whom he calls brutes? Inwhat does he differ essentially from beasts? It is,60we are told, by his intelligence, by the faculties ofhis mind, and by his reason, that man appears superior to all other animals, who, in all their actions,move only by physical impulses, in which reason has no share. But finally, brutes, having fewerwants than man, easily do without his intellectualfaculties , which would be perfectly useless in theirmode of existence. Their instinct is sufficient; whileall the faculties of man scarcely suffice to render hisexistence supportable, and to satisfy the wants, whichhis imagination, his prejudices, and his institutionsmultiply to his torment.Brutes are not struck by the same objects, as man;they have not the same wants, desires, nor fancies;and they very soon arrive to maturity, while the mindof man seldom attains to the full enjoyment and freeexercise of its faculties and to such a use ofthem, asis conducive to his happiness.96. We are assured, that the human soul is a simple substance. It should then be the same in everyindividual of the human species, who ought all tohave the same intellectual faculties; yet this is notthe case. Men differ as much in the qualities ofthemind, as in the features of the face. There are human beings as different from one another, as man isfrom a horse or a dog. What conformity or resemblance do we find between some men? What aninfinite distance is there between the genius of aLocke or a Newton, and that of a peasant, Hottentot, or Laplander?Man differs from other animals only in his organization, which enables him to produce effects, ofwhich they are not capable. The variety, observable in the organs of individuals of the human speciessuffices to explain the differences in what is calledtheir intellectual faculties . More or less delicacyin these organs, warmth in the blood, mobility in thefluids, flexibility or stiffness in the fibres and nerves,mustnecessarily produce the infinite diversity, which61we observe in the minds of men. It is by exercise,habit and education, that the mind is unfolded andbecomes superior to that of others: man, withoutculture and experience, is as void of reason and industry, as the brute. A stupid man is one, whoseorgans move with difficulty, whose brain does noteasily vibrate, whose blood circulates slowly. Aman ofgenius is he, whose organs are flexible, whosesensations are quick, whose brain vibrates with celerity. Alearned man is he, whose organs and brainhave been long exercised upon objects to which he isdevoted.Without culture, experience, or reason, is not manmore contemptible and worthy of hatred, than thevilest insects or most ferocious beasts? Is there innature a more detestable being, than a Tiberius,a Nero, or a Caligula? Have those destroyers ofthe human race, known by the name of conquerors,more estimable souls than bears, lions, or panthers?Are there in the world animals more detestable thantyrants?97. The superiority which man so gratuitouslyarrogates to himself over other animals, soon vanishes in the eyes of reason, when we reflect on humanextravagances. How many animals shew moremildness, reflection, and reason , than the animal,who calls himself reasonable above all others? Arethere among men, so often enslaved and oppressed,societies as well constituted as those ofthe ants, orthe bees, or the beavers? Do we ever see ferociousbeasts of the same species rendezvous in plains tomangle and destroy one another without profit? Dowe ever see religious wars among them? The cruelty of beasts towards other species arises from hunger, the necessity of nourishment; the cruelty ofman towards man arises only from the vanity of hismasters and the folly of his impertinent prejudices.Speculative men, who imagine, or who endeavourto make us believe, that all in the universe was62made for man, are much embarrassed, when we ask,how so many hurtful animals, who continually infestour abode, can contribute to the happiness of man.What known advantage results to the friend of thegods, from being bitten by a viper, stung by a gnat,devoured byvermin, torn in pieces by a tyger, &c.?Would not all these animals reason as justly as ourtheologians, should they pretend that man was madefor them?98. AN EASTERN TALE.At some distance from Bagdad, a dervise, renowned for his sanctity, passed his days in an agreeable solitude. The neighbouring inhabitants, toobtain an interest in his prayers, daily flocked to hishermitage, to carry him provisions and presents.The holy man, without ceasing, gave thanks to Godfor the blessings, with which his providence loadedhim. " O Allah! " said he, " how ineffable is thy loveto thy servants . What have I done to merit thefavours, that I receive from thy bounty? O Monarchof the skies! O Father of nature! what praises couldworthily celebrate thy munificence, and thy paternal care! O Allah! how great is thy goodness to thechildren of men!" Penetrated with gratitude, ourhermit made a vow to undertake, for the seventhtime, a pilgrimage to Mecca. The war which thensubsisted between the Persians and Turks, couldnot induce him to defer the execution of his piousenterprise. Full of confidence in God, he sets outunder the inviolable safeguard of a respected habit.He passes through the hostile troops without anyobstacle; far from being molested , he receives, atevery step, marks of veneration from the soldiers ofthe two parties. At length, borne down with fatigue,he is obliged to seek refuge against the rays of ascorching sun; he finds it under the cool shade ofa*group of palm- trees, whose roots were watered by63alimpid stream . In this solitary place, whose peacewas disturbed only by the murmur of waters andthe warbling of birds, the man of God finds not onlyan enchanting retreat, but a delicious repast. Hehas only to put forth his hand to gather dates andother pleasant fruits; the brook affords him themeans of quenching his thirst. A green turf sooninvites him to sleep; upon waking he performs thesacred ablution, and exclaims in a transport ofjoy;"O Allah! how great is thy goodness to the childrenof men!" After this perfect refreshment, our saint,full of strength and gaiety, pursues his way; it leadshim for some time across a smiling country, whichpresents nothing to his eyes but flowery hillocks,enamelled meadows, and trees loaded with fruit.Affected by this sight, he ceases not to adore therich and liberal hand of providence, which appearsevery where providing for the happiness of the human race . Going a little farther, he finds somemountains, that are pretty difficult to pass; but having once arrived at the summit, a hideous spectacle suddenly appears to his view. His soul is filledwith horror. He discovers a vast plain entirely laidwaste with fire and sword; he beholds it coveredwith more than a hundred thousand carcases, thedeplorable remains of a bloody battle, lately foughtupon this field. Eagles, vultures, ravens and wolveswere greedily devouring the dead bodies with whichthe ground was strewed. This sight plunges ourpilgrim into a gloomy meditation. Heaven, by special favour, had enabled him to understand the language of beasts. He heard a wolf, gorged withhuman flesh, cry out in the excess of his joy; " OAllah! how great is thy goodness to the children ofwolves. Thy provident wisdom takes care to crazethe minds of these detestable men, who are so dangerous to our species. By an effect of thy Providence, which watches over thy creatures, thesedestroyers of our race cut one another's throats,64how""and furnish us with sumptuous meals. O Allah!great is thy goodness to the children of wolves!"99. A heated imagination sees in the universeonly the blessings of heaven; a calmer mind findsin it both good and evil. " I exist, " say you; butis this existence always a good? "Behold, " you say," that sun, which enlightens us; this earth, whichfor you is covered with crops and verdure; theseflowers, which bloom to regale your senses; thesetrees, which bend under the weight of deliciousfruits; these pure waters, which run only to quenchyour thirst; those seas, which embrace the universeto facilitate your commerce; these animals, whicha foreseeing nature regenerates for your use .'Yes;I see all these things, and I enjoy them when I can.But in many climates, this so beautiful sun is almostalways hidden from my eyes; in others, its excessiveheat torments me, creates storms, produces frightfuldiseases, and parches the fields; the pastures arewithout verdure, the trees without fruit, the cropsare scorched, the springs are dried up; I can withdifficulty any longer subsist, and now complain ofthe cruelties of a nature, which to you always appears so beneficent. If these seas bring me spices,wealth, and useless commodities, do they not destroy numberless mortals, who are foolish enoughto seek them? The vanity of man persuades him,that he is the sole centre of the universe; he createsto himself alone a world and a God; he thinks himself of sufficient consequence to derange nature athis pleasure. But, concerning other animals, he reasons like an atheist. Does he not imagine, that theindividuals of species different from his own are automatons unworthy of the blessings of universalprovidence, and that brutes cannot be objects ofhisjustice or goodness? Mortals regard the happy orunhappy events, health or sickness, life or death,plenty or want, as rewards or punishments for theright use or abuse of the liberty, with which they65erroneously imagine themselves endowed. Dotheyreason in the same manner concerning brutes? No.Although they see them, under a just God, enjoyand suffer, equally subject to health and sickness,live and die, like themselves, it never occurs to themto ask by what crime, these beasts could have incurred the displeasure of their Creator? Have not philosophers, blinded by their religious prejudices, inorder to free themselves from embarrassment, carried their folly so far as to pretend that beasts haveno feeling?Will men never renounce. their foolish pretensions?Will they never acknowledge that nature is not madefor them? Will they never see that this nature hasplaced equality among all beings she has produced?Will they never perceive that all organized beingsare equally made to be born and die, enjoy and suffer? Finally, far from having any cause to be puffedup with their mental faculties, are they not forcedto grant, that these faculties often make them moreunhappy than beasts, in which we find neither opinions, prejudices, vanities, nor follies, which everymoment decide the welfare of man?100. The superiority which men arrogate overother animals, is chiefly founded upon their opinion,that they have the exclusive possession of an immortal soul. But ask them what this soul is , andthey are puzzled. They will say, it is an unknownsubstance-a secret power distinct from their bodies—a spirit, ofwhich they have no idea. Ask themhow this spirit, which they suppose to be like theirGod wholly void of extension, could combine itselfwith their extended, material bodies, and they willtell you, they know nothing about it; that it is tothem a mystery; that this combination is an effectof the omnipotence of God. These are the clearideas that men form of the hidden, or rather imaginary substance, which they consider as the mainspring of all their actions!666•If the soul is a substance essentially different fromthe body, and can have no relation to it, their unionwould be, not amystery, but an impossibility. Besides, this soul being of a nature different from thebody, must necessarily act in a different manner;yet we see that this pretended soul is sensible ofthemotions experienced by the body, and that these⚫ two substances, essentially different, always act inYou will say that this harmony is also amystery. But I will tell you, that I see not mysoul, that I know and am sensible of my body only,that it is this body which feels, thinks, judges, suffers, and enjoys; and that all these faculties arenecessary results of its own mechanism, or organization.concert.101. Although it is impossible for men to formthe least idea of the soul, or the pretended spirit,which animates them; yet they persuade themselvesthat this unknown soul is exempt from death. Every thing proves to them, that they feel, that theythink, that they acquire ideas, that they enjoy andsuffer, only by means ofthe senses, or material organs of the body. Admitting even the existence.of this soul, they cannot help acknowledging, thatit depends entirely upon the body, and undergoes,conjointly with it, all its vicissitudes; and yet it isimagined, that this soul has nothing, in its nature,similar to the body; that it can act and feel withoutthe assistance of the body; in a word, that thissoul, freed from the body, and disengaged from itssenses, can live, enjoy, suffer, experience happiness,or feel excruciating torments. Upon such a tissueof conjectural absurdities is built the marvellousopinion of the immortality of the soul. If I ask,what are the motives for believing the soul immortal, they immediately answer, that it is because mannaturally desires to be immortal: But, because youdesire a thing ardently, can you infer that yoursire will be fulfilled? By what strange logic can wede-67dare affirm , that a thing cannot fail to happen, because we ardently desire it? Are desires, begottenby the imagination, the measure of reality? Theimpious, you say, deprived of the flattering hopeof another life, wish to be annihilated . " Very well:may they not then as justly conclude, from theirdesire, that they shall be annihilated, as you mayconclude from your desire, that you shall existfor ever.102. Man dies entirely. Nothing is more evident to him, who has the exercise of his reason .The human body after death is no longer any thingbut a mass incapable of producing those motions, ofwhich the assemblage constituted life; we see, thatit has no longer circulation , respiration, digestion,speech, or thought. It is pretended, that the soulis then separated from the body; but to say, thatthis soul, with which we are unacquainted, is theprinciple of life, is to say nothing, unless that an unknown power is the hidden principle of imperceptible movements. Nothing is more natural and simple, than to believe, that the dead man no longerlives nothing is more extravagant, than to believe,that the dead man is still alive . We laugh at thesimplicity of some nations, whose custom is to buryprovision with the dead, under an idea that it willbe useful and necessary to them in the other life.Is it then more ridiculous or absurd to suppose, thatmen will eat after death, than to imagine, that theywill think, that they will be actuated by agreeableor disagreeable ideas, that they will enjoy or suffer,and that they will experience repentance or delight,after the organs, adapted to produce sensations orideas, are once dissolved and reduced to dust, Tosay that the souls of men will be happy or unhappyafter the death of their bodies, is in other words tosay, that men will see without eyes, hear withoutears , taste without palates, smell without noses, andtouch without hands or skin. And nations, wha68consider themselves very reasonable, can adopt theirideas!103. The dogma of the immortality of the soulsupposes the soul to be a simple substance; in aword, a spirit. But I ask again, what is a spirit?" It is, say you, a substance void ofextension, incorruptible, having nothing common with matter." Ifso, how is your soul born, and how does it grow,how does it strengthen or weaken itself, how doesit get disordered and grow old, in the same progression as your body?To all these questions you answer, that these aremysteries. Ifso, you cannot understand them. Ifyou cannot understand them, why do you decideabout a thing, of which you are unable to form theleast idea? To believe or affirm any thing, it is necessary, at least, to know in what it consists. Tobelieve inthe existence ofyour immaterial soul, is tosay, that you are persuaded of the existence of athing, of which it is impossible for you to form anytrue notion; it is to believe in words without being able to affix to them any meaning. To affirmthat the thing is as you say, is the height of follyor vanity.104. Are not theologians strange reasoners?Whenever they cannot divine the natural causes ofthings, they invent those, which they call supernatural; such as spirits, occult causes, inexplicableagents, or rather words, much more obscure thanthethings they endeavour to explain. Let us remain innature, when we wish to account for the phenomenaof nature; let us be content to remain ignorant ofcauses too delicate for our organs; and let us bepersuaded, that, by going beyond nature, we shallnever solve the problems which nature presents.Even upon the hypothesis of theology, (that is,supposing an all - powerful mover of matter, ) by whatright would theologians deny, that their God haspower to give this matter the faculty of thought?69Was it then more difficult for him to create combinations of matter, from which thought might result,than spirits who could think? At least, by supposinga matter, which thinks, we should have some notions of the subject of thought, or of what thinks inus; whereas, by attributing thought to an immaterialbeing, it is impossible to form the least idea of it.-105. It is objected against us, that materialismmakes man a mere machine, which is thought verydishonourable to the whole human species. But,will it be much more honourable for man, if weshould say, that he acts by the secret impulses of aspirit, or by a certain Iknow not what, that animateshim in a manner totally inexplicable.It is easy to perceive, that the supposed superiority of spirit over matter, or ofthe soul over thebody, has no other foundation than men's ignoranceof the nature of this soul, while they are more familiarized with matter, with which they imagine theyare acquainted, and of which they think they candiscern the springs. But the most simple movements of our bodies are to every man, who studiesthem, enigmas, as inexplicable as thought.106. The high value, which so many people setupon spiritual substance, has no other motive thantheir absolute inability to define it intelligibly. Thecontempt shewn for matter by our metaphysicians,arises only from the circ*mstance, that familiaritybegets contempt. When they tell us, that the soutis more excellent and noble than the body, they only saythat, what they know not at all, must be far morebeautiful, than what they have some feeble ideas of.107. The dogma of another life is incessantly extolled, as useful. It is maintained , that even thoughit should be only a fiction, it is advantageous, because it deceives men, and conducts them to virtue.But is it true, that this dogma makes men wiser andmore virtuous? Are the nations, who believe this fiction, re narkable for purity of morals? Has not the70visible world ever the advantage over the invisible?If those, who are intrusted with the instruction andgovernment of men, had knowledge and virtue themselves, they would govern them much better byrealities, than by fictions. But legislators, crafty,ambitious and corrupt, have every where found itshorter to amuse nations with fables, than to teachthem truths, to unfold their reason, to excite themto virtue by sensible and real motives, in fine, togovern them in a rational manner. Priests undoubtedly had reasons for making the soul immaterial; they wanted souls and chimeras to peoplethe imaginary regions, which they have discoveredin the other life. Material souls would, like all bodies, have been subject to dissolution . Now, if menshould believe, that all must perish with the body,the geographers of the other world would evidentlylose the right of guiding men's souls towards that unknown abode; they would reap no profits from thehope with which they feed them, and the terrorswith which they oppress them. If futurity is of noreal utility to mankind, it is, at least, of the greatestutility to those, who have assumed the office of conducting them thither.108. "But, it will be said, is not the dogma of theimmortality of the soul comforting to beings, who areoften very unhappyhere below? Though it shouldbe an error, is it not pleasing? Is it not a blessingto man to believe, that he shall be able to survivehimself, and enjoy hereafter a happiness, which isdenied him upon earth?" Thus, poor mortals! youmake your wishes the measureof truth; becauseyou desire to live for ever, and to be happier, youat once conclude, that you shall live for ever, andthat you shall be more fortunate in an unknown.world, than in this known world, where you oftenfind nothing but affliction! Consenttherefore to-leave, without regret, this world which gives thegreater part of you much more torment than plea-71sure. Submit to the order of nature, which demandsthat you, as well as all other beings, should not endure for ever. But what will become of me? askeththou, O mortal! Thou wilt be what thou wast, millions of years ago. Thou wast then, I know notwhat; resolve then to become instantaneously Iknow not what, which thou wast millions ofyears ago;return peaceably to the universal mass, from which,without thy knowledge, thou camest in thy presentform, and pass away without murmuring, like all thebeings, who surround thee.We are incessantly told, that religion has infiniteconsolations for the unfortunate, that the idea of thesoul's immortality, and of a happier life, is very proper to elevate the heart of man, and to support himunder the adversity, which awaits him upon earth .It is said, on the contrary, that materialism is anafflicting system, calculated to degrade man; thenit puts him upon a level with the brutes, breaks hiscourage, and shews him no other prospect than frightful annihilation, capable of driving him to despairand suicide, whenever he is unhappy. The greatart of theologians is to blow hot and cold, to afflictand console, to frighten and encourage.It appears by theological fictions, that the regionsof the other life are happy and unhappy. Nothingis more difficult than to become worthy of the abodeoffelicity; nothing more easy than to obtain a placein the abode of torment, which God is preparing forthe unfortunate victims of eternal fury. Have thosethen, who think the other life so pleasant and flattering, forgotten, that according to them, that life isto be attended with torments to the greater part ofmortals? Is not the idea of total annihilation infinitelypreferable to the idea ofan eternal existence , attended with anguish and gnashing ofteeth? Is the fear ofan end more afflicting, than that of having had a beginning! The fear of ceasing to exist is a real evil72only to the imagination, which alone begat the dogma ofthe other life.You say, Christian ministers! that the idea of ahappier life is joyous. Admitted . Every personwould desire a more agreeable and solid existence,than that he enjoys here below. But, if paradise isinviting, you will grant, that hell is frightful . Heaven is very difficult, and hell very easy to be merited. Do you not say, that a narrow way leads to thehappy regions, and a broad way to the regions ofmisery? Do you not often say, that the number ofthe elect is very small, and that of the reprobate verylarge? Is not grace, which your God grants but to averyfew, necessary to salvation? Now, I assure you,that these ideas are by no means consoling; that Ihad rather be annihilated , once for all, than to burnfor ever; that the fate of beasts is to me more desirable than that of the damned; that the opinion,which relieves me from afflicting fears in this world,appears to me more joyous, than the uncertaintyarising from the opinion of a God, who, master ofhis grace, grants it to none but his favourites, andpermits all others to become worthy of eternal torment. Nothing but enthusiasm or folly can inducea man to prefer improbable conjectures, attendedwith uncertainty and insupportable fears, to an evident system, which must encourage.109. All religious principles are a work of pureimagination, in which experience and reason have noshare. It is extremely difficult to combat them,because the imagination, once prepossessed by chimeras, which astonish or disturb it, is incapable ofreasoning To combat religion and its phantomswith the arms ofreason, is like using a sword to killgnats; as soon as the blow is struck, the gnats andchimeras come hovering round again, and resume inthe mind the place, from which they were thoughtto have been for ever banished.When we reject, as too weak, the proofs given of73the existence of a God, they instantly oppose to thearguments, which destroy that existence, an inwardsense, a deep persuasion, an invincible inclination,inherent in every man, which holds up to his mind,in spite of himself, the idea of an almighty being,whom he cannot entirely expel from his mind, andwhom he is compelled to acknowledge, in spite ofthe.strongest reasons that can be urged. But whoeverwill analyze this inward sense, upon which such stressis laid, will perceive, that it is only the effect of arooted habit, which, shutting their eyes against themost demonstrative proofs, subjects the greater partof men, and often even the most enlightened, to theprejudices of childhood. What avails this inwardsense, or this deep persuasion, against the evidence,which demonstrates, that whatever implies a contradiction cannot exist?We are gravely assured, that the non-existenceof God is not demonstrated. Yet, by all that menhave hitherto said of him, nothing is better demonstrated, than that this God is a chimera, whose existence is totally impossible; since nothing is moreevident, than that a being cannot possess qualitiesso unlike, so contradictory, so irreconcilable, asthose, which every religion upon earth attributes tothe Divinity. Is not the theologian's God, as wellas that of the deist, a cause incompatible with theeffects attributed to it? Let them do what they will,it is necessary either to invent another God, or togrant, that he, who, for so many ages, has been heldup to the terror of mortals, is at the same time verygood and very bad, very powerful and very weak,unchangeable and fickle, perfectly intelligent andperfectly void of reason, system and means; a friendof order and permitting disorder, very just and veryunjust, very skilful and very unskilful. In short,are we not forced to confess, that it is impossible toreconcile the discordant attributes, heaped togetherupon a being, of whom we can say not a single word74without falling into the most palpable contradictions?Let any one attribute a single quality to the Divinity,and it is universally contradicted by the effects,ascribed to this cause.• 110. Theology might justly be defined the scienceofcontradictions . Every religion is only a system,invented to reconcile irreconcilable notions . Bythe aid of habit and terror, man becomes obstinatein the greatest absurdities, even after they are exposed in the clearest manner. All religions areeasily combated, but with difficulty extirpated .Reason avails nothing against custom, which becomes, says the proverb, a second nature. Manypersons, in other respects sensible, even after havingexamined the rotten foundation of their belief, adhereto it in contempt of the most striking arguments.Whenever we complain of understanding nothing inreligion, of finding at every step shocking absurdities, of seeing impossibilities, we are told, that weare not made to understand the truths of religion;that reason goes astray, and is but an unfaithfulguide, capable of leading us to perdition; andmoreover, that what is folly in the eyes of man, iswisdom in the eyes ofGod, to whom nothing is impossible. In short, to surmount, by a single word, themost insurmountable difficulties, presented on allsides by theology, they get rid of them by saying,these are mysteries!111. What is a mystery? By examining thething closely, I soon perceive, that a mystery isnothing but a contradiction, a palpable absurdity, amanifest impossibility, over which theologians wouldoblige men humbly to shut their eyes. In a word,a mystery is whatever our spiritual guides cannotexplain.It is profitable to the ministers of religion, thatpeople understand nothing of what they teach. Itis impossible to examine what we do not comprehend; when we do not see, we must suffer ourselves75to be led. If the religion were clear, priests wouldfind less business here below.Without mysteries there can be no religion;mystery is essential to it; a religion void of mysteries, would be a contradiction in terms. The God,who serves as the foundation of natural religion, ordeism, is himself the greatest of mysteries to everymind, that will attend to it.112. Every revealed religion is filled with mysterious dogmas, unintelligible principles, incrediblewonders, astonishing recitals, which appear to havebeen invented solely to confound reason. Everyreligion announces a hidden God, whose essence isa mystery; consequently, the conduct, ascribed tohim, is no less inconceivable than his essence. TheDeity has never spoken only in an enigmatical andmysterious manner, in the various religions, whichhe has founded in different regions of our globe;he has every where revealed himself only to announce mysteries; that is, to inform mortals, thathe intended they should believe contradictions, impossibilities, and things to which they were incapable of affixing any clear ideas.The more mysterious and incredible a religion is,the more power it has to please the imagination ofmen, which finds in it continual food. The darkera religion is, the more it appears divine, that is ,conformable to the nature of a hidden being, ofwhom they have no ideas.It is the property of ignorance to prefer the unknown, the hidden, the fabulous, the marvellous,the incredible, or even the terrible, to what is clear,simple and true. Truth does not operate upon theimagination in so lively a manner as fiction , which,in other respects, every one is able to arrange in hisown way. The vulgar ask no better than to listento fables; priests and legislators, by inventing religions and forging mysteries, have served them to76their taste. They have thereby attached to themselves enthusiasts, women and fools. Beings of thisstamp are easily satisfied with reasons, which theyare incapable of examining. The love of simplicityand truth is to be found only among the few, whoseimagination is regulated by study and reflection.The inhabitants of a village are never better pleased with their parson, than when he introduces Latininto his sermon. The ignorant always imagine,that he, who speaks to them of things they do notunderstand, is a learned man. Such is the trueprinciple of the credulity of the people, and oftheauthority of those, who pretend to guide nations."113. To announce mysteries to men, is to giveand withhold; it is to talk in order not to be understood. He, who speaks only obscurely, eitherseeks to amuse himself by the embarrassment, whichhe causes, or finds his interest in not explaininghimself too clearly. All secrecy indicatesdis trust,impotence and fear. Princes and their ministersmake a mystery of their projects, for fear their enemies should discover and render them abortive.Can a good God amuse himself with the perplexityof his creatures? Can a God enjoying an irresistiblepower, fear that his views will be traversed? Whatinterest then could he have in commanding hisministers to announce to them riddles and mysteries?It is said, that man, by the weakness of hisnature, is totally incapable of understanding the divine dispensations, which can be to him only aseries of mysteries; God cannot disclose to himsecrets, necessarily above his reach. If so, I answeragain, that man is not made to attend to the divinedispensations; that these dispensations are to himby no means interesting; that he has no need ofmysteries, which he cannot understand; and consequently, that a mysterious religion is no morefit for him, than an eloquent discourse is for a flockof sheep .77114. The Deity has revealed himselfwith so littleuniformity in the different countries of our globe,that in point of religion, men regard one anotherwith hatred and contempt. The partisans of thedifferent sects think each other very ridiculous andfoolish: the mysteries, most revered in one religion,are objects of derision to another. God, in revealing himself to mankind, ought at least, to have spoken the same language to all, and saved their feebleminds the perplexity of enquiring which religion.really emanated from him, or what form of worshipis most acceptable in his sight.A universal God ought to have revealed a universal religion. By what fatality then are there so manydifferent religions upon earth? Which is reallythe true one, among the great number of those, eachof which exclusively pretends to be the true one?There is great reason to believe, that no religionenjoys this advantage. Division and disputes uponopinions are indubitable signs of the uncertaintyand obscurity of the principles, upon which webuild.115. If religion were necessary to all, it ought tobe intelligible to all. If this religion were the mostimportant concern of men, the goodness of Godwould seem to demand, that it should be to themof all things the most clear, evident, and demonstrative. Is it not then astonishing, that this thing soessential to the happiness of mortals, is preciselythat, which they understand the least, and aboutwhich, for so many ages, their teachers have themost disputed? Priests of the same sect have neveras yet agreed upon the manner of understanding thewill of a God, who has been pleased to reveal himself.The world we inhabit, may be compared to a public fair, in which are several empirics, each of whomendeavours to attract the passengers by decrying78the remedies sold by his brothers. Each shop has itscustomers, who are persuaded , that their quacks possess the only true remedies; and notwithstanding acontinual use of them, they perceive not the inefficacy of these remedies, or that they are as infirm asthose, who run after the quacks of a different shop.Devotion is a disorder of the imagination contracted in infancy. The devout man is a hypochondriac, who only augments his malady by the application of remedies. The wise man abstains fromthem entirely; he pays attention to his diet, and inother respects leaves nature to her course.116. To a man of sense, nothing appears moreridiculous, than the opinions, which the partisans ofthe different religions with equal folly entertain ofeach other. A Christian regards the Alcoran, thatis, the divine revelation announced by Mahomet, asnothing but a tissue of impertinent reveries, and impostures insulting to the divinity. The Mahometanon the other hand, treats the Christian as an idolaterand a dog. He sees nothing but absurdities in hisreligion. He imagines he has a right to subdue theterritory ofthe Christian, and to force him, sword inhand, to receive the religion of his divine prophet.Finally he believes, that nothing is more impiousand unreasonable, than to worship a man, or tobelieve in the Trinity. The protestant Christian whowithout scruple worships a man, and firmly believesthe inconceivable mystery of the trinity, ridiculesthe catholic Christian for believing, furthermore,in the mystery of transubstantiation; he considershim mad, impious, and idolatrous, because he kneelsto worship some bread, in which he thinks he seesthe God of the universe. Christians of every sectregard, as silly stories, the incarnations of Vistnou,the God ofthe Indies; they maintain, that the onlytrue incarnation is that of Jesus, son of the God ofthe universe, and of the wife of a carpenter. Thedeist, who calls himself the follower of a religion,79which he supposes to be that of nature, content withadmitting a God, of whom he has no idea, makes ajest of all the mysteries, taught by the various religions in the world .66117. According to a celebrated divine, if a God,who is the greatest of mysteries, be admitted, it isabsurd not to admit any other. Ifby faith, " sayshe, "we believe in a true God, a singular substance,nothing should appear incredible. This chief ofmysteries being once admitted, reason ought not tobe shocked at any other. As for me,, I admit a million of things, which I understand not, as readily,as I believe one truth, that is above my capacity.'Is there any thing more contradictory, impossible,or mysterious, than the creation of matter by animmaterial being, who, though immutable, operatescontinual changes in the world? Is any thing moreincompatible with every notion of common sense .than to believe, that a supremely good, wise, equitable and powerful being presides over nature, andby himself directs the movements of a world , full offolly, misery, crimes and disorders, which by a single word, he could have prevented or removed? Infine, whenever we admit a being as contradictoryas the God of theology, how can we reject the mostimprobable fables, astonishing miracles, and profound mysteries.99118. The Deist exclaims; "Abstain from worshipping the cruel and capricious God of theology;mine is a being infinitely wise and good; he is thefather of men, the mildest of sovereigns; it is hewho fills the universe with his benefits .' But doyou not see that every thing in this world contradicts the good qualities, which you ascribe to yourGod? In the numerous family of this tender father,almost all are unhappy. Under the government ofthis just sovereign, vice is triumphant, and virtue in• Rational Library, vol. i . p. 84: The above passage is takenfrom Hardouin, of the Society of Jesus.80distress. Among those blessings you extol, andwhich alone your enthusiasm would see, I beholda multitude ofevils of every kind, against which youobstinately shut your eyes. Forced to acknowledge,that your beneficent God, in contradiction with himself, distributes good and evil with the same hand,for his justification you must, like the priest, referme to the regions of another life. Invent, therefore, another God; for yours is no less contradictory than that of theologians.A good God, who does evil, or consents to thecommission of evil; a God full of equity, and inwhose empire innocence is often oppressed; a perfect God, who produces none but imperfect and miserable works; are not such a God and his conductas great mysteries, as that of the incarnation?You blush for your fellow- citizens , who allowthemselves to be persuaded, that the God of theuniverse could change himself into a man, and dieupon a cross in a corner of Asia. The mystery ofthe incarnation appears to you very absurd . Youthink nothing more ridiculous, than a God, whotransforms himself into bread, and causes himselfdaily to be eaten in a thousand different places.But are all these mysteries more contradictory toreason than a God, the avenger and rewarder of theactions of men? Is man, according to you, free, ornot free? In either case, your God, if he has theshadow of equity, can neither punish nor rewardhim. If man is free, it is God, who has made himfree; therefore God is the primitive cause of all hisactions; in punishing him for his faults, he wouldpunish him for having executed what he had givenhim liberty to do. If man is not free to act otherwise than he does, would not God be the most unjustof beings, in punishing him for faults, which hecould not help committing.The minor, or secondary, absurdities, with whichall religions abound, are to many people truly strik-81ing; buthave notthe courage to trace out the sourcewhence these absurdities must necessarily have flowed. They see not, that a God full of contradictions,caprices and inconsistent qualities, has only servedto disorder men's imaginations, and to produce anendless succession of chimeras.119. The theologian would shut the mouths ofthose who deny the existence of a God, by saying,that all men, in all ages and countries, have acknowledged the government of some divinity orother; that every people upon earth have believedin an invisible and powerful being, who has beenthe object of their worship and veneration; in short,that there is no nation, however savage, who arenot persuaded of the existence of some intelligencesuperior to human nature. But, can an error bechanged into truth by the beliefof all men? A greatphilosopher has justly observed, that " general tradition, or the unanimous consent of mankind is nocriterion of truth. "* Another sage had before said," that a host of learned men were insufficient to alterthe nature of error and convert it into truth. † "There was a time, when all men believed that thesun moved round the earth, while the latter remained immoveable in the centre of the whole system ofthe universe: Little more than two centuries haveelapsed, since this error was detected . There was atime, when nobody would believe the existence ofthe antipodes, and when every one was persecuted,who had temerity enough to maintain it. At present, every informed man firmly believes it. Allnations upon earth, with the exception however ofa few men who are less credulous than the rest, stillbelieve in sorcerers, ghosts, apparitions, and spirits;no sensible man, however, thinks himself obliged toadopt such nonsense. But the most sensible peopleconsider it their duty to believe in a universal spirit!120. All the gods, adored by men, are of savage

• Bayle. † Averroes.

782origin. They have evidently been imagined by stupid people, or presented, by ambitious and craftylegislators, to ignorant and uncivilized nations, whohad neither capacity nor courage maturely to examine the objects, which through terror they were made to worship.By closely examining the God, whom we see stilladored in our days even by the most polished nations,we are forced to acknowledge, that he evidentlybears marks of a savage nature. To be savage is toacknowledge no right but force; it is to be cruelbeyond measure; to follow only one's own caprice;to want foresight, prudence and reason. Ye nations,who call yourselves civilized! Do you not discern,in this hideous character, the God, on whom youlavish your incense? Are not the descriptions givenyou of the divinity, visibly borrowed from the implacable, jealous, revengeful, sanguinary, capriciousinconsiderate humour of man, who has not yet cultivated his reason? O men! You adore only a greatsavage, whom you regard, however, as a model toimitate, as an amiable master, as a sovereign full ofperfection.The religious opinions ofmen in every country areancient and durable monuments of the ignorance,credulity, cowardice, and barbarism of their ancestors . Every savage is a child fond of the marvellous, who believes every thing, and examines nothing. Ignorant ofthe ways of nature, he attributesto spirits, to enchantments, and to magic, whateverappears to him extraordinary. His priests appearto him sorcerers, in whom he supposes a power purely divine, before whom his confounded reason humbles itself, whose oracles are to him infallible decreeswhich it would be dangerous to contradict.In point of religion, men have, for the most part,remained in their primitive babarity . Modern religions are only ancient follies revived, or presentedunder some new form. If the savages of antiquity83adored mountains, rivers, serpents, trees, idols ofevery kind; if the wise EGYPTIANS paid homage tocrocodiles, rats, and onions, do we not see nations,who think themselves wiser than they, respectfullyworship bread, into which they imagine, that throughthe enchantments of their priests, the divinity hasdescended; Is not the Bread- God the idol of manyChristian nations, who, in this respect, are as irrational, as the most savage?121. The ferocity, stupidity, and folly of uncivilized man have ever disclosed themselves in religiouspractices, so often either cruel or extravagant. Aspirit of barbarity still survives, and penetrates thereligions even of the most polished nations. Do wenot still see human victims offered to the divinity?То appease the anger of a God, who is always supposed as ferocious, jealous and vindictive, as a savage,do not those, whose manner of thinking is supposedto displease him, expire under studied torments, bythe command of sanguinary laws? Modern nations,at the instigation of their priests, have perhaps improved upon the atrocious folly of barbarous nations;at least, do we find, that it has ever entered the headsof savages to torment for opinions, to search thethoughts, to molest men for the invisible movementsof their brains?When we see polished and learned nations, suchas the ENGLISH, FRENCH, GERMANS, &c. conti-'nue, notwithstanding their knowledge, to kneel before the barbarous God of the Jews, that is of themost stupid, credulous, savage, unsociable peoplethat ever existed on earth; when we see, these enlightened nations divide into sects, defame, hate,and despise one another for their equally ridiculousopinions concerning the conduct and intentions ofthis unreasonable God; when we see men of abilityfoolishly devote their time to meditate the will of thisGod, who is full of caprice and folly, we are tempted84to cry out; O men, you are still savage! In pointof religion, you are yet but children!122. Whoever has formed true ideas of the ignorance, credulity, negligence, and stupidity of thevulgar, will suspect opinions the more, as he findsthem generally established . Men, for the most partexamine nothing: they blindly submit to customand authority. Their religious opinions, above allothers, are those which they have the least courageand capacity to examine: as they conprehend nothing about them, they are forced to be silent, or atleast are soon destitute of arguments . Ask any manamong the vulgar, whether he believes in a God?He will be much surprised that you can doubt it.Ask him again, what he understands by the wordGod? You throw him into the greatest embarrassment; you will perceive immediately, that he is incapable of affixing any real idea to this word, heincessantly repeats. He will tell you, that God isGod; and you will see, he knows neither what hethinks of it, nor his motives for believing in it.All nations speak ofa God; but do they agree uponthis God? By no means. But division upon an opinion proves not its evidence; it is rather a sign ofuncertainty and obscurity. Does the same man always agree with himself in the notions he forms ofhis God? No. His idea of him varies with thechanges, which his machine experiences; -anothersign of uncertainty. Men always agree with themselves and others in demonstrative truths . In anysituation, except that of insanity, every one knowsthat two and two make four, that the sun shines,that the whole is greater than its part; that justiceis a benefit; that benevolence is necessary to meritthe affection of men; that injustice and cruelty areincompatible with goodness. Are they thus agreedwhen they speak of God? Whatever they think, orsay of him, is immediately destroyed by the effectsthey attribute to him.85Ask several painters to represent a chimera, andeach forming different ideas of it, will paint it in adifferent manner. You will find no resemblance between the features, each has given to a portrait, thathas no original. All theologians, in giving us a picture of God, do but give us one of a great chimera, inwhose features they never agree, whom each arranges in his own way, and who exists only in theirimaginations. There are not two individuals uponearth, who have, or can have, the same ideas of theirGod.123. It might perhaps with more truth be said,that men are either sceptics or atheists, than thatthey are firmly convinced of the existence of a God.How can we be assured of the existence of a being,whom we could never examine, ofwhom it is impossible to conceive any permanent idea, whose variouseffects upon ourselves prevent us from forming aninvariable judgment, the notion of whom cannot bethe same in two different minds? How can we imagine ourselves clearly convinced of the existence ofa being, to whom we are every moment forced toattribute a conduct, opposed to the ideas, we hadendeavoured to form ofhim? Is it then possible firmly to believe what we cannot conceive? Is not sucha belief adhering to the opinions of others withouthaving any of our own. Priests govern the faith ofthe vulgar; but do not priests themselves acknowledge that God is to them incomprehensible? Confessthen, that a full and entire conviction ofthe existenceof a God is not so general, as is imagined.Scepticism arises from a want of the motives sufficient to form a judgment. Upon examining theproofs which seem to establish, and the argumentswhich combat, the existence of a God, some personshave doubted and withheld their assent. But thisuncertainty arises from not having sufficiently examined. Is it possible to doubt of any thing evident?Sensible people ridicule an absolute scepticism, and86think it even impossible. A man, who should doubtof his own existence, or that of the sun, would appear perfectly ridiculous, or might otherwise besuspected ofdissimulation. Isthis more extravagantthan to doubt of the non-existence of an evidentlyimpossible being? Is it more absurd to doubt ofone's own existence, than to hesitate upon the impossibility of a being, whose qualities reciprocallydestroy one another? Do we find greater probability for believing the existence of a spiritual being,than the existence of a stick without two ends? Isthe notion of an infinitely good and powerful being,who causes or permits an infinity of evils, less absurdor impossible, than that of a square triangle? Letus conclude then, that religious scepticism can result only from a superficial examination of theological principles, which are in perpetual contradictionwith the most clear and demonstrative principles.To doubt, is to deliberate upon the judgmentwe ought to form. Scepticism is only a state of indetermination, resulting from an insufficient examination ofthings. Is it possible for any one to besceptical in matters of religion, who will deign torevert to its principles, and closely examine the notion ofthe God, who serves as its basis? Doubt generally arises either from indolence, weakness, indifference, or incapacity. With many people, to doubtis to fear the trouble of examining things, which arethought little interesting. But religion being presented to men as their most important concern inthis and the future world, scepticism and doubt onthis subject must occasion perpetual anxiety andmust really constitute a sort of bed of thorns . Everyman who has not courage to contemplate, withoutprejudice, the God upon whom all religion is founded, can never know for what religion to decide: heknows not what he should believe or not believe,admit or reject, hope or fear: in a word, he can nolonger resolve upon any thing.87Indifference upon religion must not be confounded with scepticism. This indifference is foundedupon the absolute assurance, or at any rate uponthe probable belief, that religion is not interesting. A persuasion that a thing which is pretendedto be important is not so, or is only indifferent, supposes a sufficient examination ofthe thing, withoutwhich it would be impossible to have this persuasion.Those who call themselves sceptics in the fundamental points of religion, are commonly either indolent or incapable of examining.124. In every country upon earth, we are assured, that a God has revealed himself. What has hetaught men? Has he proved evidently that he exists?1 Has he informed them where he resides? Has hetaught them what he is, or in what his essence consists? Has he clearly explained to them his intentions and plan? Does what he says of this plan correspond with the effects, which we see? No. Heinforms them solely, that he is what he is; that he isa hidden God; that his ways are unspeakable; thathe is exasperated against all who have the temerityto fathom his decrees, or to consult reason in judging of him or his works.Does the revealed conduct of God answer themagnificent ideas which theologians would give usof his wisdom, goodness, justice, and omnipotence?By no means. In every revelation , this conductannounces a partial and capricious being, the protector of but one favourite people, and the enemyof all others. If he deigns to appear to some men,he takes care to keep all others in an invincibleignorance of his divine intentions. Every privaterevelation evidently announces in God, injustice ,partiality and malignity.Dothe commands, revealed by any God, astonishusbytheir sublime reason or wisdom? Do they evidently tend to promote the happiness of the people,to whom the Divinity discloses them? Upon exa-88mining the divine commands, I see, in every country,nothing but strange ordinances, ridiculous precepts,impertinent ceremonies, puerile customs, an etiquette unworthy ofthe monarch of nature, oblations,sacrifices, and expiations, useful indeed to the ministers of the God, but very burthensome to the restof the citizens. I see likewise, that these laws oftentend to render men unsociable, disdainful, intolerant,quarrelsome, unjust, and inhuman to every one,who has not received the same revelations, the sameordinances, or the same favours from heaven.125. Are the precepts of morality, announced bythe Deity, really divine, or superior to those whichevery reasonable man might imagine? They aredivine solely because it is impossiple for the humanmind to discover their utility. They make virtueconsist in a total renunciation of nature, in a voluntary forgetfulness of reason, a holy hatred of ourselves. Finally, these sublime precepts often exhibitperfection in a conduct, cruel to ourselves, andperfectly useless to others.Has a God appeared? Has he himself promulgated his laws? Has he spoken to men with hisown mouth? I am told , that Godhas not appearedto a whole people; but that he has always manifestedhimself through the medium of some favourite personages, who have been intrusted with the care ofannouncing and explaining his intentions to theprofane. The people have never been permitted toenter the sanctuary; the ministers ofthe gods havealone had the right to relate what passes there.126. If in every system of divine revelation, Icomplain of not seeing either the wisdom, goodness,or equity of a God; if I suspect knavery, ambition,or interest, in the great personages, who have interposed between us and heaven; it is replied, thatGod has confirmed by shining miracles the missionof those, who have spoken in his name. But was.it not more simple for him to appear in person,89to explain his nature and will? Again, if I havethe curiosity to examine these miracles, I find,that they are improbable tales, related by suspected people, who had the greatest interest in givingout that they were the messengers of the MostHigh.What witnesses are appealed to in order to induce us to believe incredible miracles? Weakpeople, who existed thousands of years ago, andwho, even though they could attest these miracles,may be suspected of being duped by their ownimagination, and imposed upon by the tricks ofdexterous impostors. But, you will say, these miracles are written in books, which by a constanttradition have been transmitted to us. By whomwere these books written? Who are the men whohave transmitted and perpetuated them? They areeither the founders of religions themselves, or theiradherents and assigns. Thus, in religion, the evidence of interested parties becomes irrefragableand incontestable!127. God has spoken differently to every peopleupon earth. The Indian believes not a word ofwhat He has revealed to the Chinese; the Mahometan considers as fables what He has said to theChristian; the Jew regards both the Mahometanand Christian as sacrilegious corrupters of the sacred law, which his God had given his fathers, TheChristian, proud of his more modern revelation, indiscriminately damns the Indian, Chinese, Mahometan, and even the Jew, from whom he receiveshis sacred books. Who is wrong or right? Eachexclaims, I am in the right! Each adduces thesame proofs: each mentions his miracles, diviners,prophets, and martyrs. The man of sense tellsthem, they are all delirious; that God has not spoken, if it is true that he is a spirit, and can haveneither mouth nor tongue; that without borrowingthe organ of mortals, the God of the universe could90inspire his creatures with what he would have themlearn; and that, as they are all equally ignorantwhat to think of God, it is evident that it has notbeen the will of God to inform them on the subject.The followers of the different forms of worshipwhich are established in this world accuse one another of superstition and impiety. Christians lookwith abhorrence upon the Pagan, Chinese, and Mahometan superstition . Roman Catholics treat, asimpious, Protestant Christians; and the latter in }cessantly declaim against the superstition of theCatholics. They are all right. To be impious, is tohave opinions offensive to the God we adore; to besuperstitious, is to have of him false ideas. In accusing one another of superstition, the differentreligionists resemble humpbacks, who reproach oneanother with their deformity.Are the oracles, which the Divinity has revealedto nations by his different messengers, remarkablefor clearness? Alas! no two men interpret themalike . Those who explain them to others are notagreed among themselves. To elucidate them, theyhave recourse to interpretations, to commentaries,to allegories, to explanations: they discover mystical sense very different from the literal sense. Menare every where wanted to explain the commandsof a God, who could not, or would not, announcehimself clearly to those, whom he wished to enlighten. God always prefers to use the organ ofmen, who may be suspected of being deceivedthemselves, or of having reasons for wishing to deceive others.129. The founders of religion, have generallyproved their missions by miracles . But what is amiracle? It is an operation directly opposite to thelaws of nature. But who according to you hadmade those laws? God. Thus, your God, who, according to you, foresaw every thing, counteracts thelaws, which his wisdom prescribed to nature! Thesegrlaws were then defective, or at least in cerrain circ*mstances they did not accord with the views ofthe same God, since you inform us that he judgedit necessary to suspend or counteract them.It is said, that a few men, favoured by the MostHigh, have received power to perform miracles.But to perform a miracle, it is necessary to haveability to create new causes capable of producingeffects contrary to those of common causes. Is iteasy to conceive, that God can give men the inconceivable power of creating causes out of nothing?Is it credible, that an immutable God can communicate to men power to change or rectify his plan,a power, which by his essence an immutable beingcannot have himself? Miracles, far from doingmuch honour to God, far from proving the divinityof a religion, evidently annihilate the idea given usof God, of his immutability, incommunicable attributes, and even his omnipotence. How can a theologian tell us, that a God, who must have embracedthe whole of his plan, who could have made nonebut perfect laws, and who cannot alter them, isforced to employ miracles to accomplish his projects, or can grant his creatures the power ofworking prodigies to execute his divine will? Anomnipotent being, whose will is always fulfilled ,who holds in his hand the hearts and minds of hiscreatures, has only to will, to make them believewhatever he desires .130. What shall we say of religions that provetheir divinity by miracles, which they take care to render suspected? How can we credit miraclesrecorded in the sacred books of the Christians,where God boasts of hardening the hearts andblinding those whom he wishes to destroy; wherehe permits , malicious spirits and magicians to workmiracles as great as those of his servants; where itis predicted, that Antichrist shall have power toperform prodigies capable of shaking the faith even92of the elect? In this case, by what signs shall weknow whether God means to instruct or ensnare us?How shall we distinguish whether the wonders, webehold, come from God or from the devil?To remove our perplexity, Pascal gravely tells us,that it is necessary tojudge the doctrine bythe miracles,and the miracles by the doctrine; that the doctrineproves the miracles, and the miracles the doctrine. Ifthere exist a vicious and ridiculous circle, it is undoubtedly in this splendid reasoning of one of thegreatest defenders of Christianity. Where is thereligion, that does not boast of the most admirabledoctrine, and which does not produce numerousmiracles for its support?Is a miracle capable of annihilating the evidenceof a demonstrated truth? Although a man shouldhave the secret of healing all the sick, of making allthe lame to walk, of raising all the dead of a city,of ascending into the air, of stopping the course ofthe sun and moon, can he thereby convince me,that two and two do not make four, that one makesthree, and that three make only one; that a God,whose immensity fills the universe, could have beencontained in the body of a Jew; that the ETERNALcan die like a man; that a God, who is said to beimmutable, provident, and sensible, could havechanged his mind upon his religion, and reformedhis own work by a new revelation?131. According to the very principles either ofnatural or revealed theology, every new revelationshould be regarded as false; every change in a religion emanated from the Deity should be reputedan impiety, a blasphemy. Does not all reform suppose, that, in his first effort, God could not givehis religion the solidity and perfection required?To say, that God, in giving a first law, conformedto the rude ideas of the people whom he wished toenlighten, is to pretend that God was neither ablenor willing to render the people, whom he was en1893lightening, so reasonable as was necessary in orderto please him.Christianity is an impiety, if it is true that Judaism is a religion which has really emanated from aholy, immutable, omnipotent, and foreseeing God.The religion of Christ supposes either defects in thelaw which God himself had given by Moses, orimpotence or malice in the same God, who waseither unable or unwilling to render the Jews suchas they ought to have been in order to please him.Every new religion, or reform of ancient religions,is evidently founded upon the impotence, inconstancy, imprudence, or malice of the Divinity.132. If history informs me, that the first apostles,the founders or reformers of religions, wrought greatmiracles; history also informs me, that these reformers and their adherents were commonly buffeted, persecuted, and put to death, as disturbers ofthe peace of nations. I am therefore tempted tobelieve, that they did not perform the miraclesascribed to them; indeed, such miracles must havegained them numerous partisans among the eyewitnesses, who ought to have protected the operators from abuse. My incredulity redoubles, whenI am told, that the workers of miracles were cruellytormented, or ignominiously executed . How is itpossible to believe, that missionaries, protected bya God, invested with his divine power, and enjoyingthe gift of miracles, could not have wrought such asimple miracle, as to escape the cruelty of theirpersecutors?Priests have the art of drawing from the persecutions themselves, a convincing proof in favour of thereligion of the persecuted . But a religion, whichboasts of having cost the lives of many martyrs, andinforms us, that its founders, in order to extend it,have suffered unheard of punishments, cannot bethe religion of a beneficent, equitable and omnipotent God. A good God would not permit men,94intrusted with announcing his commands, to be illtreated. An all - powerful God, wishing to found areligion, would proceed in a manner more simpleand less fatal to the most faithful of his servants.To say that God would have his religion sealed withblood, is to say that he is weak, unjust, ungrateful,and sanguinary; and that he is cruel enough tosacrifice his messengers to the views of his ambition.133. To die for religion proves not that the religionis true, or divine; it proves, at most, that it is supposed to be such. An enthusiast proves nothing byhis death, unless that religious fanaticism is oftenstronger than the love of life . An imposter maysometimes die with courage; he then makes, in thelanguage of the proverb, a virtue ofnecessity.People are often surprised and affected at sightof the generous courage and disinterested zeal,which has prompted missionaries to preach theirdoctrine, even at the risk of suffering the most rigorous treatment. From this ardour for the salvationof men, are drawn inferences favourable to thereligion they have announced. But in reality, thisdisinterestedness is only apparent. He, who ventures nothing should gain nothing. A missionaryseeks to make his fortune by his doctrine. Heknows that, if he is fortunate enough to sell hiscommodity, he will besome absolute master of thosewho receive him for their guide; he is sure of becoming the object of their attention, respect, andveneration; he has every reason to believe that hiswants will be supplied . Such are the true motives,which kindle the zeal and charity of so manypreachers and missionaries, who traverse the earth.To die for an opinion, proves the truth or goodness of that opinion no more than to die in battleproves the justice of a prince's cause, to whose interest thousands have the folly to devote their lives.The courage of a martyr, elated with the idea ofparadise, is not more supernatural, than the courage95of a soldier, intoxicated with the idea of glory, orimpelled by the fear of disgrace. What is thedifference between an Iroquois, who sings while heis burning by inches, and the martyr ST. LAURENCE,who upon the gridiron insults his tyrant?The preachers of a new doctrine fail, becausethey are the weakest; apostles generally practise aperilous trade, to which they foresee the conse..quences. Their courageous death proves neither thetruth of their principles nor their own sincerity, anymore than the violent death of the ambitious manor of the robber, proves, that they were right indisturbing society, or that they thought themselves.authorised in so doing. The trade of a missionarywas always flattering to ambition, and formed aconvenient method of living at the expence of thevulgar . These advantages have often been enoughto efface every idea of attendant dangers .134. You tell us, theologians! that what is follyin the eyes of men, is wisdom before God, who delightsto confound the wisdom of the wise. But do you not say,that human wisdom is a gift of heaven? In sayingthis wisdom displeases God, is but folly in his sight,and that he is pleased to confound it, you declarethat your God is the friend only of ignorant people,and that he makes sensible people a fatal presentfor which this perfidious tyrant promises to punishthem cruelly at some future day. Is it not verystrange, that one can be the friend of your God,only by declaring one's self the enemy of reason andgood sense?135. According to our divines, faith is an assentwithout evidence. Whence it follows, that religionrequires us firmly to believe inevident things, andpropositions often improbable or contrary to reason .But when we reject reason as a judge of faith, dowe not confess, that reason is incompatible withfaith? As the ministers of religion have resolved tobanish reason, they must have felt the impossibility:96of reconciling it with faith, which is visibly only ablind submission to priests, whose authority seemsto many persons more weighty than evidence itself,and preferable to the testimony of the senses."Sacrifice your reason; renounce experience;mistrust the testimony of your senses; submit without enquiry to what we announce to you in thename of heaven. " Such is the uniform language ofpriests throughout the world; they agree upon nopoint, except upon the necessity of never reasoningupon the principles which they present to us asmost important to our felicity!I will not sacrifice my reason; because this reason alone enables me to distinguish good from evil,truth from falsehood. If, as you say, my reasoncomes from God, I shall never believe that a God,whom you call so good, has given me reason, as asnare, to lead me to perdition. Priests! do younot see, that, by decrying reason, you calumniateyour God, from whom you declare it to be a gift.I will not renounce experience; because it is aguide much more sure than the imagination or authority of our spiritual guides . Experience teachesme, that enthusiasm and interest may blind and leadthem astray themselves; and that the authority ofexperience ought to have much more influence uponmy mind, than the suspicious testimony of manymen, who I know are either very liable to be deceived themselves, or otherwise are very much interested in deceiving others .I will mistrust my senses; because I am sensiblethey sometimes mislead me. But, on the other hand,I know that they will not always deceive me. Iwell know, that the eye shews me the sun muchsmaller than it really is; but experience, which isonly the repeated application of the senses, informsme, that objects always appear to diminish, as theirdistance increases; thus I attain to a certainty,that the sun is much larger than the earth; thus my97senses suffice to rectify the hasty judgments, whichthey themselves had caused .In warning us to mistrust the testimony of oursenses, the priests annihilate the proofs of all religion. If men may be dupes of their imagination;if their senses are deceitful, how shall we believethe miracles, which struck the treacherous sensesof our ancestors? If my senses are unfaithfulguides, I ought not to credit even the miracleswrought before my eyes.136. You incessantly repeat that the truths ofreligion are above reason. If so, do you not perceive,that these truths are not adapted to reasonablebeings? To pretend that reason can deceive us, is tosay, that truth can be false; that the useful can behurtful. Is reason any thing but a knowledge ofthe useful and true? Besides, as our reason andsenses are our only guides in this life, to say theyare unfaithful, is to say, that our errors are necessary, our ignorance invincible, and that, withoutthe extreme of injustice , God cannot punish us forfollowing the only guides it was his supreme willto give.To say, we are obliged to believe things aboveour reason, is as ridiculous as to say, that God requires us, without wings, to ascend into the air.To assure us, that upon some objects we are notallowed to consult reason, is to say, that, in themost interesting matter, we must consult only imagination, or act only at random.Our divines say, we must sacrifice our reason toGod. But what motives can we have to sacrificeour reason to a being, who makes us only uselesspresents, of which he does not intend we shallmake use? What confidence can we put in a God,who, according to our divines themselves, is malicious enough to harden the heart, to strike withblindness, to lay snares for us, to lead us into temp898tation? In fine, what confidence can we put in theministers of this God, who, to guide us more conveniently, commands us to shut our eyes?137. Men are persuaded, that religion is to themof all things the most serious, while it is preciselywhat they least examine for themselves. In pursuitof an office, a piece of land, a house, a place of profit; in any transaction or contract whatever, everyone carefully examines all, takes the greatest precaution, weighs every word of a writing, is guardedagainst every surprise. Not so in religion; everyone receives it at a venture, and believes it upon theword of others, without ever taking the trouble toexamine.Two causes concur to foster the negligence andcarelessness of men, with regard to their religiousopinions . The first is the despair ofovercoming theobscurity, in which all religion is necessarily enveloped. Their first principles are only adapted todisgust lazy minds, who regard them as a chaos impossible to be understood. The second cause is,that every one is averse to being too much bound bysevere precepts, which all admire in theory, butvery few care to practise with rigour . The religionof many people is like old family titles, which theyhave never taken pains to examine, but which theydeposit in their archives to have recourse to themoccasionally.138. The disciples of Pythagoras paid implicitfaith to the doctrine of their master; he has said it,was to them the solution of every problem. Thegenerality of men are not more rational . In mattersof religion, a curate, a priest, an ignorant monkbecomes master of the thoughts. Faith relieves theweakness of the human mind, to which applicationis commonly painful; it is much more convenient todepend upon others, than to examine for one's self.Inquiry, being slow and difficult, equally, displeases99the stupidity of the ignorant, and the ardour of theenlightened. Such is undoubtedly the reason whyFaith has so many partisans.The more men are deficient in knowledge andreason, the more zealous they are in Religion . Inevery religious faction, a mob of women, assembledby their directors, display immoderate zeal foropinions, of which it is evident they have no idea.In theological quarrels, the populace, like ferociousbeasts, fall upon all those, against whom their priestis desirous of exciting them. A profound ignorance,boundless credulity, weak intellect, and warm imagination, are the materials, of which are madebigots, zealots, fanatics, and saints . How can thevoice of reason be heard by them who make it aprinciple never to examine for themselves, but tosubmit blindly to the guidance of others? Thesaints and the populace are, in the hands of theirdirectors, automatons, moved at pleasure.139. Religion is an affair of custom and fashion .We must do as others do. But, among the numerousreligions in the world, which should men choose?This inquiry would be too painful and long. Theymust therefore adhere to the religion of their fathers, to that of their country, to that of theirprince, which, having force on its side, must be thebest. Chance alone often decides the religion of aman, and a nation; the French would now be asgood Mussulmans as they are Christians, had nottheir ancestors formerly baffled the efforts of theSaracens.If we judge of the intentions of Providence by theevents and revolutions of this world, we are compelled to believe, that He is very indifferent aboutthe various religions upon earth. For thousands ofyears, paganism, polytheism, idolatry, were the prevailing religions. We are now assured, that, duringthe above period, the most flourishing nations hadnot the least idea of God; an idea, regarded as so100essential Christians say,to the happiness of man.(excepting the Jewish people, that is, a handful ofwretches,) all mankind lived in the grossest ignorance of their duties towards God, and had nonotions of him, but what were insulting to his DivineMajesty. Christianity, growing out of Judaism,very humble in its obscure origin, became powerfuland cruel under the Christian emperors, who,, prompted by holy zeal, rapidly spread it in their empire bymeans of fire and sword, and established it uponthe ruins of paganism. Mahomet and his successors, seconded by Providence or their victoriousarms, in a short time banished the Christian religion.from a part of Asia, Africa, and even Europe; andthe gospel was then forced to yield to the Koran.In all the factions or sects, which, for many ageshave distracted Christianity, the best argument hasbeen always that of the strongest party; the arms andwill of princes have alone decided which doctrineis most conducive to the happiness of nations. Maywe not hence infer, either that the Deity feels littleinterested in the religion of men, or that he alwaysdeclares in favour of the opinions, which best suitthe interest of earthly powers; in fine, that hechanges his plan to accommodate their fancy?A king of Macassar, tired of the idolatry of hisfathers, took a fancy to abandon it. The councilof the monarch deliberated a long time to decidewhether they should send for Christian or Mahometan divines. Utterly incapable of discerning thebest of the two religions, they resolved to send formissionaries of both at the same time, and embracethe doctrine of those, who should have the fortuneto arrive first. It was not doubted , but that God,who disposes the winds, would thus explain his willhimself. The missionaries of Mahomet being mostdiligent, the king and his people did as had beenresolved; the missionaries of Christ were rejectedthrough the fault of their God, who prevented their101seasonable arrival. * God evidently consents thatchance should decide the religion of nations .Rulers infallibly decide the religion of the people.The true religion is always the religion of theprince; the true God is the God, whom the princedesires his people to adore; the will of the priests,who govern the prince, always becomes the will ofGod. A wit justly observed, that the true religionis always that, on whose side are the prince and thehangman. Emperors and hangmen long supportedthe gods of Rome against the God of Christians;the latter, having gained to his interest the emperors, their soldiers, and their hangmen, succeededin destroying the worship of the Roman gods. TheGod of Mahomet has dispossessed the God ofChristians of a great part of the dominions, whichhe formerly occupied .In the eastern part of Asia, is a vast, flourishing,fertile, populous country, governed by such wiselaws, that the fiercest conquerors have adoptedthem with respect. I mean China. ExceptingChristianity, which was banished as dangerous,the people there follow such superstitions as theyplease, while the mandarins, or magistrates, havinglong known the errors of the popular religion, arevigilant to prevent the bonzes or priests from using itas an instrument of discord . Yet we see not, thatProvidence refuses his blessing to a nation, whosechiefs are so indifferent about the worship that isrendered to him . On the contrary, the Chineseenjoy a happiness and repose worthy to be envied,by the many nations whom religion divides, andoften devastates.We cannot reasonably propose to divest thepeople of their follies; but we may perhaps curethe follies of those who govern the people, andwho will then prevent the follies of the people

• See the historical account of the kingdom of Macassar,

Paris, 1688.1021from becoming dangerous. Superstition is to befeared only when princes and soldiers rally roundher standard; then she becomes cruel and sanguinary. Every sovereign, who is the protectorof one sect or religious faction, is commonly thetyrant of others, and becomes himself the mostcruel disturber of the peace of his dominions.140. It is incessantly repeated, and many sensiblepersons are induced to believe, that religion is arestraint necessary to men; that without it, therewould no longer exist the least check for the vulgar;and that morality and virtue are intimately connected with it. " The fear of the Lord," cries thepriest, " is the beginning of wisdom. The terrorsof another life are salutary, and are proper to curbthe passions of men. "To perceive the inutility of religious notions, wehave only to open our eyes and contemplate themorals of those nations, who are the most under thedominion of religion. We there find proud tyrants,oppressive ministers, perfidious courtiers, shamelessextortioners, corrupt magistrates, knaves, adulterers, debauchees, prostitutes, thieves, and rogues ofevery kind, who have never doubted either the existence of an avenging and rewarding God, the torments of hell , or the joys of paradise.Without the least utility to the greater part ofmankind, the ministers of religion have studied torender death terrible to the eyes of their followers.If devout Christians could but be consistent, theywould pass their whole life in tears , and die underthe most dreadful apprehensions. What can bemore terrible than death, to the unfortunate whoare told, that it is horrible to fall into the hands of theliving God; that we must work out our salvation withfear and trembling! Yet we are assured, that thedeath of the Christian is attended with infinite consolations, of which the unbeliever is deprived . Thegood Christian, it is said, dies in the firm hope of103an eternal happiness which he has strived to merit.But is not this firm assurance itself a presumption.punishable in the eyes of a severe God? Ought notthe greatest saints to be ignorant whether they areworthy oflove or hatred? Ye Priests! who are silentupon the torments of hell, while consoling us withthe hope ofthe joys of paradise; have you then hadthe advantage to see your names and ours inscribedin the book oflife.-141. To opposeto the passions and present interests of men the obscure notions of a metaphysical,inconceivable God, the incredible punishments ofanother life, or the pleasures of the heaven, ofwhich nobody has the least idea, —is not this combating realities with fictions. Men have never anybut confused ideas of their God: they see him, if Imay so express it, only in clouds. They neverthink of him when they are desirous to do evil:whenever ambition , fortune, or pleasure allures them,the God, his threatenings and promises are forgotten.In the things of this life, there is a degree of certainty, which the most lively faith cannot give tothe things ofthe other life .Every religion was originally a curb invented bylegislators , who wished to establish their authorityover the minds of rude nations . Like nurses whofrighten children to oblige them to be quiet, theambitious used the name of the gods to frightensavages; and had recourse to terror in order to makethem support quietly the yoke they wished to impose. Are then the bugbears of infancy made forriper age? At the age of maturity, no man longerbelieves them, or if he does, they excite little emotion in him, and never alter his conduct.142. Almost every man fears what he sees muchmore than what he does not see; he fears the judgments of men of which he feels the effects, morethan thejudgments of God ofwhom he has only fluctuating ideas. The desire of pleasing the world, the104torrent of custom, the fear of ridicule, and ofthecensure of one's neighbours, have more force thanall religious opinions . Does not the military man,through fear of disgrace, daily expose his life inbattle, even at the risk of incurring eternal damnation?The most religious persons have often more respect for a varlet, than for God. A man who firmly believes, that God sees every thing, and that heis omniscient and omnipresent, will be guilty, whenalone, of actions, which he would never do in presence of the meanest of mortals . Those, who pretend to be most fully convinced of the existence ofa God, every moment act as if they believed thecontrary.99143. "Let us, at least, it will be said , cherish theidea of a God, which alone may serve as a barrierto the passions of kings. ' But, can we sincerelyadmire the wonderful effects, which the fear of thisGod generally produces upon the minds of princes,who are called his images? What idea shall weform of the original, if we judge of it by the copies!Sovereigns, it is true, call themselves the representatives ofGod, his vicegerents upon earth. Butdoes the fear of a master, more powerful than theyare incline, them seriously to study the welfare ofthe nations, whom Providence has intrusted to theircare? Does the pretended terror, which ought to beinspired into them by the idea of an invisible judge,to whom alone they acknowledge themselves accountable for their actions, render them more equitable, more compassionate, more sparing of the bloodand treasure of their subjects, more temperate intheir pleasures, more attentive to their duties? Infine, does this God, by whose authority kings reign,deter them from inflicting a thousand' evils. upon thepeople to whom they ought to act as guides, protectors, and fathers? Alas! If we survey the wholeearth, we shall see men almost every where govern-105ed by tyrants, who use religion merely as an instrument to render more stupid the slaves, whom theyoverwhelm under the weight of their vices, or whomthey sacrifice without mercy to their fatal extravagancies.Far from being a check upon the passions ofkings,Religion, by its very principles, frees them from allrestraint. It transforms them into divinities , whosecaprice the people are never permitted to resist.While it gives up the reins to princes, and on theirpart breaks the bonds of the social compact, it endeavours to chain the minds and hands of their oppressed subjects . Is it then surprising, that the godsof the earth imagine every thing lawful for them, andregard their subjects only as the vile instruments oftheir caprice or ambition?In every country, Religion has represented theMonarch of nature as a cruel, fantastical, partialtyrant, whose caprice is law? the Monarch God, isbut too faithfully imitated by his representativesupon earth. Religion seems every where inventedsolely to lull the people in the lap of slavery, inorder that their masters may easily oppress them, orrender them wretched with impunity.144. To guard against the enterprises of a haughty pontiff who wished to reign over kings, to sheltertheir persons from the attempts of credulous nationsexcited by the priests, several European princeshave pretended to hold their crowns and rights ofGod alone, and to be accountable only to him fortheir actions. After a long contest between the civiland spiritual power, the former at length triumphed;and the priests, forced to yield , acknowledgedthe divine right of kings and preached them tothe people, reserving the liberty of changing theirminds and of preaching revolt, whenever the divinerights of kings clashed with the divine rights of theclergy.. It was always at the expense of nations,that peace was concluded between kings and priests;106but the latter, in spite of treaties, always preservedtheir pretensions.Tyrants and wicked princes, whose consciencescontinually reproach them with negligence or perversity, far from fearing their God, had rather dealwith this invisible judge who never opposes anything, or with his priests who are always condescending to the rulers of the earth, than with theirown subjects. The people, reduced to despair,might probably appeal from the divine right of theirchiefs . Men when oppressed to the last degree,sometimes become turbulent; and the divine rightsof the tyrant are then forced to yield to the naturalrights of the subjects.It is cheaper dealing with gods than men. Kingsare accountable for their actions to God alone;priests are accountable only to themselves. There ismuch reason to believe, that both are more confidentof the indulgence of heaven, than of that of earth.It is much easier to escape the vengeance of godswho may be cheaply appeased, than the vengeanceofmen whose patience is exhausted ."If you remove the fear of an invisible power,what restraint will you impose upon the passions ofsovereigns?" Let them learn to reign; let themlearn to bejust; to respect the rights ofthe people;and to acknowledge the kindness ofthe nations, fromwhom they hold their greatness and power. Letthem learn to fear men, and to submit to the laws ofequity. Let nobody transgress these laws with impunity; and let them be equally binding upon thepowerful and the weak, the great and the small, thesovereign and the subjects.The fear ofgods, Religion, and the terrors of another life, are the metaphysical and supernatural bulwarks, opposed to the impetuous passions of princes!Are these bulwarks effectual? Let experienceresolve the question. To oppose Religion to thewickedness of tyrants, is to wish, that vague, un-107certain, unintelligible speculations may be strongerthan propensities which every thing conspires dailyto strengthen.145. The immense service of religion to politicsis incessantly boasted; but, a little reflection willconvince us, that religious opinions equally blindboth sovereigns and people, and never enlightenthem upon their true duties or interests. Religionbut too often forms licentious, immoral despots,obeyed by slaves, whom every thing obliges to conform to their views.PFor want of having studied or known the trueprinciples of administration, the objects and rights ofsocial life, the real interests of men and their reciprocal duties, princes, in almost every country, havebecome licentious, absolute, and perverse; and theirsubjects abject, wicked, and unhappy. It was toavoid the trouble of studying these important objects, that recourse was had to chimeras, which,far from remedying any thing, have hitherto onlymultiplied the evils of mankind, and diverted themfrom whatever is most essential to their happiness.Does not the unjust and cruel manner in whichso many nations are governed here below, manifestly furnish one ofthe strongest proofs, not onlyof the small effect produced by the fear of anotherlife, but also of the non- existence of a Providence,busied with the fate of the human race? If thereexisted a good God, should we not be forced to admit, that in this life he strangely neglects the greaterpart ofmankind? It would seem, that this God hascreated nations only to be the sport of the passionsand follies of his representatives upon earth.146. By reading history with a little attention,we shall perceive that Christianity, at first weakand servile, established itself among the savage andfree nations of Europe only intimating to their chiefs,that its religious principles favoured despotism andrendered them absolute. Consequently, we see108barbarous princes suddenly converted; that is, wesee them adopt, without examination, a system sofavourable to their ambition, and use every art toinduce their subjects to embrace it. Ifthe ministers of this religion have since often derogated fromtheir favourite principles, it is because the theoryinfluences the conduct of the ministers of the Lord,only when it suits their temporal interests .•Christianity boasts of procuring men a happinessunknown to preceding ages. It is true, the Greeksknew not the divine rights of the tyrants or of theusurpers of the rights oftheir country. Under paganism, it never entered the head of any man tosuppose, that it was against the will of heaven for anation to defend themselves against a ferociousbeast, who had the audacity to lay waste their possessions. The religion of the Christians was thefirst that screened tyrants from danger, by layingdown as a principle that the people must renouncethe legitimate defence of themselves. Thus Christian nations are deprived of the first law of nature,which orders man to resist evil, and to disarm whoever is preparing to destroy him! Ifthe ministersof the church have often permitted the people torevolt for the interest of heaven, they have neverpermitted them to revolt for their own deliverancefrom real evils or known violences.From heaven came the chains, that were used forfetteringthe minds of mortals. Why is the Mahometan every where a slave? Because his prophetenslaved him in the name of the Deity, as Moseshad before subdued the Jews. In all parts of theearth, we see, that the first legislators were thefirst sovereigns and the first priests of the savages,to whom they gave laws.Religion seems invented solely to exalt princesabove their nations, and rivet the fetters of slavery.As soon as the people are too unhappy here below,priests are ready to silence them by threatening109them with the anger of God. They are made to fixtheir eyes upon heaven, lest they should perceivethe true causes of their misfortunes, and apply theremedies which nature presents.147. By dint of repeating to men, that the earthis not their true country; that the present life isonly a passage; that they are not made to be happyin this world; that their sovereigns hold their authority of God alone, and are accountable only tohim for the abuse of it; that it is not lawful toresist them, &c . priests have eternized the misgóvernment of kings and the misery of the people; theinterests of nations have been basely sacrificed totheir chiefs . The more we consider the dogmas andprinciples of religion , the more we shall be convinced, that their sole object is the advantage of tyrantsand priests, without regard to that of societies.To mask the impotence of its deaf gods, religionhas persuaded mortals, that iniquities always kindlethe wrath of heaven. People impute to themselvesalone the disasters that daily befal them. If nationssometimes feel the strokes of convulsed nature,their bad governments are but too often the immediate and permanent causes, from whence proceedthe continual calamities which they are forced toendure. Are not the ambition, negligence, vices,and oppressions of kings and nobles, generally thecauses of scarcity, beggary, wars, pestilences , corrupt morals, and all the multiplied scourges whichdesolate the earth?In fixing men's eyes continually upon heaven; inpersuading them, that all their misfortunes are effects of divine anger; in providing none but ineffectual and futile, means to put an end to their sufferings, we might justly conclude, that the only objectof priests was to divert nations from thinking aboutthe true sources of their misery, and thus to renderit eternal. The ministers of religion conduct themselves almost like those indigent mothers, who, for110.want of bread, sing their starved children to sleep,or give them playthings to divert their thoughtsfrom afflicting hunger.Blinded by error from their very infancy, restrained by the invisible bonds of opinion, overcome bypanic terrors, their faculties blunted by ignorance,how should the people know the true causes of theirwretchedness? They imagine that they can avert itby invoking the gods . Alas! do they not see, thatit is, in the name of these gods, that they are ordered to present their throats to the sword of theirmerciless tyrants, in whom they might find the obvious cause of the evils under which they groan,and for whom they cease not to implore, in vain, theassistance of heaven?Ye credulous people! In your misfortunes, redouble your prayers, offerings, and sacrifices; throngto your temples; butcher victims without number;fast in sack- cloth and ashes; bathe yourselves inyour own tears; and above all, completely ruinyourselves to enrich your gods! You will only enrich their priests . The gods of heaven will bepropitious, only when the gods of the earth shallacknowledge themselves men, like you, and shalldevote to your welfare the attention you deserve.En148. Negligent, ambitious, and perverse Princesare the real causes of public misfortunes . Useless,unjust, reiterated Wars depopulate the earth .croaching and despotic Governments absorb thebenefits ofnature. The rapacity of Courts discourages agriculture, extinguishes industry, produceswant, pestilence and misery. Heaven is neithercruel nor propitious to the prayers of the people; itis their proud chiefs, who have almost always heartsof iron.It is destructive to the morals of princes, to persuade them that they have God alone to fear, whenthey injure their subjects, or neglect their happiness.Sovereigns! It is not the gods, but your people,111that you offend, when you do evil. It is your people and yourselves that you injure, when you governunjustly.In history, nothing is more common than to seeReligious Tyrants; nothing more rare than to findequitable, vigilant, enlightened princes. A monarchmay be pious, punctual in a servile discharge of theduties of his religion, very submissive and liberal tohis priests, and yet at the same time be destitute ofevery virtue and talent necessary for governing. Toprinces, Religion is only an instrument destined tokeep the people more completely under the yoke.By the excellent principles of religious morality,a tyrant who, during a long reign, has done nothingbut oppress his subjects, wresting from them thefruits of their labour, sacrificing them without mercyto his insatiable ambition, -a conqueror, who hasusurped the provinces of others, slaughtered wholenations, and who, during his whole life, has been ascourge to mankind, --imagines his conscience mayrest, when, to expiate so many crimes, he has weptat the feet of a priest, who generally has the basecomplaisance to console and encourage a robber,whom the most hideous despair would too lightlypunish for the misery he has caused upon earth.149. A sovereign, sincerely devout, is commonlydangerous to the state . Credulity always supposesa contracted mind; devotion generally absorbs theattention, which a prince should pay to the government of his people. Obsequious to the suggestions of his priests, he becomes the sport of theircaprices, the favourer of their quarrels, and theinstrument and accomplice of their follies, which heimagines to be of the greatest importance. Amongthe most fatal presents, which religion has madethe world; ought to be reckoned those devout andzealous monarchs, who, under an idea of workingfor the welfare of their subjects, have made it asacred duty to torment, persecute, and destroy those,112who thought differently from themselves. A bigot, atthe head ofan empire, is one of the greatest scourgeswhich heaven in its fury can send upon earth Asingle fanatical or knavish priest, listened to by acredulous and powerful prince, suffices to put astate in disorder, and the world in combustion.In almost all countries, priests and pious personsare intrusted with forming the minds and hearts ofyoung princes, destined to govern nations. Whatqualifications have instructors of this stamp! Bywhat interests can they be animated? Full of prejudices themselves, they will teach their pupil toregard superstition, as most important and sacred;its chimerical duties, as most indispensible, intolerance and persecution, as the true foundation of hisfuture authority. They will endeavour to make hima party leader, a turbulent fanatic, a tyrant; theywill early stifle his reason, and forewarn him againstthe use of it; they will prevent truth from reachinghis ears; they will exasperate him against true talents, and prejudice him in favour of contemptibleones; in fine, they will make him a weak devotee,who will have no idea either of justice or injustice,nor of true glory, nor of true greatness, and whowill be destitute of the knowledge and virtues necessary to the government of a great nation. Such, inepitome, is the plan of the education ofa child, destined one day to create the happiness or misery ofmillions of men!In150. Priests have ever shewn themselves thefriends of despotism, and the enemies of public liberty: their trade requires abject and submissiveslaves, who have never the audacity to reason .an absolute government, who ever gains an ascendancy over the mind of a weak and stupid prince,becomes master of the state. Instead of conductingthe people to salvation, priests have always conducted them to servitude.In consideration of the supernatural titles, which.113religion has forged for the worst of princes, the latter have commonly united with priests, who, sure ofgoverning by opinion the sovereign himself, have undertaken to bind the hands of the people and to holdthem under the yoke. But the tyrant, covered withthe shield of religion , in vain flatters himself that heis secure from every stroke of fate; opinion is a weakrampart against the despair of the people. Besides ,the priest is a friend ofthe tyrant only while he findshis account in the tyranny; he preaches sedition,and demolishes the idol he has made, when he findsit no longer sufficiently conformable to the interestof God, whom he makes to speak at his will , and whonever speaks except according to his interests.It will no doubt be said, that sovereigns, knowingall the advantages which religion procures them, aretruly interested in supporting it with all their strength.If religious opinions are useful to tyrants, it is veryevident, that they are useful to those, who governby the laws of reason and equity. Is there thenany advantage in exercising tyranny? Are princestruly interested in being tyrants? Does not tyrannydeprive them of true power, of the love of the people, and of all safety? Ought not every reasonableprince to perceive, that the despot is a madman, andan enemy to himself? Should not every enlightenedprince beware of flatterers, whose object is to lullhim to sleep upon the brink of the precipice whichthey form beneath him?151. If sacerdotal flatteries succeed in pervertingprinces and making them tyrants; tyrants, on theirpart, necessarily corrupt both the great and thehumble. Under an unjust ruler, void of goodnessand virtue, who knows no law but his caprice, anation must necessarily be depraved. Will thisruler wish to have, about his person, honest, enlightened, and virtuous men? No. He wants none but .flatterers, approvers, imitators, slaves, base andservile souls, who conform themselves to his incli9114nations. His court will propagate the contagion ofvice among the lower ranks. All will graduallybecome corrupted in a state, whose chief is corrupt.It was long since said, that Princes seem to command others to do whatever they do themselves.'6Religion, far from being a restraint upon sovereigns, enables them to indulge without fear or remorse, in acts of licentiousness as injurious tothemselves, as to the nations whom they govern. Itis never with impunity, that men are deceived .Tell a sovereign, that he is a god; he will very soonbelieve that he owes nothing to any one.Providedhe is feared, he will care very little about beingloved he will observe neither rules, nor relationswith his subjects, nor duties towards them. Tellthis prince, that he is accountable for his actions toGod alone, and he will soon act as if he were accountable to no one.152. An enlightened sovereign is he, who knowshis true interests; who knows, that they are connected with the interests of his nation; that a princecannot be great, powerful, beloved, or respected,while he commands only unhappy slaves; thatequity, beneficence, and vigilance will give himmore real authority over his people, than the fabulous titles , said to be derived from heaven. He willsee, that Religion is useful only to priests, that it isuseless to society and often troubles it, and that itought to be restrained in order to be prevented fromdoing injury. Finally, he will perceive, that, toreign with glory, he must make good laws andinculcate virtue, and not found his power upon impostures and fallacies .153. The ministers of religion have taken greatcare to make of their God, a formidable, capricious,and fickle tyrant. Such a God was necessary totheir variable interests. A God, who should be justand good, without mixture of caprice or perversity;a God, who had constantly the qualities of an ho-115nest man, or of a kind sovereign, would by no meanssuit his ministers . It is useful to priests, that menshould tremble before their God, in order that theymay apply to them to obtain relief from their fears ." No man is a hero before his valet de chambre. "It is not surprising, that a God, dressed up by hispriests so as to be terrible to others, should rarelyimpose upon them, or should have but very littleinfluence upon their conduct. Hence, in everycountry, their conduct is very much the same.Under pretext of the glory of their God, they everywhere prey upon ignorance, degrade the mind, discourage industry, and sow discord. Ambition andavarice have at all times been the ruling passions ofthe priesthood. The priest every where rises superior to sovereigns and laws; we see him everywhere occupied with the interests of his pride, ofhis cupidity, and ofhis despotic, revengeful humour.In the room of useful and social virtues, he everywhere substitutes expiations, sacrifices , ceremonies,mysterious practices, in a word, inventions lucrativeto himself and ruinous to others.The mind is confounded and the reason is amazedupon viewing the ridiculous customs and pitifulmeans, which the ministers of the gods have invented in every country to purify souls, and renderheaven favourable to nations. Here they cut offpart of a child's prepuce, to secure for him divinebenevolence; there, they pour water upon his head,to cleanse him of crimes, which he could not as yethave committed. In one place, they command himto plunge into a river, whose waters have the powerof washing away all stains; in another, he is forbidden to eat certain food, the use of which will notfail to excite the celestial wrath; in other countries,they enjoin upon sinful man to come periodicallyand confess his faults to a priest, who is often agreater sinner than himself, &c. &c. &c.154. What should we say of a set of empirics,11699who, resorting every day to a public place, shouldextol the goodness of their remedies, and vend themas infallible, while they themselves were full of theinfirmities, which they pretend to cure? Should wehave much confidence in the recipes of these quacks,though they stun us with crying, " take our remedies, their effects are infallible; they cure everybody, except us. What should we afterwardsthink, should those quacks spend their lives in complaining, that their remedies never produce the desired effect upon the sick, who take them? In fine,what idea should we form of the stupidity of thevulgar, who, notwithstanding these confessions,should not cease to pay dearly for remedies, theinefficacy of which every thing tends to prove?Priests resemble those alchymists, who boldly tellus, they have the secret of making gold, while theyhave scarcely clothes to cover their nakedness.The ministers of religion incessantly declaimagainst the corruption of the age, and loudly complain of the little effect of their lessons, while at thesame time they assure us, that religion is the universal remedy, the true panacea against the wickednessof mankind. These priests are very sick themselves,yet men continue to frequent their shops, and tohave faith in their divine antidotes, which, by theirown confession, never effect a cure!155. Religion, especially with the moderns, hastried to identify itself with Morality, the principlesof which it has thereby totally obscured. It hasrendered men unsociable by duty, and forced themto be inhuman to every one who thought differentlyfrom themselves. Theological disputes, equallyunintelligible to each of the enraged parties, haveshaken empires, caused revolutions, been fatal tosovereigns, and desolated all Europe. These contemptible quarrels have not been extinguished evenin rivers of blood. Since the extinction of paganism, the people have made it a religious principle}117to become outrageous, whenever any opinion is advanced which their priests think contrary to sounddoctrine. Thesectaries of a religion, which preaches,in appearance, nothing but charity, concord, andpeace, have proved themselves more ferocious thancannibals or savages, whenever their divines excitedthem to destroy their brethren. There is no crime,which men have not committed under the idea ofpleasing the Divinity, or appeasing his wrath.The idea of a terrible God, whom we paint toourselves as a despot, must necessarily render his-subjects wicked . Fear makes only slaves, andslaves are cowardly, base, cruel, and think everything lawful, in order to gain the favour or escapethe chastisem*nts of the master whom they fear.Liberty of thinking alone can give men humanityand greatness of soul. The notion of a tyrant-godtends only to make them abject, morose, quarrelsome, intolerant slaves.Every religion, which supposes a God easily provoked, jealous, revengeful, punctilious about hisrights or the etiquette with which he is treated; —aGod little enough to be hurt by the opinions whichmen can form of him; -a God unjust enough torequire that we have uniform notions of his conduct;a religion which supposes a God necessarily becomesrestless, unsociable, and sanguinary; the worshippers of such a God would never think, that theycould, without offence, forbear hating and even destroying every one, who is pointed out to them, asan adversary of this God; they would think, that itwould be to betray the cause of their celestial Monarch, to live in friendly intercourse with rebelliousfellow-citizens. If we love what God hates, do wenot expose ourselves to his implacable hatred?Infamous persecutors, and devout men-eaters!Will you never discern the folly and injustice of yourintolerant disposition? Do you not see, that man isno more master of his religious opinions, his belief118or unbelief, than of the language, which he learnsfrom infancy, and which he cannot change? To tell aman to think like you, is it not to require a foreignerto express himselfas you do? To punish a man forhis errors, is it not to punish him for having beeneducated differently from you? If I am an unbeliever, is it possible for me to banish from my mindthe reasons that have shaken my faith? If your Godgives men leave to be damned, what have you tomeddle with? Are you more prudent and wise, thanthis God, whose rights you would avenge.The156. There is no devotee, who does not, according to his temperament, hate, despise, or pity theadherents of a sect, different from his own.established religion, which is never any other thanthat ofthe sovereign and the armies, always makes itssuperiority felt in a very cruel and injurious mannerby the weaker sects. As yet there is no true toleration upon earth; men every where adore a jealousGod, of whom each nation believes itself the friend,to the exclusion of all others.Every people boasts of adoring alone the trueGod, the universal God, the Sovereign of all nature.But when we come to examine this Monarch oftheworld, we find that every society, sect, party, orreligious cabal, makes of this so powerful God onlya pitiful sovereign, whose care and goodness extendonly to a small number of his subjects, who pretendthat they alone have the happiness to enjoy hisfavours, and that he is not at all concerned aboutthe others .The founders of religions, and the priests whosupport them, evidently proposed to separate thenations, whom they taught, from the other nations;they wished to separate their own flock by distinguishing marks; they gave their followers gods, whowere hostile to the other gods; they taught themmodes of worship, dogmas and ceremonies apart;and above all, they persuaded them, that the reli-119•gion of others was impious and abominable. By thisunworthy artifice, the ambitious knaves established,their usurpation over the minds of their followers,rendered them unsociable, and made them regardwith an evil eye all persons who had not the samemode of worship and the same ideas as they had.Thus it is, that Religion has shut up the heart andfor ever banished from it the affection that man oughtto have for his fellow- creature. Sociability, indulgence, humanity, those first virtues of all morality,are totally incompatible with religious prejudices .157. Every national religion is calculated to makeman vain, unsociable, and wicked; the first steptowards humanity is to permit every one peaceablyto embrace the mode of worship and opinions, whichhe judges to be right. But this conduct cannot bepleasing to the ministers of religion, who wish tohave the right of tyrannising over men even intheir thoughts.Blind and bigotted princes! You hate and persecute heretics, and order them to execution, because you are told, that these wretches displeaseGod. But dodo you not say, that your God is full ofgoodness? How then can you expect to please him.by acts of barbarity, which he must necessarilydisapprove? Besides, who has informed you, thattheir opinions displease your God? Your priests?But, who assures you, that your priests are notthemselves deceived or wish to deceive you? Thesame priests? Princes! It is then upon the hazardous word of your priests, that you commit the mostatrocious crimes, under the idea of pleasing theDivinity!158. Pascal says, " that man never does evil sofully and cheerfully, as when he acts from a falseprinciple of conscience. * " Nothing is more dangerous than a religion, which lets loose the ferocityof the multitude, and justifies their blackest crimes.

• Vide Thoughts of Pascal, XXXVIII.

120They will set no bounds to their wickedness, whenthey think it authorized by their God, whose interests, they are told, can make every action legitimate.Is religion in danger? -the most civilized peopleimmediately become true savages, and think nothing forbidden. The more cruel they are, the moreagreeable they suppose they are to their God,whose cause they imagine cannot be supportedwith too much warmth.All religions have authorized innumerable crimes.The Jews, intoxicated with the promises of theirGod, arrogated the rights of exterminating wholenations. Relying on the oracles of their God, theRomans, like true robbers, conquered and ravagedthe world. The Arabians, encouraged by theirdivine prophet, carried fire and sword among theChristians and the idolaters. The CHRISTIANS,under pretext of extending their holy religion , haveoften deluged both hemispheres in blood.In all events favourable to their own interest,which they always call the cause of God, priestsshow us the finger of God. According to theseprinciples, the devout have the happiness to see thefinger of God in revolts, revolutions, massacres,regicides, crimes, prostitutions, horrors; and, ifthese things contribute ever so little to the triumphof religion, we are told , that " God uses all sorts ofmeans to attain his ends. " Is any thing more capable of effacing every idea of morality from the mindsof men, than to inform them, that their God, sopowerful and perfect, is often forced to make use ofcriminal actions in order to accomplish his designs?159. No sooner do we complain of the extravagancies and evils, which Religion has so oftencaused upon the earth, than we are reminded, thatthese excesses are not owing to Religion; but " thatthey are the sad effects of the passions of men.But I would ask, what has let loose these passions?It is evidently Religion; it is zeal, that renders men"9121inhuman, and serves to conceal the greatest atrocities. Do not these disorders then prove, that religion, far from restraining the passions of men, onlycovers them with a veil, which sanctifies them, andthat nothing would be more useful, than to tear awaythis sacred veil of which men often make such aterrible use? What horrors would be banished fromsociety, if the wicked were deprived of so plausiblea pretext for disturbing it!Instead of being angels of peace among men,priests have been demons of discord . Alledgedtheir conscience, they have pretended to receive fromheaven the right of being quarrelsome, turbulent,and rebellious. Do not the ministers of the Lordthink themselves aggrieved, and pretend that thedivine Majesty is offended, whenever sovereignshave the temerity to prevent them from doing evil?Priests are like the spiteful woman who cried fire!murder! assassination! while her husband held herhands to prevent her from striking him .160. Notwithstanding the bloody tragedies, whichReligion often acts, it is insisted, that, withoutReligion, there can be no Morality. If we judgetheological opinions by their effects, we may confidently assert, that all Morality is perfectly incompatible with men's religious opinions." Imitate God, " exclaim the pious. But, whatwould be our Morality, should we imitate this God!,and what God ought we to imitate? The God oftheDeist? But even this God cannot serve us as a veryconstant model of goodness. If he is the author ofall things, he is the author both of good and evil.If he is the author of order, he is also the authorof disorder, which could not take place without hispermission. If he produces, he destroys; if hegives life, he takes it away; ifhe grants abundance,riches, prosperity, and peace, he permits or sendsscarcity, poverty, calamities, and wars.Howthencan we receive as a model of permanent beneficence,122the God of Deism or natural religion, whose favourable dispositions are every instant contradicted byall the effects we behold? Morality must have a basisless tottering than the example of a God, whoseconduct varies, and who cannot be called good,unless we obstinately shut our eyes against the evilwhich he causes or permits in this world.Shall we imitate the beneficent the mighty Jupiterof heathen antiquity? To imitate such a god, is toadmit as a model, a rebellious son, who ravishes thethrone from his father. It is to imitate a debauchee,an adulterer, one guilty of incest and of base passions, at whose conduct every reasonable mortalwould blush. What would have been the conditionof men under paganism, had they imagined, likePlato, that virtue consisted in imitating the gods!Must we imitate the God of the Jews! Shall wefind in Jehovah a model for our conduct? This is atruly savage god, made for a stupid, cruel, andimmoral people; he is always furious, breathes nothing but vengeance, commands carnage, theft, andunsociability; The conduct of this god cannot serveas a model to that of an honest man, and can beimitated only by a chief of robbers.Shall we then imitate the Jesus ofthe Christians?Does this God, who died to appease the implacablefury of his father, furnish us an example which menought to follow? Alas! we shall see in him only aGod, or rather a fanatic , a misanthrope, who, himself plunged in wretchedness and preaching towretches, will advise them to be poor, to combatwith and stifle nature, to hate pleasure, seek grief,and detest themselves. He will tell them to leavefather, mother, relations, friends, &c. to followhim." Fine morality! " you say. It is, undoubtedly, admirable: it must be divine, for it is imprac- ticable to men. But is not such sublime moralitycalculated to render virtue odious? According tothe so much boasted morality of the man- God of the123Christians, a disciple of his in this world must belike Tantalus, tormented with a burning thirst ,which he is not allowed to quench. Does not suchmorality give us a wonderful idea of the author ofnature? If, as we are assured, he has created allthings for his creatures, by what strange whim doeshe forbid them the use of the goods he has createdfor them? Is pleasure then, which man ' continuallydesires, only a snare, which God has maliciouslylaid to surprise his weakness?161. The followers of Christ would have us regard, as a miracle, the establishment oftheir Religion, which is totally repugnant to nature, oppositeto all the propensities of the heart, and inimical tosensual pleasures. But the austerity of a doctrinerenders it the more marvellous in the eyes of thevulgar. The same disposition, which respects inconceivable mysteries as divine and supernatural,admires, as divine and supernatural, a Morality,that is impracticable, and superior to the powers ofman.To admire a system of Morality, and to put it inpractice, are two very different things. All Christians admire and extol the Morality of the gospel;but it is practised only by a very small number ofsaints, admired by those who, under pretext thatthey are deficient in strength or grace, excuse themselves from imitating their conduct.The whole world is more or less infected with aReligious morality, founded upon the opinion, thatto please the Divinity, it is absolutely necessary torender ourselves unhappy upon earth . In all partsof our globe, we see penitents, solitaries, faquirs,and fanatics, who seem to have profoundly studiedthe means of tormenting themselves, in honour of abeing whose goodness all agree in celebrating.Religion, by its essence, is an enemy to the joy andhappiness of men. " Blessed are the poor, blessedare they, who weep; blessed are they, who suffer;124misery to those, who are in abundance and joySuch are the rare discoveries, announced by Christianity!162. What in every religion, is a Saint? A man,who prays, and fasts, who torments himself, and shunsthe world; who like an owl, delights only in solitude,abstains from all pleasure, and seems frighted atevery object, which for a moment, may divert himfrom his fanatical meditations. Is this virtue? Is abeing ofthis cast kind to himself, or useful to others?Would not society be dissolved, and man return toa savage state, if every one were fool enough to wishto be a Saint?proveIt is evident, that the literal and rigorous practiceofthe divine Morality of the Christians wouldthe infallible ruin of nations. A Christian, aimingat perfection, ought to free his mind from whatevercan divert it from heaven, his true country; uponearth, he sees nothing but temptations, snares, androcks of perdition. He must fear science, as hurtful to faith; he must avoid industry, as a mean ofobtaining riches, too fatal to salvation; he must renounce offices and honours, as capable of excitinghis pride, and calling off his attention from the careof his soul. In a word, the sublime Morality ofChrist, were it practicable, would break all thebonds of society.A Saint in society is as useless, as a Saint in thedesert; his humour is morose, discontented, and oftenturbulent; his zeal sometimes obliges him in conscience to trouble society by opinions or dreams,which his vanity makes him consider as inspirationsfrom on high. The annals of every religion are fullof restless Saints, intractable Saints, and seditiousSaints, who have become famous by the ravages,with which, for the greater glory of God, they havedesolated the universe. If Saints, who live in retirement, are useless, those who live in the world,are often very dangerous.125The vanity of acting a part, and the desire ofappearing illustrious in the eyes of the short- sightedvulgar by a singular conduct, commonly constitutethe distinguishing character of great Saints. Pridepersuades them, that they are extraordinary menfar above human nature, beings much more perfectthan others, favourites whom God regards with muchmore complaisance than the rest of mortals. Humility, in a Saint, is commonly only a more refinedpride than that of the generality of men. Nothingbut the most ridiculous vanity can induce man towage continual war against his own nature.163. A morality, which contradicts the nature ofman, is not made for man. " But, say you, thenature of man is depraved ." In what consists thispretended depravity? In having passions? But, arenot passions essential to man? Is he not obliged toseek, desire, and love what is, or what he thinks is,conducive to his happiness? Is he not forced to fearand avoid what he judges disagreeable or fatal? Kindle his passions for useful objects; connect his welfare with those objects; divert him, by sensible andknown motives, from what may injure either him orothers, and you will make him a reasonable andvirtuous being. A man without passions would beequally indifferent to vice and to virtue.InSacred Doctors! you are always repeating to usthat the nature of man is perverted; you exclaim," that all flesh has corrupted its way, that all the propensities of nature have become inordinate. "this case, you accuse your God; who was eitherunable, or unwilling, that this nature should preserveits primitive perfection. If this nature is corrupted,why has not God repaired it? The Christian immediately assures me, " that human nature is repaired;that the death of his God has restored its integrity.'How then, I would ask, do you pretend that humannature, notwithstanding the death of a God, is stilldepraved? Is then the death of your God wholly99126fruitless? What becomes of his omnipotence and ofhis victory over the Devil, if it is true that the Devilstill preserves the empire, which, according to you,he has always exercised in the world?8According to Christian theology, Death is thewages ofsin. This opinion is conformable to that ofsome negro and savage nations, who imagine thatthe Death of a man is always the supernatural effectof the anger of the Gods. Christians firmly believe,that Christ has delivered them from sin; thoughthey see, that, in their Religion, as in others, man issubject to Death. To say that Jesus Christ has delivered us from sin, is it not to say, that a judge haspardoned a criminal, while we see that he leaves himfor execution?" The164. If shutting our eyes upon whatever passes inthe world, we would credit the partisans ofthe Christian Religion, we should believe, that the coming oftheir divine Saviour produced the most wonderfuland complete reform in the morals ofnations.Messiah, " according to Pascal, " was alone to produce a great, elect, holy, and chosen people; tolead, support, and introduce them into the abode ofpeace and holiness; to render them holy before God,make them the temple of God, save them from theanger of God, deliver them from the dominion ofsin, give them laws, engrave these laws upon theirhearts, offer himself to God for them, break the headof the devil. '* This great man forgot to point outthe people, upon whom his divine Messiah producedthe miraculous effects of which he so emphaticallyspeaks; it seems, they are not as yet in existence.If we do but examine the Morals of Christian nations, and listen to the clamours of their priests, weshall be forced to conclude, that Jesus Christ, theirGod, preached and died, in vain; his omnipotentwill still finds in men, a resistance, over which he cannot, or will not triumph. The Morality of this di-

• Vide Thoughts of Pascal, XV.

127vine Teacher, which his disciples so much admireand so little practise, is followed, in a whole centuryonly by half a dozen obscure saints, and fanatics,and unknown monks, who alone will have the gloryof shining in the celestial court, while all the rest ofmortals, though redeemed by the blood of this God,will be the prey of eternal flames.165. When a man is strongly inclined to sin, hethinks very little about his God. Nay more, whatever crimes he has committed , he always flatters himself, that this God will soften , in his favour, the rigour of his decrees. No mortal seriously believes,that his conduct can damn him. Though he fearsa terrible God, who often makes him tremble, yet,whenever he is strongly tempted, he yields; and heafterwards sees only the God of mercies, the idea ofwhom calms his apprehensions. Does a mancommitevil? he hopes, he shall have time to reform, andmises to repent at a future day.proIn religious pharmacy, there are infallible receiptsto quiet consciences: priests, in every country, possess sovereign secrets to disarm the anger of heaven.Yet, ifit be true that the Deity is appeased by prayers, offerings, sacrifices, and penances, it can no longer be said, that Religion is a check to the irregularities of men; they will first sin, and then seek themeans to appease God. Every Religion, which expiates crime and promises a remission of them, if itrestrain some persons, encourages the majority to thecommission of evil.Notwithstanding his immutability, God, in everyReligion in the world, is a true Proteus. His priestsrepresent him at one time armed with severity, atanother full of clemency and mildness; sometimescruel and unmerciful, and sometimes easily meltedby the sorrow and tears of sinners . Consequently,men see the Divinity only on the side most conformable to their present interests. A God always angrywould discourage his worshippers, or throw them128into despair. Men must have a God, who is bothirritable, and placable. If his anger frightens sometimorous souls, his clemency encourages the resolutely wicked, who depend moreover upon recurring,sooner or later, to the means of accommodation. Ifthejudgments of God terrify some faint-hearted piouspersons, who by constitution and habit are not proneto evil, the treasures of divine mercy encourage thegreatest criminals, who have reason to hope they participate therein equally with the others.166. Most men seldom think of God, or, at least,bestow on him little serious attention. The onlyideas we can form of him are so devoid of object,and are at the same time so afflicting, that the onlyimaginations they can long arrest are those of melancholy hypochondriacs, who do not constitute themajority of the inhabitants of this world . The vulgar have no conception of God; their weak brainsare confused, whenever they think of him. Theman of business thinks only of his business; thecourtier of his intrigues; men of fashion, women,and young people of their pleasures; dissipationsoon effaces in them all the fatiguing notions ofReligion. The ambitious man, the miser and thedebauchee carefully avoid speculations too feeble tocounterbalance their various passions.Who is awed by the idea of a God? A few enfeebled men, morose and disgusted with the world; afew, in whom the passions are already deadened byage, by infirmity, or by the strokes of fortune. Religion is a check, to those alone who by their stateof mind and body, or by fortuitous circ*mstances,have been already brought to reason. The fear ofGod hinders from sin those only, who are not muchinclined to it, or else those who are no longer able tocommit it.To tell men, that the Deity punishes crimes inthis world, is to advance an assertion , which experi+ence every moment contradicts. The worst of men129are commonly the arbiters ofthe world, and are thosewhom fortune loads with her favours . To refer usto another life, in order to convince us of the judgments of God, is to refer us to conjectures, in orderto destroy facts, which cannot be doubted.167. Nobody thinks of the life to come, when heis strongly smitten with the objects he finds herebelow. In the eyes of a passionate lover, the presence of his mistress extinguishes the flames ofhell, and her charms efface all the pleasures of paradise . Woman! you leave, say you, your lover foryour God. This is either because your lover is nolonger the same in your eyes, or because he leavesyou, and it is necessary to fill up the vacancy that ismade in your heart .Nothing is more common, than to see ambitious,perverse, corrupt, and immoral men, who have someideas of Religion, and sometimes appear even zealous for its interest. If they do not practise it atpresent, they hope to do it, at a future day: theylay it up, as a remedy, which will be necessary totranquillize the conscience for the evil they stillintend to commit. Besides, the party of devoteesand priests being very numerous, active, and powerful, is it not astonishing, that rogues and kuavesseek its support to attain their ends . It will undoubtedly be said, that many honest , people aresincerely religious, and that without profit; butis uprightness of heart always accompanied withknowledge?It is urged, that many learned men, many menofgenius have been strongly attached to Religion.This proves, that men of genius may have prejudices, be pusillanimous, and have an imagination,which misleads them and prevents them from examining subjects coolly. Pascal proves nothing infavour of Religion, unless that a man of genius maybe foolish on some subjects, and is but a child, whenhe is weak enough to listen to his prejudices. Pascal10130himself tells us, that the mind may be strong and contracted, enlarged and weak. * He previously observes,that a man may have a sound mind, and not understandevery subject equally well; for there are some, who,having a sound judgment in a certain order of things,are bewildered in others.168. What is virtue according to theology? It is,we are told, the conformity of the actions of man to thewill of God. But, what is God? A being, of whomnobody has the least conception, and whom everyone consequently modifies in his own way. Whatis the will of God? It is what men, who have seenGod, or whom God has inspired, have declared to bethe will ofGod. Who are those, who have seen God?Theyare either fanatics, or rogues, or ambitious men,whom we cannot readily believe upon their word.To found Morality upon a God, whom every manpaints to himself differently, composes in his way,and arranges according to his own temperament andinterest, is evidently to found Morality upon thecaprice and imagination of men; it is to found itupon the whims of a sect, a faction, a party, whowill believe they have the advantage to adore a trueGod to the exclusion of all others.To establish Morality or the duties of man uponthe divine will , is to found it upon the will, the reveries and the interests of those, who make Godspeak, without ever fearing that he will contradictthem. In every Religion, priests alone have a rightto decide what is pleasing or displeasing to theirGod; we are certain, they will always decide, thatit is what pleases or displeases themselves.The dogmas, the ceremonies, the morals, andthe virtues, prescribed by every Religion in theworld, are visibly calculated only to extend thepower or augment the emoluments of the foundersand ministers of these Religions. The dogmasare obscure, inconceivable, frightful and are there-

• See Thoughts of Pascal, XXXI.

131fore well calculated to bewilder the imaginationand to render the vulgar more obsequious to thewill ofthose who wish to domineer over them. Theceremonies and practices procure the priests richesor respect. Religious morals and virtues consist ina submissive faith, which prohibits the exercise ofreason; in a devout humility, which insures prieststhe submission of their slaves; in an ardent zeal ,when Religion, that is , when the interest of thesepriests, is in danger. The only object of all religiousvirtues is evidently the advantage of the ministers ofReligion.167. When we reproach theologians with thebarrenness oftheir divine virtues, they emphaticallyextol charity, that tender love of one's neighbour,which Christianity makes an essential duty of its disciples. But, alas! what becomes of this pretendedcharity, when we examine the conduct ofthe minis크 ters of the Lord? Ask them, whether we must loveor do good to our neighbour, if he be an impiousman, a heretic, or an infidel, that is, if he do notthink like them? Ask them, whether we must tolerate opinions contrary to those of the religion , theyprofess? Ask them, whether the sovereign can showindulgence to those who are in error? Their charityinstantly disappears, and the established clergy willtell you, that the prince bears the sword only to supportthe cause ofthe Most High: they will tell you that,through love for our neighbour, we must prosecute,imprison, exile, and burn him. You will find notoleration except among a few priests, persecutedthemselves, who will lay aside Christian charity theinstant they have power to persecute in their turn .The Christian religion, in its origin preached bybeggars and miserable men, under the name of charity, strongly reccommends alms. The religion ofMahomet also enjoins it as an indispensable duty.Nothing undoubtedly is more conformable to humanity, than to succour the unfortunate, to clothe the132naked, to extend the hand of beneficence to everyone in distress. But would it not be more humaneand charitable to prevent the source of misery andpoverty? If Religion, instead of deifying princes,had taught them to respect the property oftheir subjects, to be just, to exercise only their lawful rights,we should not be shocked by the sight of such a multitude of beggars in their dominions. A rapacious,unjust, tyrannical government multiplies misery;heavy taxes produce discouragement, sloth, and poverty, which in their turn beget robberies, assassinations, and crimes of every description. Had sovereigns more humanity, charity, and equity, theirdominions would not be peopled by so manywretches, whose misery it becomes impossible toalleviate .Christian and Mahometan states are full of largehospitals, richly endowed, in which we admire thepious charity of the kings and sultans, who erectedthem. But would it not have been more humane togovern the people justly, to render them happy, toexcite and favour industry and commerce, and to letmen enjoy in safety the fruit of their labours, than tocrush them under a despotic yoke, to impoverish themby foolish wars, to reduce them to beggary, in orderthat luxury may be satisfied , and then to erect splendid buildings, which can contain but a very small portion of those, who have been rendered miserable?Religion, by its virtues, has only deluded men; instead of preventing evils, it always applies ineffectual remedies.The ministers of heaven have ever known howto profit by the calamities of others. Public miserywas, if I may use the expression, their element.They have every where become administratorsof the property of the poor, distributers of alms,depositaries of charitable donations; and therebythey have at all times extended and supported theirpower over the unhappy, who generally compose133the most numerous, restless, and seditious part ofsociety. Thus the greatest evils turn to the profitofthe ministers ofthe Lord.Christian priests* tell us, that the property theypossess is the property of the poor, and that it istherefore sacred . Consequently, the sovereign andthe people have eagerly accumulated upon themlands, revenues, treasures. Under colour ofcharity,our spiritual guides have become extremely opulent,and inthe face of impoverished nations enjoy wealth,which was destined solely for the unfortunate;while the latter, far from murmuring, applaud apious generosity, which enriches the church, butrarely contributes to the relief of the poor.According to the principles of Christianity, poverty itself is a virtue; indeed, it is the virtue, whichsovereigns and priests oblige their slaves to observethe most rigorously. With this idea, many piousChristians have of their own accord renounced theperishable riches of the earth, distributed theirpatrimony among the poor, and retired into deserts,there to live in voluntary indigence . But this enthusiasm, this supernatural taste for misery, hasbeen soon forced to yield to nature. The successorsof these volunteers in poverty sold to the devout people their prayers, and their intercessions with theDeity. They became rich and powerful. Thusmonks and hermits lived in indolence, and undercolour of charity, impudently devoured the substance of the poor.The species of poverty, most esteemed by Religion, is poverty ofmind. The fundamental virtue ofevery Religion, that is , the most useful to its ministers, is faith. It consists in unbounded credulity,which admits, without enquiry, whatever the interpreters of the Deity are interested in making menbelieve . By the aid of this wonderful virtue,priests became the arbiters of right and wrong, of

• In Roman Catholic countries.

134good and evil: they could easily cause the commission of crimes to advance their interest. Implicitfaith has been the source of the greatest outragesthat have been committed upon earth.170. He, who first taught nations, that, when wewrong Man, we must ask pardon of God, appeasehim by presents, and offer him sacrifices, evidentlydestroyed the true principles of Morality. According to such ideas, many persons imagine that theymay obtain of the king of heaven, as of kings of theearth, permission to be unjust and wicked, or mayat least obtain pardon for the evil they may commit.Morality is founded upon the relations, wants,and constant interests of the inhabitants of the earth;the relations, which subsist between God and Men,are either perfectly unknown, or imaginary. Religion, by associating God with Man, has wiselyweakened, or destroyed, the bonds, which unitethem . Mortals imagine, they may injure one another with impunity, by making suitable satisfactionto the almighty being, who is supposed to have theright of remitting all offences committed against hiscreatures.Is any thing better calculated to encourage thewicked or harden them in crimes, than to persuadethem that there exists an invisible being, who has aright to forgive them the acts of injustice, rapine,perfidy, and outrage that they commit against society? Encouraged by these destructive ideas, themost perverse men perpetrate the most horrid crimes,and believe they make reparation by imploringdivine mercy; their conscience is at rest, when apriest assures them that heaven is disarmed by arepentance, which, though sincere, is very uselessto the world. The priest consoles them in the nameof the Deity, if they consent, as a reparation of theirfaults, to share with his ministers the fruits of theirfrauds and robberies.A Morality, connected with Religion, is necessa-135rily subordinate to it. In the mind of a devout man,God must be regarded more than his creatures; itis better to obey him, than men. The interests ofthe celestial monarch must prevail over those ofweak mortals. But the interests of heaven are obviously those of its ministers; whence it evidentlyfollows, that in every religion , priests, under pretextof the interests of heaven or the glory of God, candispense with the duties of human Morality, whenthey clash with the duties, which God has a rightto impose. Besides, must not he, who has powerto pardon crimes, have a right to command thecommission of crimes?171. We are perpetually told, that, without a Godthere would be no moral obligation; that the peopleand even the sovereigns require a legislator powerful enough to constrain them. Moral constraintsupposes a law; but this law arises from the eternaland necessary relations of things with one another;relations, which have nothing common with the existence of a God. The rules of Man's conduct arederived from his own nature which he is capable ofknowing, and not from the Divine nature of which hehas no idea. These rules constrain or oblige us; thatis, we render ourselves estimable or contemptible,amiable or detestable, worthy of reward or of punishment, happy or unhappy, accordingly as we conformto, or deviate from these rules . The law, whichobliges man not to hurt himself, is founded upon thenature of a sensible being, who, in whatever wayhe came into this world, or whatever may be hisfate in a future one, is forced by his actual essenceto seek good and shun evil, to love pleasure andfear pain. The law, which obliges man not to injure, and even to do good to others, is founded uponthe nature of sensible beings, living in society,whose essence compels them to despise those whoare useless, and to detest those who oppose theirfelicity.136Whether there exists a God or not, whether thisGod has spoken or not, the moral duties of men willbe always the same, so long as they retain theirpeculiar nature, that is, as long as they are sensiblebeings. Have men then need of a God whom theyknow not, of an invisible legislator, of a mysteriousreligion and of chimerical fears, in order to learnthat every excess evidently tends to destroy them,that to preserve health they must be temperate;that to gain the love of others it is necessary to dothem good, that to do them evil is a sure means toincur their vengeance and hatred." Before the law there was no sin. " Nothing ismore false than this maxim. It suffices that manis what he is , or that he is a sensible being, in orderto distinguish what gives him pleasure or displeasure. It suffices that one man knows that anotherman is a sensible being like himself, to perceivewhat is useful or hurtful to him. It suffices thatman needs his fellow-creature, in order to knowthat he must fear to excite in him sentiments unfavourable to himself. Thus the feeling and thinking being has only to feel and think, in order todiscover what he must do for himself and others . Ifeel, and another feels like me; this is the foundation ofall morals.172. We can judge of the goodness of a systemof Morals, only by its conformity to the nature ofman. By this comparison, we have a right to reject it, if contrary to the welfare of our species.Whoever has seriously meditated Religion and itssupernatural Morality; whoever has carefully weighed their advantages and disadvantages, will be fullyconvinced, that both are injurious to the interests ofMan, or directly opposite to his nature." To arms! the cause of your God is at stake!Heaven is outraged! The faith is in danger! Impiety! blasphemy! heresy!" The magical power ofthese formidable words, the real value of which the137people never understand, have at all times enabledpriests to excite revolts, to dethrone kings, to kindlecivil wars, and to lay waste the world . If we examine the important objects, which have excited thewrath of heaven and produced so many ravagesupon earth, it appears, that either the foolish reveries and whimsical conjectures of some theologianwho did not understand himself, or else the pretensions of the clergy, lave broken every social bondand deluged mankind with blood and tears .173. The sovereigns of this world, by associating the Divinity in the government of their dominions, by proclaiming themselves his vicegerents andrepresentatives upon earth, and by acknowledgingthey hold their power of him, have necessarily constituted his ministers their own rivals or masters.Is it then astonishing, that priests have often madekings feel the superiority of the Celestial Monarch?Have they not more than once convinced temporalprinces, that even the greatest power is compelledto yield to the spiritual power of opinion? Nothingis more difficult than to serve two masters, especially when they are not agreed upon what theyrequire of their subjects.The association of Religion with Politics necessarily introduced a double legislation into states.The law of God, interpreted by his priests, wasoften repugnant to the law of the Sovereign, or theinterest of the State. When princes have firmnessand are confident of the love of their subjects, thelaw of God is sometimes forced to yield to the wiseintentions of the temporal sovereign; but generallythe sovereign authority is obliged to give way to thedivine authority, that is, to the interests ofthe clergy.Nothing is more dangerous to a prince, than to encroach upon the authority of the Church, that is, toattempt to reform abuses consecrated by religion .God is never more angry than when we touch the138divine rights, privileges, possessions, or immunitiesof his priests .The metaphysical speculations or religious opinions of men influence their conduct, only whentheyjudge them conformable to their interest. Nothingproves this truth more clearly, than the conduct ofmany princes with respect to the spiritual power,which they often resist. Ought not a sovereign,persuaded of the importance ad rights of Religion,to believe himelf in conscience bound to receiverespectfully the orders of its priests, and to regardthem as the orders of the Divinity himself? Therewas a time, when kings and people, more consistentin their conduct, were convinced of the rights of spiritual power, and becoming its slaves, yielded to itupon every occasion, and were but docile instruments in its hands. That happy time is passed.By a strange inconsistency the most devout monarchs are sometimes seen to oppose the enterprisesofthose, whom they yet regard as the ministers ofGod. A sovereign, deeply penetrated with Religion, or with respect for his God, ought to remainprostrate at the feet of his ministers, and regard themas his true sovereigns. Is there upon earth a powerwhich has a right to put itself in competition withthat of the Most High?174. Have princes then, who imagine themselvesinterested in cherishing the prejudices of their subjects, seriously reflected upon the effects, whichhave been, and may be again produced by certain privileged demagogues, who have a right to speak atpleasure, and in the name of heaven to inflame thepassions of many millions of subjects? What ravages would not these sacred haranguers cause, if theyshould conspire, as they have so often done, to disturb the tranquillity of a state!To most nations, nothing is more burthensomeand ruinous than the worship of their gods. Not139only do the ministers of these gods every whereconstitute the first order in the state, but they alsoenjoy the largest portion of the goods of society,and have a right to levy permanent taxes upon theirfellow- citizens . What real advantages then dothese organs of the Most High procure the people,for the immense profits extorted from their industry?In exchange for their riches and benefits, what dothey give them but mysteries, hypotheses, ceremonies, subtle questions, and endless quarrels, whichit often happens that states are again compelled topay for with their blood?175. Religion, though said to be the firmest prop ofMorality, evidently destroys its true springs, in orderto substitute imaginary ones, inconceivable chimeras, which, being obviously contrary to reason,nobody firmly believes . All nations declare that theyfirmly believe in a God, who rewards and punishes;all say they are persuaded of the existence of a helland a paradise; yet, do these ideas render menbetter or counteract the most trifling interests?Every one assures us, that he trembles at the judgments of God; yet every one follows his passions,when he thinks himself sure of escaping the judgments of Man.The fear of invisible powers is seldom so strongas the fear of visible ones. Unknown or remotepunishments strike the multitude far less forciblythan the sight of a gallows, or the public executionof a man. Few courtiers fear the anger of their Godso much as the displeasure of their master. Apension, a title, or a riband suffices to efface theremembrance both of the torments ofhell, and ofthepleasures of the celestial court. The caresses of awoman repeatedly prevail over the menaces of theMost High. Ajest, a stroke of ridicule , a witticism,make more impression upon the man ofthe world,than all the grave notions of his Religion.Are we not assured that a true repentance is enough140to appease the Deity? Yet we see not that this truerepentance is very sincere; at least, it is rare to seenoted thieves, even at the point of death, restoregoods, which they are conscious of having unjustlyacquired . Men are undoubtedly persuaded, thatthey shall fit themselves for eternal fire, if they cannot insure themselves against it . But, " Some useful compacts may be made with heaven. *" By givingthe church a part of his fortune, almost every devoutrogue may die in peace, without concerning himselfin what manner he gained his riches in this world.176. By the confession of the warmest defendersof Religion and of its utility, nothing is more rarethan sincere conversions, and, we might add, nothingmore unprofitable to society. Men are not disgustedwith the world, until the world is disgusted withthem. A woman devotes herself to God, only whenshe feels the neglect of the world. In devotion hervanity acts a part, which occupies her, and indemnifies her for the loss of her charm s . Trifling practices help to consume her time; cabals, intrigues,invectives, scandal, and zeal furnish her with themeans of acquiring reputation and respect, amongthe devout party.If the devout have the talent of pleasing God andhis priests, they have seldom that of being agreeable or useful to society. To a devotee, Religion isa veil, which covers and justifies all her passions;her pride, ill- humour, anger, revenge, impatience,and rancour. Devotion arrogates a tyrannical superiority, which banishes gentleness, indulgence , andgaiety; it authorizes people to censure their neighbours, to reprove and revile the profane for thegreater glory of God. It is very common to be devout, and at the same time destitute of every virtueand quality necessary to social life .177. It is asserted, that the dogma of another lifeis of the utmost importance to the peace and happi-

• Moliere.

141ness of societies; that without it, men would bedestitute of motives to do good . " What need isthere of terrors and fables to make every rationalman sensible how he ought to conduct himself uponearth. Does not every one see, that he has thegreatest interest, in meriting the approbation, esteem,and benevolence of the beings who surround him,and in abstaining from every thing, by which he mayincur the censure, contempt, and resentment ofsociety? However short an entertainment, a conversation, or visit, does not each desire to act his partdecently, and agreeably to himself and others? Iflife is but a passage, let us strive to make it easy;which we cannot effect, if we fail in regard for thosewho travel with us.Religion, occupied with its gloomy reveries, considers man merely as a pilgrim upon earth; andtherefore supposes that, in order to travel the moresecurely, he must forsake company, and deprivehimself of the pleasures and amusem*nts, whichmight console him for the tediousness and fatigue ofthe road . A stoical and morose philosopher sometimes gives us advice as irrational as that of Religion .But a more rational philosophy invites us to spreadflowers upon the way of life, to dispel melancholyand panic terrors, to connect our interest with thatof our fellow-travellers, and by gaiety and lawfulpleasures, to divert our attention from the difficulties and cross accidents, to which we are often exposed; it teaches us, that, to travel agreeably, weshould abstain from what might be injurious to ourselves, and carefully shun what might render usodious to our associates.178. It is asked, what motives an Atheist canhave to do good? The motive to please himself andhis fellow- creatures; to live happily and peaceably;to gainthe affection and esteem of men, whose existence and dispositions are much more sure andknown, than those of a being impossible to be known.142" Can he, who fears not the gods, fear any thing?"He can fear men; he can fear contempt, dishonour,the punishment and vengeance of the laws; in short,he can fear himself, and the remorse felt by all thosewho are conscious of having incurred or merited thehatred of their fellow- creatures .Conscience is the internal testimony, which webear to ourselves, of having acted so as to merittheesteem or blame of the beings, with whom we live;and it is founded upon the clear knowledge we haveof men, and of the sentiments which our actionsmust produce in them. The Conscience of the religious man consists in imagining that he has pleasedor displeased his God, of whom he has no idea, andwhose obscure and doubtful intentions are explainedto him only by men of doubtful veracity, who, likehim, are utterly unacquainted with the essence ofthe Deity, and are little agreed upon what can pleaseor displease him. In a word, the conscience of thecredulous is directed by men, who have themselvesan erroneous conscience, or whose interest stiflesknowledge." Can an Atheist have a Conscience? What arehis motives to abstain from hidden vices and secretcrimes, of which other men are ignorant, and whichare beyond the reach of laws?" He may be assuredbyconstant experience, that there is no vice, which,by the nature of things, does not punish itself.Would he preserve this life? he will avoid everyexcess, that may impair his health; he will not wishto lead a languishing life, which would render him aburden to himself and others . As for secret crimes,he will abstain from them, for fear he shall be forcedto blush at himself, from whom he cannot fly. Ifhe has any reason, he will know the value of theesteem which an honest man ought to have for himself. He will see, that unforeseen circ*mstancesmay unveil the conduct, which he feels interestedin concealing from others. The other world fur-143nishes no motives for doing good, to him, who findsnone here below.66 179. " The speculative Atheist, " says the Theist,may be an honest man, but his writings will makepolitical Atheists. Princes and ministers, no longerrestrained by the fear of God, will abandon themselves, without scruple, to the most horrid excesses.'But, however great the depravity of an Atheist uponthe throne, can it be stronger and more destructive,than that of the many conquerors, tyrants, persecutors, ambitious men, and perverse courtiers, who,though not Atheists, but often very religious anddevout, have notwithstanding made humanity groanunder the weight of their crimes? Can an atheisticalprince do more harm to the world, than a Louis XI.a Philip II . a Richelieu, who all united Religionwith crime? Nothing is more rare, than atheisticalprinces; nothing more common, than tyrants andministers, who are very wicked and very religious .180. A man of reflection cannot be incapable ofhis duties, of discovering the relations subsisting between men, of meditating his own nature, of discerning his own wants, propensities, and desires,and of perceiving what he owes to beings, who arenecessary to his happiness. These reflections naturally lead him to a knowledge of the Morality mostessential to social beings . Dangerous passions seldom fall to the lot of a man who loves to communewith himself, to study, and to investigate the principles of things. The strongest passion of such aman will be to know truth, and his ambition to teachit to others. Philosophy is proper to cultivate boththe mind and the heart. On the score of moralsand honesty, has not he who reflects and reasons,evidently an advantage over him, who makes it aprinciple never to reason?If ignorance is useful to priests, and to the oppressors of mankind, it is fatal to society. Man,void of knowledge, does not enjoy his reason; with-144out reason and knowledge, he is a savage, everyinstant liable to be hurried into crimes. Morality,or the science of duties, is acquired only by the study of Man, and of what is relative to Man. He,who does not reflect, is unacquainted with trueMorality, and walks with precarious steps, in thepath of virtue . The less men reason, the morewicked they are. Savages, princes, nobles, andthedregs of the people, are commonly the worst of men,because they reason the least.The devout man never reflects, and is careful notto reason . He fears all enquiry , scrupulously follows authority, and often, through an error of conscience, makes it a sacred duty to commit evil . Theunbeliever reasons: he consults experience, whichhe prefers to prejudice. If he reasons justly, hisconscience is enlightened; he finds more real motives to do good than the bigot whose only motivesare his fallacies, and who never listens to reason.Are not the motives of the unbeliever sufficientlypowerful to counteract his passions? Is he blindenough to be unmindful of his true interest, whichought to restrain him? If so, he will be vicious andwicked. But he will be neither worse nor better,than the numerous believers, who, notwithstandingReligion and its sublime precepts, follow a conduct,which Religion condemns. Is a credulous assassinless to be feared, than an assassin who believes nothing? Is a very devout tyrant less a tyrant thanan undevout tyrant?181. Nothing is more uncommon, than to see menconsistent. Their opinions never influence theirconduct except when conformable to their temperaments, passions, and interests . Daily experienceshews, that religious opinions produce much eviland little good. They are hurtful, because theyoften favour the passions of tyrants, of ambitiousmen, offanatics, and of priests; they are ofno effect,because incapable of counterbalancing the present145interests of the greater part of mankind . Religiousprinciples are of no avail, when they act in opposition to ardent desires; though not unbelievers, menthen conduct themselves as if they believed nothing.We shall always be liable to err, when wejudgeof the opinions of men by their conduct, or oftheirconduct by their opinions. A religious man, notwithstanding the unsociable principles of a sanguinary religion, will sometimes by a happy inconsistency, be humane, tolerant, and moderate; theprinciples of his religion do not then agree with thegentleness ofhis character. Libertines, debauchees,hypocrites, adulterers, and rogues, often appear tohave the best ideas upon morals. Why do they notreduce them to practice? Because their temperament, their interest, and their habits do not accordwith their sublime theories. The rigid principles ofChristian morality, which many people regard asdivine, have but little influence upon the conduct ofthose, who preach them to others. Do they notdaily tell us, to do what they preach, and not whatthey practise?The partisans of Religion often denote an infidelby the word libertine. It is very possible that manyunbelievers may have loose morals, which is owingto their temperament, and not to their opinions.But how does their conduct affect their opinions?Cannot then an immoral man be a good physician,architect, geometrician, logician, or metaphysician?Aman of irreproachable conduct may be extremelydeficient in knowledge and reason. In quest oftruth, it little concerns us from whom it comes.Let us not judge of men by their opinions, nor ofopinions by men; let us judge of men by their conduct, and of their opinions by their conformity withexperience and reason and by their utility to man- kind.182. Every man, who reasons, soon becomes anunbeliever; for reason, shews, that theology is no11146thing but a tissue of chimeras; that religion is contrary to every principle of good sense, that it tinctures all human knowledge with falsity. Thesensible man is an unbeliever, because he sees, that,far from making men happier, religion is the chiefsource ofthe greatest disorders, and the permanentcalamities, with which man is afflicted . The man,who seeks his own welfare and tranquillity, examinesand throws aside his religion , because he thinks itno less troublesome than useless, to spend his life intrembling before phantoms, fit to impose only uponilly women or children .If licentiousness, which reasons but little, sometimes leads to irreligion , the man of pure morals mayhave very good motives for examining his religion,and banishing it from his mind. Religious terrors,too weak to impose upon the wicked in whom viceis deeply rooted, afflict, torment and overwhelm restless imaginations. Courageous and vigorous mindssoon shake off the insupportable yoke. But those,who are weak and timorous, languish under it duringlife; and as they grow old their fears increase.Priests have represented God as so malicious,austere, and terrible a being, that most men wouldcordially wish, that there was no God. It is impossible to be happy, while always trembling. Ye devout! you adore a terrible God! But you hate him;you would be glad , if he did not exist. Can we refrainfrom desiring the absence or destruction of a master,the idea ofwhom destroys our happiness? The blackcolours, in which priests paint the Divinity, are trulyshocking, and force us to hate and reject him.183. If fear created the gods, fear supports theirempire over the minds of mortals. So early aremen accustomed to shudder at the mere name of theDeity, that they regard him as a spectre, a hobgoblin, a bugbear, which torments and deprives themof courage even to wish relief from their fears.They apprehend, that the invisible spectre, will147

strike them the moment they cease to be afraid .Bigots are too much in fear of their God to lovehim sincerely. They serve him like slaves, who,unable to escape his power, resolve to flatter theirmaster, and who, by dint of lying, at length persuade themselves, that they in some measure lovehim. They make a virtue of necessity. The loveof devotees for their God, and of slaves for theirdespots, is only a feigned homage, which they render to force, and in which the heart has no share.184. Christian divines have represented their Godso terrible and so little worthy of love, that several.ofthem have thought they must dispense with loving him; a blasphemy, shocking to other divines,who were less ingenuous. St. Thomas havingmaintained, that we are obliged to love God as soonas we attain to the use of reason, the Jesuit Sirmondanswered him, that is very soon . The Jesuit Vasquezassures ús, that it is enough to love God at the pointofdeath. Hurtado, more rigid , says, we must love Godevery year. Henriquez is contented that we love himeveryfive years; Sotus, every Sunday. Upon what arethese opinions grounded? asks father Sirmond; whoadds, that Suarez requires us to love Godsometimes . Butwhen? He leaves that to us; he knows nothingabout it himself. Now, says he, who will be able toknow that, ofwhich such a learned divine is ignorant.The same Jesuit Sirmond further observes, that God" does not command us to love him with an affectionate love, nor does he promise us salvation uponcondition that we give him our hearts; it is enoughto obey and love him with an effective love by executing his orders; this is the only love we owehim; and he has not so much commanded us to lovehim, as not to hate him. " This doctrine appears.heretical, impious, and abominable to the Jansenists,who, by the revolting severity they attribute to theirGod, make him far less amiable, than the Jesuits,their adversaries. The latter, to gain adherents,•148paint God in colours capable of encouraging themost perverse of mortals. Thus nothing is moreundecided with the Christians, than the importantquestion, whether they can, ought, or ought not tolove God. Some of their spiritual guides maintain,that it is necessary to love him with all one's heart,notwithstanding all his severity; others, like fatherDaniel, think that, an act of pure love to God is themost heroic act of Christian virtue, and almost beyondthe reach ofhuman weakness . The Jesuit Pintereaugoes farther; he says, a deliverance from the grievousyoke of loving God is aprivilege of the new covenant. *185. The character of the Man always decidesthat of his God; every body makes one for himselfand like himself. The man of gaiety, involved indissipation and pleasure, does not imagine, that, Godcan be stern and cross; he wants a good- naturedGod, with whom he can find reconciliation . Theman of a rigid, morose, bilious, sour disposition,must have a God like himself, a God of terror;and he regards, as perverse, those, who admit aplacable, indulgent God. As men are constituted,organized, and modified in a manner, which cannotbe precisely the same, how can they agree about achimera, which exists only in their brains?The cruel and endless disputes between the ministers of the Lord, are not such as to attract the confidence of those, who impartially consider them.How can we avoid complete infidelity, upon viewing principles, about which those who teach themto others are never agreed? Howcan we help doubting the existence of a God, of whom it is evidentthat even his ministers can only form very fluctuating ideas? How can we in short avoid totally rejecting a God, who is nothing but a shapeless heapof contradictions? How can we refer the matter tothe decision ofpriests, who are perpetually at war,treating each other as impious and heretical, defam-

• Vide Apology for the Provincial Letters, tom. 2.

149ing and persecuting each other without mercy, fordiffering in the manner of understanding the truths,they announce to the world?186. The existence of a God is the basis of allReligion. Nevertheless, this important truth hasnot as yet been demonstrated, I do not say so as toconvince unbelievers, but in a manner satisfactoryto theologians themselves. Profound thinkers haveat all times been occupied in inventing new proofsof that truth, which is most interesting to mankind.What are the fruits of their meditations and arguments? They have left the subject in the same condition in which they found it; they have demonstrated nothing; they have almost always excited theclamours of their brethren, who have accused themof having poorly defended the best of causes.187. The apologists of Religion daily repeat, thatthe passions alone make unbelievers.Pride, saythey, ' and the desire of signalizing themselves, makemen Atheists. They endeavour to efface from theirminds the idea of God, only because they have reason to fear his terrible judgments. ' Whatever may-be the motives, which incline men to irreligion , it isour business to examine, whether their sentimentsare founded in truth. No man acts without motives . Let us first examine the arguments and afterwards the motives. We shall see whether thesemotives are not legitimate, and more rational thanthose ofmany credulous bigots, who suffer themselvesto be guided by masters little worthy ofthe con- fidence of men.You say then, Priests of the Lord! that the passions make unbelievers; that they renounce Religion only through interest, or because it contradictstheir inordinate propensities; you assert, that theyattack your gods only because they fear their severity. But, are you yourselves, in defending Religionand its chimeras, truly exempt from passions andinterests? Who reap advantages from this Religion,150for which priests display so much zeal? Priests.To whom does Religion procure power, influence,riches, and honours? To Priests. Who wage war,in every country, against reason, science, truth, andphilosophy, and render them odious to sovereignsand people? Priests. Whoprofit by the ignorance andvain prejudices of men? Priests. -Priests! you arerewarded, honoured and paid for deceiving mortals,and you cause those to be punished who undeceivethem. The follies of men procure you benefices,offerings, and expiations; while those, who announcethe most useful truths, are rewarded only withchains, gibbets and funeral- piles. Let the universejudge between us.188. Pride and vanity have been, and ever willbe, vices inherent in the priesthood . Is any thingmore capable of rendering men haughty and vain,than the pretence of exercising a power derived fromheaven, of bearing a sacred character, of being themessengers and ministers of the Most High? Arenot these dispositions perpetually nourished by thecredulity of the people, the deference and respectof sovereigns, the immunities, privileges, and distinctions enjoyed by the clergy? In every country,-the vulgar are much more devoted to their spiritualguides, whom they regard as divine, than to theirtemporal superiors, whom they consider as no morethan ordinary men. The parson of a village acts amuch more conspicuous part, than the lord of themanor or the justice of the peace . Among theChristians, a priest thinks himself far above a kingor an emperor. A Spanish grandee having spokenrather haughtily to a monk, the latter arrogantlysaid; " Learn to respect a man, who daily has yourGod in his hands, and your Queen at his feet. "Have priests then a right to accuse unbelievers ofpride? Are they themselves remarkable for uncom-'mon modesty or profound humility? Is it not evident, that the desire of domineering over men is151essential to their trade? If the ministers ofthe Lordwere truly modest, should we see them so greedy ofrespect, so impatient of contradiction, so positive in.their decisions, and so unmercifully revengeful tothose whose opinions offend them? Has not Sciencethe modesty to acknowledge how difficult it is todiscover truth? What other passion but ungovernable pride can make men so savage, revengeful, andvoid of indulgence and gentleness? What can bemore presumptuous, than to arm nations and delugethe world in blood, in order to establish or defendfutile conjectures?You say, that presumption alone makes Atheists.Inform them then what your God is; teach themhis essence; speak of him intelligibly; say something about him, which is reasonable, and not contradictory or impossible . If you are unable to satisfythem, if hitherto none of you have been able todemonstrate the existence of a God in a clear and.convincing manner; if by your own confession, hisessence is completely veiled from you, as from therest of mortals, forgive those, who cannot admit,what they can neither understand nor make consistent with itself; do not tax with presumption andvanity those who are sincere enough to confess theirignorance; do not accuse of folly those who findthemselves incapable of believing contradictions;and for once, blush at exciting the hatred and furyof sovereigns and people against men, who think notlike you concerning a being, of whom you have noidea. Is any thing more rash and extravagant, thanto reason concerning an object, known to be inconceivable?You say, that the corruption of the heart producesAtheism, that men shake off the yoke of the Deityonly because they fear his formidable judgments.But, why do you paint your God in colours soshocking, that he becomes insupportable? Why doesso powerful a God permit hearts to be so corrupt?152How can we help endeavouring to shake off theyoke of a tyrant, who, able to do as he pleases withthe hearts of men, consents to their perversion, whohardens, and blinds them, and refuses them hisgrace, that he may have the satisfaction to punishthem eternally, for having been hardened, andblinded, and for not having the grace which he refused? Theologians and priests must be very confident ofthe grace of heaven and a happy futurity,to refrain from detesting a master so capricious asthe God they announce. A God, who damnseternally, is the most odious of beings that the human mind can invent.189. No man upon earth is truly interested in thesupport of error, which is forced sooner or later toyield to truth. The general good must at lengthopen the eyes of mortals: the passions themselvessometimes contribute to break the chains of prejudices. Did not the passions of sovereigns two centuries ago, annihilate in some countries of Europethe tyrannical power, which a too haughty pontiffonce exercised over all princes of his sect? In consequence of the progress of political science theclergy were then stripped of the immense riches,which credulity had accumulated upon them .Ought not this memorable example to convincepriests, that prejudices triumph but for a time, andthat truth alone can insure solid happiness?By caressing sovereigns, by fabricating divinerights for them, by deifying them, and by abandoning the people, bound hand and foot, to their will,the ministers of the Most High must see, that theyare labouring to make them tyrants. Have theynot reason to apprehend, that the gigantic idols ,which they raised to the clouds, will one day crushthem by their enormous weight? Do not a thousandexamples remind them that these tyrants, after preyinguponthe people, may prey upon themin their turn.We will respect priests, when they become citi-153zens. Let them, if they please, use the authority ofheaven to frighten those princes who are continuallydesolating the earth; but let them no more adjudgeto them the horrid right of being unjust with impunity. Let them acknowledge, that no man is interested in living under tyranny; and let them teachsovereigns, that they themselves are not interestedin exercising a despotism, which, by rendering themodious, exposes them to danger, and detracts fromtheir power and greatness . Finally, let priests andkings become so far enlightened as to acknowledge,that no power is secure which is not founded upontruth, reason, and equity.9190. By waging war against Reason, which theyought to have protected and developed, the ministers ofthe gods evidently act against their own interest. What power, influence, and respect mightthey not have gained among the wisest of men, whatgratitude would they not have excited in the people,if, instead of wasting their time about their vain disputes, they had applied themselves to really usefulsciences, and investigated the true principles of philosophy, government, and morals! Who would dareto reproach a body with its opulence or influence,if the members dedicating themselves to the publicgood, employed their leisure in study, and exercisedtheir authority in enlightening the minds both ofsovereigns and subjects?Priests! Forsake your chimeras, your unintelligibledogmas, your contemptible quarrels! Banish, to theregions of imagination, those phantoms which couldbe useful to you only in the infancy of nations. Assume, at length, the language of reason . Instead ofexciting persecution against your adversaries; instead of entertaining the people with silly disputes;instead of preaching useless and fanatical virtues,preach human and social morality; preach virtuesreally useful to the world; become the apostles ofreason, the lights ofnations, the defenders of liberty, the154reformers of abuses, the friends of virtue; and wewill bless, honour and love you; every thing willinsure you a permanent empire over the hearts ofyour fellow citizens.191. Philosophers have every where taken uponthemselves a part, which seemed destined to theministers of Religion . The hatred of the latter forphilosophy was only a jealousy oftrade. But, insteadof endeavouring to injure and decry each other, allmen of good sense should unite their efforts to combat error, seek truth, and especially to put to flightthe prejudices, that are equally injurious to sovereigns and subjects, and ofwhich the abettors themselves sooner or later become the victims.In the hands of an enlightened government, thepriests would become the most useful ofthe citizens.Already richly paid by the state, and free from thecare of providing for their own subsistence, howcould they be better employed than in qualifyingthemselves for the instruction of others? Would nottheir minds be better satisfied with discovering luminous truths, than in wandering through the thickdarkness of error? Would it be more difficult to discern the clear principles ofa Morality made for man,than the imaginary principles of a divine and theological Morality? Would men of ordinary capacities find it as difficult to fix in their heads the simplenotions of their duties, as to load their memorieswith mysteries, unintelligible words and obscure definitions, of which they can never form a clear idea?What time and pains are lost in learning and teachingthings, which are not of the least real utility! Whatresources for the encouragement of the sciences,the advancement of knowledge, and the educationof youth, well disposed sovereigns might find inthe many monasteries, which in several countrieslive upon the people without in the slightest degree.profiting them! But superstition, jealous of its exclusive empire, seems resolved to form only useless155beings. To what advantage might we not turn amultitude of cenobites of both sexes, who, in manycountries, are amply endowed for doing nothing?Instead of overwhelming them with fasting andausterities; Instead of occupying them with barrencontemplations, mechanical prayers, and trifling ceremonies; why should we not excite in them a salutary emulation, which may incline them to seekthe means, not of being dead to the world, but ofbeing useful to it? Instead of filling the youthfulminds of their pupils with fables, sterile dogmas,and puerilities, why are not priests obliged, or invited to teach them truths, and to render them usefulcitizens of their country? Under the present system, men are only useful to the clergy who blindthem, and to the tyrants who fleece them .192. The partisans of credulity often accuse unbelievers of insincerity, because they sometimeswaver in their principles, alter their minds in sickness, and retract at death. When the body is disordered, the faculty of reasoning is commonly disordered with it. At the approach of death, man,weak and decayed , is sometimes himself sensiblethat Reason abandons him, and that Prejudice returns.. There are some diseases, which tend toweaken the brain; to create despondency and pusillanimity; and there are others, which destroy thebody, but do not disturb the reason. At any rate, anunbeliever who recants in sickness is not more extraordinary, than a devotee who neglects in health theduties which his religion explicitly enjoins..!CLEOMENES, king of Sparta, showed but littlerespect for the gods during his reign; but becamesuperstitious, as he drew near his end, and, in theview of interesting heaven to prolong his days, sentfor a great number of priests and sacrificers . Oneof his friends expressing his surprise, What are youastonished at, says CLEOMENES, I amno longer what I156was; and as I am no longer the same, I cannot thinkin the same manner.The ministers of Religion often contradict in theirdaily conduct the rigorous principles, they teach toothers; in consequence of which, unbelievers thinkthat they, in their turn, may justly accuse them ofinsincerity. If some unbelievers abandon at death,or in sickness, the sentiments they supported whilein health, do not priests belie, while in health, therigid principles of the religion, they inculcate? Is iteasy to find many prelates humble, generous, voidof ambition, enemies of pomp and grandeur, andfriends of poverty? In short, is the conduct of manyChristian ministers conformable to the austere morality of Christ, their God, and their model?193. Atheism, it is said, breaks all the ties of society.Without the belief of a God, what will become of thesacredness of oaths? How shall we oblige a manto speakthe truth, who cannot seriously call the Deity to witnesswhat he says? But, does an oath strengthen our obligation to fulfil the engagements contracted? Willhe, who is not fearful of lying, be less fearful of perjury? He, who is base enough to break his word,or unjust enough to violate his engagements, in contempt ofthe esteem ofmen, will not be more faithfultherein for having called all the gods to witness hisoaths. Those, who disregard the judgments ofmen,will soon disregard the judgments of God. Are notprinces, of all men, the most ready to swear, and themost ready to violate their oaths."194. The vulgar, it is repeatedly said, must have aReligion. Ifenlightened persons have no need of therestraint ofopinion, it is at least necessary to rude men,whose reason is uncultivated by education. But, is itindeed a fact, that religion is a restraint upon thevulgar? Dowe see, that this religion preserves themfrom intemperance, drunkenness, brutality, violence,fraud, and every kind of excess? Could a peoplewho have no idea of the Deity conduct themselves157 .in a more detestable manner, than these believingpeople, among whom we find dissipation and vices,the most unworthy of reasonable beings? Upon going out of the temples, do not the working classes,and the populace, plunge without fear into their ordinary irregularities, under the idea, that the periodical homage, which they render to their God, authorizes them to follow, without remorse, their vicioushabits and pernicious propensities? Finally, if thepeople are so low minded and unreasonable, is nottheir stupidity chargeable to the negligence of theirprinces, who are wholly regardless of public education, or who even oppose the instruction of theirsubjects? Is not the want of reason in the peopleevidently the work of the priests, who, instead ofinstructing men in a rational morality, entertainthem with fables , reveries, ceremonies, fallacies, andfalse virtues which they think of the greatestimportance?To the people, Religion is but a vain display ofceremonies, to which they are attached by habit,which entertains their eyes, and produces a transient emotion in their torpid understandings, withoutinfluencing their conduct or reforming their morals.Even by the confession of the ministers of the altars,nothing is more rare than that internal and spiritualReligion, which alone is capable of regulating thelife of man and of triumphing over his evil propensities. In the most numerous and devout nation,are there many persons, who are really capable ofunderstanding the principles of their religious system, and who find them powerful enough to stifletheir perverse inclinations?Many persons will say, that any restraint whateveris better than none. They will maintain, that if religion awes not the greater part, it serves at least to restrain some individuals, who would otherwise withoutremorse abandon themselves to crime. Men oughtundoubtedly to have a restraint, but not an imagi-158nary one; their fears must be well founded, and arethen much more proper to restrain men, than panicterrors and chimeras. Religion frightens only somepusillanimous souls, whose imbecility of characterhas already prevented them from being formidableto their fellow citizens. An equitable government,severe laws, and sound morality have an equalpower over all; at least, every person must believein them, and perceive the danger of not conformingto them.195. Perhaps it will be asked, whether rationalAtheism can be proper for the multitude? I answer,that any system, which requires discussion, is notmade for the multitude. What purpose then can itserve to preach Atheism? It may at least serve toconvince all those who reason, that nothing is moreextravagant than to fret one's self, and nothing moreunjust than to vex others, for mere groundless conjectures. As for the vulgar who never reason, thearguments of an Atheist are no more fit for themthan the systems of a natural philosopher, the observations of an astronomer, the experiments of a chymist, the calculations of a geometrician, the researches of a physician, the plans of an architect, orthe pleadings of a lawyer, who all labour for the people without their knowledge.Are the metaphysical reasonings and religiousdisputes, which have so long engrossed the timeand attention of so many profound thinkers, betteradapted to the generality of men than the reasoningof an Atheist? Nay, as the principles of Atheismare founded upon plain common sense, are they notmore intelligible, than those of a theology, besetwith difficulties, which even the persons of thegreatest genius cannot explain? In every country,the people have a religion, of the principles ofwhichthey are totally ignorant, and which they follow fromhabit without any examination: their priests alone areengaged in theology, which is too sublime for vulgar159heads. If the people should chance to lose this unknowntheology, they might easily console themselvesfor the loss of a thing, not only perfectly useless, butalso productive of dangerous commotions.It would be madness to write for the vulgar, orthe attempt to cure their prejudices all at once.We write for those only, who read and reason: themultitude read but little, and reason still less . Calmand rational persons will require new ideas; lightwill be gradually diffused, and in time reach eventhe people.196. If theology is a branch of commerce profitable to theologians, it is evidently not only superfluous, but injurious to the rest of society. Selfinterest will sooner or later open the eyes of men.Sovereigns and subjects will one day adopt the profound indifference and contempt, merited by a futilescience, which serves only to make men miserable,without making them better. All persons will besensible of the inutility of the many expensive ceremonies, which contribute nothing to public felicity.Contemptible quarrels will cease to disturb thetranquillity of states, when we blush at having considered them important.Princes! instead of meddling with the senselesscombats of your priests; instead of foolishly espousing their impertinent quarrels, and attempting tomake your subjects adopt uniform opinions - striveto make them happy in this world, and trouble notyourselves about the fate which awaits them in another. Govern them equitably, give them good laws,respect their liberty and property, watch over theireducation, encourage them in their labours , rewardtheir talents and virtues, repress licentiousness; anddo notconcern yourselves with their manner ofthinking, upon objects useless to them, as well as to yourselves. You will then have no need of fictions tosecure obedience; you will become the sole guidesof your subjects, who will be uniform in their senti-160ments ofthe love and respect due to you. Theological fables are useful only to tyrants, who are ignorant of the art of reigning over rational beings..197. Does it then require an extraordinary effortof genius to comprehend, that what is above thecapacity of man, is not made for him; that thingssupernatural are not made for natural beings; thatimpenetrable mysteries are not made for limitedminds? Iftheologians are foolish enough to disputeupon objects, which they acknowledge to be unintelligible even to themselves, ought society to takeany part in their silly quarrels? Must the blood ofnations flow to enhance the conjectures of a fewinfatuated dreamers? If it is difficult to cure theologians oftheir madness and the people of their prejudices, it is at least easy to prevent the extravagancies of one party, and the silliness of the otherfrom producing pernicious effects. Let every onebe permitted to think as he pleases; but never lethim be permitted to injure others for their mannerof thinking. Were the rulers of nations more justand rational, theological opinions would not affectthe public tranquillity, more than the disputes ofnatural philosophers, physicians, grammarians, andcritics. It is the tyranny of princes which causestheological quarrels to be attended with seriousconsequences to states . When kings cease to interfere in theology, the disputes of theologians will nolonger be terrible.Those, who extol the importance and utility ofReligion, ought to shew us its happy effects, theadvantages for instance, which the disputes and abstract speculations of theology can be to porters,artisans, and labourers, and to the multitude ofunfortunate women and corrupt servants with whichgreat cities abound. All these beings are religious;they have what is called an implicit faith. Theirparsons believe for them; and they stupidly adhereto the unknown belief of their guides. They go to161hear sermons, regularly assist at service, andwould think it a great crime to transgress any oftheordinances, to which, in childhood, they are taughtto conform. But of what service to morals is allthis? None at all. They have not the least idea ofMorality, and are even guilty ofall the roguery, fraud,rapine, and excess, that is out of the reach of law.The populace have no idea of their Religion; whatthey call Religion is nothing but a blind attachmentto unknown opinions and mysterious practices. Infact, to deprive the people of Religion is to deprivethem of nothing. By shaking or overthrowing theirprejudices, we should only lesson or annihilate thedangerous confidence they put in interested guides,and should teach them to mistrust those, who, underthe pretext of Religion, often lead them into fatalexcesses .198. While pretending to instruct and enlightenmen, Religion in reality keeps them in ignorance,and stifles the desire of knowing the most interesting objects. The people have no other rule of conduct, than what their priests are pleased to prescribe.Religion supplies the place of every thing else: butbeing in itself essentially obscure, it is more properto lead mortals astray, than to guide them in thepath of science and happiness . Religion rendersenigmatical all Natural Philosophy, Morality, Legislation and Politics. Aman blinded by religious prejudices, fears truth, whenever it clashes with his opinions: he cannot knowhis own nature, he cannot cultivate his reason, he cannot perform experiments.Every thing concurs to render the people devout;but every thing tends to prevent them from beinghumane, reasonable and virtuous. Religion seemsto have no other object, than to contract the heart,and stupify the mind.Priests have been ever at war with genius andtalent, because well informed men perceive, thatsuperstition shackles the human mind, and would12162keep it in eternal infancy, occupied solely by fablesand frightened by phantoms. Incapable of improvement itself, Theology opposed insurmountable barriers to the progress of true knowledge; its sole object isto keep nations and their rulers in the most profoundignorance of their duties, and of the real motives,that should incline them to do good. It obscuresMorality, renders its principles arbitrary, and subjects it to the caprice of the gods or of their ministers. It converts the art of governing men into amysterious tyranny, which is the scourge of nations.It changes princes into unjust, licentious despots,and the people into ignorant slaves, who become corrupt in order to merit the favour of their masters.199. By tracing the history of the human mind,we shall easily be convinced, that Theology has cautiously guarded against its progress . It began bygiving out fables as sacred truth: it produced poetry,which filled the imagination of men with its puerilefictions: it entertained them with its gods and theirincredible deeds. In a word, Religion has alwaystreated men, like children, whom it lulled to sleepwith tales, which its ministers would have us stillregard as incontestible truths.If the ministers of the gods have sometimes madeuseful discoveries, they have always been careful togive them a dogmatical tone, and envelope them inthe shades of mystery. Pythagoras and Plato, inorder to acquire some trifling knowledge, were obliged to court the favour of priests, to be initiated intheir mysteries, and to undergo whatever trials theywere pleased to impose. At this price, they werepermitted to imbibe those exalted notions, still sobewitching to all those who admire only what isperfectly unintelligible. It was from Egyptian,Indian, and Chaldean priests, from the schools ofthese visionaries, professionally interested in bewildering human reason, that philosophy was obligedto borrow its first rudiments. Obscure and false163in its principles, mixed with fictions and fables, andmade only to dazzle the imagination, the progressof this philosophy was precarious, and its theoriesunintelligible; instead of enlightening, it blindedthe mind, and diverted it from objects truly useful .The theological speculations and mystical reveriesof the ancients are still law in a great part of thephilosophic world; and being adopted by moderntheology, it is heresy to abandon them. They tell us" of aerial beings, of spirits, angels, demons, genii, "and other phantoms, which are the object of themeditations of our most profound thinkers, andserve as the basis of metaphysics, an abstract andfutile science, which for thousands of years thegreatest geniuses have vainly studied . Hypothesis,imagined by a few visionaries of Memphis and Babylon, constitute even now the foundations of ascience, whose obscurity makes it revered as marvellous and divine.The first legislators were priests; the first mythologists, poets, learned men, and physicians werepriests. In their hands science became sacred andwas withheld from the profane. They spoke onlyin allegories, emblems, enigmas, and ambiguous oracles -means well calculated to excite curiosity, toemploy the imagination, and above all to inspire theastonished vulgar with a holy respect for men, whowhen they were thought to be instructed by thegods, and capable of reading in the heavens the fateof the earth, boldly proclaimed themselves the organs ofthe Deity.•200. The religions of these ancient priests havedisappeared, or rather have only changed form . Although our modern theologians regard their predecessors as impostors, yet they have collected manyscattered fragments of their religious systems, thewhole of which is not extant. In our modern Religions we find, not only their metaphysical dogmas,which theology has merely clothed in a new dress,"164but also some remarkable remains of their superstious practices, their theurgy, their magic, and theirenchantments. Christians are still commanded torespect the remaining monuments of the legislators,priests, and prophets of the Hebrew Religion, which,in all probability, had borrowed its strange practicesfrom Egypt. Thus extravagancies, imagined byknaves or idolatrous visionaries, are still sacredamong the Christians!If we examine history, we shall find a strikingresemblance among all Religions. In all parts ofthe earth, we see, that religious notions, periodicallydepress and elevate the people. The attention ofman is every where engrossed, by rites often abominable, and by mysteries always formidable, whichbecome the sole objects of meditation . The different superstitions borrow, from one another, theirabstract reveries and ceremonies. Religions are ingeneral mere unintelligible rhapsodies, combined bynew teachers, who use the materials of their predecessors, reserving the right of adding or retrenchingwhatever is not conformable to their present views.The religion of Egypt was evidently the basis of thereligion of Moses, who banished the worship ofidols: Moses was merely a schismatic Egyptian.Christianism is only reformed Judaism. Mahometanism is composed of Judaism, Christianism, and theancient religion of Arabia, &c.201. Theology, from the remotest antiquity tothepresent time, has had the exclusive privilege of directing philosophy. What assistance has beenderived from its divine labours? It has changedphilosophy into an unintelligible jargon, calculatedto render uncertain the clearest truths; it has converted the art of reasoning into a science of words;it has carried the human mind into the airy regionsof metaphysics, and there employed it in vainlyfathoming every obscure abyss. Instead of physical and simple causes, this transformed philosophy165has substituted supernatural, or rather, trulyoccultcauses; it has explained phenomena difficult to beconceived by agents still more inconceivable. Ithas filled language with words, void of sense, incapable of accounting for things, better calculated toobscure than enlighten, and which seems inventedexpressly to discourage man, to guard him againstthe powers of his mind, to make him mistrust theprinciples of reason and evidence, and to raise aninsurmountable barrier between him and truth.202. Were we to believe the partisans of Religion,nothing could be explained without it; nature wouldbe a perpetual enigma, and man would be incapableofunderstanding himself. But, what does this Religion in reality explain? The more we examine it,the more we are convinced that its theological notions are fit only to confuse our ideas; they changeevery thing into mystery: they explain difficultthings by things that are impossible. It is a satisfactory explanation of phenomena, to attribute themto unknown agents, to invisible powers, to immaterial causes? Does the human mind receive muchlight by being referred to the depths ofthe treasures ofdivine wisdom, to which, we are repeatedly told , it isvain to extend our rash enquiries? Can the divinenature, of which we have no conception, enable usto conceive the nature of man, which it is found sodifficult to explain?Ask a Christian philosopher, what is the originof the world? He will answer, that God createdit. What is God? He cannot tell . What is itto create? He knows not. What is the causeof pestilence, famine, wars, droughts, inundationsand earthquakes? The anger of God. What remedies can be applied to these calamities? Prayers,sacrifices, processions, offerings, and ceremonies are,it is said, the true means of disarming celestial fury.But why is heaven enraged? Because men arewicked. Why are men wicked? Because theirnature is corrupt. What is the cause of this cor-·166ruption? It is, says a theologian of Europe, becausethe first man, beguiled by the first woman, ate anapple, which his God had forbidden him to touch.Who beguiled this woman into such folly? The devil. Who made the devil? God . But, why didGod make this devil, destined to pervert mankind?This is unknown; it is a mystery which the Deityalone is acquainted with.It is nowuniversally acknowledged, that the earthturns round the sun. Two centuries ago, a devoutastronomer would have called this opinion blasphemy,as being irreconcileable with the sacred books.which every Christian reveres as inspired by theDeity himself. Notwithstanding divine revelation ,Christian astronomers at length depend rather uponevidence, than upon the testimony of their inspiredbooks.What is the hidden principle of the motions of thehuman body? The soul. What is a soul? A spirit.What is a spirit? A substance, which has neitherform, nor colour, nor extension, nor parts. Howcan we form any idea of such a substance? Howcan it move a body? That is not known; it is amystery. Have beasts souls? The Cartesian assuresus they are machines. But, do they not act, feel,and think, in a manner very similar to man? Mereillusion! By what right do you deprive beasts of asoul, which you attribute to man, though you knownothing at all about it? Because the souls of beastswould embarrass our theologians, who are satisfiedwith the power of terrifying and damning the immaterial souls of men, and are not so much interestedin damning those of beasts. Such are the puerilesolutions, which philosophy, always in the leadingstrings of theology, was obliged to invent, in orderto explain the problems of the physical and moralworld?203. How many evasions and forced constructionsthinking men have used, both in ancient and modern167times, in order to avoid an engagement with theministers of the gods, who have ever been the truetyrants of thought? How many hypotheses andshifts were such men as Descartes, Mallebranche,and Leibnitz, forced to invent, in order to reconciletheir discoveries with the fables and mistakes whichReligion had consecrated! In what guarded phraseshave the greatest philosophers expressed themselves,even at the risk of being absurd, inconsistent, orunintelligible, whenever their ideas did not accordwith the principles of theology! Priests have beenalways attentive to extinguish systems which opposed their interest. Theology was ever the bed ofProcrustes, to be adapted to which, the limbs oftravellers, if too long were cut off, and if too shortwere lengthened, even if their sinews brake.Can any sensible man, delighted with the sciencesand attached to the welfare of his fellow-creatures,reflect, without vexation and anguish, how many profound, laborious, and subtle brains have been for agesfoolishly occupied in the study of absurdities, alwaysuseless, and often hurtful to our species? What atreasure of knowledge might have been diffused bymany celebrated thinkers, if instead of engaging inthe impertinent disputes of a vain theology, theyhad devoted their attention to intelligible objectsreally important to mankind? Half the efforts whichreligious opinions have cost genius, and half thewealth which frivolous forms of worship have costnations would have sufficed to instruct them perfectly in morality, politics, natural philosophy, medicine, agriculture, &c. Superstition generally absorbs the attention, admiration, and treasures ofthepeople; their Religion costs them very dear; butthey have neither knowledge, virtue, nor happiness,for their money.204. Some ancient and modern philosophers havebeen bold enough to assume experience and reasonfor their guides, and to shake off the chains of super-168stition. Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, Strato,and some other Greeks presumed to tear away thethick veil ofprejudice, and to deliver philosophy fromtheological shackles. But their systems, too simple,too sensible, and too free from the marvellous, for imaginations enamoured with chimeras, were obliged toyield to the fabulous conjectures of such men as Plato, Socrates, and Zeno. Among the moderns, Hobbes,Spinosa, Bayle, &c. have followed the steps of Epicucus; but their doctrine has found very few followers,in a world, still too much intoxicated with fablesto listen to reason.In every age, it has been dangerous to depart fromprejudices consecrated by opinion. Discoveries ofevery kind have been tacitly prohibited . All, thatthe most enlightened men could do, was to speakambiguously, though, from a base complaisance,they often mix falsehood with truth . Several hada double doctrine, one public and the other secret;the key ofthe latter being lost, their true sentiments,have often become unintelligible and consequentlyuseless to us.How could modern philosophers, who, under painof the most cruel persecution, were commanded torenounce reason, and to subject it to faith, that is,to the authority of priests; how, I say, could men,thus bound, give free scope to their genius, improvereason, and accelerate the progress of the humanmind? It was with fear and trembling that even thegreatest men obtained a glimpse of truth; rarelyhad they the courage to announce it; those, whohad, were commonly punished for their temerity.Thanks to Religion, it has ever been unlawful tothink aloud, or to combat the prejudices of whichman is every where the victim and the dupe.205. Every man, sufficiently intrepid to announcetruths to the world, is sure of incurring the hatredof the ministers of Religion. The latter loudly callto their aid the powers of the earth; they want the169assistance of kings to support both their argumentsand their gods. Their clamours expose too evidently the weakness of their cause." None call for aid but those who feel distressed. "In matters of Religion, man is not permitted toerr; though upon any other subject, he may be mistaken with impunity. In general, those who errare pitied, and some kindness is shewn to personswho discover new truths; but, when Religion isthought to be interested either in the errors or thediscoveries, a holy zeal is kindled, sovereigns exterminate, the populace become frantic, and nationsare in an uproar they know not why.Can any thing be more afflicting, than to see public and private felicity depending upon a futilescience, which is destitute of principles, is foundedonly on a distempered imagination, and is incapableof presenting the mind with any thing but wordsvoid of sense? In what consists the so much boasted utility of a Religion, which nobody can comprehend, which continually torments those who areweak enough to meddle with it, which is incapableof rendering men better, and which often makesthem consider it meritorious to be unjust and wicked?Is there a folly more deplorable, and more justly tobe combated, than that, which far from doing anyservice to the human race, only makes them blind,delirious, and miserable, by depriving them of Truth,the sole cure for their wretchedness.206. Religion has ever filled the mind of manwith darkness, and kept him in ignorance of his realduties and true interests. It is only by dispellingthe clouds and phantoms of Religion, that we shalldiscover the sources of Truth, Reason, and Morality,and the real motives that should incline us to Virtue. Religion diverts us from the causes of our evils,+170and from the remedies which nature prescribes; farfrom curing, it only aggravates, multiplies, and perpetuates them. Let us observe then with a celebrated modern, that " theology is the box ofPandora;and if it is impossible to shut it, it is at least useful toinform men, that thisfatal box is open.”*' Lord Bolingbroke's posthumous works.BRITISHTHE END.PROSPECTUSOF THEJOINT STOCK BOOK COMPANY,ESTABLISHEDJANUARY 1 , 1826 ,UNDER THEDIRECTION OF RICHARD CARILLE.1. THE nature of this company is, that it can proceedwith a sum of money equal to the printing of an edition ofa single book, and advantageously use any sum that can beaccumulated; therefore, no sum is fixed as its capital.2. A share is called one hundred pounds, and a subscription of that sum can alone entitle the subscriber to a vote asa proprietor; but any sum offive pounds and upwards, thatis the aliquot part of one hundred, will be taken charge ofby Richard Carlile, and receive all the proportionate advantages of a larger sum. The receiver will be responsible forthese small sums, and enter them as shares in his name, asfast as they amount to one hundred pounds. He will alsoconceal any name under his own; where concealment may be desirable.3. An annual interest of five per cent. will be paid on alldeposits, and the further profits of the company will go on to increase the value of the shares.4. Shares to be transferable.5. The value or number of the shares will be declaredevery quarter, and new subscribers be confined to the ad-21 จvantages that will follow their subscription . The QuarterDays to be January 1 , April 1 , July 1 , and October 1 .Every subscription io be dated as a receipt on the quarterday next following its payment, excepting those made beforethe publication of the first book.6. The class of books which this company will offer tothe public will be complete editions, in the English language,ofthe works of standard authors, who have written in anylanguage, with a view to human improvement. And thegeneral rule, though exceptions may arise, will be, to printold known standard works, that might not be in print, orthat might not have been before printed in the English language.7. The books issued by this company will be finished inthe best literary and operative style, avoiding all unneces- sary expence as to embellishments.8. The company's account books and stock will be opento the examination of every respectable applicant, who maywish to subscribe, on finding its affairs satisfactorily conducted. Every subscriber will exercise the same privilegeat discretion.9. The first book published by the company is " Hammon's Letter to Dr. Priestley:" the second is the " BonSens, or Good Sense, " of the Cure Meslier: the third willbe Peter Annett's " Free Enquirer:" and the fourth, PercyByshe Shelley's " Queen Mab. Other works of this kindwill be produced with all possible dispatch and subscriberswill come in at the commencement of each quarter with thesame advantages as they who began with the first .Printed and Published by R. Carlile , 135, Fleet Street.3535

Front matter

GOOD SENSE:3ORNATURAL IDEASOPPOSED TOIDEAS THAT ARE SUPERNATURAL;DetexitBEING A TRANSLATION FROM THE“ BON SENS” OF THE CURÉ MESLIER. ( con )quo doloso vaticinandi furore sacerdotes mysteria, illis sæpe ignota,audacter publicant, PETRONII SATYRICONLONDON:Printed for the Joint Stock Book Company,AND PUBLISHED BY R. CARLILE, 135, FLEET STREET.1826.ནBRITISHکیMUSEUM4119231.

See also

Atheism in the Age of the Enlightenment