As there is no one religious denomination which does not pretend to be
truly founded upon the authority of God, and entirely exempt from all
the errors and impositions which are found in the others, it is for
those who purpose to establish the truth of the faith of their sect, to
show, by clear and convincing proofs, that it is of Divine origin; as
this is lacking, we must conclude that it is but of human invention, and
full of errors and deceptions; for it is incredible that an Omnipotent
and Infinitely good God would have desired to give laws and ordinances
to men, and not have wished them to bear better authenticated marks of
truth, than those of the numerous impostors. Moreover, there is not one
of our Christ-worshipers, of whatever sect he may be, who can make us
see, by convincing proofs, that his religion is exclusively of Divine
origin; and for want of such proof they have been for many centuries
contesting this subject among themselves, even to persecuting each other
by fire and sword to maintain their opinions; there is, however, not one
sect of them all which could convince and persuade the others by such
witnesses of truth; this certainly would not be, if they had, on one
side or the other, convincing proofs of Divine origin. For, as no one of
any religious sect, enlightened and of good faith, pretends to hold and
to favor error and falsehood; and as, on the contrary, each, on his
side, pretends to sustain truth, the true means of banishing all errors,
and of uniting all men in peace in the same sentiments and in the same
form of religion, would be to produce convincing proofs and testimonies
of the truth; and thus show that such religion is of Divine origin, and
not any of the others; then each one would accept this truth; and no
person would dare to question these testimonies, or sustain the side of
error and imposition, lest he should be, at the same time, confounded by
contrary proofs: but, as these proofs are not found in any religion, it
gives to impostors occasion to invent and boldly sustain all kinds of
falsehoods.
Here are still other proofs, which will not be less evident, of the
falsity of human religions, and especially of the falsity of our own.
Every religion which relies upon mysteries as its foundation, and which
takes, as a rule of its doctrine and its morals, a principle of errors,
and which is at the same time a source of trouble and eternal divisions
among men, can not be a true religion, nor a Divine Institution. Now,
human religions, especially the Catholic, establish as the basis of
their doctrine and of their morals, a principle of errors; then, it
follows that these religions can not be true, or of Divine origin. I do
not see that we can deny the first proposition of this argument; it is
too clear and too evident to admit of a doubt. I pass to the proof of
the second proposition, which is, that the Christian religion takes for
the rule of its doctrine and its morals what they call faith, a blind
trust, but yet firm, and secured by some laws or revelations of some
Deity. We must necessarily suppose that it is thus, because it is this
belief in some Deity and in some Divine Revelations, which gives all the
credit and all the authority that it has in the world, and without which
we could make no use of what it prescribes. This is why there is no
religion which does not expressly recommend its votaries to be firm in
their faith. ["Estate fortes in fide!"] This is the reason that all
Christians accept as a maxim, that faith is the commencement and the
basis of salvation, that it is the root of all justice and of all
sanctification, as it is expressed at the Council of Trent.--Sess. 6,
Ch. VIII.
Now it is evident that a blind faith in all which is proposed in the
name and authority of God, is a principle of errors and falsehoods. As a
proof, we see that there is no impostor in the matter of religion, who
does not pretend to be clothed with the name and the authority of God,
and who does not claim to be especially inspired and sent by God. Not
only is this faith and blind belief which they accept as a basis of
their doctrine, a principle of errors, etc., but it is also a source of
trouble and division among men for the maintenance of their religion.
There is no cruelty which they do not practice upon each other under
this specious pretext.
Now then, it is not credible that an Almighty, All-Kind, and All-Wise
God desired to use such means or such a deceitful way to inform men of
His wishes; for this would be manifestly desiring to lead them into
error and to lay snares in their way, in order to make them accept the
side of falsehood. It is impossible to believe that a God who loved
unity and peace, the welfare and the happiness of men, would ever have
established as the basis of His religion, such a fatal source of trouble
and of eternal divisions among them. Such religions can not be true,
neither could they have been instituted by God. But I see that our
Christ-worshipers will not fail to have recourse to their pretended
motives for credulity, and that they will say, that although their faith
and belief may be blind in one sense, they are nevertheless supported by
such clear and convincing testimonies of truth, that it would be not
only imprudence, but temerity and folly not to surrender one's self.
They generally reduce these pretended motives to three or four leading
features. The first, they draw from the pretended holiness of their
religion, which condemns vice, and which recommends the practice of
virtue. Its doctrine is so pure, so simple, according to what they say,
that it is evident it could spring but from the sanctity of an
infinitely good and wise God.
The second motive for credulity, they draw from the innocence and the
holiness of life in those who embraced it with love, and defended it by
suffering death and the most cruel torments, rather than forsake it: it
not being credible that such great personages would allow themselves to
be deceived in their belief, that they would renounce all the advantages
of life, and expose themselves to such cruel torments and persecutions,
in order to maintain errors and impositions. Their third motive for
credulity, they draw from the oracles and prophecies which have so long
been rendered in their favor, and which they pretend have been
accomplished in a manner which permits no doubt. Finally, their fourth
motive for credulity, which is the most important of all, is drawn from
the grandeur and the multitude of the miracles performed, in all ages,
and in every place, in favor of their religion.
But it is easy to refute all these useless reasonings and to show the
falsity of all these evidences. For, firstly, the arguments which our
Christ-worshipers draw from their pretended motives for credulity can
serve to establish and confirm falsehood as well as truth; for we see
that there is no religion, no matter how false it may be, which does not
pretend to have a sound and true doctrine, and which, in its way, does
not condemn all vices and recommend the practice of all virtues; there
is not one which has not had firm and zealous defenders who have
suffered persecution in order to maintain their religion; and, finally,
there is none which does not pretend to have wonders and miracles that
have been performed in their favor. The Mohammedans, the Indians, the
heathen, as well as the Christians, claim miracles in their religions.
If our Christ-worshipers make use of their miracles and their
prophecies, they are found no less in the Pagan religions than in
theirs. Thus the advantage we might draw from all these motives for
credulity, is found about the same in all sorts of religions. This being
established, as the history and practice of all religions demonstrate,
it evidently follows that all these pretended motives for credulity,
upon which our Christ-worshipers place so much value, are found equally
in all religions; and, consequently, can not serve as reliable evidences
of the truth of their religion more than of the truth of any other. The
result is clear.
Secondly. In order to give an idea of the resemblance of the miracles of
Paganism to those of Christianity, could we not say, for example, that
there would be more reason to believe Philostratus in what he recites of
the life of Apollonius than to believe all the evangelists in what they
say of the miracles of Jesus Christ; because we know, at least that
Philostratus was a man of intelligence, eloquence, and fluency; that he
was the secretary of the Empress Julia, wife of the Emperor Severus, and
that he was requested by this empress to write the life and the
wonderful acts of Apollonius? It is evident that Apollonius rendered
himself famous by great and extraordinary deeds, since an empress was
sufficiently interested in them to desire a history of his life. This is
what can not be said of Jesus Christ, nor of those who have furnished us
His biography, for they were but ignorant men of the common people, poor
workmen, fishermen, who had not even the sense to relate consistently
the facts which they speak of, and which they mutually contradict very
often. In regard to the One whose life and actions they describe, if He
had really performed the miracles attributed to Him, He would have
rendered Himself notable by His beautiful acts; every one would have
admired Him, and there would be statues erected to Him as was done for
the Gods; but instead of that, He was regarded as a man of no
consequence, as a fanatic, etc. Josephus, the historian, after having
spoken of the great miracles performed in favor of his nation and his
religion, immediately diminishes their credibility and renders it
suspicious by saying that he leaves to each one the liberty of believing
what he chooses; this evidently shows that he had not much faith in
them. It also gives occasion to the more judicious to regard the
histories which speak of this kind of things as fabulous narrations.
[See Montaigne, and the author of the "Apology for Great Men."] All that
can be said upon this subject shows us clearly that pretended miracles
can be invented to favor vice and falsehood as well as justice and
truth.
I prove it by the evidence of what even our Christ-worshipers call the
Word of God, and by the evidence of the One they adore; for their books,
which they claim contain the Word of God, and Christ Himself, whom they
adore as a God-made man, show us explicitly that there are not only
false prophets--that is to say, impostors--who claim to be sent by God,
and who speak in His name, but which show as explicitly that these false
prophets can perform such great and prodigious miracles as shall deceive
the very elect. [See Matthew, chapter xxiv., verses 5, 21-27.] More than
this, all these pretended performers of miracles wish us to put faith
only in them, and not in those who belong to an opposite party.
On one occasion one of these pretended prophets, named Sedecias, being
contradicted by another, named Michea, the former struck the latter and
said to him, pleasantly, "By what way did the Spirit of God pass from me
to you?"
But how can these pretended miracles be the evidences of truth? for it
is clear that they were not performed. For it would be necessary to
know: Firstly, If those who are said to be the first authors of these
narrations truly are such. Secondly, If they were honest men, worthy of
confidence, wise and enlightened; and to know if they were not
prejudiced in favor of those of whom they speak so favorably. Thirdly,
If they have examined all the circumstances of the facts which they
relate; if they know them well; and if they make a faithful report of
them. Fourthly, If the books or the ancient histories which relate all
these great miracles have not been falsified and changed in course of
time, as many others have been?
If we consult Tacitus and many other celebrated historians, in regard to
Moses and his nation, we shall see that they are considered as a horde
of thieves and bandits. Magic and astrology were in those days the only
fashionable sciences; and as Moses was, it is said, instructed in the
wisdom of the Egyptians, it was not difficult for him to inspire
veneration and attachment for himself in the rustic and ignorant
children of Jacob, and to induce them to accept, in their misery, the
discipline he wished to give them. That is very different from what the
Jews and our Christ-worshipers wish to make us believe. By what certain
rule can we know that we should put faith in these rather than in the
others? There is no sound reason for it. There is as little of certainty
and even of probability in the miracles of the New Testament as in those
of the Old.
It will serve no purpose to say that the histories which relate the
facts contained in the Gospels have been regarded as true and sacred;
that they have always been faithfully preserved without any alteration
of the truths which they contain; since this is perhaps the very reason
why they should be the more suspected, having been corrupted by those
who drew profit from them, or who feared that they were not sufficiently
favorable to them.
Generally, authors who transcribe this kind of histories, take the right
to enlarge or to retrench all they please, in order to serve their own
interests. This is what even our Christ-worshipers can not deny; for,
without mentioning several other important personages who recognized the
additions, the retrenchments, and the falsifications which have been
made at different times in their Holy Scriptures, their saint Jerome, a
famous philosopher among them, formally said in several passages of his
"Prologues," that they had been corrupted and falsified; being, even in
his day, in the hands of all kinds of persons, who added and suppressed
whatever they pleased; so, "Thus there were," said he, "as many
different models as different copies of the Gospels."
In regard to the books of the Old Testament, Esdras, a priest of the
law, testifies himself to having corrected and completed wholly the
pretended sacred books of his law, which had partly been lost and partly
corrupted. He divided them into twenty-two books, according to the
number of the Hebraic letters, and wrote several other books, whose
doctrine was to be revealed to the learned men alone. If these books
have been partly lost and partly corrupted, as Esdras and St. Jerome
testify in so many passages, there is then no certainty in regard to
what they contain; and as for Esdras saying he had corrected and
compiled them by the inspiration of God Himself there is no certainty of
that, since there is no impostor who would not make the same claim. All
the books of the law of Moses and of the prophets which could be found,
were burned in the days of Antiochus. The Talmud, considered by the Jews
as a holy and sacred book, and which contains all the Divine laws, with
the sentences and notable sayings of the Rabbins, of their
interpretation of the Divine and of the human laws, and a prodigious
number of other secrets and mysteries in the Hebraic language, is
considered by the Christians as a book made up of reveries, fables,
impositions, and ungodliness. In the year 1559 they burned in Rome,
according to the command of the inquisitors of the faith, twelve hundred
of these Talmuds, which were found in a library in the city of Cremona.
The Pharisees, a famous sect among the Jews, accepted but the five books
of Moses, and rejected all the prophets. Among the Christians, Marcion
and his votaries rejected the books of Moses and the prophets, and
introduced other fashionable Scriptures. Carpocrates and his followers
did the same, and rejected the whole of the Old Testament, and contended
that Jesus Christ was but a man like all others. The Marcionites
repudiated as bad, the whole of the Old Testament, and rejected the
greater part of the four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. The
Ebionites accepted but the Gospel of St. Matthew, rejecting the three
others, and the Epistles of St. Paul. The Marcionites published a Gospel
under the name of St. Matthias, in order to confirm their doctrine. The
apostles introduced other Scriptures in order to maintain their errors;
and to carry out this, they made use of certain Acts, which they
attributed to St. Andrew and to St. Thomas.
The Manicheans wrote a gospel of their own style, and rejected the
Scriptures of the prophets and the apostles. The Etzaites sold a certain
book which they claimed to have come from Heaven; they cut up the other
Scriptures according to their fancy. Origen himself, with all his great
mind, corrupted the Scriptures and forged changes in the allegories
which did not suit him, thus corrupting the sense of the prophets and
apostles, and even some of the principal points of doctrine. His books
are now mutilated and falsified; they are but fragments collected by
others who have appeared since. The Ellogians attributed to the heretic
Corinthus the Gospel and the Apocalypse of St. John; this is why they
reject them. The heretics of our last centuries reject as apocryphal
several books which the Roman Catholics consider as true and sacred--such
as the books of Tobias, Judith, Esther, Baruch, the Song of the Three
Children in the Furnace, the History of Susannah, and that of the Idol
Bel, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, the first and second book of
Maccabees; to which uncertain and doubtful books we could add several
others that have been attributed to the other apostles; as, for example,
the Acts of St. Thomas, his Circuits, his Gospel, and his Apocalypse;
the Gospel of St. Bartholomew, that of St. Matthias, of St. Jacques, of
St. Peter and of the Apostles, as also the Deeds of St. Peter, his book
on Preaching, and that of his Apocalypse; that of the Judgment, that of
the Childhood of the Saviour, and several others of the same kind, which
are all rejected as apocryphal by the Roman Catholics, even by the Pope
Gelasee, and by the S. S. F. F. of the Romish Communion. That which most
confirms that there is no foundation of truth in regard to the authority
given to these books, is that those who maintain their Divinity are
compelled to acknowledge that they have no certainty as a basis, if
their faith did not assure them and oblige them to believe it. Now, as
faith is but a principle of error and imposture, how can faith, that is
to say, a blind belief, render the books reliable which are themselves
the foundation of this blind belief? What a pity and what insanity! But
let us see if these books have of themselves any feature of truth; as,
for example, of erudition, of wisdom, and of holiness, or some other
perfections which are suited only to a God; and if the miracles which
are cited agree with what we ought to think of the grandeur, goodness,
justice, and infinite wisdom of an Omnipotent God.
There is no erudition, no sublime thought, nor any production which
surpasses the ordinary capacities of the human mind. On the contrary, we
shall see on one side fabulous tales similar to that of a woman formed
of a man's rib; of the pretended terrestrial Paradise; of a serpent
which spoke, which reasoned, and which was more cunning than man; of an
ass which spoke, and reprimanded its master for ill-treating it; of a
universal deluge, and of an ark where animals of all kinds were
inclosed; of the confusion of languages and of the division of the
nations, without speaking of numerous other useless narrations upon low
and frivolous subjects which important authors would scorn to relate.
All these narrations appear to be fables, as much as those invented
about the industry of Prometheus, the box of Pandora, the war of the
Giants against the Gods, and similar others which the poets have
invented to amuse the men of their time.
On the other hand we will see a mixture of laws and ordinances, or
superstitious practices concerning sacrifices, the purifications of the
old law, the senseless distinctions in regard to animals, of which it
supposes some to be pure and others to be impure. These laws are no more
respectable than those of the most idolatrous nations. We shall see but
simple stories, true or false, of several kings, princes, or
individuals, who lived right or wrong, or who performed noble or mean
actions, with other low and frivolous things also related.
From all this, it is evident that no great genius was required, nor
Divine Revelations to produce these things. It would not be creditable
to a God.
Finally, we see in these books but the discourses, the conduct, and the
actions of those renowned prophets who proclaimed themselves especially
inspired by God. We will see their way of acting and speaking, their
dreams, their illusions, their reveries; and it will be easy to judge
whether they do not resemble visionaries and fanatics much more than
wise and enlightened persons.
There are, however, in a few of these books, several good teachings and
beautiful maxims of morals, as in the Proverbs attributed to Solomon, in
the book of Wisdom and of Ecclesiastes; but this same Solomon, the
wisest of their writers, is also the most incredulous; he doubts even
the immortality of the soul, and concludes his works by saying that
there is nothing good but to enjoy in peace the fruits of one's labor,
and to live with those whom we love.
How superior are the authors who are called profane, such as Xenophon,
Plato, Cicero, the Emperor Antoninus, the Emperor Julian, Virgil, etc.,
to the books which we are told are inspired of God. I can truly say that
the fables of Aesop, for example, are certainly more ingenious and more
instructive than all these rough and poor parables which are related in
the Gospels.
But what shows us that this kind of books is not of Divine Inspiration,
is, that aside from the low order, coarseness of style, and the lack of
system in the narrations of the different facts, which are very badly
arranged, we do not see that the authors agree; they contradict each
other in several things; they had not even sufficient enlightenment or
natural talents to write a history.
Here are some examples of the contradictions which are found among them.
The Evangelist Matthew claims that Jesus Christ descended from king
David by his son Solomon through Joseph, reputed to be His father; and
Luke claims that He is descended from the same David by his son Nathan
through Joseph.
Matthew says, in speaking of Jesus, that, it being reported in Jerusalem
that a new king of the Jews was born, and that the wise men had come to
adore Him, the king Herod, fearing that this pretended new king would
rob him of his crown some day, caused the murder of all the new-born
children under two years, in all the neighborhood of Bethlehem, where he
had been told that this new king was born; and that Joseph and the
mother of Jesus, having been warned in a dream by an angel, of this
wicked intention, took flight immediately to Egypt, where they stayed
until the death of Herod, which happened many years afterward.
On the contrary, Luke asserts that Joseph and the mother of Jesus lived
peaceably during six weeks in the place where their child Jesus was
born; that He was circumcised according to the law of the Jews, eight
days after His birth; and when the time prescribed by the law for the
purification of His mother had arrived, she and Joseph, her husband,
carried Him to Jerusalem in order to present Him to God in His temple,
and to offer at the same time a sacrifice which was ordained by God's
law; after which they returned to Galilee, into their town of Nazareth,
where their child Jesus grew every day in grace and in wisdom. Luke goes
on to say that His father and His mother went every year to Jerusalem on
the solemn days of their Easter feast, but makes no mention of their
flight into Egypt, nor of the cruelty of Herod toward the children of
the province of Bethlehem. In regard to the cruelty of Herod, as neither
the historians of that time speak of it, nor Josephus, the historian who
wrote the life of this Herod, and as the other Evangelists do not
mention it, it is evident that the journey of those wise men, guided by
a star, this massacre of little children, and this flight to Egypt, were
but absurd falsehoods. For it is not credible that Josephus, who blamed
the vices of this king, could have been silent on such a dark and
detestable action, if what the Evangelist said had been true.
In regard to the duration of the public life of Jesus Christ, according
to what the first three Evangelists say, there could be scarcely more
than three months from the time of His baptism until His death,
supposing He was thirty years old when He was baptized by John,
according to Luke, and that He was born on the 25th of December. For,
from this baptism, which was in the year 15 of Tiberius Caesar, and in
the year when Anne and Caiaphas were high-priests, to the first Easter
following, which was in the month of March, there was but about three
months; according to what the first three Evangelists say, He was
crucified on the eve of the first Easter following His baptism, and the
first time He went to Jerusalem with His disciples; because all that
they say of His baptism, of His travels, of His miracles, of His
preaching, of His death and passion, must have taken place in the same
year of His baptism, for the Evangelists speak of no other year
following, and it appears even by the narration of His acts that He
performed them consecutively immediately after His baptism, and in a
very short time, during which we see but an interval of six days before
his Transfiguration; during these six days we do not see that He did
anything. We see by this that He lived but about three months after His
baptism, from which, if we subtract the forty days and forty nights
which He passed in the desert immediately after His baptism, it would
follow that the length of His public life from His first preaching till
His death, would have lasted but about six weeks; and according to what
John says, it would have lasted at least three years and three months,
because it appears by the Gospel of this apostle, that, during the
course of His public life He might have been three or four times at
Jerusalem at the Easter feast which happened but once a year.
Now if it is true that He had been there three or four times after His
baptism, as John testifies, it is false that He lived but three months
after His baptism, and that He was crucified the first time He went to
Jerusalem.
If it is said that these first three Evangelists really mean but one
year, but that they do not indicate distinctly the others which elapsed
since His baptism; or that John understood that there was but one
Easter, although he speaks of several, and that he only anticipated the
time when he repeatedly tells us that the Easter feast of the Jews was
near at hand, and that Jesus went to Jerusalem, and, consequently, that
there is but an apparent contradiction upon this subject between the
Evangelists, I am willing to accept this; but it is certain that this
apparent contradiction springs from the fact, that they do not explain
themselves in all the circumstances that are noted in the narration
which they make. Be that as it may, there will always be this inference
made, that they were not inspired by God when they wrote their
biographies of Christ.