In every country, we are a.s.sured, that a G.o.d has revealed himself. What has he taught men? Has he proved evidently that he exists? Has he informed them where he resides? Has he taught 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. He informs them solely, that _he is what he is_; that he is a _hidden G.o.d_; that his ways are unspeakable; that he is exasperated against all who have the temerity to fathom his decrees, or to consult reason in judging him or his works.
Does the revealed conduct of G.o.d answer the magnificent ideas which theologians would give us of his wisdom, goodness, justice, and omnipotence? By no means. In every revelation, this conduct announces a partial and capricious being, the protector of favourite people, and the enemy of all others. If he deigns to appear to some men, he takes care to keep all others in an invincible ignorance of his divine intentions. Every private revelation evidently announces in G.o.d, injustice, partiality and malignity.
Do the commands, revealed by any G.o.d, astonish us by their sublime reason or wisdom? Do they evidently tend to promote the happiness of the people, to whom the Divinity discloses them? Upon examining the divine commands, one sees in every country, nothing but strange ordinances, ridiculous precepts, impertinent ceremonies, puerile customs, oblations, sacrifices, and expiations, useful indeed to the ministers of G.o.d, but very burthensome to the rest of the citizens. I see likewise, that these laws often tend to make men unsociable, disdainful, intolerant, quarrelsome, unjust, and inhuman, to those who have not received the same revelations, the same ordinances, or the same favours from heaven.
125.
Are the precepts of morality, announced by the Deity, really divine, or superior to those which every reasonable man might imagine? They are divine solely because it is impossible for the human mind to discover their utility. They make virtue consist in a total renunciation of nature, in a voluntary forgetfulness of reason, a holy hatred of ourselves.
Finally, these sublime precepts often exhibit perfection in a conduct, cruel to ourselves, and perfectly useless to others.
Has a G.o.d appeared? Has he himself promulgated his laws? Has he spoken to men with his own mouth? I am told, that G.o.d has not appeared to a whole people; but that he has always manifested himself through the medium of some favourite personages, who have been intrusted with the care of announcing and explaining his intentions. The people have never been permitted to enter the sanctuary; the ministers of the G.o.ds have alone had the right to relate what pa.s.ses there.
126.
If in every system of divine revelation, I complain of not seeing either the wisdom, goodness, or equity of G.o.d; if I suspect knavery, ambition, or interest; it is replied, that G.o.d has confirmed by miracles the mission of those, who speak in his name. But was it not more simple for him to appear in person, to explain his nature and will? Again, if I have the curiosity to examine these miracles, I find, that they are improbable tales, related by suspected people, who had the greatest interest in giving out that they were the messengers of the Most High.
What witnesses are appealed to in order to induce us to believe incredible miracles? Weak people, who existed thousands of years ago, and who, even though they could attest these miracles, may be suspected of being duped by their own imagination, and imposed upon by the tricks of dexterous impostors. But, you will say, these miracles are written in books, which by tradition have been transmitted to us. By whom were these books written? Who are the men who have transmitted them? They are either the founders of religions themselves, or their adherents and a.s.signs. Thus, in religion, the evidence of interested parties becomes irrefragable and incontestable.
127.
G.o.d has spoken differently to every people. The Indian believes not a word of what He has revealed to the Chinese; the Mahometan considers as fables what He has said to the Christian; the Jew regards both the Mahometan and Christian as sacrilegious corrupters of the sacred law, which his G.o.d had given to his fathers. The Christian, proud of his more modern revelation, indiscriminately d.a.m.ns the Indian, Chinese, Mahometan, and even the Jew, from whom he receives his sacred books. Who is wrong or right? Each exclaims, _I am in the right!_ Each adduces the same proofs: each mentions his miracles, diviners, prophets, and martyrs. The man of sense tells them, they are all delirious; that G.o.d has not spoken, if it is true that he is a spirit, and can have neither mouth nor tongue; that without borrowing the organ of mortals, G.o.d could inspire his creatures with what he would have them learn; and that, as they are all equally ignorant what to think of G.o.d, it is evident that it has not been the will of G.o.d to inform them on the subject.
The followers of different forms of worship which are established, accuse one another of superst.i.tion and impiety. Christians look with abhorrence upon the Pagan, Chinese, and Mahometan superst.i.tion. Roman Catholics treat, as impious, Protestant Christians; and the latter incessantly declaim against the superst.i.tion of the Catholics. They are all right.
To be impious, is to have opinions offensive to the G.o.d adored; to be superst.i.tious, is to have of him false ideas. In accusing one another of superst.i.tion, the different religionists resemble humpbacks, who reproach one another with their deformity.
128.
Are the oracles, which the Divinity has revealed by his different messengers, remarkable for clearness? Alas! no two men interpret them alike. Those who explain them to others are not agreed among themselves.
To elucidate them, they have recourse to interpretations, to commentaries, to allegories, to explanations: they discover _mystical sense_ very different from the _literal sense_. Men are every where wanted to explain the commands of a G.o.d, who could not, or would not, announce himself clearly to those, whom he wished to enlighten.
129.
The founders of religion, have generally proved their missions by miracles. But what is a miracle? It is an operation directly opposite to the laws of nature. But who, according to you, made those laws? G.o.d. Thus, your G.o.d, who, according to you, foresaw every thing, counteracts the laws, which his wisdom prescribed to nature! These laws were then defective, or at least in certain circ.u.mstances they did not accord with the views of the same G.o.d, since you inform us that he judged it necessary to suspend or counteract them.
It is said, that a few men, favoured by the Most High, have received power to perform miracles. But to perform a miracle, it is necessary to have ability to create new causes capable of producing effects contrary to those of common causes. Is it easy to conceive, that G.o.d can give men the inconceivable power of creating causes out of nothing? Is it credible, that an immutable G.o.d can communicate to men power to change or rectify his plan, a power, which by his essence an immutable being cannot save himself? Miracles, far from doing much honour to G.o.d, far from proving the divinity of a religion, evidently annihilate the G.o.d idea. How can a theologian tell us, that G.o.d, who must have embraced the whole of his plan, who could have made none but perfect laws, and who cannot alter them, is forced to employ miracles to accomplish his projects, or can grant his creatures the power of working prodigies to execute his divine will? An omnipotent being, whose will is always fulfilled, who holds in his hand his creatures, has only to _will_, to make them believe whatever he desires.
130.
What shall we say of religions that prove their divinity by miracles? How can we credit miracles recorded in the sacred books of the Christians, where G.o.d boasts of hardening the hearts and blinding those whom he wishes to destroy; where he permits malicious spirits and magicians to work miracles as great as those of his servants; where it is predicted, that _Antichrist_ shall have power to perform prodigies capable of shaking the faith even of the elect? In this case, by what signs shall we know whether G.o.d means to instruct or ensnare us? How shall we distinguish whether the wonders, we behold, come from G.o.d or devil? To remove our perplexity, Pascal gravely tells us, that _it is necessary to judge the doctrine by the miracles, and the miracles by the doctrine; that the doctrine proves the miracles, and the miracles the doctrine_. If there exist a vicious and ridiculous circle, it is undoubtedly in this splendid reasoning of one of the greatest defenders of Christianity. Where is the religion, that does not boast of the most admirable doctrine, and which does not produce numerous miracles for its support?
Is a miracle capable of annihilating the evidence of a demonstrated truth?
Although a man should have the secret of healing all the sick, of making all the lame to walk, of raising in all the dead of a city, of ascending into the air, of stopping the course of the sun and moon, can he thereby convince me, that two and two do not make four, that one makes three, and that three make only one; that a G.o.d, whose immensity fills the universe, could have been contained in the body of a Jew; that the ETERNAL can die like a man; that a G.o.d, who is said to be immutable, provident, and sensible, could have changed his mind upon his religion, and reformed his own work by a new revelation?
131.
According to the very principles either of natural or revealed theology, every new revelation should be regarded as false; every change in a religion emanated from the Deity should be reputed an impiety and blasphemy. Does not all reform suppose, that, in his first effort, G.o.d could not give his religion the solidity and perfection required? To say, that G.o.d, in giving a first law, conformed to the rude ideas of the people whom he wished to enlighten, is to pretend that G.o.d was neither able nor willing to render the people, whom he was enlightening, so reasonable as was necessary in order to please him.
Christianity is an impiety, if it is true that Judaism is a religion which has really emanated from a holy, immutable, omnipotent, and foreseeing G.o.d. The religion of Christ supposes either defects in the law which G.o.d himself had given by Moses, or impotence or malice in the same G.o.d, who was either unable or unwilling to render the Jews such as 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 great miracles; history also informs me, that these reformers and their adherents were commonly buffeted, persecuted, and put to death, as disturbers of the peace of nations. I am therefore tempted to believe, that they did not perform the miracles ascribed to them; indeed, such miracles must have gained them numerous partisans among the eye-witnesses, who ought to have protected the operators from abuse. My incredulity redoubles, when I am told, that the workers of miracles were cruelly tormented, or ignominiously executed. How is it possible to believe, that missionaries, protected by G.o.d, invested with his divine power, and enjoying the gift of miracles, could not have wrought such a simple miracle, as to escape the cruelty of their persecutors?
Priests have the art of drawing from the persecutions themselves, a convincing proof in favour of the religion of the persecuted. But a religion, which boasts of having cost the lives of many martyrs, and informs us, that its founders, in order to extend it, have suffered punishments, cannot be the religion of a beneficent, equitable and omnipotent G.o.d. A good G.o.d would not permit men, intrusted with announcing his commands, to be ill-treated. An all-powerful G.o.d, wishing to found a religion, would proceed in a manner more simple and less fatal to the most faithful of his servants. To say that G.o.d would have his religion sealed with blood, is to say that he is weak, unjust, ungrateful, and sanguinary; and that he is cruel enough to sacrifice his messengers to the views of his ambition.
133.
To die for religion proves not that the religion is true, or divine; it proves, at most, that it is supposed to be such. An enthusiast proves nothing by his death, unless that religious fanaticism is often stronger than the love of life. An impostor may sometimes die with courage; he then makes, in the language of the proverb, _a virtue of necessity_.
People are often surprised and affected at sight of the generous courage and disinterested zeal, which has prompted missionaries to preach their doctrine, even at the risk of suffering the most rigorous treatment. From this ardour for the salvation of men, are drawn inferences favourable to the religion they have announced. But in reality, this disinterestedness is only apparent. He, who ventures nothing should gain nothing. A missionary seeks to make his fortune by his doctrine. He knows that, if he is fortunate enough to sell his commodity, he will become absolute master of those who receive him for their guide; he is sure of becoming the object of their attention, respect, and veneration. Such are the true motives, which kindle the zeal and charity of so many preachers and missionaries.
To die for an opinion, proves the truth or goodness of that opinion no more than to die in battle proves the justice of a cause, in which thousands have the folly to devote their lives. The courage of a martyr, elated with the idea of paradise, is not more supernatural, than the courage of a soldier, intoxicated with the idea of glory, or impelled by the fear of disgrace. What is the difference between an Iroquois, who sings while he is burning by inches, and the martyr ST. LAURENCE, who upon the gridiron insults his tyrant?
The preachers of a new doctrine fail, because they are the weakest; apostles generally practise a perilous trade. Their courageous death proves neither the truth of their principles nor their own sincerity, any more than the violent death of the ambitious man, or of the robber, proves, that they were right in disturbing society, or that they thought themselves authorised in so doing. The trade of a missionary was always flattering to ambition, and formed a convenient method of living at the expense of the vulgar. These advantages have often been enough to efface every idea of danger.
134.
You tell us, theologians! that _what is folly in the eyes of men, is wisdom before G.o.d, who delights to confound the wisdom of the wise_. But do you not say, that human wisdom is a gift of heaven? In saying this wisdom displeases G.o.d, is but folly in his sight, and that he is pleased to confound it, you declare that your G.o.d is the friend only of ignorant people, and that he makes sensible people a fatal present for which this perfidious tyrant promises to punish them cruelly at some future day. Is it not strange, that one can be the friend of your G.o.d, only by declaring one"s self the enemy of reason and good sense?