I receive, Sir, with gratitude, the remarks which you send me upon my
work. If I am sensible to the praises you condescend to give it, I am
too fond of truth to be displeased with the frankness with which you
propose your objections. I find them sufficiently weighty to merit all
my attention. He but ill deserves the title of philosopher, who has not
the courage to hear his opinions contradicted. We are not divines; our
disputes are of a nature to terminate amicably; they in no way resemble
those of the apostles of superstition, who endeavour to overreach each
other by captious arguments, and who, at the expence of good faith,
contend only to advocate the cause of their vanity and their prejudices.
We both desire the happiness of mankind, we both search after truth;
this being the case, we cannot disagree.
You begin by admitting the necessity of examining religion, and
submitting opinions to the decision of reason. You acknowledge that
Christianity cannot sustain this trial, and that in the eye of good
sense it can never appear to be any thing but a tissue of absurdities,
of unconnected fables, senseless dogmas, puerile ceremonies, and notions
borrowed from the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Phenicians, Grecians, and
Romans. In one word, you confess that this religious system is only,
the deformed offspring of almost all ancient superstitions, begotten
by oriental fanaticism, and diversely modified by the circumstances
and prejudices of those who have since pretended to be the inspired
ambassadors of God, and the interpreters of his will.
You tremble at the horrors which the intolerant spirit of Christians has
caused them to commit, whenever they had power to do it; you feel that a
religion founded on a sanguinary deity must be a religion of blood. You
lament that phrenzy, which in infancy takes possession of princes and
people, and renders them equally the slaves of superstition and her
priests; which prevents their acquaintance with their true interests,
renders them deaf to reason, and turns them aside from the great objects
by which they ought to be occupied. You confess that a religion founded
upon enthusiasm or imposture can have no sure principles; that it must
prove an eternal source of disputes, and always end in causing troubles,
persecutions, and ravages; especially when political power conceives
itself indispensibly obliged to enter into its quarrels. In fine, you
go so far as to agree that a good Christian who follows literally the
conduct prescribed to him as the most perfect by the gospel, knows
not in this world any thing of those duties on which true morality
is founded; and that if he wants energy he must prove an useless
misanthrope, or if his temper be warm a turbulent fanatic.
After acknowledging all this, how could it happen that you should
pronounce my work a dangerous one! You tell me that a-wise man ought to
think only for himself; that to the populace a religion is necessary, be
it good or bad; that it is a restraint necessary to gross and ignorant
minds, which, without it, would have no longer any motive for abstaining
from vice. You look upon a reform of religious prejudices as impossible,
because it is the interest of many of those persons who alone can effect
it, to continue mankind in that ignorance of which themselves reap
the advantage. These, if I mistake not, are the weightiest of your
objections. I will endeavour to remove them.
Books are generally written for that part of a nation whose
circumstances, education, and sentiments, place them above the
commission of crimes. This enlightened portion of society, which governs
the other, reads and judges of writings; if they contain maxims false
or injurious, they are soon either condemned to oblivion, or held up to
public execration; if they contain only truth, they are not in danger.
Fanatics and ignorant people are the disturbers of society. Sensible,
enlightened, and disinterested persons are ever the friends of peace.
You are not, Sir, of the number of pusillanimous thinkers, who believe
that truth is capable of doing harm. It does harm to those only who
deceive mankind, and to the rest of the human species it will always be
useful. You ought long to have been convinced that the evils with which
mankind are afflicted, arise only from our errors, our prejudices, our
interests misunderstood, and the false ideas we attach to objects.
In fine, it is easy to see that the policy and morality of man have
been particularly corrupted by their religious prejudices. Was it not
religious and supernatural ideas which caused sovereigns to be looked
upon as gods? It is then religion which raised up tyrants and despots;
tyrants and despots made wicked laws; their example corrupted the great,
the great corrupted the lower classes of mankind; these vitiated
beings became unhappy slaves, employed either in injuring themselves,
flattering the great, or struggling to get clear of their misery. Kings
were styled images of God: they were absolute like him they created
justice and injustice; their wills often sanctified oppression,
violence, and rapine. The means of obtaining their favours were vice and
meanness. Thus nations became filled with perverted citizens, who, under
leaders corrupted by religious notions, made continually a war,
either open or clandestine, and were left destitute of any motive for
practising virtue.
Has this religion influenced the manners of sovereigns, who derive their
divine power from it? Do we not behold princes, overflowing with faith,
continually undertaking the most unjust wars; wasting the blood and
treasure of their subjects; wrenching the bread from the hands of the
poor; permitting and even commanding every species of injustice? Does
this religion, considered by so many sovereigns as the support of their
thrones, render them more humane, temperate, chaste, or faithful to
their oaths? Alas! when we consult history, we there find sovereigns who
were orthodox, zealous, and religious to a scruple, and at the same time
guilty of perjury, usurpation, adultery, robbery, and murder; men who,
in fine, behaved as if they feared not the God whom they honoured
with their mouths. Among the courtiers who surrounded them, we see a
continual alliance of Christianity and vice, devotion and iniquity,
religion and treason. Among the priests of a poor and crucified God, who
found their existence upon religion, and pretend that without it there
could be no morality, do we not see reigning amongst them, pride,
avarice, wantonness, and revenge?
Amongst us, education is very little attended to by the government,
which shews the most profound indifference concerning an object the most
essential to the happiness of states. With most modern nations public
education is confined to teaching of languages, useless to most who
learn them. Christians, instead of morality, inculcate the marvellous
fables and incomprehensible dogmas of a religion extremely repugnant to
right reason. At the first step a young man makes in his studies, he is
taught that he ought to renounce the testimony of his senses, to reject
his reason as an unfaithful guide, and blindly conform himself to the
dictates of his masters? But who are these masters? Priests, whose
interest it is to continue mankind in errors, of which they alone reap
the advantage. Can the abject and isolated mind of these mercenary
pedagogues be capable of instructing their pupils in that of which
themselves are ignorant? Will they teach then to love the public good,
to serve their country, to know the duties of the man and citizen?
Certainly not; we can expect nothing from the hands of such teachers
but ignorant and superstitious pupils, who, if they have profited of the
lessons they have received, are unacquainted with every thing necessary
in society, of which they must consequently become useless members.
On whatever side we cast our eyes, we see the study of the object most
important to man totally neglected. Morality, in which I also comprehend
policy, is considered of very little importance in European education.
The only morality taught by Christians is, the enthusiastic,
impracticable, contradictory, and uncertain morality contained in the
gospel. This is calculated only to degrade the mind, to render virtue
odious, to form abject slaves, and break the spring of the soul; or,
if it is sown in warm and active minds, to produce turbulent fanatics,
capable of shaking the foundations of society.
Notwithstanding the inutility and perversity of the morality which
Christianity teaches mankind, its partisans presume to tell us, that
without this religion we cannot have morals. But what is it to have
morals, in; the language of Christians? It is to pray without ceasing,
to frequent churches, to do penance, and to: abstain from pleasure; it
is to live in selfishness and solitude. What good results to society
from these practices, all of which may be observed by a man who has
not the shadow of virtue? If such morals lead to heaven, they are
very useless on earth. But certain it is, that a man may be a faithful
observer of all that Christianity enjoins, without possessing any of the
virtues which reason shews to be necessary to the support of political
society.
It is necessary, then, to carefully distinguish Christian morality from
political morality; the former makes saints, the latter citizens: one
makes men useless, or even hurtful to the world; the other has for
its object the formation of members useful to society; men active
and vigorous, who are capable of serving it, who fulfil the duties
of husbands, fathers, friends, and companions, whatever may be their
metaphysical opinions, which, let theologists say what they will, are
much less sure than the invariable rules of good sense.
In fact, it is certain, that man is a social being, who in all things
seeks his own happiness; that he does good when he finds it his
interest; that he is not commonly bad, because that would be contrary
to his welfare. This being premised, let education teach men to know
the relations which exist among themselves, and the duties arising from
those relations; let governments, calling to their aid laws, rewards,
and punishments, confirm the lessons given by education; let happiness
accompany useful and virtuous actions, let shame, contempt, and
chastisement be the rewards of vice. Then would mankind have a true
morality, founded in their own nature upon their mutual wants, and the
interest of nations at large. This morality, independent of the sublime
notions of Theology, might perhaps have very little in common
with Christian morality; but society has nothing to lose from this
circumstance, as has already been proved.
When the people receive a proper education, which, by inspiring them
early in life with virtuous principles, will habituate them to do homage
to virtue, detest crimes, contemn vice, and shrink from infamy; such
an education cannot be vain, when continual example shall prove to
the citizens that talents and virtue are the only means of arriving at
honour, fortune, distinction, consideration, and favour; and that vice
conducts only to contempt and ignominy.
If the clergy have usurped from the sovereign power the right of
instructing the people, let the latter re-assume its rights, or at least
not suffer the former to enjoy the exclusive liberty of governing the
manners of mankind, and dictating their morality. Let them teach, if
they please, that their God transforms himself into bread, but let them
never teach that we ought to hate or destroy those who refuse to believe
this ineffable mystery. Let no individual in society have the power of
exciting citizens to rebellion, of sowing discord, breaking the bands
which unite the people amongst one another, and disturbing the
public tranquillity for the sake of opinions. If it be said that all
governments think it their interest to support religious prejudices,
and manage the clergy through policy, although they themselves
are undeceived; I answer, that it is easy to convince enlightened
government, that it is their true interest to govern a happy people;
that upon the happiness it procures the nation, depends the stability
and safety of the government; in one word, that a nation composed of
wise and virtuous citizens, are much more powerful than a troop of
ignorant and corrupted slaves, whom the government is forced to deceive
in order to satisfy, and to deluge with impositions that it may succeed
in any enterprise.
Thus let us not despair, that truth will one day force its way even to
thrones. If the light of reason and science reaches princes with so much
difficulty, it is because interested priests and starveling courtiers
endeavour, to keep them in a perpetual infancy, point out to them
chimerical prospects of power and grandeur, and thus turn away their
attention from objects necessary to their true happiness.
Every government must feel that their power will always be tottering
and precarious, so long as it depends for support on the phantoms of
religion, the errors of the people, and the caprices of the priesthood.
It must feel the inconveniencies resulting from fanatic administrations,
which have hitherto produced nothing but ignorance and presumption,
nothing but obstinate, weak citizens, incapable of doing service to-the
state, and ready to receive the false impressions of guides who would
lead them astray.. It must perceive what immense resources might be
derived from the wealth, which has been accumulated by a body of useless
men, who, under pretensions of teaching the nation, cheat and devour
it.1 Upon this foundation (which to the shame of mankind be it said,
has hitherto served only to support sacerdotal pride) a wise government
might raise establishments which would become useful to the state in
forming the youth, cherishing talents, rewarding virtuous services, and
comforting the people.
I flatter myself, Sir, that these reflections will exculpate me in your
eyes. I do not hope for the suffrages of those who feel themselves,
interested in the continuance of the evils suffered by their
fellow-citizens; it is not such whom I aim to convince nothing can be
made to appear evident to vicious and unreasonable men. But I presume
to hope, that you will cease to look upon my book as dangerous, and my
expectations as altogether chimerical. Many immoral men have attacked
the Christian religion, because it opposed their propensities; many wise
men: have despised it, because to them it appeared, ridiculous; many
persons have looked upon it with indifference, because they did not feel
its real inconveniencies. I attack it as a citizen, because it appears
to me to be injurious to the welfare of the state, an enemy to the
progress, of the human, mind, and opposed to the principles of true
morality, from which political interests can never be separated. It
remains only for me to say, with a poet, who was, like myself, an enemy,
to superstition:
.........Si tibi vera videtur
Dede menus, et si falsa est, accingere contra.