With whatever art they have written the life of Jesus Christ, which we

hold only from his apostles, or their disciples, it furnishes a

sufficiency of materials on which to found our conjectures. I shall

only observe to you, that the Jewish nation was remarkable for its

credulity; that the companions of Jesus were chosen from among the

dregs of the people; that Jesus always gave a preference to the

populace, with whom he wished, undoubtedly, to form a rampart against

the _priests_; and that, at last, Jesus was seized immediately after

the most splendid of his miracles. We see him put to death immediately

after the resurrection of Lazarus, which, even according to the gospel

account, bears the most evident characters of fraud, which are visible

to every one who examines it without prejudice.

I imagine, Madam, that what I have just stated will suffice to show

you what opinion you ought to entertain respecting the founder of

Christianity and his first sectaries. These have been either dupes or

fanatics, who permitted themselves to be seduced by deceptions, and by

discourses conformable to their desires, or by dexterous impostors,

who knew how to make the best of the tricks of their old master, to

whom they have become such able successors. In this way did they

establish a religion which enabled them to live at the people's

expense, and which still maintains in abundance those we pay, at such

a high rate, for transmitting from father to son the fables, visions,

and wonders which were born and nursed in Judea. The propagation of

the Christian faith, and the constancy of their martyrs, have nothing

surprising in them. The people flock after all those that show them

wonders, and receive without reasoning on it every thing that is told

them. They transmit to their children the tales they have heard

related, and by degrees these opinions are adopted by kings, by the

great, and even by the learned.

As for the martyrs, their constancy has nothing supernatural in it.

The first Christians, as well as all new sectaries, were treated, by

the Jews and pagans, as disturbers of the public peace. They were

already sufficiently intoxicated with the fanaticism with which their

religion inspired them, and were persuaded that God held himself in

readiness to crown them, and to receive them into his eternal

dwelling. In a word, seeing the heavens opened, and being convinced

that the end of the world was approaching, it is not surprising that

they had courage to set punishment at defiance, to endure it with

constancy, and to despise death. To these motives, founded on their

religious opinions, many others were added, which are always of such a

nature as to operate strongly upon the minds of men. Those who, as

Christians, were imprisoned and ill-treated on account of their faith,

were visited, consoled, encouraged, honored, and loaded with

kindnesses by their brethren, who took care of and succored them

during their detention, and who almost adored them after their death.

Those, on the other hand, who displayed weakness, were despised and

detested, and when they gave way to repentance, they were compelled to

undergo a rigorous penitence, which lasted as long as they lived. Thus

were the most powerful motives united to inspire the martyrs with

courage; and this courage has nothing more supernatural about it than

that which determines us daily to encounter the most perilous dangers,

through the fear of dishonoring ourselves in the eyes of our

fellow-citizens. Cowardice would expose us to infamy all the rest of

our days. There is nothing miraculous in the constancy of a man to

whom an offer is made, on the one hand, of eternal happiness and the

highest honors, and who, on the other hand, sees himself menaced with

hatred, contempt, and the most lasting regret.

You perceive, then, Madam, that nothing can be easier than to

overthrow the proofs by which Christian doctors establish the

revelation which they pretend is so well authenticated. Miracles,

martyrs, and prophecies prove nothing.

Were all the wonders true that are related in the Old and New

Testament, they would afford no proof in favor of divine omnipotence,

but, on the contrary, would prove the inability under which the Deity

has continually labored, of convincing mankind of the truths he wished

to announce to them. On the other hand, supposing these miracles to

have produced all the effects which the Deity had a right to expect

from them, we have no longer any reason to believe them, except on the

tradition and recitals of others, which are often suspicious, faulty,

and exaggerated. The miracles of Moses are attested only by Moses, or

by Jewish writers interested in making them believed by the people

they wished to govern. The miracles of Jesus are attested only by his

disciples, who sought to obtain adherents, in relating to a credulous

people prodigies to which they pretended to have been witnesses, or

which some of them, perhaps, believed they had really seen. All those

who deceive mankind are not always cheats; they are frequently

deceived by those who are knaves in reality. Besides, I believe I have

sufficiently proved, that miracles are repugnant to the essence of an

immutable God, as well as to his wisdom, which will not permit him to

alter the wise laws he has himself established. In short, miracles are

useless, since those related in Scripture have not produced the

effects which God expected from them.

The proof of the Christian religion taken from prophecy has no better

foundation. Whoever will examine without prejudice these oracles

pretended to be divine will find only an ambiguous, unintelligible,

absurd, and unconnected jargon, entirely unworthy of a God who

intended to display his prescience, and to instruct his people with

regard to future events. There does not exist in the Holy Scriptures a

single prophecy sufficiently precise to be literally applied to Jesus

Christ. To convince yourself of this truth, ask the most learned of

our doctors which are the formal prophecies wherein they have the

happiness to discover the Messiah. You will then perceive that it is

only by the aid of forced explanations, figures, parables, and

mystical interpretations, by which they are enabled to bring forward

any thing sensible and applicable to the _god-made-man_ whom they tell

us to adore. It would seem as if the Deity had made predictions only

that we might understand nothing about them.

In these equivocal oracles, whose meaning it is impossible to

penetrate, we find nothing but the language of intoxication,

fanaticism, and delirium. When we fancy we have found something

intelligible, it is easy to perceive that the prophets intended to

speak of events that took place in their own age, or of personages who

had preceded them. It is thus that our doctors apply gratuitously to

Christ prophecies or rather narratives of what happened respecting

David, Solomon, Cyrus, &c.

We imagine we see the chastisement of the Jewish people announced in

recitals where it is evident the only matter in question was the

Babylonish captivity. In this event, so long prior to Jesus Christ,

they have imagined finding a prediction of the dispersion of the Jews,

supposed to be a visible punishment for their _deicide_, and which

they now wish to pass off as an indubitable proof of the truth of

Christianity.

It is not, then, astonishing that the ancient and modern Jews do not

see in the prophets what our doctors teach us, and what they

themselves imagine they have seen. Jesus himself has not been more

happy in his predictions than his predecessors. In the gospel he

announces to his disciples in the most formal manner the destruction

of the world and the last judgment, as events that were at hand, and

which must take place before the existing generation had passed away.

Yet the world still endures, and appears in no danger of finishing. It

is true, our doctors pretend that, in the prediction of Jesus Christ,

he spoke of the ruin of Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus; but none but

those who have not read the gospel would submit to such a change, or

satisfy themselves with such an evasion. Besides, in adopting it we

must confess at least that the Son of God himself was unable to

prophesy with greater precision than his obscure predecessors.

Indeed, at every page of these sacred books, which we are assured were

inspired by God himself, this God seems to have made a revelation only

to conceal himself. He does not speak but to be misunderstood. He

announces his oracles in such a way only that we can neither

comprehend them nor make any application of them. He performs miracles

only to make unbelievers. He manifests himself to mankind only to

stupefy their judgment and bewilder the reason he has bestowed on

them. The Bible continually represents God to us as a seducer, an

enticer, a suspicious tyrant, who knows not what kind of conduct to

observe with respect to his subjects; who amuses himself by laying

snares for his creatures, and who tries them that he may have the

pleasure of inflicting a punishment for yielding to his temptations.

This God is occupied only in building to destroy, in demolishing to

rebuild. Like a child disgusted with its playthings, he is continually

undoing what he has done, and breaking what was the object of his

desires. We find no foresight, no constancy, no consistency in his

conduct; no connection, no clearness in his discourses. When he

performs any thing, he sometimes approves what he has done, and at

other times repents of it. He irritates and vexes himself with what he

has permitted to be done, and, in spite of his infinite power, he

suffers man to offend him, and consents to let Satan, his creature,

derange all his projects. In a word, the revelations of the Christians

and Jews seem to have been imagined only to render uncertain and to

annihilate the qualities attributed to the Deity, and which are

declared to constitute his essence. The whole Scripture, the entire

system of the Christian religion, appears to be founded only on the

incapability of God, who was unable to render the human race as wise,

as good, and as happy as he wished them. The death of his innocent

Son, who was immolated to his vengeance, is entirely useless for the

most numerous portion of the earth's inhabitants; almost the whole

human race, in spite of the continual efforts of the Deity, continue

to offend him, to frustrate his designs, resist his will, and to

persevere in their wickedness.

It is on notions so fatal, so contradictory, and so unworthy of a God

who is just, wise, and good, of a God that is rational, independent,

immutable, and omnipotent, on whom the Christian religion is founded,

and which religion is said to be established forever by God, who,

nevertheless, became disgusted with the religion of the Jews, with

whom he had made and sworn an eternal covenant.

Time must prove whether God be more constant and faithful in

fulfilling his engagements with the Christians than he has been to

fulfil those he made with Abraham and his posterity. I confess, Madam,

that his past conduct alarms me as to what he may finally perform. If

he himself acknowledged by the mouth of Ezekiel that the laws he had

given to the Jews _were not good_, he may very possibly, some day or

other, find fault with those which he has given to Christians.

Our priests themselves seem to partake of my suspicions, and to fear

that God will be wearied of that protection which he has so long

granted to his church. The inquietudes which they evince, the efforts

which they make to hinder the civilization of the world, the

persecutions which they raise against all those who contradict them,

seem to prove that they mistrust the promises of Jesus Christ, and

that they are not certainly convinced of the eternal durability of a

religion which does not appear to them divine, but because it gives

them the right to command like gods over their fellow-citizens. They

would undoubtedly consider the destruction of their empire a very

grievous thing; but yet if the sovereigns of the earth and their

people should once grow weary of the sacerdotal yoke, we may be sure

the Sovereign of heaven would not require a longer time to become

equally disgusted.

However this may be, Madam, I venture to hope the perusal of this

letter will fully undeceive you of a blind veneration for books which

are called _divine_, although they appear as if invented to degrade

and destroy the God who is asserted to be their author. My first

letter, I feel confident, enabled you to perceive that the dogmas

established by these same books, or subsequently fabricated to justify

the ideas thus given of God, are not less contrary to all notions of a

Deity infinitely perfect. A system which in the outset is based upon

false principles can never become any thing else than a mass of

falsehoods.

I am, &c.

LETTER IV.

Of the fundamental Dogmas of the Christian Religion.

You are aware, Madam, that our theological doctors pretend these

revealed books, which I summarily examined in my preceding letter, do

not include a single word that was not inspired by the Spirit of God.

What I have already said to you is sufficient to show that in setting

out with this supposition, the Divinity has formed a work the most

shapeless, imperfect, contradictory, and unintelligible which ever

existed; a work, in a word, of which any man of sense would blush with

shame to be the author. If any prophecy hath verified itself for the

Christians, it is that of Isaiah, which saith, "Hearing ye shall hear,

but shall not understand." But in this case we reply that it was

sufficiently useless to speak not to be comprehended; to reveal _that_

which cannot be comprehended is to reveal _nothing_.

We need not, then, be surprised if the Christians, notwithstanding the

revelation of which they assure us they have been the favorites, have

no precise ideas either of the Divinity, or of his will, or the way in

which his oracles are to be interpreted. The book from which they

should be able to do so serves only to confound the simplest notions,

to throw them into the greatest incertitude, and create eternal

disputations. If it was the project of the Divinity, it would,

without doubt, be attended with perfect success. The teachers of

Christianity never agree on the manner in which they are to understand

the truths that God has given himself the trouble to reveal; all the

efforts which they have employed to this time have not yet been

capable of making any thing clear, and the dogmas which they have

successively invented have been insufficient to justify to the

understanding of one man of good sense the conduct of an infinitely

perfect Being.

Hence, many among them, perceiving the inconveniences which would

result from the reading of the holy books, have carefully kept them

out of the hands of the vulgar and illiterate; for they plainly

foresaw that if they were read by such they would necessarily bring on

themselves reproach, since it would never fail that every honest man

of good sense would discover in those books only a crowd of

absurdities. Thus the oracles of God are not even made for those for

whom they are addressed; it is requisite to be initiated in the

mysteries of a priesthood, to have the privilege of discerning in the

holy writings the light which the Divinity destined to all his dear

children. But are the theologians themselves able to make plain the

difficulties which the sacred books present in every page? By

meditating on the mysteries which they contain, have they given us

ideas more plain of the intentions of the Divinity? No; without doubt

they explain one mystery by citing another; they scatter new

obscurities on previous obscurities; rarely do they agree among

themselves; and when by chance their opinions coincide, _we_ are not

more enlightened, nor is our judgment more convinced; on the other

hand, our reason is the more confounded.

If they do agree on some point, it is only to tell us that human

reason, of which God is the author, is depraved; but what is the

purport of this coincidence in their opinions, if it be not to tax the

Deity with imbecility, injustice, and malignity? For why should God,

in creating a reasonable being, not have given him an understanding

which nothing could corrupt? They reply to us by saying "that the

reason of man is necessarily limited; that perfection could not be the

portion of a _creature_; that the designs of God are not like those of

man." But, in this case, why should the Divinity be offended by the

necessary imperfections which he discovers in his creatures? How can a

just God require that our mind must admit what it was not made to

comprehend? Can he who is above our reason be understood by us, whose

reason is so limited? If God be infinite, how can a finite creature

reason respecting him? If the mysteries and hidden designs of the

Divinity are of such a nature as not to be comprehended by man, what

good can we derive from their investigation? Had God designed that we

should occupy our thoughts with his purposes, would he not have given

us an understanding proportionate to the things he wished us to

penetrate?

You see, then, Madam, that in depressing our reason, in supposing it

corrupted, our priests, at the same time, annihilate even the

necessity of religion, which cannot be either useful or important to

us, if above our comprehension. They do more in supposing human reason

depraved; they accuse God of injustice, in requiring that our reason

should conceive what cannot be conceived. They accuse him of

imbecility in not rendering this reason more perfect. In a word, in

degrading man they degrade God, and rob him of those attributes which

compose his essence. Would you call him a just and good parent, who,

wishing that his children should walk by an obscure route, filled with

difficulties, would only give them for their conduct a light too weak

to find their way, and to avoid the continual dangers by which they

are surrounded? Should you consider that the father had adequately

provided for their security by giving them in writing unintelligible

instructions, which they could not decipher by the weak light he had

given them?

Our spiritual directors will not fail to tell us that the corruption

of reason and the weakness of the human understanding are the

consequences of sin. But why has man become sinful? How has the good

God permitted his dear children, for whom he created the universe, and

of whom he exacts obedience, to offend him, and thereby extinguish,

or, at least, weaken the light he had given them? On the other hand,

the reason of Adam ought to be, without doubt, completely perfect

before his fall. In this case, why did it not prevent that fall and

its consequences? Was the reason of Adam corrupted even beforehand by

incurring the wrath of his God? Was it depraved before he had done any

thing to deprave it?

To justify this strange conduct of Providence, to clear him from

passing as the author of sin, to save him the ridicule of being the

cause or the accomplice of offences which he did against himself, the

theologians have imagined a _being_ subordinate to the divine power.

It is the secondary being they make the author of all the evil which

is committed in the universe. In the impossibility of reconciling the

continual disorders of which the world is the theatre with the

purposes of a Deity replete with goodness, the Creator and Preserver

of the universe, who delights in order, and who seeks only the

happiness of his creatures, they have trumped up a destructive genius,

imbued with wickedness, who conspires to render men miserable, and to

overthrow the beneficent views of the Eternal. This bad and perverse

being they call _Satan_, the _Devil_, the _Evil One_; and we see him

play a great game in all the religions of the world, the founders of

which have found in the impotence of Deity the sources of both good

and evil. By the aid of this imaginary being they have been enabled to

resolve all their difficulties; yet they could not foresee that this

invention, which went to annihilate or abridge the power of Deity, was

a system filled with palpable contradictions, and that if the Devil

were really the author of sin, it would be he, in all justice, who

ought to undergo all its punishment.

If God is the author of all, it is he who created the Devil; if the

Devil is wicked, if he strives to counteract the projects of the

Divinity, it is the Divinity who has allowed the overthrow of his

projects, or who has not had sufficient authority to prevent the Devil

from exercising his power. If God had wished that the Devil should not

have existed, the Devil would not have existed. God could annihilate

him at one word, or, at least, God could change his disposition if

injurious to us, and contrary to the projects of a beneficent

Providence. Since, then, the Devil does exist, and does such

marvellous things as are attributed to him, we are compelled to

conclude that the Divinity has found it good that he should exist and

agitate, as he does, all his works by a perpetual interruption and

perversion of his designs.

Thus, Madam, the invention of the Devil does not remedy the evil; on

the contrary, it but entangles the priests more and more. By placing

to Satan's account all the evil which he commits in the world, they

exculpate the Deity of nothing; all the power with which they have

supposed the Devil invested is taken from that assigned to the

Divinity; and you know very well that according to the notions of the

Christian religion, the Devil has more adherents than God himself;

they are always stirring their fellow-creatures up to revolt against

God; without ceasing, in despite of God, Satan leads them into

perdition, except one man only, who refused to follow him, and who

found grace in the eyes of the Lord. You are not ignorant that the

millions that follow the standard of Beelzebub are to be plunged with

him into eternal misery.

But then has Satan himself incurred the disgrace of the All-powerful?

By what forfeit has he merited becoming the eternal object of the

anger of that God who created him? The Christian religion will explain

all. It informs us that the Devil was in his origin an angel; that is

to say, a pure spirit, full of perfections, created by the Divinity to

occupy a distinguishing situation in the celestial court, destined,

like the other ministers of the Eternal, to receive his orders, and to

enjoy perpetual blessedness. But he lost himself through ambition; his

pride blinded him, and he dared to revolt against his Creator; he

engaged other spirits, as pure as himself, in the same senseless

enterprise; in consequence of his rashness, he was hurled headlong out

of heaven, his miserable adherents were involved in his fall, and,

having been hardened by the divine pleasure in their foolish

dispositions, they have no other occupation assigned them in the

universe than to tempt mankind, and endeavor to augment the number of

the enemies of God, and the victims of his wrath.

Letters to Eugenia; Or, A Preservative Against Religious Prejudices · 第 5 / 18 段