---
type: article
status: Published
slug: "treatise-on-tolerance"
title: "Treatise on Tolerance"
author: "Voltaire"
tradition: "european"
language: "fr"
genre: "philosophical essay"
period: "1763; added article 1765"
source_url: "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42131"
certainty: observed
source: "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42131"
---
# Treatise on Tolerance

## Original

### Chapter I

A l'occasion de la mort de Jean Calas.

*Histoire abrégée de la mort de Jean Calas.*

LE meurtre de *Calas*, commis dans Toulouse avec le glaive de la Justice, le 9me Mars 1762, est un des plus singuliers événements qui méritent l'attention de notre âge & de la postérité. On oublie bientôt cette foule de morts qui a péri dans des batailles sans nombre, non-seulement parce que c'est la fatalité inévitable de la guerre, mais parce que ceux qui meurent par le sort des armes, pouvaient aussi donner la mort à leurs ennemis, & n'ont point péri sans se défendre. Là où le danger & l'avantage sont égaux, l'étonnement cesse, & la pitié même s'affaiblit: mais si un Pere de famille innocent est livré aux mains de l'erreur, ou de la passion, ou du fanatisme; si l'accusé n'a de défense que sa vertu, si les arbitres de sa vie n'ont à risquer en l'égorgeant que de se tromper, s'ils peuvent tuer impunément par un arrêt; alors le cri public s'éleve, chacun craint pour soi-même; on voit que personne n'est en sûreté de sa vie devant un Tribunal érigé pour veiller sur la vie des Citoyens, & toutes les voix se réunissent pour demander vengeance.

Il s'agissait, dans cette étrange affaire, de Religion, de suicide, de parricide: il s'agissait de savoir si un pere & une mere avaient étranglé leur fils pour plaire à Dieu, si un frere avait étranglé son frere, si un ami avait étranglé son ami, & si les Juges avaient à se reprocher d'avoir fait mourir sur la roue un pere innocent, ou d'avoir épargné une mere, un frere, un ami coupables.

*Jean Calas*, âgé de soixante & huit ans, exerçait la profession de Négociant à Toulouse depuis plus de quarante années, & était reconnu de tous ceux qui ont vécu avec lui pour un bon pere. Il était Protestant, ainsi que sa femme & tous ses enfants, excepté un qui avait abjuré l'hérésie, & à qui le pere faisait une petite pension. Il paraissait si éloigné de cet absurde fanatisme qui rompt tous les liens de la Société, qu'il approuva la conversion de son fils *Louis Calas*, & qu'il avait depuis trente ans chez lui une servante zélée Catholique, laquelle avait élevé tous ses enfants.

Un des fils de *Jean Calas*, nommé *Marc-Antoine*, était un homme de Lettres: il passait pour un esprit inquiet, sombre & violent. Ce jeune homme ne pouvant réussir ni à entrer dans le négoce, auquel il n'était pas propre, ni à être reçu Avocat, parce qu'il fallait des certificats de Catholicité, qu'il ne put obtenir, résolut de finir sa vie, & fit pressentir ce dessein à un de ses amis: il se confirma dans sa résolution par la lecture de tout ce qu'on a jamais écrit sur le suicide.

Enfin, un jour, ayant perdu son argent au jeu, il choisit ce jour là même pour exécuter son dessein. Un ami de sa famille, & le sien, nommé *Lavaisse*, jeune-homme de dix-neuf ans, connu par la candeur & la douceur de ses mœurs, fils d'un Avocat célebre de Toulouse, était arrivé[1] de Bordeaux la veille; il soupa par hasard chez les *Calas*. Le pere, la mere, *Marc-Antoine* leur fils ainé, *Pierre* leur second fils, mangerent ensemble. Après le souper on se retira dans un petit sallon; *Marc-Antoine* disparut: enfin, lorsque le jeune *Lavaisse* voulut partir, *Pierre Calas* & lui étant descendus, trouverent en-bas, auprès du magasin, *Marc-Antoine*, en chemise, pendu à une porte, & son habit plié sur le comptoir; sa chemise n'était pas seulement dérangée; ses cheveux étaient bien peignés: il n'avait sur son corps aucune playe, aucune meurtrissure.[2]

On passe ici tous les détails dont les Avocats ont rendu compte: on ne décrira point la douleur & le désespoir du pere & de la mere: leurs cris furent entendus des voisins. *Lavaisse* & *Pierre Calas*, hors d'eux-mêmes, coururent chercher des Chirurgiens & la Justice.

Pendant qu'ils s'acquittaient de ce devoir, pendant que le pere & la mere étaient dans les sanglots & dans les larmes, le Peuple de Toulouse s'attroupait autour de la maison. Ce Peuple est superstitieux & emporté; il regarde comme des monstres ses freres qui ne sont pas de la même Religion que lui. C'est à Toulouse qu'on remercia Dieu solemnellement de la mort de *Henri trois*, & qu'on fit serment d'égorger le premier qui parlerait de reconnaître le grand, le bon *Henri quatre*. Cette Ville solemnise encore tous les ans, par une Procession & par des feux de joye, le jour où elle massacra quatre mille Citoyens hérétiques, il y a deux siecles. En vain six Arrêts du Conseil ont défendu cette odieuse fête, les Toulousains l'ont toujours célébrée comme les jeux floraux.

Quelque fanatique de la populace s'écria que *Jean Calas* avait pendu son propre fils *Marc-Antoine*. Ce cri répété fut unanime en un moment. D'autres ajouterent que le mort devait le lendemain faire abjuration; que sa famille & le jeune *Lavaisse* l'avaient étranglé, par haine contre la Religion Catholique: le moment d'après on n'en douta plus; toute la Ville fut persuadée que c'est un point de Religion chez les Protestants, qu'un pere & une mere doivent assassiner leur fils, dès qu'il veut se convertir.

Les esprits une fois émus ne s'arrêtent point. On imagina que les Protestants du Languedoc s'étaient assemblés la veille; qu'ils avaient choisi à la pluralité des voix un bourreau de la secte; que le choix était tombé sur le jeune *Lavaisse*; que ce jeune homme, en vingt-quatre heures, avait reçu la nouvelle de son élection, & était arrivé de Bordeaux pour aider *Jean Calas*, sa femme & leur fils *Pierre*, à étrangler un ami, un fils, un frere.

Le Sr. *David*, Capitoul de Toulouse, excité par ces rumeurs, & voulant se faire valoir par une prompte exécution, fit une procédure contre les Regles & les Ordonnances. La famille *Calas*, la servante Catholique, *Lavaisse* furent mis aux fers.

On publia un monitoire non moins vicieux que la procédure. On alla plus loin. *Marc-Antoine Calas* était mort Calviniste; & s'il avait attenté sur lui-même, il devait être traîné sur la claye: on l'inhuma avec la plus grande pompe dans l'Eglise St. Etienne, malgré le Curé qui protestait contre cette profanation.

Il y a dans le Languedoc quatre Confrairies de Pénitents, la blanche, la bleue, la grise, & la noire. Les Confreres portent un long capuce avec un masque de drap percé de deux trous pour laisser la vue libre: ils ont voulu engager M. le Duc de *Fitz-James*, Commandant de la Province, à entrer dans leur Corps, & il les a refusés. Les Confreres blancs firent à *Marc-Antoine Calas* un Service solemnel comme à un Martyr. Jamais aucune Eglise ne célébra la fête d'un Martyr véritable avec plus de pompe; mais cette pompe fut terrible. On avait élevé au-dessus d'un magnifique catafalque, un squélette qu'on faisait mouvoir, & qui représentait *Marc-Antoine Calas*, tenant d'une main une palme, & de l'autre la plume dont il devait signer l'abjuration de l'hérésie, & qui écrivait en effet l'arrêt de mort de son pere.

Alors il ne manqua plus au malheureux qui avait attenté sur soi-même, que la canonisation; tout le Peuple le regardait comme un Saint: quelques-uns l'invoquaient; d'autres allaient prier sur sa tombe, d'autres lui demandaient des miracles, d'autres racontaient ceux qu'il avait faits. Un Moine lui arracha quelques dents pour avoir des reliques durables. Une dévote, un peu sourde, dit qu'elle avait entendu le son des cloches. Un Prêtre apoplectique fut guéri après avoir pris de l'émétique. On dressa des verbaux de ces prodiges. Celui qui écrit cette relation, possede une attestation qu'un jeune homme de Toulouse est devenu fou pour avoir prié plusieurs nuits sur le tombeau du nouveau Saint, & pour n'avoir pu obtenir un miracle qu'il implorait.

Quelques Magistrats étaient de la Confrairie des Pénitents blancs. Dès ce moment la mort de *Jean Calas* parut infaillible.

Ce qui sur-tout prépara son supplice, ce fut l'approche de cette fête singuliere que les Toulousains célebrent tous les ans en mémoire d'un massacre de quatre mille Huguenots; l'année 1762 était l'année séculaire. On dressait dans la Ville l'appareil de cette solemnité; cela même allumait encore l'imagination échauffée du Peuple: on disait publiquement que l'échafaud sur lequel on rouerait les *Calas*, serait le plus grand ornement de la fête; on disait que la Providence amenait elle-même ces victimes pour être sacrifiées à notre sainte Religion. Vingt personnes ont entendu ces discours, & de plus violents encore. Et c'est de nos jours! & c'est dans un temps où la Philosophie a fait tant de progrès! & c'est lorsque cent Académies écrivent pour inspirer la douceur des mœurs! Il semble que le fanatisme, indigné depuis peu des succès de la raison, se débatte sous elle avec plus de rage.

Treize Juges s'assemblerent tous les jours pour terminer le Procès. On n'avait, on ne pouvait avoir aucune preuve contre la famille; mais la Religion trompée tenait lieu de preuve. Six Juges persisterent longtemps à condamner *Jean Calas*, son fils, & *Lavaisse* à la roue, & la femme de *Jean Calas* au bucher. Sept autres, plus modérés, voulaient au moins qu'on examinât. Les débats furent réitérés & longs. Un des Juges, convaincu de l'innocence des accusés, & de l'impossibilité du crime, parla vivement en leur faveur; il opposa le zele de l'humanité au zele de la sévérité; il devint l'Avocat public des *Calas* dans toutes les maisons de Toulouse, où les cris continuels de la Religion abusée demandaient le sang de ces infortunés. Un autre Juge, connu par sa violence, parlait dans la Ville avec autant d'emportement contre les *Calas*, que le premier montrait d'empressement à les défendre. Enfin l'éclat fut si grand, qu'ils furent obligés de se récuser l'un & l'autre; ils se retirerent à la campagne.

Mais, par un malheur étrange, le Juge favorable aux *Calas* eut la délicatesse de persister dans sa récusation, & l'autre revint donner sa voix contre ceux qu'il ne devait point juger: ce fut cette voix qui forma la condamnation à la roue; car il y eut huit voix contre cinq, un des six Juges opposés ayant à la fin, après bien des contestations, passé au parti le plus sévere.

Il semble que quand il s'agit d'un parricide, & de livrer un Pere de famille au plus affreux supplice, le jugement devrait être unanime, parce que les preuves d'un crime si inoui[3] devraient être d'une évidence sensible à tout le monde: le moindre doute, dans un cas pareil, doit suffire pour faire trembler un Juge qui va signer un Arrêt de mort. La faiblesse de notre raison & l'insuffisance de nos Loix se font sentir tous les jours; mais dans quelle occasion en découvre-t-on mieux la misere que quand la prépondérance d'une seule voix fait rouer un Citoyen? Il fallait dans Athenes cinquante voix au-delà de la moitié pour oser prononcer un jugement de mort. Qu'en résulte-t-il? ce que nous savons très-inutilement, que les Grecs étaient plus sages & plus humains que nous.

Il paraissait impossible que *Jean Calas*, vieillard de soixante-huit ans, qui avait depuis long-temps les jambes enflées & faibles, eût seul étranglé & pendu un fils âgé de vingt-huit ans, qui était d'une force au-dessus de l'ordinaire; il fallait absolument qu'il eût été assisté dans cette exécution par sa femme, par son fils *Pierre Calas*, par *Lavaisse*, & par la servante. Ils ne s'étaient pas quittés un seul moment le soir de cette fatale aventure. Mais cette supposition était encore aussi absurde que l'autre: car comment une servante zélée Catholique aurait-elle pu souffrir que des Huguenots assassinassent un jeune-homme élevé par elle, pour le punir d'aimer la Religion de cette servante? Comment *Lavaisse* serait-il venu exprès de Bordeaux pour étrangler son ami, dont il ignorait la conversion prétendue? Comment une mere tendre aurait-elle mis les mains sur son fils? Comment tous ensemble auraient-ils pu étrangler un jeune-homme aussi robuste qu'eux tous, sans un combat long & violent, sans des cris affreux qui auraient appellé tout le voisinage, sans des coups réitérés, sans des meurtrissures, sans des habits déchirés?

Il était évident que si le parricide avait pu être commis, tous les accusés étaient également coupables, parce qu'ils ne s'étaient pas quittés d'un moment; il était évident qu'ils ne l'étaient pas; il était évident que le pere seul ne pouvait l'être; & cependant l'arrêt condamna ce pere seul à expirer sur la roue.

Le motif de l'arrêt était aussi inconcevable que tout le reste. Les Juges qui étaient décidés pour le supplice de *Jean Calas*, persuaderent aux autres que ce vieillard faible ne pourrait résister aux tourments, & qu'il avouerait sous les coups des bourreaux son crime & celui de ses complices. Ils furent confondus, quand ce vieillard, en mourant sur la roue, prit Dieu à témoin de son innocence, & le conjura de pardonner à ses Juges.

Ils furent obligés de rendre un second arrêt contradictoire avec le premier, d'élargir la mere, son fils *Pierre*, le jeune *Lavaisse* & la servante: mais un des Conseillers leur ayant fait sentir que cet arrêt démentait l'autre, qu'ils se condamnaient eux-mêmes, que tous les accusés ayant toujours été ensemble dans le temps qu'on supposait le parricide, l'élargissement de tous les survivants prouvait invinciblement l'innocence du pere de famille exécuté; ils prirent alors le parti de bannir *Pierre Calas* son fils. Ce bannissement semblait aussi inconséquent, aussi absurde que tout le reste: car *Pierre Calas* était coupable ou innocent du parricide; s'il était coupable, il fallait le rouer comme son pere; s'il était innocent, il ne fallait pas le bannir. Mais les Juges effrayés du supplice du pere, & de la piété attendrissante avec laquelle il était mort, imaginerent sauver leur honneur en laissant croire qu'ils faisaient grace au fils; comme si ce n'eût pas été une prévarication nouvelle de faire grace: & ils crurent que le bannissement de ce jeune homme, pauvre & sans appui, étant sans conséquence, n'était pas une grande injustice, après celle qu'ils avaient eu le malheur de commettre.

On commença par menacer *Pierre Calas* dans son cachot, de le traiter comme son pere s'il n'abjurait pas sa Religion. C'est ce que ce jeune homme[4] atteste par serment.

*Pierre Calas*, en sortant de la Ville, rencontra un Abbé convertisseur, qui le fit rentrer dans Toulouse; on l'enferma dans un Couvent de Dominicains, & là on le contraignit à remplir toutes les fonctions de la Catholicité; c'était en partie ce qu'on voulait, c'était le prix du sang de son pere; & la Religion qu'on avait cru venger, semblait satisfaite.

On enleva les filles à la mere; elles furent enfermées dans un Couvent. Cette femme presque arrosée du sang de son mari, ayant tenu son fils ainé mort entre ses bras, voyant l'autre banni, privée de ses filles, dépouillée de tout son bien, était seule dans le monde, sans pain, sans espérance, & mourante de l'excès de son malheur. Quelques personnes ayant examiné mûrement toutes les circonstances de cette aventure horrible, en furent si frappées, qu'elles firent presser la Dame *Calas*, retirée dans une solitude, d'oser venir demander justice aux pieds du Trône. Elle ne pouvait pas alors se soutenir, elle s'éteignait; & d'ailleurs étant née Anglaise, transplantée dans une Province de France dès son jeune âge, le nom seul de la Ville de Paris l'effrayait. Elle s'imaginait que la Capitale du Royaume devait être encore plus barbare que celle de Toulouse. Enfin le devoir de venger la mémoire de son mari l'emporta sur sa faiblesse. Elle arriva à Paris prête d'expirer. Elle fut étonnée d'y trouver de l'accueil, des secours & des larmes.

La raison l'emporte à Paris sur le fanatisme, quelque grand qu'il puisse être; au-lieu qu'en Province ce fanatisme l'emporte presque toujours sur la raison.

Mr. *De Beaumont*, célebre Avocat du Parlement de Paris, prit d'abord sa défense, & dressa une consultation, qui fut signée de quinze Avocats. Mr. *Loiseau*, non moins éloquent, composa un Mémoire en faveur de la famille. Mr. *Mariette*, Avocat au Conseil, dressa une Requête juridique, qui portait la conviction dans tous les esprits.

Ces trois généreux défenseurs des Loix & de l'innocence abandonnerent à la veuve le profit des éditions de leurs Plaidoyers.[5] Paris & l'Europe entiere s'émurent de pitié, & demanderent justice avec cette femme infortunée. L'arrêt fut prononcé par tout le Public long-temps avant qu'il pût être signé par le Conseil.

La pitié pénétra jusqu'au Ministere, malgré le torrent continuel des affaires, qui souvent exclut la pitié, & malgré l'habitude de voir des malheureux, qui peut endurcir le cœur encore davantage. On rendit les filles à la mere: on les vit toutes trois couvertes d'un crêpe & baignées de larmes, en faire répandre à leurs Juges.

Cependant cette famille eut encore quelques ennemis, car il s'agissait de Religion. Plusieurs personnes, qu'on appelle en France *dévotes*,[6] dirent hautement qu'il valait bien mieux laisser rouer un vieux Calviniste innocent, que d'exposer huit Conseillers de Languedoc à convenir qu'ils s'étaient trompés; on se servit même de cette expression: «Il y a plus de Magistrats que de *Calas*;» & on inférait de là que la famille *Calas* devait être immolée à l'honneur de la Magistrature. On ne songeait pas que l'honneur des Juges consiste comme celui des autres hommes à réparer leurs fautes. On ne croit pas en France que le Pape, assisté de ses Cardinaux, soit infaillible: on pourrait croire de même que huit Juges de Toulouse ne le sont pas. Tout le reste des gens sensés & désintéressés disaient que l'Arrêt de Toulouse serait cassé dans toute l'Europe, quand même des considérations particulieres empêcheraient qu'il fût cassé dans le Conseil.

Tel était l'état de cette étonnante aventure, lorsqu'elle a fait naître à des personnes impartiales, mais sensibles, le dessein de présenter au Public quelques réflexions sur la tolérance, sur l'indulgence, sur la commisération, que l'Abbé *Houteville* appelle *Dogme monstrueux*, dans sa déclamation ampoulée & erronée sur des faits, & que la raison appelle l'appanage de la nature.

Ou les Juges de Toulouse, entraînés par le fanatisme de la populace, ont fait rouer un pere de famille innocent, ce qui est sans exemple; ou ce pere de famille & sa femme ont étranglé leur fils ainé, aidés dans ce parricide par un autre fils & par un ami, ce qui n'est pas dans la nature. Dans l'un ou dans l'autre cas l'abus de la Religion la plus sainte a produit un grand crime. Il est donc de l'intérêt du Genre-humain d'examiner si la Religion doit être charitable ou barbare.

[1] 12 Octobre 1761.

[2] On ne lui trouva, après le transport du cadavre à l'Hôtel-de-Ville, qu'une petite égratignure au bout du nez, & une petite tache sur la poitrine, causées par quelque inadvertence dans le transport du corps.

[3] Je ne connais que deux exemples de Peres accusés dans l'Histoire d'avoir assassiné leurs fils pour la Religion: le premier est du pere de sainte *Barbara*, que nous nommons Ste. *Barbe*. Il avait commandé deux fenêtres dans sa salle de bains: *Barbe*, en son absence, en fit une troisieme en l'honneur de la sainte Trinité; elle fit *du bout du doigt* le signe de la croix sur des colonnes de marbre, & ce signe se grava profondément dans les colonnes. Son pere en colere courut après elle l'épée à la main, mais elle s'enfuit à travers une montagne, qui s'ouvrit pour elle. Le pere fit le tour de la montagne, & ratrappa sa fille; on la fouetta toute nue, mais Dieu la couvrit d'un nuage blanc; enfin son pere lui trancha la tête. Voilà ce que rapporte la Fleur des Saints.

Le second exemple est du Prince *Hermenegilde*. Il se révolta contre le Roi son pere, lui donna bataille en 584, fut vaincu & tué par un Officier: on en a fait un martyr, parce que son pere était Arien.

[4] Un Jacobin vint dans mon cachot, & me menaça du même genre de mort, si je n'abjurais pas: c'est ce que j'atteste devant Dieu, 23 Juillet 1762.

*Pierre Calas.*

[5] On les a contrefaits dans plusieurs Villes, & la Dame *Calas* a perdu le fruit de cette générosité.

[6] *Dévot* vient du mot Latin *devotus*. Les *Devoti* de l'ancienne Rome étaient ceux qui se devouaient pour le salut de la République; c'étaient les *Curtius*, les *Décius*.

### Chapter II

*Conséquences du supplice de Jean Calas.*

SI les Pénitents blancs furent la cause du supplice d'un innocent, de la ruine totale d'une famille, de sa dispersion, & de l'opprobre qui ne devrait être attaché qu'à l'injustice, mais qui l'est au supplice; si cette précipitation des Pénitents blancs à célébrer comme un Saint, celui qu'on aurait dû traîner sur la claye, a fait rouer un pere de famille vertueux; ce malheur doit sans doute les rendre pénitents en effet pour le reste de leur vie: eux & les Juges doivent pleurer, mais non pas avec un long habit blanc & un masque sur le visage, qui cacheraient leurs larmes.

On respecte toutes les Confrairies; elles sont édifiantes: mais quelque grand bien qu'elles puissent faire à l'Etat, égale-t-il ce mal affreux qu'elles ont causé? Elles semblent instituées par le zele qui anime en Languedoc les Catholiques contre ceux que nous nommons Huguenots. On dirait qu'on a fait vœu de haïr ses freres; car nous avons assez de religion pour haïr & persécuter, nous n'en avons pas assez pour aimer & pour secourir. Et que serait-ce, si ces Confrairies étaient gouvernées par des enthousiastes, comme l'ont été autrefois quelques Congrégations des Artisans & des *Messieurs*, chez lesquels on réduisait en art & en systême l'habitude d'avoir des visions, comme le dit un de nos plus éloquents & savants Magistrats? Que serait-ce si on établissait dans les Confrairies ces chambres obscures, appellées chambres de méditation, où l'on faisait peindre des diables armés de cornes & de griffes, des gouffres de flammes, des croix & des poignards, avec le saint nom de Jesus au-dessus du tableau? Quel spectacle pour des yeux déja fascinés, & pour des imaginations aussi enflammées que soumises à leurs Directeurs!

Il y a eu des temps, on ne le sait que trop, où des Confrairies ont été dangereuses. Les Frérots, les Flagellants ont causé des troubles. La Ligue commença par de telles associations. Pourquoi se distinguer ainsi des autres Citoyens? s'en croyait-on plus parfait? cela même est une insulte au reste de la Nation. Voulait-on que tous les Chrétiens entrassent dans la Confrairie? Ce serait un beau spectacle que l'Europe en capuchon & en masque, avec deux petits trous ronds au-devant des yeux! Pense-t-on de bonne foi que Dieu préfere cet accoûtrement à un justaucorps? Il y a bien plus; cet habit est un uniforme de Controversistes, qui avertit les Adversaires de se mettre sous les armes; il peut exciter une espece de guerre civile dans les esprits; elle finirait peut-être par de funestes excès, si le Roi & ses Ministres n'étaient aussi sages que les fanatiques sont insensés.

On sait assez ce qu'il en a coûté depuis que les Chrétiens disputent sur le dogme; le sang a coulé, soit sur les échafauds, soit dans les batailles, dès le quatrieme siecle jusqu'à nos jours. Bornons-nous ici aux guerres & aux horreurs que les querelles de la réforme ont excitées, & voyons quelle en a été la source en France. Peut-être un tableau raccourci & fidele de tant de calamités ouvrira les yeux de quelques personnes peu instruites, & touchera des cœurs bien faits.

### Chapter III

*Idée de la Réforme du seizieme siecle.*

LOrsqu'à la renaissance des Lettres, les esprits commencerent à s'éclairer, on se plaignit généralement des abus; tout le monde avoue que cette plainte était légitime.

Le Pape *Alexandre VI* avait acheté publiquement la Tiare, & ses cinq bâtards en partageaient les avantages. Son fils, le Cardinal Duc de *Borgia*, fit périr, de concert avec le Pape son pere, les *Vitelli*, les *Urbino*, les *Gravina*, les *Oliveretto*, & cent autres Seigneurs, pour ravir leurs domaines. *Jules II*, animé du même esprit, excommunia *Louis XII*, donna son Royaume au premier occupant, & lui-même le casque en tête, & la cuirasse sur le dos, mit à feu & à sang une partie de l'Italie. *Léon X*, pour payer ses plaisirs, trafiqua des Indulgences, comme on vend des denrées dans un marché public. Ceux qui s'éleverent contre tant de brigandages, n'avaient du moins aucun tort dans la morale; voyons s'ils en avaient contre nous dans la politique.

Ils disaient que Jesus-Christ n'ayant jamais exigé d'annates, ni de réserves, ni vendu des dispenses pour ce monde, & des indulgences pour l'autre, on pouvait se dispenser de payer à un Prince étranger le prix de toutes ces choses. Quand les annates, les procès en Cour de Rome, & les dispenses qui subsistent encore aujourd'hui, ne nous coûteraient que cinq cents mille francs par an, il est clair que nous avons payé depuis *François I*, en deux cents cinquante années, cent vingt millions; & en évaluant les différents prix du marc d'argent, cette somme en compose une d'environ deux cents cinquante millions d'aujourd'hui. On peut donc convenir sans blasphême, que les Hérétiques, en proposant l'abolition de ces Impôts singuliers, dont la postérité s'étonnera, ne faisaient pas en cela un grand mal au Royaume, & qu'ils étaient plutôt bons calculateurs que mauvais sujets. Ajoutons qu'ils étaient les seuls qui sussent la Langue Grecque, & qui connussent l'antiquité. Ne dissimulons point que, malgré leurs erreurs, nous leur devons le développement de l'esprit humain, long-temps enseveli dans la plus épaisse barbarie.

Mais comme ils niaient le Purgatoire, dont on ne doit pas douter, & qui d'ailleurs rapportait beaucoup aux Moines; comme ils ne révéraient pas des reliques qu'on doit révérer, mais qui rapportaient encore davantage; enfin, comme ils attaquaient des dogmes très-respectés,[7] on ne leur répondit d'abord qu'en les faisant brûler. Le Roi qui les protégeait, & les soudoyait en Allemagne, marcha dans Paris à la tête d'une Procession, après laquelle on exécuta plusieurs de ces malheureux; & voici quelle fut cette exécution. On les suspendait au bout d'une longue poutre qui jouait en bascule sur un arbre debout; un grand feu était allumé sous eux, on les y plongeait, & on les relevait alternativement; ils éprouvaient les tourments & la mort par degrés, jusqu'à ce qu'ils expirassent par le plus long & le plus affreux supplice que jamais ait inventé la barbarie.

Peu de temps avant la mort de *François I*, quelques Membres du Parlement de Provence, animés par des Ecclésiastiques contre les Habitants de Mérindol & de Cabriere, demanderent au Roi des Troupes pour appuyer l'exécution de dix-neuf personnes de ce Pays, condamnées par eux; ils en firent égorger six mille, sans pardonner ni au sexe, ni à la vieillesse, ni à l'enfance; ils réduisirent trente Bourgs en cendres. Ces Peuples, jusqu'alors inconnus, avaient tort sans doute d'être nés Vaudois, c'était leur seule iniquité. Ils étaient établis depuis trois cents ans dans des déserts, & sur des montagnes qu'ils avaient rendu fertiles par un travail incroyable. Leur vie pastorale & tranquille retraçait l'innocence attribuée aux premiers âges du monde. Les Villes voisines n'étaient connues d'eux que par le trafic des fruits qu'ils allaient vendre; ils ignoraient les procès & la guerre; ils ne se défendirent pas; on les égorgea comme des animaux fugitifs qu'on tue dans une enceinte.[8]

Après la mort de *François I*, Prince plus connu cependant par ses galanteries & par ses malheurs que par ses cruautés, le supplice de mille Hérétiques, sur-tout celui du Conseiller au Parlement *Dubourg*, & enfin le massacre de Vassy, armerent les persécutés, dont la secte s'était multipliée à la lueur des buchers, & sous le fer des bourreaux; la rage succéda à la patience; ils imiterent les cruautés de leurs ennemis: neuf guerres civiles remplirent la France de carnage; une paix plus funeste que la guerre, produisit la *St. Barthelemi*, dont il n'y avait aucun exemple dans les annales des crimes.

La Ligue assassina *Henri III* & *Henri IV*, par les mains d'un Frere Jacobin, & d'un monstre qui avait été Frere Feuillant. Il y a des gens qui prétendent que l'humanité, l'indulgence, & la liberté de conscience, sont des choses horribles; mais en bonne foi, auraient-elles produit des calamités comparables?

[7] Ils renouvellaient le sentiment de *Bérenger* sur l'Eucharistie; ils niaient qu'un corps pût être en cent mille endroits différents, même par la toute-puissance divine; ils niaient que les attributs pussent subsister sans sujet; ils croyaient qu'il était absolument impossible que ce qui est pain & vin aux yeux, au goût, à l'estomac, fût anéanti dans le moment même qu'il existe; ils soutenaient toutes ces erreurs condamnées autrefois dans *Bérenger*. Ils se fondaient sur plusieurs passages des premiers Peres de l'Eglise, & sur-tout de *St. Justin*, qui dit expressément dans son Dialogue contre *Typhon*: «L'oblation de fine farine est la figure de l'Eucharistie, que Jesus-Christ nous ordonne de faire en mémoire de sa Passion.» καὶ ἡ τῆς σεμιδάλεως, &c. τύπος ἦν τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς εὐχαριστίας, ὃν εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ πάθους, &c. Ἰησοῦς χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν παρέδωκε ποιεῖν.

Ils rappellaient tout ce qu'on avait dit dans les premiers siecles contre le culte des Reliques; ils citaient ces paroles de *Vigilantius*: «Est-il nécessaire que vous respectiez, ou même que vous adoriez une vile poussiere? Les ames des Martyrs aiment-elles encore leurs cendres? Les coutumes des Idolâtres se sont introduites dans l'Eglise; on commence à allumer des flambeaux en plein midi: nous pouvons pendant notre vie prier les uns pour les autres; mais après la mort, à quoi servent ces prieres?

Mais ils ne disaient pas combien *St. Jérome* s'était élevé contre ces paroles de *Vigilantius*. Enfin, ils voulaient tout rappeller aux temps Apostoliques, & ne voulaient pas convenir que l'Eglise s'étant étendue & fortifiée, il avait fallu nécessairement étendre & fortifier sa discipline: ils condamnaient les richesses, qui semblaient pourtant nécessaires pour soutenir la majesté du culte.

[8] Le véridique & respectable Président de *Thou* parle ainsi de ces hommes si innocents & si infortunés: *Homines esse qui trecentis circiter abhinc annis asperum & incultum solum vectigale à Dominis acceperint, quod improbo labore & assiduo cultu frugum ferax & aptum pecori reddiderint; patientissimos eos laboris & inediæ, à litibus abhorrentes, ergà egenos munificos, tributa Principi & sua jura Dominis sedulò & summâ fide pendere; Dei cultum assiduis precibus & morum innocentiam præ se ferre, ceterùm rarò divorum templa adire, nisi si quandò ad vicina suis finibus oppida mercandi aut negotiorum causâ divertant; quò si quandoque pedem inferant, non Dei, divorumque statuis advolvi, nec cereos eis aut donaria ulla ponere; non Sacerdotes ab eis rogari ut pro se, aut propinquorum manibus rem divinam faciant, non cruce frontem insigniri uti aliorum moris est: cùm cœlum intonat non se lustrali aquâ aspergere, sed sublatis in cœlum oculis Dei opem implorare; non religionis ergò peregrè proficisci, non per vias antè crucium simulacra caput aperire; sacra alio ritu, & populari linguâ celebrare; non denique Pontifici aut Episcopis honorem deferre, sed quosdam è suo numero delectos pro Antistibus & Doctoribus habere. Hæc uti ad Franciscum relata VI. Eid. feb. anni, &c.*

Madame *de Cental*, à qui appartenait une partie des terres ravagées, & sur lesquelles on ne voyait plus que les cadavres de ses Habitants, demanda justice au Roi *Henri II*, qui la renvoya au Parlement de Paris. L'Avocat Général de Provence, nommé *Guerin*, principal auteur des massacres, fut seul condamné à perdre la tête. *De Thou* dit qu'il porta seul la peine des autres coupables, *quòd aulicorum favore destitueretur*, parce qu'il n'avait pas d'amis à la Cour.

### Chapter IV

*Si la Tolérance est dangereuse; & chez quels Peuples elle est pratiquée.*

QUelques-uns ont dit que si l'on usait d'une indulgence paternelle envers nos freres errants, qui prient Dieu en mauvais Français, ce serait leur mettre les armes à la main, qu'on verrait de nouvelles batailles de Jarnac, de Moncontour, de Coutras, de Dreux, de St. Denis, &c. C'est ce que j'ignore, parce que je ne suis pas Prophete; mais il me semble que ce n'est pas raisonner conséquemment, que de dire: «Ces hommes se sont soulevés quand je leur ai fait du mal, donc ils se souleveront quand je leur ferai du bien.

J'oserais prendre la liberté d'inviter ceux qui sont à la tête du Gouvernement, & ceux qui sont destinés aux grandes places, à vouloir bien examiner mûrement, si l'on doit craindre en effet que la douceur produise les mêmes révoltes que la cruauté a fait naître; si ce qui est arrivé dans certaines circonstances, doit arriver dans d'autres; si les temps, l'opinion, les mœurs sont toujours les mêmes?

Les Huguenots, sans doute, ont été enivrés de fanatisme, & souillés de sang comme nous: mais la génération présente est-elle aussi barbare que leurs peres? le temps, la raison qui fait tant de progrès, les bons Livres, la douceur de la Société, n'ont-ils point pénétré chez ceux qui conduisent l'esprit de ces Peuples? & ne nous appercevons-nous pas que presque toute l'Europe a changé de face depuis environ cinquante années?

Le Gouvernement s'est fortifié par-tout, tandis que les mœurs se sont adoucies. La Police générale, soutenue d'armées nombreuses toujours existantes, ne permet pas d'ailleurs de craindre le retour de ces temps anarchiques, où des Paysans Calvinistes combattaient des Paysans Catholiques, enrégimentés à la hâte entre les semailles & les moissons.

D'autres temps, d'autres soins. Il serait absurde de décimer aujourd'hui la Sorbonne, parce qu'elle présenta requête autrefois pour faire brûler la *Pucelle d'Orléans*; parce qu'elle déclara *Henri III* déchu du droit de régner, qu'elle l'excommunia, qu'elle proscrivit le grand *Henri IV*. On ne recherchera pas, sans doute, les autres Corps du Royaume qui commirent les mêmes excès dans ces temps de frénésie; cela serait non-seulement injuste, mais il y aurait autant de folie qu'à purger tous les Habitants de Marseille parce qu'ils ont eu la peste en 1720.

Irons-nous saccager Rome, comme firent les troupes de *Charles-quint*, parce que *Sixte-quint*, en 1585, accorda neuf ans d'indulgence à tous les Français qui prendraient les armes contre leur Souverain? & n'est-ce pas assez d'empêcher Rome de se porter jamais à des excès semblables?

La fureur qu'inspirent l'esprit dogmatique & l'abus de la Religion Chrétienne mal entendue, a répandu autant de sang, a produit autant de désastres en Allemagne, en Angleterre, & même en Hollande, qu'en France: cependant aujourd'hui la différence des Religions ne cause aucun trouble dans ces Etats; le Juif, le Catholique, le Grec, le Luthérien, le Calviniste, l'Anabatiste, le Socinien, le Memnoniste, le Morave & tant d'autres, vivent en freres dans ces Contrées, & contribuent également au bien de la Société.

On ne craint plus en Hollande que les disputes d'un *Gomar*[9] sur la prédestination fassent trancher la tête au grand Pensionnaire. On ne craint plus à Londres que les querelles des Presbytériens & des Episcopaux pour une Lithurgie & pour un surplis, répandent le sang d'un Roi sur un échafaud.[10] L'Irlande peuplée & enrichie, ne verra plus ses Citoyens Catholiques sacrifier à Dieu pendant deux mois ses Citoyens Protestants, les enterrer vivants, suspendre les meres à des gibets, attacher les filles au cou de leurs meres, & les voir expirer ensemble; ouvrir le ventre des femmes enceintes, en tirer les enfants à demi-formés, & les donner à manger aux porcs & aux chiens; mettre un poignard dans la main de leurs prisonniers garrotés, & conduire leurs bras dans le sein de leurs femmes, de leurs peres, de leurs meres, de leurs filles, s'imaginant en faire mutuellement des parricides, & les damner tous en les exterminant tous. C'est ce que rapporte *Rapin-Toiras*, Officier en Irlande, presque contemporain; c'est ce que rapportent toutes les Annales, toutes les Histoires d'Angleterre, & ce qui sans doute ne sera jamais imité. La Philosophie, la seule Philosophie, cette sœur de la Religion, a désarmé des mains que la superstition avait si long-temps ensanglantées; & l'esprit humain, au réveil de son ivresse, s'est étonné des excès où l'avait emporté le fanatisme.

Nous-mêmes, nous avons en France une Province opulente, où le Luthéranisme l'emporte sur le Catholicisme. L'Université d'Alsace est entre les mains des Luthériens: ils occupent une partie des Charges municipales; jamais la moindre querelle religieuse n'a dérangé le repos de cette Province depuis qu'elle appartient à nos Rois. Pourquoi? c'est qu'on n'y a persécuté personne. Ne cherchez point à gêner les cœurs, & tous les cœurs seront à vous.

Je ne dis pas que tous ceux qui ne sont point de la Religion du Prince doivent partager les places & les honneurs de ceux qui sont de la Religion dominante. En Angleterre, les Catholiques, regardés comme attachés au Prétendant, ne peuvent parvenir aux emplois; ils payent même double taxe; mais ils jouissent d'ailleurs de tous les droits des Citoyens.

On a soupçonné quelques Evêques Français de penser qu'il n'est ni de leur honneur, ni de leur intérêt, d'avoir dans leur Diocese des Calvinistes; & que c'est là le plus grand obstacle à la Tolérance: je ne le puis croire. Le Corps des Evêques en France est composé de gens de qualité, qui pensent & qui agissent avec une noblesse digne de leur naissance; ils sont charitables & généreux, c'est une justice qu'on doit leur rendre: ils doivent penser que certainement leurs Diocésains fugitifs ne se convertiront pas dans les Pays étrangers, & que, retournés auprès de leurs Pasteurs, ils pourraient être éclairés par leurs instructions, & touchés par leurs exemples; il y aurait de l'honneur à les convertir: le temporel n'y perdrait pas; & plus il y aurait de Citoyens, plus les terres des Prélats rapporteraient.

Un Evêque de Varmie, en Pologne, avait un Anabatiste pour Fermier, & un Socinien pour Receveur; on lui proposa de chasser & de poursuivre l'un parce qu'il ne croyait pas la consubstantiabilité, & l'autre parce qu'il ne baptisait son fils qu'à quinze ans: il répondit qu'ils seraient éternellement damnés dans l'autre monde, mais que dans ce monde-ci ils lui étaient très-nécessaires.

Sortons de notre petite sphere, & examinons le reste de notre globe. Le grand Seigneur gouverne en paix vingt Peuples de différentes Religions; deux cents mille Grecs vivent avec sécurité dans Constantinople; le Muphti même nomme & présente à l'Empereur le Patriarche Grec; on y souffre un Patriarche Latin. Le Sultan nomme des Evêques Latins pour quelques Isles de la Grece,[11] & voici la formule dont il se sert; *Je lui commande d'aller résider Evêque dans l'Isle de Chio, selon leur ancienne coutume & leurs vaines cérémonies.* Cet Empire est rempli de Jacobites, de Nestoriens, de Monotélites; il y a des Cophtes, des Chrétiens de *St. Jean*, des Juifs, des Guebres, des Banians. Les Annales Turques ne font mention d'aucune révolte excitée par aucune de ces Religions.

Allez dans l'Inde, dans la Perse, dans la Tartarie; vous y verrez la même tolérance & la même tranquillité. *Pierre-le-Grand* a favorisé tous les Cultes dans son vaste Empire: le Commerce & l'Agriculture y ont gagné, & le Corps politique n'en a jamais souffert.

Le Gouvernement de la Chine n'a jamais adopté, depuis plus de quatre mille ans qu'il est connu, que le Culte des *Noachides*, l'adoration simple d'un seul Dieu: cependant il tolere les superstitions de *Fo*, & une multitude de Bonzes qui serait dangereuse, si la sagesse des Tribunaux ne les avait pas toujours contenus.

Il est vrai que le grand Empereur *Yont-Chin*, le plus sage & le plus magnanime peut-être qu'ait eu la Chine, a chassé les Jésuites; mais ce n'était pas parce qu'il était intolérant, c'était au contraire parce que les Jésuites l'étaient. Ils rapportent eux-mêmes dans leurs Lettres curieuses, les paroles que leur dit ce bon Prince: *Je sais que votre Religion est intolérante; je sais ce que vous avez fait aux Manilles & au Japon; vous avez trompé mon Pere, n'espérez pas me tromper de même*. Qu'on lise tout le discours qu'il daigna leur tenir, on le trouvera le plus sage & le plus clément des hommes. Pouvait-il en effet retenir des Physiciens d'Europe, qui, sous prétexte de montrer des thermometres & des éolipiles à la Cour, avaient soulevé déja un Prince du sang? & qu'aurait dit cet Empereur, s'il avait lu nos Histoires, s'il avait connu nos temps de la ligue, & de la conspiration des poudres?

C'en était assez pour lui d'être informé des querelles indécentes des Jésuites, des Dominicains, des Capucins, des Prêtres séculiers envoyés du bout du monde dans ses Etats: ils venaient prêcher la vérité, & ils s'anathématisaient les uns les autres. L'Empereur ne fit donc que renvoyer des perturbateurs étrangers: mais avec quelle bonté les renvoya-t-il? quels soins paternels n'eut-il pas d'eux pour leur voyage, & pour empêcher qu'on ne les insultât sur la route? Leur bannissement même fut un exemple de tolérance & d'humanité.

Les Japonois[12] étaient les plus tolérants de tous les hommes, douze Religions paisibles étaient établies dans leur Empire: les Jésuites vinrent faire la treizieme; mais bientôt n'en voulant pas souffrir d'autre, on sait ce qui en résulta; une guerre civile, non moins affreuse que celles de la Ligue, désola ce Pays. La Religion Chrétienne fut noyée enfin dans des flots de sang. Les Japonois fermerent leur Empire au reste du monde, & ne nous regarderent que comme des bêtes farouches, semblables à celles dont les Anglais ont purgé leur Isle. C'est en vain que le Ministre *Colbert*, sentant le besoin que nous avions des Japonois, qui n'ont nul besoin de nous, tenta d'établir un commerce avec leur Empire; il les trouva inflexibles.

Ainsi donc notre Continent entier nous prouve qu'il ne faut ni annoncer ni exercer l'intolérance.

Jettez les yeux sur l'autre hémisphere, voyez la Caroline, dont le sage *Loke* fut le Législateur; tout pere de famille qui a sept personnes seulement dans sa maison, peut y établir une Religion à son choix, pourvu que ces sept personnes y concourent avec lui. Cette liberté n'a fait naître aucun désordre. Dieu nous préserve de citer cet exemple pour engager chaque maison à se faire un culte particulier: on ne le rapporte que pour faire voir que l'excès le plus grand où puisse aller la tolérance, n'a pas été suivi de la plus légere dissension.

Mais que dirons-nous de ces pacifiques *Primitifs*, que l'on a nommés *Quakres* par dérision, & qui, avec des usages peut-être ridicules, ont été si vertueux, & ont enseigné inutilement la paix au reste des hommes? Ils sont en Pensilvanie au nombre de cent mille; la discorde, la controverse sont ignorées dans l'heureuse Patrie qu'ils se sont faite: & le nom seul de leur Ville de Philadelphie, qui leur rappelle à tout moment que les hommes sont freres, est l'exemple & la honte des Peuples qui ne connaissent pas encore la tolérance.

Enfin cette tolérance n'a jamais excité de guerre civile; l'intolérance a couvert la terre de carnage. Qu'on juge maintenant entre ces deux rivales, entre la mere qui veut qu'on égorge son fils, & la mere qui le cede pourvu qu'il vive.

Je ne parle ici que de l'intérêt des Nations; & en respectant, comme je le dois, la Théologie, je n'envisage dans cet article que le bien physique & moral de la Société. Je supplie tout Lecteur impartial de peser ces vérités, de les rectifier & de les étendre. Des Lecteurs attentifs, qui se communiquent leurs pensées, vont toujours plus loin que l'Auteur.[13]

[9] *François Gomar* était un Théologien Protestant; il soutint contre *Arminius*, son Collegue, que Dieu a destiné, de toute éternité, la plus grande partie des hommes à être brûlés éternellement: ce dogme infernal fut soutenu comme il devait l'être par la persécution. Le grand Pensionnaire *Barneweldt*, qui était du parti contraire à *Gomar*, eut la tête tranchée à l'âge de 72 ans, le 13 Mai 1619, *pour avoir contristé au possible l'Eglise de Dieu*.

[10] Un Déclamateur, dans l'Apologie de la Révocation de l'Edit de Nantes, dit, en parlant de l'Angleterre: *une fausse Religion devait produire nécessairement de tels fruits; il en restait un seul à mûrir, ces Insulaires le recueillent, c'est le mépris des Nations*. Il faut avouer que l'Auteur prend mal son temps pour dire que les Anglais sont méprisables & méprisés de toute la terre. Ce n'est pas, ce me semble, lorsqu'une Nation signale sa bravoure & sa générosité, lorsqu'elle est victorieuse dans les quatre parties du Monde, qu'on est bien reçu à dire qu'elle est méprisable & méprisée. C'est dans un Chapitre sur l'Intolérance, qu'on trouve ce singulier passage. Ceux qui prêchent l'Intolérance, méritent d'écrire ainsi. Cet abominable Livre, qui semble fait par le fou de *Verberies*, est d'un homme sans mission: car quel Pasteur écrirait ainsi? La fureur est poussée dans ce Livre jusqu'à justifier la *St. Barthelemi*. On croirait qu'un tel Ouvrage, rempli de si affreux paradoxes, devrait être entre les mains de tout le monde, au moins par sa singularité; cependant à peine est-il connu.

[11] Voyez *Ricaut*.

[12] Voyez *Kempfer*, & toutes les Relations du Japon.

[13] Mr. *de la Bourdonnaie*, Intendant de Rouen, dit que la Manufacture de chapeaux est tombée à Caudebec & à Neufchâtel par la fuite des Réfugiés. Mr. *Foucaut*, Intendant de Caen, dit que le Commerce est tombé de moitié dans la Généralité. Mr. *De Maupeou*, Intendant de Poitiers, dit que la Manufacture de droguet est anéantie. Mr. *de Bezons*, Intendant de Bordeaux, se plaint que le Commerce de Clérac & de Nérac ne subsiste presque plus. Mr. *de Miroménil*, Intendant de Touraine, dit que le Commerce de Tours est diminué de dix millions par année; & tout cela par la persécution. Voyez les Mémoires des Intendants, en 1698. Comptez sur-tout le nombre des Officiers de terre & de mer, & de Matelots, qui ont été obligés d'aller servir contre la France, & souvent avec un funeste avantage: & voyez si l'Intolérance n'a pas causé quelque mal à l'Etat.

On n'a pas ici la témérité de proposer des vues à des Ministres dont on connaît le génie & les grands sentiments, & dont le cœur est aussi noble que la naissance: ils verront assez que le rétablissement de la Marine demande quelque indulgence pour les Habitants de nos Côtes.

### Chapter V

*Comment la Tolérance peut être admise.*

J'Ose supposer qu'un Ministre éclairé & magnanime, un Prélat humain & sage, un Prince qui sait que son intérêt consiste dans le grand nombre de ses Sujets, & sa gloire dans leur bonheur, daigne jetter les yeux sur cet Ecrit informe & défectueux; il y supplée par ses propres lumieres; il se dit à lui-même: Que risquerai-je à voir la terre cultivée & ornée par plus de mains laborieuses, les tributs augmentés, l'Etat plus florissant?

L'Allemagne serait un désert couvert des ossements des Catholiques, Evangéliques, Réformés, Anabatistes, égorgés les uns par les autres, si la paix de Westphalie n'avait pas procuré enfin la liberté de conscience.

Nous avons des Juifs à Bordeaux, à Metz, en Alsace; nous avons des Luthériens, des Molinistes, des Jansénistes; ne pouvons-nous pas souffrir & contenir des Calvinistes à peu près aux mêmes conditions que les Catholiques sont tolérés à Londres? Plus il y a de sectes, moins chacune est dangereuse; la multiplicité les affaiblit; toutes sont réprimées par de justes Loix, qui défendent les assemblées tumultueuses, les injures, les séditions, & qui sont toujours en vigueur par la force coactive.

Nous savons que plusieurs Chefs de famille, qui ont élevé de grandes fortunes dans les Pays étrangers, sont prêts à retourner dans leur Patrie; ils ne demandent que la protection de la Loi naturelle, la validité de leurs mariages, la certitude de l'état de leurs enfants, le droit d'hériter de leurs peres, la franchise de leurs personnes; point de Temples publics, point de droit aux Charges municipales, aux dignités: les Catholiques n'en ont ni à Londres, ni en plusieurs autres Pays. Il ne s'agit plus de donner des privileges immenses, des places de sûreté à une faction; mais de laisser vivre un Peuple paisible, d'adoucir des Edits, autrefois peut-être nécessaires, & qui ne le sont plus: ce n'est pas à nous d'indiquer au Ministere ce qu'il peut faire; il suffit de l'implorer pour des infortunés.

Que de moyens de les rendre utiles, & d'empêcher qu'ils ne soient jamais dangereux! La prudence du Ministere & du Conseil, appuyée de la force, trouvera bien aisément ces moyens, que tant d'autres Nations employent si heureusement.

Il y a des fanatiques encore dans la populace Calviniste; mais il est constant qu'il y en a davantage dans la populace Convulsionnaire. La lie des insensés de *St. Médard* est comptée pour rien dans la Nation, celle des Prophetes Calvinistes est anéantie. Le grand moyen de diminuer le nombre des Maniaques, s'il en reste, est d'abandonner cette maladie de l'esprit au régime de la raison, qui éclaire lentement, mais infailliblement les hommes. Cette raison est douce, elle est humaine, elle inspire l'indulgence, elle étouffe la discorde, elle affermit la vertu, elle rend aimable l'obéissance aux Loix, plus encore que la force ne les maintient. Et comptera-t-on pour rien le ridicule attaché aujourd'hui à l'enthousiasme par tous les honnêtes gens? Ce ridicule est une puissante barriere contre les extravagances de tous les Sectaires. Les temps passés sont comme s'ils n'avaient jamais été. Il faut toujours partir du point où l'on est, & de celui où les Nations sont parvenues.

Il a été un temps où l'on se crut obligé de rendre des Arrêts contre ceux qui enseignaient une Doctrine contraire aux Cathégories d'*Aristote*, à l'horreur du vuide, aux quiddités, & à l'universel de la part de la chose. Nous avons en Europe plus de cent volumes de Jurisprudence sur la Sorcellerie, & sur la maniere de distinguer les faux Sorciers des véritables. L'excommunication des sauterelles, & des insectes nuisibles aux moissons, a été très-en usage, & subsiste encore dans plusieurs Rituels; l'usage est passé, on laisse en paix *Aristote*, les Sorciers & les sauterelles. Les exemples de ces graves démences, autrefois si importantes, sont innombrables: il en revient d'autres de temps en temps; mais quand elles ont fait leur effet, quand on en est rassassié, elles s'anéantissent. Si quelqu'un s'avisait aujourd'hui d'être Carpocratien, ou Eutichéen, ou Monothélite, Monophisite, Nestorien, Manichéen, &c. qu'arriverait-il? On en rirait comme d'un homme habillé à l'antique avec une fraise & un pourpoint.

La Nation commençait à entr'ouvrir les yeux, lorsque les Jésuites *Le Tellier* & *Doucin* fabriquerent la Bulle *Unigenitus*, qu'ils envoyerent à Rome; ils crurent être encore dans ces temps d'ignorance, où les Peuples adoptaient sans examen les Assertions les plus absurdes. Ils oserent proscrire cette proposition, qui est d'une vérité universelle dans tous les cas & dans tous les temps; *La crainte d'une excommunication injuste ne doit point empêcher de faire son devoir*: c'était proscrire la raison, les libertés de l'Eglise Gallicane, & le fondement de la morale; c'était dire aux hommes, Dieu vous ordonne de ne jamais faire votre devoir, dès que vous craindrez l'injustice. On n'a jamais heurté le sens commun plus effrontément; les Consulteurs de Rome n'y prirent pas garde. On persuada à la Cour de Rome que cette Bulle était nécessaire, & que la Nation la desirait; elle fut signée, scellée & envoyée, on en sait les suites: certainement si on les avait prévues, on aurait mitigé la Bulle. Les querelles ont été vives, la prudence & la bonté du Roi les a enfin appaisées.

Il en est de même dans une grande partie des points qui divisent les Protestants & nous; il y en a quelques-uns qui ne sont d'aucune conséquence, il y en a d'autres plus graves, mais sur lesquels la fureur de la dispute est tellement amortie, que les Protestants eux-mêmes ne prêchent aujourd'hui la controverse en aucune de leurs Eglises.

C'est donc ce temps de dégoût, de satiété, ou plutôt de raison, qu'on peut saisir comme une époque & un gage de la tranquillité publique. La controverse est une maladie épidémique qui est sur sa fin, & cette peste, dont on est guéri, ne demande plus qu'un régime doux. Enfin l'intérêt de l'Etat est que des fils expatriés reviennent avec modestie dans la maison de leur pere; l'humanité le demande, la raison le conseille, & la politique ne peut s'en effrayer.

### Chapter VI

*Si l'Intolérance est de droit naturel & de droit humain.*

LE droit naturel est celui que la nature indique à tous les hommes. Vous avez élevé votre enfant, il vous doit du respect comme à son pere, de la reconnaissance comme à son bienfaicteur. Vous avez droit aux productions de la terre que vous avez cultivée par vos mains, vous avez donné & reçu une promesse, elle doit être tenue.

Le droit humain ne peut être fondé en aucun cas que sur ce droit de nature; & le grand principe, le principe universel de l'un & de l'autre, est dans toute la terre: *Ne fais pas ce que tu ne voudrais pas qu'on te fît*. Or, on ne voit pas comment, suivant ce principe, un homme pourrait dire à un autre: *Crois ce que je crois & ce que tu ne peux croire, ou tu périras*: c'est ce qu'on dit en Portugal, en Espagne, à Goa. On se contente à présent dans quelques autres Pays de dire: *Crois, ou je t'abhorre; crois, ou je te ferai tout le mal que je pourrai; monstre, tu n'as pas ma Religion, tu n'as donc point de Religion; il faut que tu sois en horreur à tes voisins, à ta Ville, à ta Province*.

S'il était de droit humain de se conduire ainsi, il faudrait donc que le Japonois détestât le Chinois, qui aurait en exécration le Siamois; celui-ci poursuivrait les Gangarides, qui tomberaient sur les Habitants de l'Indus; un Mogol arracherait le cœur au premier Malabare qu'il trouverait; le Malabare pourrait égorger le Persan, qui pourrait massacrer le Turc; & tous ensemble se jetteraient sur les Chrétiens, qui se sont si long-temps dévorés les uns les autres.

Le droit de l'Intolérance est donc absurde & barbare; c'est le droit des tigres; & il est bien plus horrible: car les tigres ne déchirent que pour manger, & nous nous sommes exterminés pour des paragraphes.

### Chapter VII

*Si l'Intolérance a été connue des Grecs.*

LEs Peuples, dont l'Histoire nous a donné quelques faibles connaissances, ont tous regardé leurs différentes Religions comme des nœuds qui les unissaient tous ensemble; c'était une association du Genre-humain. Il y avait une espece de droit d'hospitalité entre les Dieux comme entre les hommes. Un Etranger arrivait-il dans une Ville, il commençait par adorer les Dieux du Pays; on ne manquait jamais de vénérer les Dieux mêmes de ses ennemis. Les Troyens adressaient des prieres aux Dieux qui combattaient pour les Grecs.

*Alexandre* alla consulter, dans les Déserts de la Libie, le Dieu *Ammon*, auquel les Grecs donnerent le nom de *Zeus* & les Latins de *Jupiter*, quoique les uns & les autres eussent leur *Jupiter* & leur *Zeus* chez eux. Lorsqu'on assiégeait une Ville, on faisait un sacrifice & des prieres aux Dieux de la Ville, pour se les rendre favorables. Ainsi, au milieu même de la guerre, la Religion réunissait les hommes, & adoucissait quelquefois leurs fureurs, si quelquefois elle leur commandait des actions inhumaines & horribles.

Je peux me tromper; mais il me paraît que de tous les anciens Peuples policés, aucun n'a gêné la liberté de penser. Tous avaient une Religion; mais il me semble qu'ils en usaient avec les hommes comme avec leurs Dieux; ils reconnaissaient tous un Dieu suprême, mais ils lui associaient une quantité prodigieuse de Divinités inférieures; ils n'avaient qu'un culte, mais ils permettaient une foule de systêmes particuliers.

Les Grecs, par exemple, quelque religieux qu'ils fussent, trouvaient bon que les Epicuriens niassent la Providence & l'existence de l'ame. Je ne parle pas des autres Sectes, qui toutes blessaient les idées saines qu'on doit avoir de l'Etre créateur, & qui toutes étaient tolérées.

*Socrate* qui approcha le plus près de la connaissance du Créateur, en porta, dit-on, la peine, & mourut martyr de la Divinité; c'est le seul que les Grecs ayent fait mourir pour ses opinions. Si ce fut en effet la cause de sa condamnation, cela n'est pas à l'honneur de l'Intolérance, puisqu'on ne punit que celui qui seul rendit gloire à Dieu, & qu'on honora tous ceux qui donnaient de la Divinité les notions les plus indignes. Les ennemis de la tolérance ne doivent pas, à mon avis, se prévaloir de l'exemple odieux des Juges de *Socrate*.

Il est évident d'ailleurs, qu'il fut la victime d'un parti furieux animé contre lui. Il s'était fait des ennemis irréconciliables des Sophistes, des Orateurs, des Poëtes, qui enseignaient dans les Ecoles, & même de tous les Précepteurs qui avaient soin des enfants de distinction. Il avoue lui-même dans son Discours rapporté par *Platon*, qu'il allait de maison en maison prouver à ces Précepteurs qu'ils n'étaient que des ignorants: cette conduite n'était pas digne de celui qu'un Oracle avait déclaré le plus sage des hommes. On déchaîna contre lui un Prêtre, & un Conseiller des cinq cents, qui l'accuserent; j'avoue que je ne sais pas précisément de quoi, je ne vois que du vague dans son apologie; on lui fait dire en général, qu'on lui imputait d'inspirer aux jeunes gens des maximes contre la Religion & le Gouvernement. C'est ainsi qu'en usent tous les jours les calomniateurs dans le monde: mais il faut dans un Tribunal des faits avérés, des chefs d'accusation précis & circonstanciés; c'est ce que le procès de *Socrate* ne nous fournit point: nous savons seulement qu'il eut d'abord deux cents vingt voix pour lui. Le Tribunal des cinq cents possédait donc deux cents vingt Philosophes: c'est beaucoup; je doute qu'on les trouvât ailleurs. Enfin, la pluralité fut pour la ciguë; mais aussi, songeons que les Athéniens, revenus à eux-mêmes, eurent les accusateurs & les Juges en horreur; que *Melitus*, le principal auteur de cet Arrêt, fut condamné à mort pour cette injustice; que les autres furent bannis, & qu'on éleva un Temple à *Socrate*. Jamais la Philosophie ne fut si bien vengée, ni tant honorée. L'exemple de *Socrate* est au fond le plus terrible argument qu'on puisse alléguer contre l'intolérance. Les Athéniens avaient un Autel dédié aux Dieux étrangers, aux Dieux qu'ils ne pouvaient connaître. Y a-t-il une plus forte preuve, non-seulement d'indulgence pour toutes les Nations, mais encore de respect pour leurs cultes?

Un honnête homme qui n'est ennemi ni de la raison, ni de la littérature, ni de la probité, ni de la patrie, en justifiant depuis peu la *Saint-Barthelemi*, cite la guerre des Phocéens, nommée *la guerre sacrée*, comme si cette guerre avait été allumée pour le culte, pour le dogme, pour des arguments de Théologie; il s'agissait de savoir à qui appartiendrait un champ: c'est le sujet de toutes les guerres. Des gerbes de bled ne sont pas un symbole de créance; jamais aucune Ville Grecque ne combattit pour des opinions. D'ailleurs que prétend cet homme modeste & doux? veut-il que nous fassions une guerre sacrée?

### Chapter VIII

*Si les Romains ont été tolérants.*

CHez les anciens Romains, depuis *Romulus* jusqu'aux temps où les Chrétiens disputerent avec les Prêtres de l'Empire, vous ne voyez pas un seul homme persécuté pour ses sentiments. *Cicéron* douta de tout; *Lucrece* nia tout; & on ne leur en fit pas le plus léger reproche: la licence même alla si loin, que *Pline* le Naturaliste commence son Livre par nier un Dieu, & par dire que s'il en est un, c'est le Soleil. *Cicéron* dit, en parlant des Enfers: *Non est anus tam excors quæ credat*: «Il n'y a pas même de vieille assez imbécille pour les croire.» *Juvenal* dit: *Nec pueri credunt*: «Les enfants n'en croyent rien.» On chantait sur le Théâtre de Rome: *Post mortem nihil est, ipsaque mors nihil*: «Rien n'est après la mort, la mort même n'est rien.» Abhorrons ces maximes, &, tout au plus, pardonnons-les à un Peuple que les Evangiles n'éclairaient pas; elles sont fausses, elles sont impies; mais concluons que les Romains étaient très-tolérants, puisqu'elles n'exciterent jamais le moindre murmure.

Le grand principe du Sénat & du Peuple Romain était: *Deorum offensa diis curæ*; «C'est aux Dieux seuls à se soucier des offenses faites aux Dieux.» Ce Peuple Roi ne songeait qu'à conquérir, à gouverner, & à policer l'Univers. Ils ont été nos Législateurs comme nos vainqueurs; & jamais *César*, qui nous donna des fers, des loix & des jeux, ne voulut nous forcer à quitter nos Druides pour lui, tout grand Pontife qu'il était d'une Nation notre Souveraine.

Les Romains ne professaient pas tous les cultes, ils ne donnaient pas à tous la sanction publique, mais ils les permirent tous. Ils n'eurent aucun objet matériel de culte sous *Numa*, point de simulacres, point de statues; bientôt ils en éleverent aux Dieux *Majorum Gentium*, que les Grecs leur firent connaître. La Loi des douze Tables, *Deos peregrinos ne colunto*, se réduisit à n'accorder le culte public qu'aux Divinités supérieures ou inférieures approuvées par le Sénat. *Isis* eut un Temple dans Rome, jusqu'au temps où *Tibere* le démolit, lorsque les Prêtres de ce Temple, corrompus par l'argent de *Mundus*, le firent coucher dans le Temple sous le nom du Dieu *Anubis*, avec une femme nommée *Pauline*. Il est vrai que *Joseph* est le seul qui rapporte cette histoire; il n'était pas contemporain, il était crédule & exagérateur. Il y a peu d'apparence que dans un temps aussi éclairé que celui de *Tibere*, une Dame de la premiere condition eût été assez imbécille pour croire avoir les faveurs du Dieu *Anubis*.

Mais que cette anecdote soit vraie ou fausse, il demeure certain que la superstition Egyptienne avait élevé un Temple à Rome avec le consentement public. Les Juifs y commerçaient dès le temps de la guerre Punique; ils y avaient des Synagogues du temps d'*Auguste*, & ils les conserverent presque toujours, ainsi que dans Rome moderne. Y a-t-il un plus grand exemple que la tolérance était regardée par les Romains comme la loi la plus sacrée du droit des gens?

On nous dit qu'aussi-tôt que les Chrétiens parurent, ils furent persécutés par ces mêmes Romains qui ne persécutaient personne. Il me paraît évident que ce fait est très-faux; je n'en veux pour preuve que *St. Paul* lui-même. Chap. 21. & 22.Les Actes des Apôtres nous apprennent que *St. Paul* étant accusé par les Juifs de vouloir détruire la Loi Mosaïque par Jesus-Christ, *St. Jacques* proposa à *St. Paul* de se faire raser la tête, & d'aller se purifier dans le Temple avec quatre Juifs, *afin que tout le monde sache que tout ce que l'on dit de vous est faux, & que vous continuez à garder la Loi de Moïse*.

*Paul*, Chrétien, alla donc s'acquitter de toutes les cérémonies Judaïques pendant sept jours; mais les sept jours n'étaient pas encore écoulés, quand des Juifs d'*Asie* le reconnurent; & voyant qu'il était entré dans le Temple, non-seulement avec des Juifs, mais avec des Gentils, ils crierent à la profanation: on le saisit, on le mena devant le Gouverneur *Félix*, & ensuite on s'adressa au Tribunal de *Festus*. Les Juifs en foule demanderent sa mort; Actes des Apôtres, Chap. 25.*Festus* leur répondit: *Ce n'est point la coutume des Romains de condamner un homme avant que l'accusé ait ses accusateurs devant lui, & qu'on lui ait donné la liberté de se défendre.*

Ces paroles sont d'autant plus remarquables dans ce Magistrat Romain, qu'il paraît n'avoir eu nulle considération pour *St. Paul*, n'avoir senti pour lui que du mépris; trompé par les fausses lumieres de sa raison, il le prit pour un fou; il lui dit à lui-même qu'il était en démence, Act. des Ap. Ch. 26. v. 34.*multæ te litteræ ad insaniam convertunt*. *Festus* n'écouta donc que l'équité de la Loi Romaine, en donnant sa protection à un inconnu qu'il ne pouvait estimer.

Voilà le St. Esprit lui-même qui déclare que les Romains n'étaient pas persécuteurs, & qu'ils étaient justes. Ce ne sont pas les Romains qui se souleverent contre *St. Paul*, ce furent les Juifs. *St. Jacques*, frere de Jesus, fut lapidé par l'ordre d'un Juif Saducéen, & non d'un Romain: les Juifs seuls lapiderent *St. Etienne*;[14] & lorsque *St. Paul* gardait les manteaux des exécuteurs, certes il n'agissait pas en Citoyen Romain.

Les premiers Chrétiens n'avaient rien sans doute à démêler avec les Romains; ils n'avaient d'ennemis que les Juifs dont ils commençaient à se séparer. On sait quelle haine implacable portent tous les Sectaires à ceux qui abandonnent leur secte. Il y eut sans doute du tumulte dans les Synagogues de Rome. *Suétone* dit, dans la Vie de Claude, *Judæos impulsore Christo assiduè tumultuantes Roma expulit*. Il se trompait, en disant que c'était à l'instigation de Christ: il ne pouvait pas être instruit des détails d'un Peuple aussi méprisé à Rome que l'était le Peuple Juif, mais il ne se trompait pas sur l'occasion de ces querelles. *Suétone* écrivait sous *Adrien*, dans le second siecle; les Chrétiens n'étaient pas alors distingués des Juifs aux yeux des Romains. Le passage de *Suétone* fait voir que les Romains, loin d'opprimer les premiers Chrétiens, réprimaient alors les Juifs qui les persécutaient. Ils voulaient que la Synagogue de Rome eût pour ses freres séparés la même indulgence que le Sénat avait pour elle; & les Juifs chassés revinrent bientôt après; ils parvinrent même aux honneurs malgré les Loix qui les en excluaient: c'est *Dion Cassius* & *Ulpien* qui nous l'apprennent.[15] Est-il possible qu'après la ruine de Jérusalem les Empereurs eussent prodigué des dignités aux Juifs, & qu'ils eussent persécuté, livré aux bourreaux & aux bêtes, des Chrétiens qu'on regardait comme une secte de Juifs!

*Néron*, dit-on, les persécuta. *Tacite* nous apprend qu'ils furent accusés de l'incendie de Rome, & qu'on les abandonna à la fureur du Peuple. S'agissait-il de leur créance dans une telle accusation? Non sans doute. Dirons-nous que les Chinois, que les Hollandais égorgerent, il y a quelques années, dans les Fauxbourgs de Batavia, furent immolés à la Religion? Quelque envie qu'on ait de se tromper, il est impossible d'attribuer à l'intolérance le désastre arrivé sous *Néron* à quelques malheureux demi-Juifs & demi-Chrétiens.[16]

[14] Quoique les Juifs n'eussent pas le droit du glaive depuis qu'*Archelaüs* avait été relégué chez les Allobroges, & que la Judée était gouvernée en Province de l'Empire; cependant les Romains fermaient souvent les yeux quand les Juifs exerçaient le jugement du zele, c'est-à-dire, quand, dans une émeute subite, ils lapidaient par zele celui qu'ils croyaient avoir blasphémé.

[15] Ulpianus l.... tit. II. *Eis qui Judaïcam superstitionem sequuntur honores adipisci permiserunt, &c.*

[16] Tacite dit: *Quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat*.

Il est bien difficile que le nom de Chrétien fût déja connu à Rome; *Tacite* écrivait sous *Vespasien* & sous *Domitien*; il parlait des Chrétiens comme on en parlait de son temps. J'oserais dire que ces mots, * odio humani generis convicti*, pourraient bien signifier, dans le style de *Tacite*, *convaincus d'être haïs du Genre-humain*, autant que *convaincus de haïr le Genre-humain*.

En effet que faisoient à Rome ces premiers Missionnaires? Ils tâchaient de gagner quelques ames; ils leur enseignaient la morale la plus pure; ils ne s'élevaient contre aucune puissance; l'humilité de leur cœur était extrême, comme celle de leur état & de leur situation; à peine étaient-ils connus, à peine étaient-ils séparés des autres Juifs: comment le Genre-humain, qui les ignorait, pouvait-il les haïr? & comment pouvaient-ils être convaincus de détester le Genre-humain?

Lorsque Londres brûla, on en accusa les Catholiques; mais c'était après des guerres de Religion, c'était après la conspiration des poudres, dont plusieurs Catholiques, indignes de l'être, avaient été convaincus.

Les premiers Chrétiens du temps de *Néron* ne se trouvaient pas assurément dans les mêmes termes. Il est très-difficile de percer dans les ténebres de l'Histoire; *Tacite* n'apporte aucune raison du soupçon qu'on eut que *Néron* lui-même eût voulu mettre Rome en cendres; on aurait été bien mieux fondé de soupçonner *Charles II* d'avoir brûlé Londres: le sang du Roi son Pere, exécuté sur un échafaud aux yeux du Peuple qui demandait sa mort, pouvait au moins servir d'excuse à *Charles II*. Mais *Néron* n'avait ni excuse, ni prétexte, ni intérêt. Ces rumeurs insensées peuvent être en tout Pays le partage du Peuple; nous en avons entendu de nos jours d'aussi folles & d'aussi injustes.

*Tacite*, qui connaît si bien le naturel des Princes, devait connaître aussi celui du Peuple, toujours vain, toujours outré dans ses opinions violentes & passageres, incapable de rien voir, & capable de tout dire, de tout croire, & de tout oublier.

*Philon* dit que *Séjan les persécuta sous Tibere; mais qu'après la mort de Séjan, l'Empereur les rétablit dans tous leurs droits*. Ils avaient celui des Citoyens Romains, tout méprisés qu'ils étaient des Citoyens Romains; ils avaient part aux distributions de bled, & même, lorsque la distribution se faisait un jour de Sabath, on remettait la leur à un autre jour: c'était probablement en considération des sommes d'argent qu'ils avaient données à l'Etat; car en tout Pays ils ont acheté la Tolérance, & se sont dédommagés bien vîte de ce qu'elle avait coûté.

Ce passage de *Philon* explique parfaitement celui de *Tacite*, qui dit qu'on envoya quatre mille Juifs ou Egyptiens en Sardaigne, & que si l'intempérie du climat les eût fait périr, c'eût été une perte légere, *vile damnum*.

J'ajouterai à cette remarque, que *Philon* regarde *Tibere* comme un Prince sage & juste. Je crois bien qu'il n'était juste qu'autant que cette justice s'accordait avec ses intérêts; mais le bien que *Philon* en dit, me fait un peu douter des horreurs que *Tacite* & *Suétone* lui reprochent. Il ne me paraît point vraisemblable qu'un Vieillard infirme de soixante & dix ans, se soit retiré dans l'Isle de Caprée pour s'y livrer à des débauches recherchées qui sont à peine dans la nature, & qui étaient même inconnues à la jeunesse de Rome la plus effrénée: ni *Tacite*, ni *Suétone* n'avaient connu cet Empereur; ils recueillaient avec plaisir des bruits populaires; *Octave*, *Tibere*, & leurs Successeurs avaient été odieux, parce qu'ils régnaient sur un Peuple qui devait être libre: les Historiens se plaisaient à les diffamer, & on croyait ces Historiens sur leur parole, parce qu'alors on manquait de Mémoires, de Journaux du temps, de Documents: aussi les Historiens ne citent personne; on ne pouvait les contredire; ils diffamaient qui ils voulaient, & décidaient à leur gré du jugement de la postérité. C'est au Lecteur sage de voir jusqu'à quel point on doit se défier de la véracité des Historiens, quelle créance on doit avoir pour les faits publics attestés par des Auteurs graves, nés dans une Nation éclairée; & quelles bornes on doit mettre à sa crédulité sur des Anecdotes que ces mêmes Auteurs rapportent sans aucune preuve.

### Chapter IX

*Des Martyrs.*

IL y eut dans la suite des Martyrs Chrétiens: il est bien difficile de savoir précisément pour quelles raisons ces Martyrs furent condamnés; mais j'ose croire qu'aucun ne le fut sous les premiers *Césars*, pour sa seule Religion; on les tolérait toutes; comment aurait-on pu rechercher & poursuivre des hommes obscurs, qui avaient un culte particulier, dans le temps qu'on permettait tous les autres?

Les *Titus*, les *Trajans*, les *Antonins*, les *Decius* n'étaient pas des barbares: peut-on imaginer qu'ils auraient privé les seuls Chrétiens d'une liberté dont jouissait toute la terre? Les aurait-on seulement osé accuser d'avoir des mysteres secrets, tandis que les mysteres d'*Isis*, ceux de *Mitras*, ceux de la Déesse de Syrie, tous étrangers au culte Romain, étaient permis sans contradiction? Il faut bien que la persécution ait eu d'autres causes, & que les haines particulieres, soutenues par la raison d'Etat, ayent répandu le sang des Chrétiens.

Par exemple, lorsque *St. Laurent* refuse au Préfet de Rome, *Cornelius Secularis*, l'argent des Chrétiens qu'il avait en sa garde, il est naturel que le Préfet & l'Empereur soient irrités; ils ne savaient pas que *St. Laurent* avait distribué cet argent aux pauvres, & qu'il avait fait une œuvre charitable & sainte, ils le regarderent comme un réfractaire, & le firent périr.[17]

Considérons le martyre de *St. Polyeucte*. Le condamna-t-on pour sa Religion seule? Il va dans le Temple, où l'on rend aux Dieux des actions de graces pour la victoire de l'Empereur *Decius*; il y insulte les Sacrificateurs, il renverse & brise les Autels & les Statues: quel est le Pays au monde où l'on pardonnerait un pareil attentat? Le Chrétien qui déchira publiquement l'Edit de l'Empereur *Dioclétien*, & qui attira sur ses freres la grande persécution, dans les deux dernieres années du regne de ce Prince, n'avait pas un zele selon la science; & il était bien malheureux d'être la cause du désastre de son parti. Ce zele inconsidéré qui éclata souvent, & qui fut même condamné par plusieurs Peres de l'Eglise, a été probablement la source de toutes les persécutions.

Je ne compare point, sans doute, les premiers Sacramentaires aux premiers Chrétiens; je ne mets point l'erreur à côté de la vérité: mais *Farel*, prédécesseur de *Jean Calvin*, fit dans Arles la même chose que *St. Polyeucte* avait fait en Arménie. On portait dans les rues la Statue de *St. Antoine* l'Hermite en procession; *Farel* tombe avec quelques-uns des siens sur les Moines qui portaient *St. Antoine*, les bat, les disperse, & jette *St. Antoine* dans la riviere. Il méritait la mort qu'il ne reçut pas, parce qu'il eut le temps de s'enfuir. S'il s'était contenté de crier à ces Moines, qu'il ne croyait pas qu'un corbeau eût apporté la moitié d'un pain à *St. Antoine* l'Hermite, ni que *St. Antoine* eût eu des conversations avec des Centaures & des Satyres, il aurait mérité une forte réprimande, parce qu'il troublait l'ordre; mais si le soir, après la procession, il avait examiné paisiblement l'histoire du corbeau, des Centaures & des Satyres, on n'aurait rien eu à lui reprocher.

Quoi! les Romains auraient souffert que l'infame *Antinoüs* fût mis au rang des seconds Dieux, & ils auraient déchiré, livré aux bêtes tous ceux auxquels on n'aurait reproché que d'avoir paisiblement adoré un juste! Quoi! ils auraient reconnu un Dieu suprême[18], un Dieu Souverain, maître de tous les Dieux secondaires, attesté par cette formule, *Deus optimus maximus*, & ils auraient recherché ceux qui adoraient un Dieu unique!

Il n'est pas croyable que jamais il y eût une Inquisition contre les Chrétiens sous les Empereurs, c'est-à-dire, qu'on soit venu chez eux les interroger sur leur créance. On ne troubla jamais sur cet article ni Juif, ni Syrien, ni Egyptien, ni Bardes, ni Druides, ni Philosophes. Les Martyrs furent donc ceux qui s'éleverent contre les faux Dieux. C'était une chose très-sage, très-pieuse de n'y pas croire; mais enfin, si, non contents d'adorer un Dieu en esprit & en vérité, ils éclaterent violemment contre le culte reçu, quelque absurde qu'il pût être, on est forcé d'avouer qu'eux-mêmes étaient intolérants.

*Tertullien*, dans son Apologétique,avoue qu'on regardait les Chrétiens comme des factieux; Chap. 39.l'accusation était injuste, mais elle prouvait que ce n'était pas la Religion seule des Chrétiens qui excitait le zele des Magistrats. Chap. 35.Il avoue que les Chrétiens refusaient d'orner leurs portes de branches de laurier dans les réjouissances publiques pour les victoires des Empereurs: on pouvait aisément prendre cette affectation condamnable pour un crime de leze-Majesté.

La premiere sévérité juridique exercée contre les Chrétiens, fut celle de *Domitien*; mais elle se borna à un exil qui ne dura pas une année: *Facile cœptum repressit restitutis quos ipse relegaverat*, dit *Tertullien*. *Lactance*, dont le style est si emporté, convient que depuis *Domitien* jusqu'à *Decius* Chap. 3.l'Eglise fut tranquille & florissante. Cette longue paix, dit-il, fut interrompue quand cet exécrable animal *Decius* opprima l'Eglise: *post multos annos extitit execrabile animal Decius, qui vexaret Ecclesiam*.

On ne veut point discuter ici le sentiment du savant *Dodwel*, sur le petit nombre des Martyrs; mais si les Romains avaient tant persécuté la Religion Chrétienne, si le Sénat avait fait mourir tant d'innocents par des supplices inusités, s'ils avaient plongé des Chrétiens dans l'huile bouillante, s'ils avaient exposé des filles toutes nues aux bêtes dans le Cirque, comment auraient-ils laissé en paix tous les premiers Evêques de Rome? *St. Irenée* ne compte pour Martyr, parmi ces Evêques, que le seul *Télesphore*, dans l'an 139 de l'Ere vulgaire; & on n'a aucune preuve que ce *Télesphore* ait été mis à mort. *Zéphirin* gouverna le troupeau de Rome pendant dix-huit années, & mourut paisiblement l'an 219. Il est vrai que dans les anciens Martyrologes, on place presque tous les premiers Papes; mais le mot de *martyr* n'était pris alors que suivant sa véritable signification: *martyre* voulait dire *témoignage*, & non pas *supplice*.

Il est difficile d'accorder cette fureur de persécution avec la liberté qu'eurent les Chrétiens d'assembler cinquante-six Conciles, que les Ecrivains Ecclésiastiques comptent dans les trois premiers siecles.

Il y eut des persécutions; mais si elles avaient été aussi violentes qu'on le dit, il est vraisemblable que *Tertullien*, qui écrivit avec tant de force contre le culte reçu, ne serait pas mort dans son lit. On sait bien que les Empereurs ne lurent pas son Apologétique; qu'un Ecrit obscur, composé en Afrique, ne parvient pas à ceux qui sont chargés du gouvernement du monde: mais il devait être connu de ceux qui approchaient le Proconsul d'Afrique; il devait attirer beaucoup de haine à l'Auteur; cependant il ne souffrit point le martyre.

*Origene* enseigna publiquement dans Alexandrie, & ne fut point mis à mort. Ce même *Origene*, qui parlait avec tant de liberté aux Païens & aux Chrétiens, qui annonçait Jesus aux uns, qui niait un Dieu en trois Personnes aux autres, avoue expressément dans son troisieme Livre contre *Celse*, qu'*il y a eu très-peu de Martyrs, & encore de loin à loin*; *cependant*, dit-il, *les Chrétiens ne négligent rien pour faire embrasser leur Religion par tout le monde; ils courent dans les Villes, dans les Bourgs, dans les Villages*.

Il est certain que ces courses continuelles pouvaient être aisément accusées de sédition par les Prêtres ennemis, & pourtant ces missions sont tolérées malgré le Peuple Egyptien, toujours turbulent, séditieux & lâche; Peuple qui avait déchiré un Romain pour avoir tué un chat; Peuple en tout temps méprisable, quoi qu'en disent les admirateurs des pyramides.[19]

Qui devait plus soulever contre lui les Prêtres & le Gouvernement que *St. Grégoire Taumaturge*, disciple d'*Origene*? *Grégoire* avait vu pendant la nuit un vieillard envoyé de Dieu, accompagné d'une femme resplendissante de lumiere: cette femme était la Ste. Vierge, & ce vieillard était *St. Jean* l'Evangéliste. *St. Jean* lui dicta un symbole, que *St. Grégoire* alla prêcher. Il passa, en allant à Néocésarée, près d'un Temple où l'on rendait des oracles, & où la pluye l'obligea de passer la nuit; il y fit plusieurs signes de croix. Le lendemain, le grand Sacrificateur du Temple fut étonné que les démons qui lui répondaient auparavant, ne voulaient plus rendre d'oracles: il les appella; les diables vinrent pour lui dire qu'ils ne viendraient plus; ils lui apprirent qu'ils ne pouvaient plus habiter ce Temple, parce que Grégoire y avait passé la nuit, & qu'il y avait fait des signes de croix. Le Sacrificateur fit saisir *Grégoire*, qui lui répondit: *Je peux chasser les démons d'où je veux, & les faire entrer où il me plaîra. Faites-les donc rentrer dans mon Temple*, dit le Sacrificateur. Alors *Grégoire* déchira un petit morceau d'un volume qu'il tenait à la main, & y traça ces paroles: *Grégoire, à Sathan; je te commande de rentrer dans ce Temple*: on mit ce billet sur l'Autel; les démons obéirent, & rendirent ce jour-là leurs oracles comme à l'ordinaire; après quoi ils cesserent, comme on le sait.

C'est *St. Grégoire de Nysse* qui rapporte ces faits dans la Vie de *St. Grégoire Taumaturge*. Les Prêtres des Idoles devaient sans doute être animés contre *Grégoire*, & dans leur aveuglement le déférer au Magistrat; cependant leur plus grand ennemi n'essuya aucune persécution.

Il est dit dans l'Histoire de *St. Cyprien*, qu'il fut le premier Evêque de Carthage condamné à la mort. Le martyre de *St. Cyprien* est de l'an 258, de notre Ere; donc pendant un très-long-temps aucun Evêque de Carthage ne fut immolé pour sa religion. L'Histoire ne nous dit point quelles calomnies s'éleverent contre *St. Cyprien*, quels ennemis il avait, pourquoi le Proconsul d'Afrique fut irrité contre lui. *St. Cyprien* écrit à *Cornelius*, Evêque de Rome: *Il arriva depuis peu une émotion populaire à Carthage, & on cria par deux fois qu'il fallait me jetter aux lions*. Il est bien vraisemblable que les emportements du Peuple féroce de Carthage furent enfin cause de la mort de *Cyprien*; & il est bien sûr que ce ne fut pas l'Empereur *Gallus* qui le condamna de si loin pour sa religion, puisqu'il laissait en paix *Corneille* qui vivait sous ses yeux.

Tant de causes secretes se mêlent souvent à la cause apparente, tant de ressorts inconnus servent à persécuter un homme, qu'il est impossible de démêler, dans les siecles postérieurs, la source cachée des malheurs des hommes les plus considérables, à plus forte raison celle du supplice d'un Particulier qui ne pouvait être connu que par ceux de son parti.

Remarquez que *St. Grégoire Taumaturge*, & *St. Denis*, Evêque d'Alexandrie, qui ne furent point suppliciés, vivaient dans le temps de *St. Cyprien*. Pourquoi, étant aussi connus pour le moins que cet Evêque de Carthage, demeurerent-ils paisibles? & pourquoi *St. Cyprien* fut-il livré au supplice? N'y a-t-il pas quelque apparence que l'un succomba sous des ennemis personnels & puissants, sous la calomnie, sous le prétexte de la raison d'Etat, qui se joint si souvent à la Religion, & que les autres eurent le bonheur d'échapper à la méchanceté des hommes?

Il n'est guères possible que la seule accusation de Christianisme ait fait périr *St. Ignace*, sous le clément & juste *Trajan*, puisqu'on permit aux Chrétiens de l'accompagner & de le consoler quand on le conduisit à Rome[20]. Il y avait eu souvent des séditions dans Antioche, ville toujours turbulente, où *Ignace* était Evêque secret des Chrétiens: peut-être ces séditions, malignement imputées aux Chrétiens innocents, exciterent l'attention du Gouvernement, qui fut trompé, comme il est trop souvent arrivé.

*St. Siméon*, par exemple, fut accusé devant *Sapor* d'être l'espion des Romains. L'Histoire de son martyre rapporte que le Roi *Sapor* lui proposa d'adorer le Soleil: mais on sait que les Perses ne rendaient point de culte au Soleil; ils le regardaient comme un emblême du bon principe, *d'Oromase*, ou *Orosmade*, du Dieu Créateur qu'ils reconnaissaient.

Quelque tolérant que l'on puisse être, on ne peut s'empêcher de sentir quelque indignation contre ces déclamateurs, qui accusent *Dioclétien* d'avoir persécuté les Chrétiens, depuis qu'il fut sur le Trône: rapportons-nous-en à *Eusebe* de *Césarée*, son témoignage ne peut être récusé; le favori, le panégyriste de *Constantin*, l'ennemi violent des Empereurs précédents, doit en être cru quand il les justifie: voici ses paroles: Hist. Ecclésiastiq. Liv. 8.«Les Empereurs donnerent long-temps aux Chrétiens de grandes marques de bienveillance; ils leur confierent des Provinces; plusieurs Chrétiens demeurerent dans le Palais; ils épouserent même des Chrétiennes; *Dioclétien* prit pour son épouse *Prisca*, dont la fille fut femme de *Maximien Galere*, &c.

Qu'on apprenne donc de ce témoignage décisif à ne plus calomnier; qu'on juge si la persécution excitée par *Galere*, après dix-neuf ans d'un regne de clémence & de bienfaits, ne doit pas avoir sa source dans quelque intrigue que nous ne connaissons pas.

Qu'on voye combien la fable de la Légion Thébaine ou Thébéenne, massacrée, dit-on, toute entiere pour la Religion, est une fable absurde. Il est ridicule qu'on ait fait venir cette Légion d'Asie par le grand St. Bernard; il est impossible qu'on l'eût appellée d'Asie pour venir appaiser une sédition dans les Gaules, un an après que cette sédition avait été réprimée: il n'est pas moins impossible qu'on ait égorgé six mille hommes d'Infanterie, & sept cents Cavaliers, dans un passage où deux cents hommes pourraient arrêter une Armée entiere. La relation de cette prétendue boucherie commence par une imposture évidente: *Quand la terre gémissait sous la tyrannie de Dioclétien, le Ciel se peuplait de Martyrs.* Or cette aventure, comme on l'a dit, est supposée en 286, temps où *Dioclétien* favorisait le plus les Chrétiens, & où l'Empire Romain fut le plus heureux. Enfin ce qui devrait épargner toutes ces discussions, c'est qu'il eut jamais de Légion Thébaine: les Romains étaient trop fiers & trop sensés pour composer une Légion de ces Egyptiens qui ne servaient à Rome que d'esclaves, *Verna Canopi*: c'est comme s'ils avaient eu une Légion Juive. Nous avons les noms des trente-deux Légions qui faisaient les principales forces de l'Empire Romain; assurément la Légion Thébaine ne s'y trouve pas. Rangeons donc ce conte avec les vers acrostiches des Sibylles qui prédisaient les miracles de Jesus-Christ, & avec tant de pieces supposées, qu'un faux zele prodigua pour abuser la crédulité.

[17] Nous respectons assurément tout ce que l'Eglise rend respectable; nous invoquons les Sts. Martyrs; mais en révérant *St. Laurent*, ne peut-on pas douter que *St. Sixte* lui ait dit: *Vous me suivrez dans trois jours*; que dans ce court intervalle le Préfet de Rome lui ait fait demander l'argent des Chrétiens; que le Diacre *Laurent* ait eu le temps de faire assembler tous les pauvres de la Ville, qu'il ait marché devant le Préfet pour le mener à l'endroit où étaient ces pauvres, qu'on lui ait fait son procès, qu'il ait subi la question, que le Préfet ait commandé à un Forgeron un gril assez grand pour y rôtir un homme, que le premier Magistrat de Rome ait assisté lui-même à cet étrange supplice; que *St. Laurent* sur ce gril, ait dit: «Je suis assez cuit d'un côté, fais-moi retourner de l'autre, si tu veux me manger?» Ce gril n'est guères dans le génie des Romains; & comment se peut-il faire qu'aucun Auteur Païen n'ait parlé d'aucune de ces aventures?

[18] Il n'y a qu'à ouvrir *Virgile* pour voir que les Romains reconnaissaient un Dieu suprême, Souverain de tous les êtres célestes.

*O! quis res hominumque Deumque*
*Æternis regis imperiis, & fulmine terres,*
*O Pater, ô hominum divûmque æterna potestas, &c.*

*Horace* s'exprime bien plus fortement:

*Undè nil majus generatur ipso,*
*Nec viget quidquam simile, aut secundum.*

On ne chantait autre chose que l'unité de Dieu dans les mysteres auxquels presque tous les Romains étaient initiés. Voyez la belle Hymne d'*Orphée*; lisez la Lettre de *Maxime de Madaure* à *St. Augustin* dans laquelle il dit, qu'*il n'y a que des imbécilles qui puissent ne pas reconnaître un Dieu Souverain*. *Longinien*, étant Païen, écrit au même *St. Augustin*, que *Dieu est unique, incompréhensible, ineffable*. *Lactance* lui-même, qu'on ne peut accuser d'être trop indulgent, avoue dans son Livre V, que *les Romains soumettent tous les Dieux au Dieu suprême:* *Illos subjicit & mancipat Deo*. *Tertullien* même, dans son Apologétique, avoue que tout l'Empire reconnaissait un Dieu maître du monde, dont la puissance & la majesté sont infinies. *Principem mundi perfectæ potentiæ, & majestatis.* Ouvrez sur-tout *Platon*, le maître de Cicéron dans la Philosophie, vous y verrez qu'*il n'y a qu'un Dieu*, qu'*il faut l'adorer, l'aimer, travailler à lui ressembler par la sainteté & par la justice*. *Epictete* dans les fers, *Marc-Antonin* sur le Trône, disent la même chose en cent endroits.

[19] Cette assertion doit être prouvée. Il faut convenir que depuis que l'Histoire a succédé à la Fable, on ne voit dans les Egyptiens qu'un Peuple aussi lâche que superstitieux. *Cambyse* s'empare de l'Egypte par une seule bataille: *Alexandre* y donne des Loix sans essuyer un seul combat, sans qu'aucune Ville ose attendre un siege: les *Ptolomées* s'en emparent sans coup férir; *César* & *Auguste* la subjuguent aussi aisément. *Omar* prend toute l'Egypte en une seule campagne; les Mammelucs, Peuples de la Colchide & des environs du Mont Caucase, en sont les maîtres après *Omar*; ce sont eux, & non les Egyptiens, qui défont l'armée de *St. Louis*, & qui prennent ce Roi prisonnier. Enfin, les Mammelucs étant devenus Egyptiens, c'est-à-dire, mous, lâches, inappliqués, volages, comme les Habitants naturels de ce climat, ils passent en trois mois sous le joug de *Selim I*, qui fait pendre leur Soudan, & qui laisse cette Province annexée à l'Empire des Turcs, jusqu'à ce que d'autres barbares s'en emparent un jour.

*Hérodote* rapporte que dans les temps fabuleux, un Roi Egyptien, nommé *Sésostris*, sortit de son Pays dans le dessein formel de conquérir l'Univers: il est visible qu'un tel dessein n'est digne que de *Pycrocole* ou de *Don-Quichote*; & sans compter que le nom de *Sésostris* n'est point Egyptien, on peut mettre cet événement, ainsi que tous les faits antérieurs, au rang des *mille & une nuits*. Rien n'est plus commun chez les Peuples conquis, que de débiter des fables sur leur ancienne grandeur, comme, dans certains Pays, certaines misérables familles se font descendre d'antiques Souverains. Les Prêtres d'Egypte conterent à *Hérodote* que ce Roi, qu'il appelle *Sésostris*, était allé subjuguer la Colchide; c'est comme si on disait qu'un Roi de France partit de la Tourraine pour aller subjuguer la Norvege.

On a beau répéter tous ces contes dans mille & mille volumes, ils n'en sont pas plus vraisemblables; il est bien plus naturel que les Habitants robustes & féroces du Caucase, les Colchidiens, & les autres Scythes, qui vinrent tant de fois ravager l'Asie, pénétrerent jusqu'en Egypte: & si les Prêtres de Colchos rapporterent ensuite chez eux la mode de la circoncision, ce n'est pas une preuve qu'ils ayent été subjugués par les Egyptiens. *Diodore* de Sicile rapporte que tous les Rois vaincus par *Sésostris* venaient tous les ans du fond de leurs Royaumes lui apporter leurs tributs, & que *Sésostris* se servait d'eux comme de chevaux de carrosse, qu'il les faisait atteler à son char pour aller au Temple. Ces histoires de *Gargantua* sont tous les jours fidélement copiées. Assurément ces Rois étaient bien bons de venir de si loin servir ainsi de chevaux.

Quant aux pyramides, & aux autres antiquités, elles ne prouvent autre chose que l'orgueil & le mauvais goût des Princes d'Egypte, & l'esclavage d'un Peuple imbécille, employant ses bras, qui étaient son seul bien, à satisfaire la grossiere ostentation de ses Maîtres. Le gouvernement de ce Peuple, dans les temps mêmes que l'on vante si fort, paraît absurde & tyrannique: on prétend que toutes les Terres appartenaient à leurs Monarques. C'était bien à de pareils esclaves à conquérir le monde!

Cette profonde science des Prêtres Egyptiens est encore un des plus énormes ridicules de l'Histoire ancienne, c'est-à-dire, de la Fable. Des gens qui prétendaient que dans le cours d'onze mille années le Soleil s'était levé deux fois au couchant, & couché deux fois au levant, en recommençant son cours, étaient sans doute bien au-dessous de l'Auteur de l'Almanach de Liege. La Religion de ces Prêtres qui gouvernaient l'Etat, n'était pas comparable à celle des Peuples les plus sauvages de l'Amérique: on sait qu'ils adoraient des crocodiles, des singes, des chats, des oignons; & il n'y a peut-être aujourd'hui dans toute la terre que le culte du grand *Lama* qui soit aussi absurde.

Leurs Arts ne valent guères mieux que leur Religion; il n'y a pas une seule ancienne statue Egyptienne qui soit supportable, & tout ce qu'ils ont eu de bon a été fait dans Alexandrie sous les *Ptolomées* & sous les *Césars*, par des Artistes de Grece: ils ont eu besoin d'un Grec pour apprendre la Géométrie.

L'illustre *Bossuet* s'extasie sur le mérite Egyptien, dans son *Discours sur l'Histoire universelle*, adressé au fils de *Louis XIV*. Il peut éblouir un jeune Prince, mais il contente bien peu les Savants; c'est une très-éloquente déclamation, mais un Historien doit être plus Philosophe qu'Orateur. Au reste, on ne donne cette réflexion sur les Egyptiens que comme une conjecture: quel autre nom peut-on donner à tout ce qu'on dit de l'Antiquité?

[20] On ne révoque point en doute la mort de *St. Ignace*; mais qu'on lise la Relation de son martyre, un homme de bon sens ne sentira-t-il pas quelques doutes s'élever dans son esprit? L'Auteur inconnu de cette Relation dit, que *Trajan crut qu'il manquerait quelque chose à sa gloire, s'il ne soumettait à son Empire le Dieu des Chrétiens*. Quelle idée! *Trajan* était-il un homme qui voulût triompher des Dieux? Lorsqu'*Ignace* parut devant l'Empereur, ce Prince lui dit: *Qui es-tu, esprit impur?* Il n'est guères vraisemblable qu'un Empereur ait parlé à un prisonnier, & qu'il l'ait condamné lui-même; ce n'est pas ainsi que les Souverains en usent. Si *Trajan* fit venir *Ignace* devant lui, il ne lui demanda pas: *Qui es-tu?* il le savait bien. Ce mot, *esprit impur*, a-t-il pu être prononcé par un homme comme *Trajan*? Ne voit-on pas que c'est une expression d'exorciste, qu'un Chrétien met dans la bouche d'un Empereur? Est-ce là, bon Dieu! le style de *Trajan*?

Peut-on imaginer qu'*Ignace* lui ait répondu qu'il se nommait *Théophore*, parce qu'il portait Jesus dans son cœur, & que *Trajan* eût disserté avec lui sur Jesus-Christ? On fait dire à *Trajan*, à la fin de la conversation: *Nous ordonnons qu'Ignace, qui se glorifie de porter en lui le Crucifié, sera mis aux fers, &c.* Un Sophiste, ennemi des Chrétiens, pouvait appeller Jesus-Christ *le Crucifié*; mais il n'est guères probable que dans un Arrêt on se fût servi de ce terme. Le supplice de la croix était si usité chez les Romains, qu'on ne pouvait, dans le style des Loix, désigner par le *Crucifié* l'objet du culte des Chrétiens, & ce n'est pas ainsi que les Loix & les Empereurs prononcent leurs jugements.

On fait ensuite écrire une longue Lettre par *St. Ignace* aux Chrétiens de Rome: *Je vous écris*, dit-il, *tout enchaîné que je suis*. Certainement, s'il lui fut permis d'écrire aux Chrétiens de Rome, ces Chrétiens n'étaient donc pas recherchés; *Trajan* n'avait donc pas dessein de soumettre leur Dieu à son Empire: ou si ces Chrétiens étaient sous le fléau de la persécution, *Ignace* commettait une très grande imprudence en leur écrivant; c'était les exposer, les livrer; c'était se rendre leur délateur.

Il semble que ceux qui ont rédigé ces actes, devaient avoir plus d'égard aux vraisemblances & aux convenances. Le martyre de *St. Polycarpe* fait naître encore plus de doutes. Il est dit qu'une voix cria du haut du Ciel, *Courage, Polycarpe!* que les Chrétiens l'entendirent, mais que les autres n'entendirent rien: il est dit que quand on eut lié *Polycarpe* au poteau, & que le bûcher fut en flammes, ces flammes s'écarterent de lui, & formerent un arc au-dessus de sa tête; qu'il en sortit une colombe; que le Saint, respecté par le feu, exhala une odeur d'aromates qui embauma toute l'assemblée: mais que celui dont le feu n'osait approcher, ne put résister au tranchant du glaive. Il faut avouer qu'on doit pardonner à ceux qui trouvent dans ces Histoires plus de piété que de vérité.

### Chapter X

*Du danger des fausses légendes, & de la persécution.*

LE mensonge en a trop long-temps imposé aux hommes; il est temps qu'on connaisse le peu de vérités qu'on peut démêler à travers ces nuages de fables qui couvrent l'Histoire Romaine, depuis *Tacite* & *Suétone*, & qui ont presque toujours enveloppé les Annales des autres Nations anciennes.

Comment peut-on croire, par exemple, que les Romains, ce Peuple grave & sévere, de qui nous tenons nos Loix, ayent condamné des Vierges Chrétiennes, des filles de qualité, à la prostitution. C'est bien mal connaître l'austere dignité de nos Législateurs, qui punissaient si sévérement les faiblesses des Vestales. *Les Actes sinceres* de *Ruinart* rapportent ces turpitudes; mais doit-on croire aux *Actes* de *Ruinart*, comme aux Actes des Apôtres? Ces *Actes sinceres* disent, après *Bollandus*, qu'il y avait dans la Ville d'Ancyre sept Vierges Chrétiennes, d'environ soixante & dix ans chacune; que le Gouverneur *Théodecte* les condamna à passer par les mains des jeunes gens de la Ville, mais que ces Vierges ayant été épargnées, (comme de raison) il les obligea de servir toutes nues aux mysteres de *Diane*, auxquels, pourtant, on n'assista jamais qu'avec un voile. *S. Théodote*, qui à la vérité était Cabaretier, mais qui n'en était pas moins zélé, pria Dieu ardemment de vouloir bien faire mourir ces saintes filles, de peur qu'elles ne succombassent à la tentation: Dieu l'exauça; le Gouverneur les fit jetter dans un lac avec une pierre au cou: elles apparurent aussi-tôt à *Théodote*, & le prierent de ne pas souffrir *que leurs corps fussent mangés des poissons*: ce furent leurs propres paroles.

Le St. Cabaretier & ses compagnons allerent pendant la nuit au bord du lac, gardé par des soldats; un flambeau céleste marcha toujours devant eux, & quand ils furent au lieu où étaient les Gardes, un Cavalier céleste, armé de toutes pieces, poursuivit ces Gardes la lance à la main: *St. Théodote* retira du lac les corps des Vierges: il fut mené devant le Gouverneur, & le Cavalier céleste n'empêcha pas qu'on ne lui tranchât la tête. Ne cessons de répéter que nous vénérons les vrais Martyrs, mais qu'il est difficile de croire cette histoire de *Bollandus* & de *Ruinart*.

Faut-il rapporter ici le Conte du jeune *St. Romain*? On le jetta dans le feu, dit *Eusebe*, & des Juifs qui étaient présents, insulterent à Jesus-Christ qui laissait bruler ses Confesseurs, après que Dieu avait tiré *Sidrac*, *Mizac* & *Abdenago* de la fournaise ardente. A peine les Juifs eurent-ils parlé, que *St. Romain* sortit triomphant du bucher: l'Empereur ordonna qu'on lui pardonnât, & dit au Juge qu'il ne voulait rien avoir à démêler avec Dieu. (étranges paroles pour *Dioclétien!*) Le Juge, malgré l'indulgence de l'Empereur, commanda qu'on coupât la langue à *St. Romain*; & quoiqu'il eût des bourreaux, il fit faire cette opération par un Médecin. Le jeune *Romain*, né begue, parla avec volubilité dès qu'il eut la langue coupée. Le Médecin essuya une réprimande; & pour montrer que l'opération était faite selon les regles de l'art, il prit un passant, & lui coupa juste autant de langue qu'il en avait coupé à *St. Romain*, de quoi le passant mourut sur le champ: *car*, ajoute savamment l'Auteur, *l'Anatomie nous apprend qu'un homme sans langue ne saurait vivre*. En vérité, si *Eusebe* a écrit de pareilles fadaises, si on ne les a point ajoutées à ses Ecrits, quel fond peut-on faire sur son Histoire?

On nous donne le martyre de *Ste. Félicité* & de ses sept enfants, envoyés, dit-on, à la mort par le sage & pieux *Antonin*, sans nommer l'Auteur de la relation. Il est bien vraisemblable que quelque Auteur, plus zélé que vrai, a voulu imiter l'Histoire des *Macabées*; c'est ainsi que commence la relation: *Ste, Félicité était Romaine, elle vivait sous le regne d'Antonin*: il est clair, par ces paroles, que l'Auteur n'était pas contemporain de *Ste. Félicité*; il dit que le Préteur les jugea sur son Tribunal dans le champ de *Mars*; mais le Préfet de Rome tenait son Tribunal au Capitole, & non au champ de *Mars*, qui, après avoir servi à tenir les Comices, servait alors aux revues des Soldats, aux courses, aux jeux militaires: cela seul démontre la supposition.

Il est dit encore, qu'après le jugement, l'Empereur commit à différents Juges le soin de faire exécuter l'Arrêt; ce qui est entiérement contraire à toutes les formalités de ces temps-là, & à celles de tous les temps.

Il y a de même un *saint Hyppolite*, que l'on suppose traîné par des chevaux, comme *Hyppolite* fils de *Thésée*. Ce supplice ne fut jamais connu des anciens Romains; & la seule ressemblance du nom a fait inventer cette fable.

Observez encore que dans les Relations des martyres, composées uniquement par les Chrétiens mêmes, on voit presque toujours une foule de Chrétiens venir librement dans la prison du condamné, le suivre au supplice, recueillir son sang, ensevelir son corps, faire des miracles avec les reliques. Si c'était la Religion seule qu'on eût persécutée, n'aurait-on pas immolé ces Chrétiens déclarés qui assistaient leurs freres condamnés, & qu'on accusait d'opérer des enchantements avec les restes des corps martyrisés? Ne les aurait-on pas traités comme nous avons traité les Vaudois, les Albigeois, les Hussites, les différentes sectes des Protestants? nous les avons égorgés, brûlés en foule, sans distinction ni d'âge ni de sexe. Y a-t-il dans les Relations avérées des persécutions anciennes un seul trait qui approche de la *St. Barthelemi*, & des massacres d'Irlande? Y en a-t-il un seul qui ressemble à la Fête annuelle qu'on célebre encore dans Toulouse, fête cruelle, fête abolissable à jamais, dans laquelle un Peuple entier remercie Dieu en procession, & se félicite d'avoir égorgé il y a deux cents ans quatre mille de ses Concitoyens?

Je le dis avec horreur, mais avec vérité: c'est nous Chrétiens, c'est nous qui avons été persécuteurs, bourreaux, assassins! & de qui? de nos freres. C'est nous qui avons détruit cent Villes, le Crucifix ou la Bible à la main, & qui n'avons cessé de répandre le sang, & d'allumer des buchers, depuis le regne de *Constantin* jusqu'aux fureurs des Cannibales qui habitaient les Cévennes; fureurs, qui, graces au Ciel, ne subsistent plus aujourd'hui.

Nous envoyons encore quelquefois à la potence, de pauvres gens du Poitou, du Vivarais, de Valence, de Montauban. Nous avons pendu depuis 1745, huit personnages de ceux qu'on appelle Prédicants, ou Ministres de l'Evangile, qui n'avaient d'autre crime que d'avoir prié Dieu pour le Roi en patois, & d'avoir donné une goutte de vin & un morceau de pain levé à quelques Paysans imbécilles. On ne sait rien de cela dans Paris, où le plaisir est la seule chose importante, où l'on ignore tout ce qui se passe en Province & chez les Etrangers. Ces procès se font en une heure, & plus vite qu'on ne juge un déserteur. Si le Roi en était instruit, il ferait grace.

On ne traite ainsi les Prêtres Catholiques en aucun Pays Protestant. Il y a plus de cent Prêtres Catholiques en Angleterre & en Irlande, on les connaît, on les a laissé vivre très-paisiblement dans la derniere guerre.

Serons-nous toujours les derniers à embrasser les opinions saines des autres Nations? Elles se sont corrigées; quand nous corrigerons-nous? Il a fallu soixante ans pour nous faire adopter ce que *Newton* avait démontré; nous commençons à peine à oser sauver la vie à nos enfants par l'inoculation; nous ne pratiquons que depuis très-peu de temps les vrais principes de l'agriculture; quand commencerons-nous à pratiquer les vrais principes de l'humanité? & de quel front pouvons-nous reprocher aux Païens d'avoir fait des Martyrs, tandis que nous avons été coupables de la même cruauté dans les mêmes circonstances?

Accordons que les Romains ont fait mourir une multitude de Chrétiens pour leur seule Religion; en ce cas, les Romains ont été très-condamnables. Voudrions-nous commettre la même injustice? & quand nous leur reprochons d'avoir persécuté, voudrions-nous être persécuteurs?

S'il se trouvait quelqu'un assez dépourvu de bonne foi, ou assez fanatique, pour me dire ici: Pourquoi venez-vous développer nos erreurs & nos fautes? pourquoi détruire nos faux miracles & nos fausses légendes? elles sont l'aliment de la piété de plusieurs personnes; il y a des erreurs nécessaires; n'arrachez pas du corps un ulcere invétéré qui entraînerait avec lui la destruction du corps: voici ce que je lui répondrais.

Tous ces faux miracles, par lesquels vous ébranlez la foi qu'on doit aux véritables, toutes ces légendes absurdes que vous ajoutez aux vérités de l'Evangile, éteignent la Religion dans les cœurs; trop de personnes qui veulent s'instruire, & qui n'ont pas le temps de s'instruire assez, disent: Les Maîtres de ma Religion m'ont trompé, il n'y a donc point de Religion; il vaut mieux se jetter dans les bras de la nature que dans ceux de l'erreur; j'aime mieux dépendre de la Loi naturelle que des inventions des hommes. D'autres ont le malheur d'aller encore plus loin; ils voyent que l'imposture leur a mis un frein, & ils ne veulent pas même du frein de la vérité; ils penchent vers l'Athéisme: on devient dépravé, parce que d'autres ont été fourbes & cruels.

Voilà certainement les conséquences de toutes les fraudes pieuses & de toutes les superstitions. Les hommes d'ordinaire ne raisonnent qu'à demi; c'est un très-mauvais argument que de dire: *Voraginé*, l'auteur de la légende dorée, & le Jésuite *Ribadeneira*, compilateur de *la fleur des Saints*, n'ont dit que des sottises; donc il n'y a point de Dieu: Les Catholiques ont égorgé un certain nombre d'Huguenots, & les Huguenots à leur tour ont assassiné un certain nombre de Catholiques; donc il n'y a point de Dieu. On s'est servi de la Confession, de la Communion & de tous les Sacrements, pour commettre les crimes les plus horribles; donc il n'y a point de Dieu: Je conclurais au contraire, donc il y a un Dieu, qui après cette vie passagere, dans laquelle nous l'avons tant méconnu, & tant commis de crimes en son nom, daignera nous consoler de tant d'horribles malheurs; car à considérer les guerres de Religion, les quarante schismes des Papes, qui ont presque tous été sanglants, les impostures qui ont presque toutes été funestes, les haines irréconciliables allumées par les différentes opinions, à voir tous les maux qu'a produit le faux zele, les hommes ont eu long-temps leur enfer dans cette vie.

### Chapter XI

*Abus de l'Intolérance.*

MAis quoi! sera-t-il permis à chaque Citoyen de ne croire que sa raison, & de penser ce que cette raison éclairée ou trompée lui dictera? Il le faut bien,[21] pourvu qu'il ne trouble point l'ordre; car il ne dépend pas de l'homme de croire, ou de ne pas croire; mais il dépend de lui de respecter les usages de sa Patrie: & si vous disiez que c'est un crime de ne pas croire à la Religion dominante, vous accuseriez donc vous-mêmes les premiers Chrétiens vos peres, & vous justifieriez ceux que vous accusez de les avoir livrés aux supplices.

Vous répondez que la différence est grande, que toutes les Religions sont les ouvrages des hommes, & que l'Eglise Catholique Apostolique & Romaine est seule l'ouvrage de Dieu. Mais en bonne foi, parce que notre Religion est divine, doit-elle régner par la haine, par les fureurs, par les exils, par l'enlévement des biens, les prisons, les tortures, les meurtres, & par les actions de graces rendues à Dieu pour ces meurtres? Plus la Religion Chrétienne est divine, moins il appartient à l'homme de la commander; si Dieu l'a faite, Dieu la soutiendra sans vous. Vous savez que l'intolérance ne produit que des hypocrites ou des rebelles; quelle funeste alternative! Enfin, voudriez-vous soutenir par des bourreaux la Religion d'un Dieu que des bourreaux ont fait périr, & qui n'a prêché que la douceur & la patience?

Voyez, je vous prie, les conséquences affreuses du droit de l'intolérance: s'il était permis de dépouiller de ses biens, de jetter dans les cachots, de tuer un Citoyen, qui sous un tel degré de latitude ne professerait pas la Religion admise sous ce degré, quelle exception exempterait les premiers de l'Etat des mêmes peines? La Religion lie également le Monarque & les mendiants: aussi, plus de cinquante Docteurs ou Moines ont affirmé cette horreur monstrueuse, qu'il était permis de déposer, de tuer les Souverains qui ne penseraient pas comme l'Eglise dominante; & les Parlements du Royaume n'ont cessé de proscrire ces abominables décisions d'abominables Théologiens.[22]

Le sang de *Henri-le-Grand* fumait encore, quand le Parlement de Paris donna un Arrêt qui établissait l'indépendance de la Couronne, comme une Loi fondamentale. Le Cardinal *Duperron*, qui devait la pourpre à *Henri-le-Grand*, s'éleva dans les Etats de 1614 contre l'Arrêt du Parlement, & le fit supprimer. Tous les Journaux du temps rapportent les termes dont *Duperron* se servit dans ses harangues: *Si un Prince se faisait Arien*, dit-il, *on serait bien obligé de le déposer*.

Non assurément, Monsieur le Cardinal; on veut bien adopter votre supposition chimérique, qu'un de nos Rois ayant lu l'Histoire des Conciles & des Peres, frappé d'ailleurs de ces paroles, *mon Pere est plus grand que moi*, les prenant trop à la lettre, & balançant entre le Concile de Nicée & celui de Constantinople, se déclarât pour *Eusebe de Nicomédie*, je n'en obéirais pas moins à mon Roi, je ne me croirais pas moins lié par le serment que je lui ai fait; & si vous osiez vous soulever contre lui, & que je fusse un de vos juges, je vous déclarerais criminel de leze-Majesté.

*Duperron* poussa plus loin la dispute, & je l'abrege. Ce n'est pas ici le lieu d'approfondir ces chimeres révoltantes; je me bornerai à dire avec tous les Citoyens, que ce n'est pas parce que *Henri IV*. fut sacré à Chartres qu'on lui devait obéissance, mais parce que le droit incontestable de la naissance donnait la Couronne à ce Prince, qui la méritait par son courage & par sa bonté.

Qu'il soit donc permis de dire que tout Citoyen doit hériter, par le même droit, des biens de son pere, & qu'on ne voit pas qu'il mérite d'en être privé, & d'être traîné au gibet, parce qu'il sera du sentiment de *Ratram* contre *Pascase Ratberg*, & de *Bérenger* contre *Scot*.

On sait que tous nos dogmes n'ont pas toujours été clairement expliqués, & universellement reçus dans notre Eglise. Jesus-Christ ne nous ayant point dit comment procédait le St. Esprit, l'Eglise Latine crut long-temps avec la Grecque, qu'il ne procédait que du Pere: enfin elle ajouta au Symbole, qu'il procédait aussi du Fils. Je demande, si le lendemain de cette décision, un Citoyen qui s'en serait tenu au symbole de la veille eût été digne de mort? La cruauté, l'injustice serait-elle moins grande de punir aujourd'hui celui qui penserait comme on pensait autrefois? Etait-on coupable du temps d'*Honorius I*, de croire que Jesus n'avait pas deux volontés?

Il n'y a pas long-temps que l'Immaculée Conception est établie: les Dominicains n'y croyent pas encore. Dans quel temps les Dominicains commenceront-ils à mériter des peines dans ce monde, & dans l'autre?

Si nous devons apprendre de quelqu'un à nous conduire dans nos disputes interminables, c'est certainement des Apôtres & des Evangélistes. Il y avait de quoi exciter un schisme violent entre *St. Paul* & *St. Pierre*. *Paul* dit expressément dans son Epître aux Galates, qu'il résista en face à *Pierre*, parce que *Pierre* était répréhensible, parce qu'il usait de dissimulation aussi-bien que *Barnabé*, parce qu'ils mangeaient avec les Gentils avant l'arrivée de *Jacques*, & qu'ensuite ils se retirerent secrétement, & se séparerent des Gentils de peur d'offenser les Circoncis. *Je vis*, ajoute-t-il, *qu'ils ne marchaient pas droit selon l'Evangile; je dis à Céphas: Si vous, Juif, vivez comme les Gentils, & non comme les Juifs, pourquoi obligez-vous les Gentils à judaïser?*

C'était là un sujet de querelle violente. Il s'agissait de savoir si les nouveaux Chrétiens judaïseraient ou non. *St. Paul* alla dans ce temps-là même sacrifier dans le Temple de Jérusalem. On sait que les quinze premiers Evêques de Jérusalem furent des Juifs circoncis, qui observerent le Sabath & qui s'abstinrent des viandes défendues. Un Evêque Espagnol ou Portugais, qui se ferait circoncire & qui observerait le Sabath, serait brulé dans un *auto-da-fé*. Cependant la paix ne fut altérée pour cet objet fondamental, ni parmi les Apôtres, ni parmi les premiers Chrétiens.

Si les Evangélistes avaient ressemblé aux Ecrivains modernes, ils avaient un champ bien vaste pour combattre les uns contre les autres. *St. Matthieu* compte vingt-huit générations depuis *David* jusqu'à Jesus. *St. Luc* en compte quarante-une; & ces générations sont absolument différentes. On ne voit pourtant nulle dissention s'élever entre les Disciples sur ces contrariétés apparentes, très-bien conciliées par plusieurs Peres de l'Eglise. La charité ne fut point blessée, la paix fut conservée. Quelle plus grande leçon de nous tolérer dans nos disputes, & de nous humilier dans tout ce que nous n'entendons pas?

*St. Paul*, dans son Epître à quelques Juifs de Rome, convertis au Christianisme, employe toute la fin du Chapitre III à dire que la seule Foi glorifie, & que les œuvres ne justifient personne. *St. Jacques*, au contraire, dans son Epître aux douze Tribus dispersées par toute la terre, Chapitre II, ne cesse de dire qu'on ne peut être sauvé sans les œuvres. Voilà ce qui a séparé deux grandes Communions parmi nous, & ce qui ne divisa point les Apôtres.

Si la persécution contre ceux avec qui nous disputons, était une action sainte, il faut avouer que celui qui aurait fait tuer le plus d'hérétiques serait le plus grand Saint du Paradis. Quelle figure ferait un homme qui se serait contenté de dépouiller ses freres, & de les plonger dans des cachots, auprès d'un zélé qui en aurait massacré des centaines le jour de la *St. Barthelemi*? en voici la preuve.

Le Successeur de *St. Pierre* & son Consistoire ne peuvent errer; ils approuverent, célébrerent, consacrerent l'action de la *St. Barthelemi*: donc cette action était très-sainte; donc, de deux assassins égaux en piété, celui qui aurait éventré vingt-quatre femmes grosses Huguenotes, doit être élevé en gloire du double de celui qui n'en aura éventré que douze: par la même raison les fanatiques des Cévennes devaient croire qu'ils seraient élevés en gloire à proportion du nombre des Prêtres, des Religieux, & des femmes Catholiques qu'ils auraient égorgés. Ce sont là d'étranges titres pour la gloire éternelle.

[21] *Voyez* l'excellente Lettre de *Loke* sur la Tolérance.

[22] Le Jésuite *Busembaum*, commenté par le Jésuite *La Croix*, dit, qu'*il est permis de tuer un Prince excommunié par le Pape, dans quelque Pays qu'on trouve ce Prince, parce que l'Univers appartient au Pape, & que celui qui accepte cette commission fait une œuvre très-charitable*. C'est cette proposition inventée dans les petites maisons de l'Enfer, qui a le plus soulevé toute la France contre les Jésuites. On leur a reproché alors plus que jamais ce dogme si souvent enseigné par eux & si souvent désavoué. Ils ont cru se justifier en montrant à peu près les mêmes décisions dans *St. Thomas* & dans plusieurs Jacobins.[A] En effet, *St. Thomas d'Aquin*, Docteur Angélique, interprete de la volonté divine, ce sont ses titres, avance qu'un Prince apostat perd son droit à la Couronne, & qu'on ne doit plus lui obéir:[B] que l'Eglise peut le punir de mort: qu'on n'a toléré l'Empereur *Julien* que parce qu'on n'était pas le plus fort:[C] que de droit on doit tuer tout Hérétique:[D] que ceux qui délivrent le Peuple d'un Prince qui gouverne tyranniquement, sont très-louables, &c. &c. On respecte fort l'Ange de l'Ecole; mais si dans les temps de *Jacques Clément*, son confrere, & du Feuillant *Ravaillac*, il était venu soutenir en France de telles propositions, comment aurait-on traité l'Ange de l'Ecole?

[A] Voyez, si vous pouvez, la *Lettre* d'un homme du monde à un Théologien sur *St. Thomas*; c'est une brochure de Jésuite, de 1762.

[B] Liv. II, part. 2, question 12.

[C] Liv. II, part. 2, question 12.

[D] Ibid. question 11 & 12.

Il faut avouer que *Jean Gerson*, Chancelier de l'Université, alla encore plus loin que *St. Thomas*, & le Cordelier *Jean Petit*, infiniment plus loin que *Gerson*. Plusieurs Cordeliers soutinrent les horribles Theses de *Jean Petit*. Il faut avouer que cette doctrine diabolique du Régicide vient uniquement de la folle idée où ont été long-temps presque tous les Moines, que le Pape est un Dieu en terre, qui peut disposer à son gré du Trône & de la vie des Rois. Nous avons été en cela fort au-dessous de ces Tartares qui croyent le grand *Lama* immortel; il leur distribue sa chaise percée, ils font sécher ces reliques, les enchassent, & les baisent dévotement. Pour moi, j'avoue que j'aimerois mieux, pour le bien de la paix, porter à mon cou de telles reliques, que de croire que le Pape ait le moindre droit sur le temporel des Rois, ni même sur le mien, en quelque cas que ce puisse être.

### Chapter XII

*Si l'intolérance fut de Droit Divin dans le Judaïsme, & si elle fut toujours mise en pratique?*

ON appelle, je crois *Droit Divin*, les préceptes que Dieu a donnés lui-même. Il voulut que les Juifs mangeassent un agneau cuit avec des laitues, & que les Convives le mangeassent debout, un bâton à la main, en commémoration du *Phase*; il ordonna que la consécration du grand Prêtre se ferait en mettant du sang à son oreille droite, à sa main droite, & à son pied droit; coutumes extraordinaires pour nous, mais non pas pour l'antiquité; il voulut qu'on chargeât le bouc *Hazazel* des iniquités du Peuple; Deutér. Chap. 14.il défendit qu'on se nourrît de poissons sans écailles, de porcs, de lievres, de hérissons, de hiboux, de griffons, d'ixions, &c.

Il institua les fêtes, les cérémonies; toutes ces choses, qui semblaient arbitraires aux autres Nations, & soumises au droit positif, à l'usage, étant commandées par Dieu même, devenaient un droit divin pour les Juifs, comme tout ce que Jesus-Christ, fils de *Marie*, fils de Dieu, nous a commandé, est de droit divin pour nous.

Gardons-nous de rechercher ici pourquoi Dieu a substitué une Loi nouvelle à celle qu'il avait donnée à *Moïse*, & pourquoi il avait commandé à *Moïse*, plus de choses qu'au Patriarche *Abraham*, & plus à *Abraham* qu'à *Noé*.[23] Il semble qu'il daigne se proportionner aux temps & à la population du Genre-humain; c'est une gradation paternelle: mais ces abymes sont trop profonds pour notre débile vue; tenons-nous dans les bornes de notre sujet; voyons d'abord ce qu'était l'Intolérance chez les Juifs.

Il est vrai que dans l'Exode, les Nombres, le Lévitique, le Deutéronome,Amos, Chap. 5, v. 26.

Jérém. Chap. 7, v. 22.

Actes des Ap. Ch. 7, v. 42. il y a des Loix très-séveres sur le Culte, & des châtiments plus séveres encore. Plusieurs Commentateurs ont de la peine à concilier les récits de *Moïse* avec les passages de *Jérémie* & d'*Amos*, & avec le célebre Discours de *St. Etienne*, rapporté dans les Actes des Apôtres. *Amos* dit que les Juifs adorerent toujours dans le Désert *Moloc*, *Remphan* & *Kium*. *Jérémie* dit expressément, que Dieu ne demanda aucun sacrifice à leurs peres quand ils sortirent d'Egypte. *St. Etienne*, dans son Discours aux Juifs,s'exprime ainsi: «Ils adorerent l'Armée du Ciel, ils n'offrirent ni sacrifices ni hosties dans le Désert pendant quarante ans, ils porterent le Tabernacle du Dieu *Moloc*, & l'astre de leur Dieu *Rempham*.

D'autres Critiques inferent du culte de tant de Dieux étrangers, que ces Dieux furent tolérés par *Moïse*, & ils citent en preuves ces paroles du Deutéronome: Deutér. Chap. 12, v. 8.*Quand vous serez dans la Terre de Canaan, vous ne ferez point comme nous faisons aujourd'hui, où chacun fait ce qui lui semble bon*.[24]

Ils appuyent leur sentiment sur ce qu'il n'est parlé d'aucun acte religieux du Peuple dans le Désert: point de Pâque célébrée, point de Pentecôte; nulle mention qu'on ait célébré la fête des Tabernacles, nulle Priere publique établie; enfin, la Circoncision, ce sceau de l'alliance de Dieu avec *Abraham*, ne fut point pratiquée.

Ils se prévalent encore de l'Histoire de *Josué*. Josué, Ch. 14. v. 15 & suiv.Ce conquérant dit aux Juifs: «L'option vous est donnée, choisissez quel parti il vous plaîra, ou d'adorer les Dieux que vous avez servis dans le Pays des Amorrhéens, ou ceux que vous avez reconnus en Mésopotamie. Le Peuple répond: Il n'en sera pas ainsi, nous servirons *Adonaï*. *Josué* leur repliqua: Vous avez choisi vous-mêmes, ôtez donc du milieu de vous les Dieux étrangers.» Ils avaient donc eu incontestablement d'autres Dieux qu'*Adonaï* sous *Moïse*.

Il est très-inutile de réfuter ici les Critiques qui pensent que le Pentateuque ne fut pas écrit par *Moïse*; tout a été dit dès long-temps sur cette matiere; & quand même quelque petite partie des Livres de *Moïse* aurait été écrite du temps des Juges ou des Rois, ou des Pontifes, ils n'en seraient pas moins inspirés & moins divins.

C'est assez, ce me semble, qu'il soit prouvé par la Ste. Ecriture, que malgré la punition extraordinaire attirée aux Juifs par le culte d'*Apis*, ils conserverent long-temps une liberté entiere: peut-être même que le massacre que *Moïse* fit de vingt-trois mille hommes pour le veau érigé par son frere, lui fit comprendre qu'on ne gagnait rien par la rigueur, & qu'il fut obligé de fermer les yeux sur la passion du Peuple pour les Dieux étrangers.

Lui-même Nomb. Chap. 21, v. 9.semble bientôt transgresser la Loi qu'il a donnée. Il a défendu tout simulacre, cependant il érige un serpent d'airain. La même exception à la Loi se trouve depuis dans le Temple de *Salomon*; ce Prince fait sculpter douze bœufs qui soutiennent le grand bassin du Temple; des Chérubins sont posés dans l'Arche, ils ont une tête d'aigle & une tête de veau; & c'est apparemment cette tête de veau mal faite, trouvée dans le Temple par les Soldats Romains, qui fit croire long-temps que les Juifs adoraient un âne.

En vain le culte des Dieux étrangers est défendu; *Salomon* est paisiblement idolâtre. *Jéroboam*, à qui Dieu donna dix parts du Royaume, fait ériger deux veaux d'or, & regne vingt-deux ans, en réunissant en lui les dignités de Monarque & de Pontife. Le petit Royaume de Juda dresse sous *Roboam* des Autels étrangers & des statues. Le saint Roi *Asa* ne détruit point les hauts lieux. Le Grand-Prêtre *Urias* Liv. IV. des Rois, Chap. 16.érige dans le Temple, à la place de l'Autel des holocaustes, un Autel du Roi de Syrie. On ne voit, en un mot, aucune contrainte sur la Religion. Je sais que la plupart des Rois Juifs s'exterminerent, s'assassinerent les uns les autres; mais ce fut toujours pour leur intérêt, & non pour leur créance.

Il est vrai que parmi les Prophetes Liv. III. des Rois, Chap. 18, v. 38 & 40.

Liv. IV. des Rois, Chap. 2, v. 24.il y en eut qui intéresserent le Ciel à leur vengeance. *Elie* fit descendre le feu céleste pour consumer le Prêtre de *Baal*; *Elisée* fit venir des ours pour dévorer quarante-deux petits enfants qui l'avaient appellé *tête chauve*: mais ce sont des miracles rares, & des faits qu'il serait un peu dur de vouloir imiter.

On nous objecte encore Nomb. Chap. 31.que le Peuple Juif fut très-ignorant & très-barbare. Il est dit que dans la guerre qu'il fit aux Madianites,[25]*Moïse* ordonna de tuer tous les enfants mâles & toutes les meres, & de partager le butin. Les vainqueurs trouverent dans le camp 675000 brebis, 72000 bœufs, 61000 ânes, & 32000 jeunes filles; ils en firent le partage, & tuerent tout le reste. Plusieurs Commentateurs même prétendent que trente-deux filles furent immolées au Seigneur: *cesserunt in partem Domini triginta duæ animæ*.

En effet, les Juifs immolaient des hommes à la Divinité, témoin le sacrifice de *Jephté*,[26] témoin le Roi *Agag*,[27] coupé en morceaux par le Prêtre *Samuel*. *Ezéchiel* Ezéch. Chap. 39, v. 18.même leur promet, pour les encourager, qu'ils mangeront de la chair humaine. *Vous mangerez*, dit-il, *le cheval & le Cavalier, vous boirez le sang des Princes*. On ne trouve dans toute l'Histoire de ce Peuple aucun trait de générosité, de magnanimité, de bienfaisance; mais il s'échappe toujours dans le nuage de cette barbarie, si longue & si affreuse, des rayons d'une tolérance universelle.

*Jephté*, Juges, Chap. 11, v. 24.inspiré de Dieu, & qui lui immola sa fille, dit aux Ammonites: *Ce que votre Dieu Chamos vous a donné, ne vous appartient-il pas de droit? Souffrez donc que nous prenions la Terre que notre Dieu nous a promise.* Cette déclaration est précise; elle peut mener bien loin; mais, au moins, elle est une preuve évidente que Dieu tolérait *Chamos*. Car la sainte Ecriture ne dit pas: Vous pensez avoir droit sur les Terres que vous dites vous avoir été données par le Dieu *Chamos*; elle dit positivement: Vous avez droit, *Tibi jure debentur*: ce qui est le vrai sens de ces paroles hébraïques, *Otho thirasch*.

L'histoire de *Michas* & du Lévite, rapportée aux 17 & 18 chapitres du Livre des Juges, est bien encore une preuve incontestable de la tolérance & de la liberté la plus grande, admise chez les Juifs. La mere de *Michas*, femme fort riche d'Ephraïm, avait perdu onze cents pieces d'argent; son fils les lui rendit: elle voua cet argent au Seigneur, & en fit faire des idoles; elle bâtit une petite Chapelle, un Lévite desservit la Chapelle moyennant dix pieces d'argent, une tunique, un manteau par année & sa nourriture; & *Michas* s'écria: Chap. 17 v. dernier.*C'est maintenant que Dieu me fera du bien, puisque j'ai chez moi un Prêtre de la race de Lévi*.

Cependant, six cents hommes de la Tribu de *Dan*, qui cherchaient à s'emparer de quelque Village dans le Pays, & à s'y établir, mais n'ayant point de Prêtre Lévite avec eux, & en ayant besoin pour que Dieu favorisât leur entreprise, allerent chez *Michas*, & prirent son Ephod, ses Idoles & son Lévite, malgré les remontrances de ce Prêtre, & malgré les cris de *Michas* & de sa mere. Alors ils allerent avec assurance attaquer le Village nommé *Laïs*, & y mirent tout à feu & à sang, selon leur coutume. Ils donnerent le nom de *Dan* à *Laïs*, en mémoire de leur victoire; ils placerent l'Idole de *Michas* sur un Autel; & ce qui est bien plus remarquable, *Jonathan*, petit-fils de *Moïse*, fut le Grand-Prêtre de ce Temple, où l'on adorait le Dieu d'Israël & l'Idole de *Michas*.

Après la mort de *Gédéon*, les Hébreux adorerent *Baal-bérith* pendant près de vingt ans, & renoncerent au culte d'*Adonaï*, sans qu'aucun Chef, aucun Juge, aucun Prêtre criât vengeance. Leur crime était grand, je l'avoue; mais si cette idolâtrie même fut tolérée, combien les différences dans le vrai culte ont elles dû l'être?

Quelques-uns donnent pour une preuve d'intolérance, que le Seigneur lui-même ayant permis que son Arche fût prise par les Philistins dans un combat, il ne punit les Philistins qu'en les frappant d'une maladie secrete, ressemblante aux hémorrhoïdes, en renversant la statue de *Dagon*, & en envoyant une multitude de rats dans leurs campagnes: mais lorsque les Philistins, pour appaiser sa colere, eurent renvoyé l'Arche attelée de deux vaches qui nourrissaient leurs veaux, & offert à Dieu cinq rats d'or, & cinq anus d'or, le Seigneur fit mourir soixante & dix anciens d'Israël, & cinquante mille hommes du Peuple, pour avoir regardé l'Arche; on répond que le châtiment du Seigneur ne tombe point sur une créance, sur une différence dans le culte, ni sur aucune idolâtrie.

Si le Seigneur avait voulu punir l'idolâtrie, il aurait fait périr tous les Philistins qui oserent prendre son Arche, & qui adoraient *Dagon*; mais il fit périr cinquante mille & soixante & dix hommes de son Peuple, uniquement parce qu'ils avaient regardé son Arche qu'ils ne devaient pas regarder: tant les Loix, les mœurs de ce temps, l'économie judaïque different de tout ce que nous connaissons; tant les voyes inscrutables de Dieu sont au-dessus des nôtres. *La rigueur exercée*, dit le judicieux Don Calmet, *contre ce grand nombre d'hommes, ne paraîtra excessive qu'à ceux qui n'ont pas compris jusqu'à quel point Dieu voulait être craint & respecté parmi son Peuple, & qui ne jugent des vues & des desseins de Dieu qu'en suivant les foibles lumieres de leur raison*.

Dieu ne punit donc pas un culte étranger, mais une profanation du sien, une curiosité indiscrete, une désobéissance, peut-être même un esprit de révolte. On sent bien que de tels châtiments n'appartiennent qu'à Dieu dans la Théocratie Judaïque. On ne peut trop redire que ces temps & ces mœurs n'ont aucun rapport aux nôtres.

Enfin, lorsque dans des siecles postérieurs *Naaman* l'idolâtre, demanda à *Elisée* Liv. IV. des Rois, Chap. 20, v. 25.s'il lui était permis de suivre son Roi dans le Temple de Remnon, & *d'y adorer avec lui*, ce même *Elisée* qui avait fait dévorer les enfants par les ours, ne lui répondit-il pas, *Allez en paix*?

Il y a bien plus; le Seigneur ordonne à *Jérémie* de se mettre des cordes au cou, des colliers[28] & des jougs, de les envoyer aux Roitelets ou Melchim de Moab, d'Ammon, d'Edom, de Tyr, de Sidon; & *Jérémie* leur fait dire par le Seigneur: Jérém. Chap. 27, v. 6.*J'ai donné toutes vos Terres à Nabuchodonosor, Roi de Babylone, mon serviteur*. Voilà un Roi idolâtre déclaré serviteur de Dieu & son favori.

Le même *Jérémie*, que le Melk, ou Roitelet Juif, *Sédécias*, avait fait mettre au cachot, ayant obtenu son pardon de *Sédécias*, lui conseille de la part de Dieu Jérém. Chap. 18, v. 19.de se rendre au Roi de Babylone: *Si vous allez vous rendre à ses Officiers*, dit-il, *votre ame vivra*. Dieu prend donc enfin le parti d'un Roi idolâtre; il lui livre l'Arche, dont la seule vue avait coûté la vie à cinquante mille soixante & dix Juifs; il lui livre le Saint des Saints, & le reste du Temple qui avait coûté à bâtir cent huit mille talents d'or, un million dix-sept mille talents d'argent & dix mille drachmes d'or, laissés par *David* & ses Officiers pour la construction de la Maison du Seigneur; ce qui, sans compter les deniers employés par *Salomon*, monte à la somme de dix-neuf milliards soixante-deux millions, ou environ, au cours de ce jour. Jamais idolâtrie ne fut plus récompensée. Je sais que ce compte est exagéré, qu'il y a probablement erreur de Copiste; mais réduisez la somme à la moitié, au quart, au huitieme même, elle vous étonnera encore. On n'est guères moins surpris des richesses qu'*Hérodote* dit avoir vues dans le Temple d'Ephese. Enfin, les trésors ne sont rien aux yeux de Dieu; & le nom de son Serviteur donné à *Nabuchodonosor*, est le vrai trésor inestimable.

Dieu Isaïe, Chap. 44 & 45.ne favorise pas moins le *Kir*, ou *Koresh*, ou *Kosroes*, que nous appellons *Cyrus*; il l'appelle *son Christ*, *son Oint*, quoiqu'il ne fût pas Oint, selon la signification commune de ce mot, & qu'il suivît la Religion de *Zoroastre*; il l'appelle son *Pasteur*, quoiqu'il fût usurpateur aux yeux des hommes: il n'y a pas dans toute la sainte Ecriture une plus grande marque de prédilection.

Vous voyez dans *Malachie*, que *du levant au couchant le nom de Dieu est grand dans les Nations, & qu'on lui offre par-tout des oblations pures*. Dieu a soin des Ninivites idolâtres comme des Juifs; il les menace, & il leur pardonne. *Melchisedec*, qui n'était point Juif, était Sacrificateur de Dieu. *Balaam* idolâtre, était Prophete. L'Ecriture nous apprend donc que non-seulement Dieu tolérait tous les autres Peuples, mais qu'il en avait un soin paternel: & nous osons être intolérants!

[23] Dans l'idée que nous avons de faire sur cet Ouvrage quelques Notes utiles, nous remarquerons ici, qu'il est dit que Dieu fit une alliance avec *Noé*, & avec tous les animaux; & cependant il permet à *Noé* de *manger de tout ce qui a vie & mouvement*; il excepte seulement le sang, dont il ne permet pas qu'on se nourrisse. Dieu ajoute, *qu'il tirera vengeance de tous les animaux qui auront répandu le sang de l'homme*.

On peut inférer de ces passages & de plusieurs autres ce que toute l'antiquité a toujours pensé jusqu'à nos jours, & ce que tous les hommes sensés pensent, que les animaux ont quelques connaissances. Dieu ne fait point un pacte avec les arbres & avec les pierres, qui n'ont point de sentiment; mais il en fait un avec les animaux, qu'il a daigné douer d'un sentiment souvent plus exquis que le nôtre, & de quelques idées nécessairement attachées à ce sentiment. C'est pourquoi il ne veut pas qu'on ait la barbarie de se nourrir de leur sang, parce qu'en effet le sang est la source de la vie, & par conséquent du sentiment. Privez un animal de tout son sang, tous ses organes restent sans action. C'est donc avec très-grande raison que l'Ecriture dit en cent endroits que l'ame, c'est-à-dire, ce qu'on appellait l'ame sensitive, est dans le sang; & cette idée si naturelle a été celle de tous les Peuples.

C'est sur cette idée qu'est fondée la commisération que nous devons avoir pour les animaux. Des sept Préceptes des *Noachides*, admis chez les Juifs, il y en a un qui défend de manger le membre d'un animal en vie. Ce précepte prouve que les hommes avaient eu la cruauté de mutiler les animaux pour manger leurs membres coupés, & qu'ils les laissaient vivre, pour se nourrir successivement des parties de leur corps. Cette coutume subsista en effet chez quelques Peuples barbares, comme on le voit par les sacrifices de l'Isle de Chio, à *Bacchus Omadios*, le mangeur de chair crue. Dieu, en permettant que les animaux nous servent de pâture, recommande donc quelque humanité envers eux. Il faut convenir qu'il y a de la barbarie à les faire souffrir, & il n'y a certainement que l'usage qui puisse diminuer en nous l'horreur naturelle d'égorger un animal que nous avons nourri de nos mains. Il y a toujours eu des Peuples qui s'en sont fait un grand scrupule: ce scrupule dure encore dans la presqu'Isle de l'Inde; toute la secte de *Pithagore*, en Italie & en Grece, s'abstint constamment de manger de la chair. *Porphire*, dans son Livre de l'abstinence, reproche à son Disciple de n'avoir quitté sa secte que pour se livrer à son appétit barbare.

Il faut, ce me semble, avoir renoncé à la lumiere naturelle, pour oser avancer que les bêtes ne sont que des machines. Il y a une contradiction manifeste à convenir que Dieu a donné aux bêtes tous les organes du sentiment, & à soutenir qu'il ne leur a point donné de sentiment.

Il me paraît encore qu'il faut n'avoir jamais observé les animaux, pour ne pas distinguer chez eux les différentes voix du besoin, de la souffrance, de la joye, de la crainte, de l'amour, de la colere, & de toutes leurs affections; il serait bien étrange qu'elles exprimassent si bien ce qu'elles ne sentiraient pas.

Cette remarque peut fournir beaucoup de réflexions aux esprits exercés, sur le pouvoir & la bonté du Créateur, qui daigne accorder la vie, le sentiment, les idées, la mémoire aux êtres que lui-même a organisés de sa main toute-puissante. Nous ne savons ni comment ces organes se sont formés, ni comment ils se développent, ni comment on reçoit la vie, ni par quelles Loix les sentiments, les idées, la mémoire, la volonté sont attachés à cette vie: & dans cette profonde & éternelle ignorance, inhérente à notre nature, nous disputons sans cesse, nous nous persécutons les uns les autres, comme les taureaux qui se battent avec leurs cornes, sans savoir pourquoi & comment ils ont des cornes.

[24] Plusieurs Ecrivains concluent témérairement de ce passage, que le chapitre concernant le Veau d'or (qui n'est autre chose que le Dieu *Apis*) a été ajouté aux livres de *Moïse*, ainsi que plusieurs autres Chapitres.

*Aben-Ezra* fut le premier qui crut prouver que le Pentateuque avait été rédigé du temps des Rois. *Volaston*, *Colins*, *Tindale*, *Shaftsburi*, *Bolingbroke*, & beaucoup d'autres ont allégué que l'art de graver ses pensées sur la pierre polie, sur la brique, sur le plomb, ou sur le bois, était la seule maniere d'écrire: ils disent que, du temps de *Moïse*, les Chaldéens & les Egyptiens n'écrivaient pas autrement, qu'on ne pouvait alors graver que d'une maniere très-abrégée, & en hiéroglyfes, la substance des choses qu'on voulait transmettre à la postérité, & non pas des histoires détaillées; qu'il n'était pas possible de graver de gros livres dans un désert où l'on changeait si souvent de demeure, où l'on n'avait personne qui pût ni fournir des vêtements, ni les tailler, ni même raccommoder les sandales, & où Dieu fut obligé de faire un miracle de quarante années pour conserver les vêtements & les chaussures de son Peuple. Ils disent qu'il n'est pas vraisemblable qu'on eût tant de Graveurs de caracteres, lorsqu'on manquait des Arts les plus nécessaires, & qu'on ne pouvait même faire du pain: & si on leur dit que les colonnes du Tabernacle étaient d'airain, & les chapiteaux d'argent massif, ils répondent que l'ordre a pu en être donné dans le Désert, mais qu'il ne fut exécuté que dans des temps plus heureux.

Ils ne peuvent concevoir que ce Peuple pauvre ait demandé un veau d'or massif pour l'adorer au pied de la montagne même où Dieu parlait à *Moïse*, au milieu des foudres & des éclairs que ce Peuple voyait, & au son de la trompette céleste qu'il entendait. Ils s'étonnent que la veille du jour même où *Moïse* descendit de la montagne, tout ce Peuple se soit adressé au frere de *Moïse* pour avoir un veau d'or massif. Comment *Aaron* le jetta-t-il en fonte en un seul jour? Comment ensuite *Moïse* le réduisit-il en poudre? Ils disent qu'il est impossible à tout Artiste de faire en moins de trois mois une statue d'or, & que pour la réduire en poudre qu'on puisse avaler, l'art de la chymie la plus savante ne suffit pas; ainsi, la prévarication d'*Aaron*, & l'opération de *Moïse* auraient été deux miracles.

L'humanité, la bonté de cœur qui les trompe, les empêche de croire que *Moïse* ait fait égorger vingt-trois mille personnes pour expier ce péché: ils n'imaginent pas que vingt-trois mille hommes se soient ainsi laissés massacrer par des Lévites, à moins d'un troisieme miracle. Enfin, ils trouvent étrange qu'*Aaron*, le plus coupable de tous, ait été récompensé du crime dont les autres étaient si horriblement punis, & qu'il ait été fait grand Prêtre, tandis que les cadavres de vingt-trois mille de ses freres sanglants, étaient entassés au pied de l'Autel où il allait sacrifier.

Ils font les mêmes difficultés sur les vingt-quatre mille Israélites massacrés par l'ordre de *Moïse*, pour expier la faute d'un seul qu'on avait surpris avec une fille Moabite. On voit tant de Rois Juifs, & sur-tout *Salomon*, épouser impunément des étrangeres, que ces critiques ne peuvent admettre que l'alliance d'une Moabite ait été un si grand crime: *Ruth* était Moabite, quoique sa famille fût originaire de Béthléem; la sainte Ecriture l'appelle toujours *Ruth la Moabite*: cependant elle alla se mettre dans le lit de *Booz* par le conseil de sa mere, elle en reçut six boisseaux d'orge, l'épousa ensuite, & fut l'aïeule de *David*. *Raab* était non-seulement étrangere, mais une femme publique; la Vulgate ne lui donne d'autre titre que celui de *meretrix*; elle épousa *Salomon*, Prince de Juda; & c'est encore de ce *Salomon* que *David* descend. On regarde même *Raab* comme la figure de l'Eglise Chrétienne; c'est le sentiment de plusieurs Peres, & sur-tout d'*Origene* dans sa 7e. homélie sur *Josué*.

*Bethzabé*, femme d'*Urie*, de laquelle *David* eut *Salomon*, était Ethéenne. Si vous remontez plus haut, le Patriarche *Juda*, épousa une femme Cananéenne; ses enfants eurent pour femme *Thamar*, de la race d'*Aram*: cette femme, avec laquelle *Juda* commit, sans le savoir, un inceste, n'était pas de la race d'*Israël*.

Ainsi notre Seigneur Jesus-Christ daigna s'incarner chez les Juifs dans une famille dont cinq étrangers étaient la tige, pour faire voir que les Nations étrangeres auraient part à son héritage.

Le Rabin *Aben-Ezra* fut, comme on l'a dit, le premier qui osa prétendre que le Pentateuque avait été rédigé long-temps après *Moïse*: il se fonde sur plusieurs passages. «Les Cananéens étaient alors dans ce Pays. La montagne de Moria, appellée la montagne de Dieu. Le lit de *Og*, Roi de Bazan, se voit encore en *Rabath*, & il appella tout ce Pays de Bazan, les Villages de Jaïr, jusqu'aujourd'hui. Il ne s'est jamais vu de Prophete en Israël comme *Moïse*. Ce sont ici les Rois qui ont régné en Edom avant qu'aucun Roi régnât sur Israël.» Il prétend que ces passages, où il est parlé des choses arrivées après *Moïse*, ne peuvent être de *Moïse*. On répond à ces objections, que ces passages sont des Notes ajoutées long-temps après par les Copistes.

*Newton*, de qui d'ailleurs on ne doit prononcer le nom qu'avec respect, mais qui a pu se tromper, puisqu'il était homme, attribue dans son Introduction à ses Commentaires sur *Daniel* & sur *St. Jean*, les Livres de *Moïse*, de *Josué* & des *Juges*, à des Auteurs sacrés très-postérieurs; il se fonde sur le chap. 36 de la Genese, sur quatre chapitres des Juges, 17. 18. 19. 21; sur *Samuel*, chap. 8; sur les Chroniques, chap. 2; sur le Livre de *Ruth*, chap. 4. En effet, si dans le chap. 36 de la Genese il est parlé des Rois, s'il en est fait mention dans les Livres des juges, si dans le Livre de *Ruth* il est parlé de *David*, il semble que tous ces Livres ayent été rédigés du temps des Rois. C'est aussi le sentiment de quelques Théologiens, à la tête desquels est le fameux *Le Clerc*. Mais cette opinion n'a qu'un petit nombre de Sectateurs, dont la curiosité sonde ces abymes. Cette curiosité, sans doute, n'est pas au rang des devoirs de l'homme. Lorsque les savants & les ignorants, les Princes & les Bergers, paraîtront après cette courte vie devant le Maître de l'éternité: chacun de nous alors, voudra avoir été juste, humain, compatissant, généreux: nul ne se vantera d'avoir su précisément en quelle année le Pentateuque fut écrit, & d'avoir démêlé le Texte des Notes qui étaient en usage chez les Scribes. Dieu ne nous demandera pas si nous avons pris parti pour les Massoretes contre le Talmud, si nous n'avons jamais pris un *caph* pour un *beth*, un *yod* pour un *vaü*, un *daleth* pour un *res*: certes il nous jugera sur nos actions, & non sur l'intelligence de la Langue Hébraïque. Nous nous en tenons fermement à la décision de l'Eglise, selon le devoir raisonnable d'un fidele.

Finissons cette Note par un passage important du Lévitique, Levit. Chap. 17.Livre composé après l'adoration du Veau d'or. Il ordonne aux Juifs de ne plus adorer les velus, *les boucs avec lesquels même ils ont commis des abominations infames*. On ne sait si cet étrange culte venait d'Egypte, Patrie de la superstition & du sortilege; mais on croit que la coutume de nos prétendus Sorciers d'aller au Sabath, d'y adorer un bouc, & de s'abandonner avec lui à des turpitudes inconcevables, dont l'idée fait horreur, est venue des anciens Juifs: en effet, ce furent eux qui enseignerent dans une partie de l'Europe la sorcellerie. Quel Peuple! Une si étrange infamie semblait mériter un châtiment pareil à celui que le veau d'or leur attira, & pourtant le Législateur se contente de leur faire une simple défense. On ne rapporte ici ce fait que pour faire connaître la Nation Juive: il faut que la bestialité ait été commune chez elle, Lévit. Chap. 18 v. 23.puisqu'elle est la seule Nation connue chez qui les Loix ayent été forcées de prohiber un crime qui n'a été soupçonné ailleurs par aucun Législateur.

Il est à croire que dans les fatigues & dans la pénurie que les Juifs avaient essuyées dans les Déserts de Pharan, d'Oreb, & de Cadés-barné, l'espece féminine, plus faible que l'autre, avait succombé. Il faut bien qu'en effet les Juifs manquassent de filles, puisqu'il leur est toujours ordonné, quand ils s'emparent d'un Bourg ou d'un Village, soit à gauche, soit à droite du Lac Asphaltide, de tuer tout, excepté les filles nubiles.

Les Arabes qui habitent encore une partie de ces Déserts, stipulent toujours dans les Traités qu'ils font avec les caravanes, qu'on leur donnera des filles nubiles. Il est vraisemblable que les jeunes gens dans ces Pays affreux pousserent la dépravation de la Nature humaine, jusqu'à s'accoupler avec des chevres, comme on le dit de quelques Bergers de la Calabre.

Il reste maintenant à savoir si ces accouplements avaient produit des monstres, & s'il y a quelque fondement aux anciens Contes des Satyres, des Faunes, des Centaures & des Minotaures: l'Histoire le dit; la Physique ne nous a pas encore éclairés sur cet article monstrueux.

[25] Madian n'était point compris dans la Terre promise: c'est un petit canton de l'Idumée, dans l'Arabie pétrée; il commence vers le Septentrion, au Torrent d'Arnon, & finit au Torrent de Zared, au milieu des rochers, & sur le rivage oriental du Lac Asphaltide. Ce Pays est habité aujourd'hui par une petite horde d'Arabes: il peut avoir huit lieues ou environ de long, & un peu moins en largeur.

[26] Il est certain par le Texte, que *Jephté* immola sa fille. *Dieu n'approuva pas ces dévouements*, dit *Don Calmet*, dans sa Dissertation sur le Vœu de *Jephté; mais lorsqu'on les a faits, il veut qu'on les exécute, ne fût-ce que pour punir ceux qui les faisaient, ou pour réprimer la légéreté qu'on aurait eue à les faire, si on n'en avait pas craint l'exécution*. *St. Augustin*, & presque tous les Peres, condamnent l'action de *Jephté*: il est vrai que l'Ecriture dit, qu'*il fut rempli de l'esprit de Dieu*; & *St. Paul*, dans son Epître aux Hébreux, chap. 11, fait l'éloge de *Jephté*; il le place avec *Samuel* & *David*.

*St. Jérôme*, dans son Epître à *Julien*, dit, *Jephté immola sa fille au Seigneur, & c'est pour cela que l'Apôtre le compte parmi les Saints*. Voilà de part & d'autre des jugements sur lesquels il ne nous est pas permis de porter le nôtre; on doit craindre même d'avoir un avis.

[27] On peut regarder la mort du Roi *Agag* comme un vrai sacrifice. *Saül* avait fait ce Roi des Amalécites prisonnier de guerre, & l'avait reçu à composition; mais le Prêtre *Samuel* lui avait ordonné de ne rien épargner, il lui avait dit en propres mots. Liv. I. des Rois, Chapitre 15.*Tuez tout, depuis l'homme jusqu'à la femme, jusqu'aux petits enfants, & ceux qui sont encore à la mammelle.*

*Samuel coupa le Roi Agag en morceaux, devant le Seigneur, à Galgal.*

«Le zele dont ce Prophete était animé, dit *Don Calmet*, lui mit l'épée en main dans cette occasion pour venger la gloire du Seigneur, & pour confondre *Saül*.

On voit dans cette fatale aventure un dévouement, un Prêtre, une victime; c'était donc un sacrifice.

Tous les Peuples dont nous avons l'histoire, ont sacrifié des hommes à la Divinité, excepté les Chinois. *Plutarque* rapporte que les Romains mêmes en immolerent du temps de la République.

On voit dans les Commentaires de *César*, que les Germains allaient immoler les ôtages qu'il leur avait donnés, lorsqu'il délivra ces ôtages par sa victoire.

J'ai remarqué ailleurs que cette violation du Droit des gens envers les ôtages de *César*, & ces victimes humaines immolées, pour comble d'horreur, par la main des femmes, dément un peu le panégyrique que *Tacite* fait des Germains dans son Traité *De moribus Germanorum*. Il paraît que dans ce Traité *Tacite* songe plus à faire la satyre des Romains, que l'éloge des Germains, qu'il ne connaissait pas.

Disons ici en passant que *Tacite* aimait encore mieux la satyre que la vérité. Il veut rendre tout odieux, jusqu'aux actions indifférentes; & sa malignité nous plaît presque autant que son style, parce que nous aimons la médisance & l'esprit.

Revenons aux victimes humaines. Nos Peres en immolaient aussi-bien que les Germains; c'est le dernier degré de la stupidité de notre nature abandonnée à elle-même, & c'est un des fruits de la faiblesse de notre jugement. Nous dîmes: Il faut offrir à Dieu ce qu'on a de plus précieux & de plus beau; nous n'avons rien de plus précieux que nos enfants; il faut donc choisir les plus beaux & les plus jeunes pour les sacrifier à la Divinité.

*Philon* dit que dans la Terre de Canaan on immolait quelquefois ses enfants, avant que Dieu eût ordonné à *Abraham* de lui sacrifier son fils unique *Isaac* pour éprouver sa foi.

*Sanchoniaton*, cité par *Eusebe*, rapporte que les Phéniciens sacrifiaient dans les grands dangers le plus cher de leurs enfants, & qu'*Ilus* immola son fils *Jehud* à peu près dans le temps que Dieu mit la foi d'*Abraham* à l'épreuve. Il est difficile de percer dans les ténebres de cette antiquité; mais il n'est que trop vrai que ces horribles sacrifices ont été presque par-tout en usage; les Peuples ne s'en sont défaits qu'à mesure qu'ils se sont policés. La politesse amene l'humanité.

[28] Ceux qui sont peu au fait des usages de l'antiquité, & qui ne jugent que d'après ce qu'ils voyent autour d'eux, peuvent être étonnés de ces singularités; mais il faut songer qu'alors, dans l'Egypte, & dans une grande partie de l'Asie, la plupart des choses s'exprimaient par des figures, des hiéroglyphes, des signes, des types.

Les Prophetes, qui s'appellaient *les Voyants* chez les Egyptiens & chez les Juifs, non-seulement s'exprimaient en allégories, mais ils figuraient par des signes les événements qu'ils annonçaient. Ainsi *Isaïe*, Isaïe, Chapitre 8.le premier des quatre grands Prophetes Juifs, prend un rouleau, & y écrit: *Shas bas, butinez, vîte*; puis il s'approche de la Prophétesse, elle conçoit, & met au monde un fils, qu'il appelle *Maher-Salal-Has-bas*: c'est une figure des maux que les Peuples d'Egypte & d'Assyrie feront aux Juifs.

Ce Prophete dit: *Avant que l'enfant soit en âge de manger du beurre & du miel, & qu'il sache réprouver le mauvais & choisir le bon, la terre détestée par vous sera délivrée des deux Rois: le Seigneur sifflera aux mouches d'Egypte & aux abeilles d'Assur: le Seigneur prendra un rasoir de louage, & en rasera toute la barbe & les poils des pieds du Roi d'Assur.*

Cette prophétie des abeilles, de la barbe & du poil des pieds rasé, ne peut être entendue que par ceux qui savent que c'était la coutume d'appeller les essaims au son du flageolet ou de quelqu'autre instrument champêtre; que le plus grand affront qu'on pût faire à un homme, était de lui couper la barbe; qu'on appellait le poil des pieds, le poil du pubis; que l'on ne rasait ce poil que dans des maladies immondes, comme celle de la lepre. Toutes ces figures, si étrangeres à notre style, ne signifient autre chose, sinon que le Seigneur, dans quelques années, délivrera son Peuple d'oppression.

Le même *Isaïe* Isaïe, Chapitre 20marche tout nud, pour marquer que le Roi d'Assyrie emmenera d'Egypte & d'Ethiopie une foule de captifs qui n'auront pas de quoi couvrir leur nudité.

*Ezéchiel* mange le volume de parchemin Ezéch. Chap. 4 & suiv.qui lui est présenté: ensuite il couvre son pain d'excréments, & demeure couché sur son côté gauche trois cents quatre-vingt-dix jours, & sur le côté droit quarante jours, pour faire entendre que les Juifs manqueront de pain, & pour signifier les années que devait durer la captivité. Il se charge de chaînes, qui figurent celles du Peuple; il coupe ses cheveux & sa barbe, & les partage en trois parties: le premier tiers désigne ceux qui doivent périr dans la Ville; le second, ceux qui seront mis à mort autour des murailles; le troisieme, ceux qui doivent être emmenés à Babylone.

Le Prophete *Ozée* Ozée, Chap. 3.s'unit à une femme adultere, qu'il achete quinze pieces d'argent & un chomer & demi d'orge: *Vous m'attendrez*, lui dit-il, *plusieurs jours, & pendant ce temps nul homme n'approchera de vous; c'est l'état où les enfants d'Israël seront long-temps sans Rois, sans Princes, sans Sacrifices, sans Autel & sans Ephod*. En un mot, les Nabi, les Voyants, les Prophetes, ne prédisent presque jamais sans figurer par un signe la chose prédite.

*Jérémie* ne fait donc que se conformer à l'usage, en se liant de cordes, & en se mettant des colliers & des jougs sur le dos, pour signifier l'esclavage de ceux auxquels il envoye ces types. Si on veut y prendre garde, ces temps-là sont comme ceux d'un ancien monde, qui differe en tout du nouveau; la vie civile, les Loix, la maniere de faire la guerre, les cérémonies de la Religion, tout est absolument différent. Il n'y a même qu'à ouvrir *Homere* & le premier Livre d'*Hérodote*, pour se convaincre que nous n'avons aucune ressemblance avec les Peuples de la haute antiquité, & que nous devons nous défier de notre jugement quand nous cherchons à comparer leurs mœurs avec les nôtres.

La nature même n'était pas ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui. Les Magiciens avaient sur elle un pouvoir qu'ils n'ont plus: ils enchantaient les serpents, ils évoquaient les morts, &c. Dieu envoyait des songes, & des hommes les expliquaient. Le don de prophétie était commun. On voyait des métamorphoses telles que celles de *Nabuchodonosor* changé en bœuf, de la femme de *Loth* en statue de sel, de cinq Villes en un lac bitumineux.

Il y avait des especes d'hommes qui n'existent plus. La race des géants *Rephaïm*, *Emim*, *Néphilim*, *Enacim* a disparu. *St. Augustin*, au Livre V de *la Cité de Dieu*, dit avoir vu la dent d'un ancien Géant, grosse comme cent de nos molaires. *Ezéchiel* parle des pigmées *Gamadim*, hauts d'une coudée, qui combattaient au siege de Tyr: & en presque tout cela les Auteurs sacrés sont d'accord avec les profanes. Les maladies & les remedes n'étaient point les mêmes que de nos jours: les possédés étaient guéris avec la racine nommée *Barad* enchassée dans un anneau qu'on leur mettait sous le nez.

Enfin tout cet ancien monde était si différent du nôtre, qu'on ne peut en tirer aujourd'hui aucune regle de conduite; & si, dans cette antiquité reculée, les hommes s'étaient persécutés & opprimés tour à tour au sujet de leur culte, on ne devrait pas imiter cette cruauté sous la Loi de grace.

### Chapter XIII

*Extrême Tolérance des Juifs.*

AInsi donc sous *Moïse*, sous les Juges, sous les Rois, vous voyez toujours des exemples de tolérance. Il y a bien plus: *Moïse* dit plusieurs fois Exode, Chap. 20, v. 5.*que Dieu punit les peres dans les enfants, jusqu'à la quatrieme génération*: cette menace était nécessaire à un Peuple à qui Dieu n'avait révélé ni l'immortalité de l'ame, ni les peines & les récompenses dans une autre vie. Ces vérités ne lui furent annoncées ni dans le Décalogue, ni dans aucune Loi du Lévitique & du Deutéronome. C'étaient les dogmes des Perses, des Babyloniens, des Egyptiens, des Grecs, des Crétois; mais ils ne constituaient nullement la Religion des Juifs. *Moïse* ne dit point: *Honore ton pere & ta mere, si tu veux aller au Ciel*; mais, *Honore ton pere & ta mere, afin de vivre long-temps sur la terre*: Deutér. Chap. 28.il ne les menace que de maux corporels, de la galle seche, de la galle purulente, d'ulceres malins dans les genoux & dans les gras des jambes, d'être exposés aux infidélités de leurs femmes, d'emprunter à usure des étrangers, & de ne pouvoir prêter à usure; de périr de famine, & d'être obligés de manger leurs enfants: mais en aucun lieu il ne leur dit que leurs ames immortelles subiront des tourments après la mort, ou goûteront des félicités. Dieu qui conduisait lui-même son Peuple, le punissait ou le récompensait immédiatement après ses bonnes ou ses mauvaises actions. Tout était temporel; & c'est la preuve que le savant Evêque *Warburton* apporte pour démontrer que la Loi des juifs était divine:[29] parce que Dieu même étant leur Roi, rendant justice immédiatement après la transgression ou l'obéissance, n'avait pas besoin de leur révéler une Doctrine qu'il réservait au temps où il ne gouvernerait plus son Peuple. Ceux qui par ignorance prétendent que *Moïse* enseignait l'immortalité de l'ame, ôtent au Nouveau Testament un de ses plus grands avantages sur l'ancien. Il est constant que la Loi de *Moïse* n'annonçait que des châtiments temporels jusqu'à la quatrieme génération. Cependant, malgré l'énoncé précis de cette Loi, malgré cette déclaration expresse de Dieu, qu'il punirait jusqu'à la quatrieme génération, *Ezéchiel* annonce Ezéch. Chap. 18, v. 20.

Ezéch. Chap. 20, v. 25.tout le contraire aux Juifs, & leur dit, que le fils ne portera point l'iniquité de son pere: il va même jusqu'à faire dire à Dieu, qu'il leur avait donné *des préceptes qui n'étaient pas bons*.[30]

Le Livre d'*Ezéchiel* n'en fut pas moins inséré dans le Canon des Auteurs inspirés de Dieu: il est vrai que la Synagogue n'en permettait pas la lecture avant l'âge de trente ans, comme nous l'apprend *St. Jérôme*; mais c'était de peur que la jeunesse n'abusât des peintures trop naïves qu'on trouve dans les chapitres 16 & 23 du libertinage des deux sœurs *Olla* & *Ooliba*. En un mot, son Livre fut toujours reçu, malgré sa contradiction formelle avec *Moïse*.

Enfin,[31] lorsque l'immortalité de l'ame fut un dogme reçu, ce qui probablement avait commencé dès le temps de la captivité de Babylone, la secte des Saducéens persista toujours à croire qu'il n'y avait ni peines ni récompenses après la mort, & que la faculté de sentir & de penser périssait avec nous, comme la force active, le pouvoir de marcher & de digérer. Ils niaient l'existence des Anges. Ils différaient beaucoup plus des autres Juifs, que les Protestants ne different des Catholiques; ils n'en demeurerent pas moins dans la Communion de leurs freres: on vit même des grands Prêtres de leur secte.

Les Pharisiens croyaient à la fatalité[32] & à la Métempsycose.[33] Les Esséniens pensaient que les ames des Justes allaient dans les Isles fortunées,[34] & celles des méchants dans une espece de Tartare. Ils ne faisaient point de sacrifices; ils s'assemblaient entre eux dans une Synagogue particuliere. En un mot, si l'on veut examiner de près le Judaïsme, on sera étonné de trouver la plus grande tolérance, au milieu des horreurs les plus barbares. C'est une contradiction, il est vrai; presque tous les Peuples se sont gouvernés par des contradictions. Heureuse celle qui amene des mœurs douces, quand on a des loix de sang!

[29] Il n'y a qu'un seul passage dans les Loix de *Moïse*, d'où l'on pût conclurre qu'il était instruit de l'opinion régnante chez les Egyptiens, que l'ame ne meurt point avec le corps: ce passage est très-important; c'est dans le chap. 18 du Deutéronome: *Ne consultez point les Devins qui prédisent par l'inspection des nuées, qui enchantent les serpents, qui consultent l'esprit de Python, les Voyants, les Connoißeurs qui interrogent les Morts, & leur demandent la vérité.*

Il paraît, par ce passage, que si l'on évoquait les ames des morts, ce sortilege prétendu supposait la permanence des ames. Il se peut aussi que les Magiciens dont parle *Moïse*, n'étant que des trompeurs grossiers, n'eussent pas une idée distincte du sortilege qu'ils croyaient opérer. Ils faisaient accroire qu'ils forçaient des morts à parler, qu'ils les remettaient par leur magie dans l'état où ces corps avaient été de leur vivant; sans examiner seulement si l'on pouvait inférer ou non de leurs opérations ridicules le dogme de l'immortalité de l'ame. Les Sorciers n'ont jamais été Philosophes; ils ont été toujours des jongleurs stupides, qui jouaient devant des imbécilles.

On peut remarquer encore qu'il est bien étrange que le mot de *Python* se trouve dans le Deutéronome, long-temps avant que ce mot Grec pût être connu des Hébreux: aussi le terme *Python* n'est point dans l'Hébreu, dont nous n'avons aucune traduction exacte.

Cette Langue a des difficultés insurmontables: c'est un mélange de Phénicien, d'Egyptien, de Syrien & d'Arabe; & cet ancien mélange est très-altéré aujourd'hui. L'Hébreu n'eut jamais que deux modes aux verbes, le présent & le futur: il faut deviner les autres modes par le sens. Les voyelles différentes étaient souvent exprimées par les mêmes caracteres, ou plutôt ils n'exprimaient pas les voyelles; & les inventeurs des points n'ont fait qu'augmenter la difficulté. Chaque adverbe a vingt significations différentes. Le même mot est pris en des sens contraires. Ajoutez à cet embarras la sécheresse & la pauvreté du langage: les Juifs, privés des Arts, ne pouvaient exprimer ce qu'ils ignoraient. En un mot l'Hébreu est au Grec, ce que le langage d'un Paysan est à celui d'un Académicien.

[30] Le sentiment d'*Ezéchiel* prévalut enfin dans la Synagogue; mais il y eut toujours des Juifs qui, en croyant aux peines éternelles, croyaient aussi que Dieu poursuivait sur les enfants les iniquités des peres. Aujourd'hui ils sont punis par-delà la cinquantieme génération, & ont encore les peines éternelles à craindre. On demande comment les descendants des Juifs, qui n'étaient pas complices de la mort de Jesus-Christ, ceux qui étant dans Jérusalem n'y eurent aucune part, & ceux qui étaient répandus sur le reste de la terre, peuvent être temporellement punis dans leurs enfants, aussi innocents que leurs peres? Cette punition temporelle, ou plutôt, cette maniere d'exister différente des autres Peuples, & de faire le commerce sans avoir de Patrie, peut n'être point regardée comme un châtiment en comparaison des peines éternelles qu'ils s'attirent par leur incrédulité, & qu'ils peuvent éviter par une conversion sincere.

[31] Ceux qui ont voulu trouver dans le Pentateuque la doctrine de l'Enfer & du Paradis, tels que nous les concevons, se sont étrangement abusés: leur erreur n'est fondée que sur une vaine dispute de mots; la Vulgate ayant traduit le mot Hébreu *Sceol*, la fosse, par *Infernum*, & le mot Latin *Infernum* ayant été traduit en Français par *Enfer*, on s'est servi de cette équivoque pour faire croire que les Anciens Hébreux avaient la notion de l'*Ades* & du *Tartare* des Grecs, que les autres Nations avaient connus auparavant sous d'autres noms.

Il est rapporté au Chapitre 16 des Nombres, que la terre ouvrit sa bouche sous les tentes de *Coré*, de *Dathan* & d'*Abiron*, qu'elle les dévora avec leurs tentes & leur substance, & qu'ils furent précipités vivants dans la sépulture, dans le souterrein; il n'est certainement question dans cet endroit, ni des ames de ces trois Hébreux, ni des tourments de l'Enfer, ni d'une punition éternelle.

Il est étrange que dans le Dictionnaire Encyclopédique, au mot *Enfer*, on dise que les anciens Hébreux *en ont reconnu la réalité*; si cela était, ce serait une contradiction insoutenable dans le Pentateuque. Comment se pourrait-il faire que *Moïse* eût parlé dans un passage isolé & unique, des peines après la mort, & qu'il n'en eût point parlé dans ses Loix? On cite le 32e Chapitre du Deutéronome, mais on le tronque; le voici entier: *Ils m'ont provoqué en celui qui n'était pas Dieu, & ils m'ont irrité dans leur vanité; & moi je les provoquerai dans celui qui n'est pas Peuple, & je les irriterai dans la Nation insensée. Et il s'est allumé un feu dans ma fureur, & il brûlera jusqu'au fond de la terre; il dévorera la terre jusqu'à son germe, & il brulera les fondements des montagnes, & j'assemblerai sur eux les maux, & je remplirai mes fleches sur eux; ils seront consumés par la faim, les oiseaux les dévoreront par des morsures ameres; je lâcherai sur eux les dents des bêtes qui se traînent avec fureur sur la terre, & des serpents.*

Y a-t-il le moindre rapport entre ces expressions & l'idée des punitions infernales, telles que nous les concevons? Il semble plutôt que ces paroles n'ayent été rapportées que pour faire voir évidemment que notre Enfer était ignoré des anciens Juifs.

L'Auteur de cet Article cite encore le passage de *Job*, au Chap. 24. *L'œil de l'adultere observe l'obscurité; disant, l'œil ne me verra point, & il couvrira son visage; il perce les maisons dans les ténebres comme il l'avait dit dans le jour, & ils ont ignoré la lumiere; si l'aurore apparaît subitement, ils la croyent l'ombre de la mort, & ainsi ils marchent dans les ténebres comme dans la lumiere: il est léger sur la surface de l'eau; que sa part soit maudite sur la terre, qu'il ne marche point par la voye de la vigne, qu'il passe des eaux de neige à une trop grande chaleur: & ils ont péché le tombeau*, ou bien, *le tombeau a dissipé ceux qui pechent*, ou bien, (selon les Septante) *leur péché a été rappellé en mémoire*.

Je cite les passages entiers, & littéralement, sans quoi il est toujours impossible de s'en former une idée vraie.

Y a-t-il là, je vous prie, le moindre mot, dont on puisse conclure que *Moïse* avait enseigné aux Juifs la doctrine claire & simple des peines & des récompenses après la mort?

Le Livre de *Job* n'a nul rapport avec les Loix de *Moïse*. De plus, il est très-vraisemblable que *Job* n'était point Juif; c'est l'opinion de *St. Jérôme* dans ses questions hébraïques sur la Genese. Le mot *Sathan*, qui est dans *Job*, n'était point connu des Juifs, & vous ne le trouvez jamais dans le Pentateuque. Les Juifs n'apprirent ce nom que dans la Chaldée, ainsi que les noms de *Gabriel* & de *Raphael*, inconnus avant leur esclavage à Babylone. *Job* est donc cité ici très-mal à propos.

On rapporte encore le Chapitre dernier d'*Isaïe*: *Et de mois en mois, & de Sabath en Sabath, toute chair viendra m'adorer, dit le Seigneur; & ils sortiront, & ils verront à la voirie les cadavres de ceux qui ont prévariqué; leur ver ne mourra point, leur feu ne s'éteindra point, & ils seront exposés aux yeux de toute chair jusqu'à satiété*.

Certainement s'ils sont jettés à la voirie, s'ils sont exposés à la vue des passants jusqu'à satiété, s'ils sont mangés des vers, cela ne veut pas dire que *Moïse* enseigna aux Juifs le dogme de l'immortalité de l'ame; & ces mots, *Le feu ne s'éteindra point*, ne signifient pas que des cadavres qui sont exposés à la vue du Peuple subissent les peines éternelles de l'Enfer.

Comment peut-on citer un passage d'*Isaïe* pour prouver que les Juifs du temps de *Moïse* avaient reçu le dogme de l'immortalité de l'ame? *Isaïe* prophétisait, selon la computation Hébraïque, l'an du monde 3380. *Moïse* vivait vers l'an du monde 2500; il s'est écoulé huit siecles entre l'un & l'autre. C'est une insulte au sens commun, ou une pure plaisanterie, que d'abuser ainsi de la permission de citer, & de prétendre prouver qu'un Auteur a eu une telle opinion, par un passage d'un Auteur venu huit cents ans après, & qui n'a point parlé de cette opinion. Il est indubitable que l'immortalité de l'ame, les peines & les récompenses après la mort, sont annoncées, reconnues, constatées dans le Nouveau Testament, & il est indubitable qu'elles ne se trouvent en aucun endroit du Pentateuque.

Les Juifs, en croyant depuis l'immortalité de l'ame, ne furent point éclairés sur sa spiritualité; ils penserent comme presque toutes les autres Nations, que l'ame est quelque chose de délié, d'aérien, une substance légere, qui retenait quelque apparence du corps qu'elle avait animé; c'est ce qu'on appellait les ombres, les mânes des corps. Cette opinion fut celle de plusieurs Peres de l'Eglise. *Tertullien*, dans son Chap. 22. *de l'Ame*, s'exprime ainsi: *Definimus animam Dei flatu natam, immortalem, corporalem, effigiatam, substantiâ simplicem*; «Nous définissons l'ame née du souffle de Dieu, immortelle, corporelle, figurée, simple dans sa substance.

*St. Irenée* dit dans son Livre II, Chap. 34. *Incorporales sunt animæ quantùm ad comparationem mortalium corporum.* «Les ames sont incorporelles en comparaison des corps mortels.» Il ajoute, que «Jesus-Christ a enseigné que les ames conservent les images du corps;» *Caracterem corporum in quo adoptantur, &c.* On ne voit pas que Jesus-Christ ait jamais enseigné cette Doctrine, & il est difficile de deviner le sens de *St. Irenée*.

*St. Hilaire* est plus formel & plus positif dans son Commentaire sur *St. Matthieu*: il attribue nettement une substance corporelle à l'ame: *Corpoream natura sua substantiam sortiuntur*.

*St. Ambroise* sur *Abraham*, Liv. II, Chap. 8, prétend qu'il n'y a rien de dégagé de la matiere, si ce n'est la substance de la Ste. Trinité.

On pourrait reprocher à ces hommes respectables d'avoir une mauvaise Philosophie; mais il est à croire qu'au fond leur Théologie était fort saine, puisque ne connaissant pas la nature incompréhensible de l'ame, ils l'assuraient immortelle, & la voulaient Chrétienne.

Nous savons que l'ame est spirituelle, mais nous ne savons point du tout ce que c'est qu'esprit. Nous connaissons très-imparfaitement la matiere, & il nous est impossible d'avoir une idée distincte de ce qui n'est pas matiere. Très-peu instruits de ce qui touche nos sens, nous ne pouvons rien connaître par nous-mêmes de ce qui est au-delà des sens. Nous transportons quelques paroles de notre langage ordinaire dans les abymes de la Métaphysique & de la Théologie, pour nous donner quelque légere idée des choses que nous ne pouvons ni concevoir, ni exprimer; nous cherchons à nous étayer de ces mots, pour soutenir, s'il se peut, notre faible entendement dans ces régions ignorées.

Ainsi nous nous servons du mot *esprit*, qui répond à *souffle* & *vent*, pour exprimer quelque chose qui n'est pas matiere; & ce mot *souffle*, *vent*, *esprit*, nous ramenant malgré nous à l'idée d'une substance déliée & légere, nous en retranchons encore ce que nous pouvons, pour parvenir à concevoir la spiritualité pure; mais nous ne parvenons jamais à une notion distincte: nous ne savons même ce que nous disons quand nous prononçons le mot *substance*; il veut dire, à la lettre, ce qui est dessous; & par cela même il nous avertit qu'il est incompréhensible: car, qu'est-ce en effet que ce qui est dessous? La connaissance des secrets de Dieu n'est pas le partage de cette vie. Plongés ici dans des ténebres profondes, nous nous battons les uns contre les autres, & nous frappons au hasard au milieu de cette nuit, sans savoir précisément pourquoi nous combattons.

Si on veut bien réfléchir attentivement sur tout cela, il n'y a point d'homme raisonnable qui ne conclue que nous devons avoir de l'indigence pour les opinions des autres, & en mériter.

Toutes ces remarques ne sont point étrangeres au fond de la question, qui consiste à savoir si les hommes doivent se tolérer: car si elles prouvent combien on s'est trompé de part & d'autre dans tous les temps, elles prouvent que les hommes ont dû dans tous les temps se traiter avec indulgence.

[32] Le dogme de la fatalité est ancien & universel: vous le trouvez toujours dans *Homere*. *Jupiter* voudrait sauver la vie à son fils *Sarpedon*; mais le Destin l'a condamné à la mort; *Jupiter* ne peut qu'obéir. Le Destin était chez les Philosophes ou l'enchaînement nécessaire des causes & des effets nécessairement produit par la nature, ou ce même enchaînement ordonné par la Providence; ce qui est bien plus raisonnable. Tout le systême de la fatalité est contenu dans ce Vers d'*Anneus Seneque: Ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt*. On est toujours convenu que Dieu gouvernait l'Univers par des Loix éternelles, universelles, immuables: cette vérité fut la source de toutes ces disputes inintelligibles sur la liberté, parce qu'on n'a défini jamais la liberté, jusqu'à ce que le sage *Loke* soit venu: il a prouvé que la liberté est le pouvoir d'agir. Dieu donne ce pouvoir, & l'homme agissant librement selon les ordres éternels de Dieu, est une des roues de la grande machine du monde. Toute l'Antiquité disputa sur la liberté; mais personne ne persécuta sur ce sujet jusqu'à nos jours. Quelle horreur absurde, d'avoir emprisonné, exilé pour cette dispute, un *Pompone d'Andilly*, un *Arnaud*, un *Sacy*, un *Nicole*, & tant d'autres qui ont été la lumiere de la France.

[33] Le Roman Théologique de la Métempsycose vient de l'Inde, dont nous avons reçu beaucoup plus de fables qu'on ne croit communément. Ce dogme est expliqué dans l'admirable douzieme Livre des Métamorphoses d'*Ovide*. Il a été reçu presque dans toute la terre: il a été toujours combattu; mais nous ne voyons point qu'aucun Prêtre de l'Antiquité ait jamais fait donner une lettre de cachet à un Disciple de *Pythagore*.

[34] Ni les anciens Juifs, ni les Egyptiens, ni les Grecs leurs contemporains, ne croyaient que l'ame de l'homme allât dans le Ciel après sa mort. Les Juifs pensaient que la Lune & le Soleil étaient à quelques lieues au-dessus de nous dans le même cercle, & que le firmament était une voûte épaisse & solide, qui soutenait le poids des eaux, lesquelles s'échappaient par quelques ouvertures. Le Palais des Dieux, chez les anciens Grecs, était sur le mont Olympe. La demeure des Héros, après la mort, était, du temps d'*Homere*, dans une Isle au-delà de l'Océan, & c'était l'opinion des Esséniens.

Depuis *Homere*, on assigna des planetes aux Dieux; mais il n'y avait pas plus de raison aux hommes de placer un Dieu dans la Lune, qu'aux habitants de la Lune de mettre un Dieu dans la planete de la terre. *Junon* & *Iris* n'eurent d'autre Palais que les nuées; il n'y avait pas là où réposer son pied. Chez les Sabéens, chaque Dieu eut son étoile; mais une étoile étant un Soleil, il n'y a pas moyen d'habiter là, à moins d'être de la nature du feu. C'est donc une question fort inutile de demander ce que les Anciens pensaient du Ciel; la meilleure réponse est qu'ils ne pensaient pas.

### Chapter XIV

*Si l'Intolérance a été enseignée par* Jesus-Christ?

VOyons maintenant si Jesus-Christ a établi des Loix sanguinaires, s'il a ordonné l'intolérance, s'il fit bâtir les cachots de l'Inquisition, s'il institua les bourreaux des *Auto-da-fé*.

Il n'y a, si je ne me trompe, que peu de passages dans les Evangiles, dont l'esprit persécuteur ait pu inférer que l'intolérance, la contrainte sont légitimes. L'un est la parabole dans laquelle le Royaume des Cieux est comparé à un Roi qui invite des convives aux noces de son fils: ce Monarque leur fait dire par ses Serviteurs: St. Math. Chap. 22.*J'ai tué mes bœufs & mes volailles, tout est prêt, venez aux noces*. Les uns, sans se soucier de l'invitation, vont à leurs maisons de campagne, les autres à leur négoce, d'autres outragent les domestiques du Roi & les tuent. Le Roi fait marcher ses Armées contre ces meurtriers & détruit leur Ville: il envoye sur les grands chemins convier au festin tous ceux qu'on trouve: un d'eux s'étant mis à table sans avoir mis la robe nuptiale, est chargé de fers & jetté dans les ténebres extérieures.

Il est clair que cette allégorie ne regardant que le Royaume des Cieux, nul homme, assurément, ne doit en prendre le droit de garotter ou de mettre au cachot son voisin qui serait venu souper chez lui sans avoir un habit de noces convenable; & je ne connais dans l'Histoire aucun Prince qui ait fait pendre un Courtisan pour un pareil sujet: il n'est pas non plus à craindre que quand l'Empereur enverra des Pages à des Princes de l'Empire pour les prier à souper, ces Princes tuent ces Pages. L'invitation au festin signifie la prédication du salut; le meurtre des Envoyés du Prince figure la persécution contre ceux qui prêchent la sagesse & la vertu.

L'autre parabole est celle d'un Particulier qui invite ses amis à un grand souper; & St. Luc, Chap. 14.lorsqu'il est prêt de se mettre à table, il envoye son domestique les avertir. L'un s'excuse sur ce qu'il a acheté une Terre, & qu'il va la visiter; cette excuse ne paraît pas valable, ce n'est pas pendant la nuit qu'on va voir sa Terre. Un autre dit qu'il a acheté cinq paires de bœufs, & qu'il les doit éprouver; il a le même tort que l'autre; on n'essaye pas des bœufs à l'heure du souper. Un troisieme répond qu'il vient de se marier, & assurément son excuse est très-recevable. Le Pere de famille, en colere, fait venir à son festin les aveugles & les boiteux; & voyant qu'il reste encore des places vuides, il dit à son valet: *Allez dans les grands chemins, & le long des hayes, & contraignez les gens d'entrer*.

Il est vrai qu'il n'est pas dit expressément que cette parabole soit une figure du Royaume des Cieux. On n'a que trop abusé de ces paroles: *Contrains-les d'entrer*; mais il est visible qu'un seul valet ne peut contraindre par la force tous les gens qu'il rencontre à venir souper chez son Maître; & d'ailleurs, des convives ainsi forcés, ne rendraient pas le repas fort agréable. *Contrains-les d'entrer*, ne veut dire autre chose, selon les Commentateurs les plus accrédités, sinon: priez, conjurez, pressez, obtenez. Quel rapport, je vous prie, de cette priere & de ce souper, à la persécution?

Si on prend les choses à la lettre, faudra-t-il être aveugle, boiteux, & conduit par force, pour être dans le sein de l'Eglise? Jesus dit dans la même parabole: *Ne donnez à dîner ni à vos amis, ni à vos parents riches*: en a-t-on jamais inféré, qu'on ne dût point en effet dîner avec ses parents & ses amis, dès qu'ils ont un peu de fortune?

Jesus-Christ, après la parabole du festin, dit: St. Luc, Chap. 14, v. 26 & suiv.*Si quelqu'un vient à moi, & ne hait pas son pere, sa mere, ses freres, ses sœurs, & même sa propre ame, il ne peut être mon Disciple, &c. Car qui est celui d'entre vous qui voulant bâtir une tour, ne suppute pas auparavant la dépense?* Y a-t-il quelqu'un dans le monde assez dénaturé, pour conclurre qu'il faut haïr son pere & sa mere? & ne comprend-on pas aisément que ces paroles signifient: Ne balancez pas entre moi & vos plus cheres affections?

On cite le passage de *St. Mathieu: Qui n'écoute point l'Eglise, soit comme un Païen & comme un Receveur de la Douane*. St. Math. Chap. 8, v. 17.Cela ne dit pas assurément qu'on doive persécuter les Païens, & les Fermiers des droits du Roi; ils sont maudits, il est vrai, mais ils ne sont point livrés au bras séculier. Loin d'ôter à ces Fermiers aucune prérogative de Citoyen, on leur a donné les plus grands privileges; c'est la seule profession qui soit condamnée dans l'Ecriture, & c'est la plus favorisée par les Gouvernements. Pourquoi donc n'aurions-nous pas pour nos freres errants autant d'indulgence que nous prodiguons de considération à nos freres les Traitants?

Un autre passage, dont on a fait un abus grossier, est celui de *St. Mathieu* & de *St. Marc*, où il est dit que Jesus ayant faim le matin, approcha d'un figuier, où il ne trouva que des feuilles: car ce n'était pas le temps des figues: il maudit le figuier qui se sécha aussi-tôt.

On donne plusieurs explications différentes de ce miracle: mais y en a-t-il une seule qui puisse autoriser la persécution? Un figuier n'a pu donner des figues vers le commencement de Mars, on l'a séché: est-ce une raison pour faire sécher nos freres de douleur dans tous les temps de l'année? Respectons dans l'Ecriture tout ce qui peut faire naître des difficultés dans nos esprits curieux & vains, mais n'en abusons pas pour être durs & implacables.

L'esprit persécuteur qui abuse de tout, cherche encore sa justification dans l'expulsion des Marchands chassés du Temple, & dans la légion de Démons envoyée du corps d'un possédé dans le corps de deux mille animaux immondes. Mais qui ne voit que ces deux exemples ne sont autre chose qu'une justice que Dieu daigne faire lui-même d'une contravention à la Loi? C'était manquer de respect à la Maison du Seigneur, que de changer son parvis en une boutique de Marchands. En vain le Sanhedrin & les Prêtres permettaient ce négoce pour la commodité des sacrifices; le Dieu auquel on sacrifiait pouvait sans doute, quoique caché sous la figure humaine, détruire cette profanation: il pouvait de même punir ceux qui introduisaient dans le Pays des troupeaux entiers, défendus par une Loi dont il daignait lui-même être l'observateur. Ces exemples n'ont pas le moindre rapport aux persécutions sur le dogme. Il faut que l'esprit d'intolérance soit appuyé sur de bien mauvaises raisons, puisqu'il cherche par-tout les plus vains prétextes.

Presque tout le reste des paroles & des actions de Jesus-Christ prêche la douceur, la patience, l'indulgence. C'est le Pere de famille qui reçoit l'enfant prodigue; c'est l'ouvrier qui vient à la derniere heure, & qui est payé comme les autres; c'est le Samaritain charitable; lui-même justifie ses Disciples de ne pas jeûner; il pardonne à la pécheresse; il se contente de recommander la fidélité à la femme adultere: il daigne même condescendre à l'innocente joye des convives de Canaa, qui étant déja échauffés de vin, en demandent encore; il veut bien faire un miracle en leur faveur, il change pour eux l'eau en vin.

Il n'éclate pas même contre *Judas* qui doit le trahir; il ordonne à *Pierre* de ne se jamais servir de l'épée; il réprimande les enfants de *Zébédée*, qui, à l'exemple d'*Elie*, voulaient faire descendre le feu du Ciel sur une Ville qui n'avait pas voulu le loger.

Enfin, il meurt victime de l'envie. Si on ose comparer le sacré avec le profane, & un Dieu avec un homme, sa mort, humainement parlant, a beaucoup de rapport à celle de *Socrate*. Le Philosophe Grec périt par la haine des Sophistes, des Prêtres, & des premiers du Peuple: le Législateur des Chrétiens succomba sous la haine des Scribes, des Pharisiens, & des Prêtres. *Socrate* pouvait éviter la mort, & il ne le voulut pas: Jesus-Christ s'offrit volontairement. Le Philosophe Grec pardonna non-seulement à ses calomniateurs & à ses Juges iniques, mais il les pria de traiter un jour ses enfants comme lui-même s'ils étaient assez heureux pour mériter leur haine comme lui: le Législateur des Chrétiens, infiniment supérieur, pria son Pere de pardonner à ses ennemis.

Si Jesus-Christ sembla craindre la mort, si l'angoisse qu'il ressentit fut si extrême qu'il en eut une sueur mêlée de sang, ce qui est le symptome le plus violent & le plus rare, c'est qu'il daigna s'abaisser à toute la faiblesse du corps humain qu'il avait revêtu. Son corps tremblait, & son ame était inébranlable; il nous apprenait que la vraie force, la vraie grandeur consistent à supporter des maux sous lesquels notre nature succombe. Il y a un extrême courage à courir à la mort en la redoutant.

*Socrate* avait traité les Sophistes d'ignorants, & les avait convaincus de mauvaise foi: Jesus, usant de ses droits divins, traita les Scribes & les Pharisiens d'hypocrites, St. Math. Chap. 23.d'insensés, d'aveugles, de méchants, de serpents, de race de vipere.

*Socrate* ne fut point accusé de vouloir fonder une secte nouvelle; on n'accusa point Jesus-Christ d'en avoir voulu introduire une.St. Math. Chap. 26. Il est dit que les Princes des Prêtres, & tout le Conseil, cherchaient un faux témoignage contre Jesus pour le faire périr.

Or, s'ils cherchaient un faux témoignage, ils ne lui reprochaient donc pas d'avoir prêché publiquement contre la Loi. Il fut en effet soumis à la Loi de *Moïse* depuis son enfance jusqu'à sa mort: on le circoncit le huitieme jour comme tous les autres enfants. S'il fut depuis baptisé dans le Jourdain, c'était une cérémonie consacrée chez les Juifs, comme chez tous les Peuples de l'Orient. Toutes les souillures légales se nettoyaient par le Baptême; c'est ainsi qu'on consacrait les Prêtres: on se plongeait dans l'eau à la fête de l'expiation solemnelle, on baptisait les Prosélites.

Jesus observa tous les points de la Loi; il fêta tous les jours de Sabath; il s'abstint des viandes défendues; il célébra toutes les fêtes; & même avant sa mort il avait célébré la Pâque: on ne l'accusa ni d'aucune opinion nouvelle, ni d'avoir observé aucun Rite étranger. Né Israélite, il vécut constamment en Israélite.

Deux témoins qui se présenterent, l'accuserent d'avoir dit, *qu'il pourrait détruire le Temple, & le rebâtir en trois jours*.St. Math. chap. 26, v. 61. Un tel discours était incompréhensible pour les Juifs charnels, mais ce n'était pas une accusation de vouloir fonder une nouvelle secte.

Le Grand-Prêtre l'interrogea, & lui dit: *Je vous commande par le* Dieu *vivant, de nous dire, si vous êtes le* Christ, *Fils de* DIEU. On ne nous apprend point ce que le Grand-Prêtre entendait par *Fils de* Dieu. On se servait quelquefois de cette expression pour signifier un juste,[35] comme on employait les mots de *fils de Bélial*, pour signifier un méchant. Les Juifs grossiers n'avaient aucune idée du mystere sacré d'un Fils de Dieu, Dieu lui-même, venant sur la terre.

Jesus lui répondit: *Vous l'avez dit; mais je vous dis que vous verrez bientôt le fils de l'homme assis à la droite de la vertu de* Dieu, *venant sur les nuées du Ciel*.

Cette réponse fut regardée, par le Sanhedrin irrité, comme un blasphême. Le Sanhedrin n'avait plus le droit du glaive: ils traduisirent Jesus devant le Gouverneur Romain de la Province, & l'accuserent calomnieusement d'être un perturbateur du repos public, qui disait qu'il ne fallait pas payer le tribut à *César*, & qui de plus se disait Roi des Juifs. Il est donc de la plus grande évidence qu'il fut accusé d'un crime d'Etat.

Le Gouverneur *Pilate* ayant appris qu'il était Galiléen, le renvoya d'abord à *Hérode*, Tétrarque de Galilée. *Hérode* crut qu'il était impossible que Jesus pût aspirer à se faire chef de parti, & prétendre à la Royauté; il le traita avec mépris, & le renvoya à *Pilate*, qui eut l'indigne faiblesse de le condamner, pour appaiser le tumulte excité contre lui-même, d'autant plus qu'il avait essuyé déja une révolte des Juifs, à ce que nous apprend *Joseph*. *Pilate* n'eut pas la même générosité qu'eut depuis le Gouverneur *Festus*.

Je demande à présent, si c'est la tolérance, ou l'intolérance, qui est de droit divin? Si vous voulez ressembler à Jesus-Christ, soyez martyrs, & non pas bourreaux.

[35] Il était en effet, très-difficile aux Juifs, pour ne pas dire impossible, de comprendre, sans une révélation particuliere, ce Mystere ineffable de l'Incarnation du Fils de Dieu, Dieu lui-même. La Genese (chap. 6.) appelle *Fils de Dieu*, les fils des hommes puissants: de même les grands cedres dans les Pseaumes sont appellés les cedres de Dieu. *Samuel* dit qu'une frayeur de Dieu tomba sur le Peuple, c'est-à-dire, une grande frayeur; un grand vent, un vent de Dieu; la maladie de *Saül*, mélancolie de Dieu. Cependant il paraît que les Juifs entendirent à la Lettre, que Jesus se dit Fils de Dieu dans le sens propre; mais s'ils regarderent ces mots comme un blasphême, c'est peut-être encore une preuve de l'ignorance où ils étaient du Mystere de l'Incarnation, & de Dieu, Fils de Dieu, envoyé sur la terre pour le salut des hommes.

### Chapter XV

*Témoignages contre l'Intolérance.*

C'Est une impiété d'ôter, en matiere de Religion, la liberté aux hommes, d'empêcher qu'ils ne fassent choix d'une Divinité; aucun homme, aucun Dieu ne voudrait d'un service forcé. (*Apologétique, ch. 24.*)

Si on usait de violence pour la défense de la Foi, les Evêques s'y opposeraient. (*St. Hilaire, Liv. I.*)

La Religion forcée n'est plus Religion; il faut persuader, & non contraindre. La Religion ne se commande point. (*Lactance, Liv. 3.*)

C'est une exécrable hérésie de vouloir tirer par la force, par les coups, par les emprisonnements, ceux qu'on n'a pu convaincre par la raison. (*St. Athanase, Liv. I.*)

Rien n'est plus contraire à la Religion que la contrainte. (*St. Justin, Martyr, Liv. 5.*)

Persécuterons-nous ceux que Dieu tolere? *dit St. Augustin, avant que sa querelle avec les Donatistes l'eût rendu trop sévere*.

Qu'on ne fasse aucune violence aux Juifs, (*4me. Concile de Tolede, 56me. canon.*)

Conseillez, & ne forcez pas. (*Lettres de saint Bernard.*)

Nous ne prétendons point détruire les erreurs par la violence. (*Discours du Clergé de France à Louis XIII.*)

Nous avons toujours désapprouvé les voyes de rigueur. (*Assemblée du Clergé, 11me. Aoust 1560.*)

Nous savons que la Foi se persuade, & ne se commande point. (*Fléchier, Evêque de Nîmes, Lettre 19.*)

On ne doit pas même user de termes insultants. (*L'Evêque du Belley dans une Instr. pastorale.*)

Souvenez-vous que les maladies de l'ame ne se guérissent point par contrainte & par violence. (*Le Cardinal le Camus, Instruction pastorale de 1688.*)

Accordez à tous la tolérance civile. (*Fénelon, Archevêque de Cambrai, au Duc de Bourgogne.*)

L'exaction forcée d'une Religion est une preuve évidente que l'esprit qui la conduit est un esprit ennemi de la vérité. (*Dirois, Docteur de Sorbonne, Liv. 6, chap. 4.*)

La violence peut faire des hypocrites; on ne persuade point quand on fait retentir par-tout les menaces. (*Tillemont, Hist. Eccl. tom. 6.*)

Il nous a paru conforme à l'équité & à la droite raison, de marcher sur les traces de l'ancienne Eglise, qui n'a point usé de violence pour établir & étendre la Religion. (*Remontr. du Parlement de Paris à Henri II.*)

L'expérience nous apprend que la violence est plus capable d'irriter que de guérir un mal qui a sa racine dans l'esprit &c. (*De Thou, Epître dédicatoire à Henri IV.*.)

La Foi ne s'inspire pas à coups d'épée. (*Cérisier, sur les regnes de Henri IV & de Louis XIII.*)

C'est un zele barbare que celui qui prétend planter la Religion dans les cœurs, comme si la persuasion pouvait être l'effet de la contrainte. (*Boulainvilliers, Etat de la France.*)

Il en est de la Religion comme de l'amour; le commandement n'y peut rien, la contrainte encore moins; rien de plus indépendant que d'aimer & de croire. (*Amelot de la Houssaye, sur les Lettres du Cardinal d'Ossat.*)

Si le Ciel vous a assez aimé pour vous faire voir la vérité, il vous a fait une grande grace: mais est-ce à ceux qui ont l'héritage de leur Pere, de haïr ceux qui ne l'ont pas? (*Esprit des Loix, Liv. 25.*)

On pourrait faire un Livre énorme, tout composé de pareils passages. Nos Histoires, nos Discours, nos Sermons, nos Ouvrages de morale, nos Catéchismes, respirent tous, enseignent tous aujourd'hui ce devoir sacré de l'indulgence. Par quelle fatalité, par quelle inconséquence démentirions-nous dans la pratique une théorie que nous annonçons tous les jours? Quand nos actions démentent notre morale, c'est que nous croyons qu'il y a quelque avantage pour nous à faire le contraire de ce que nous enseignons; mais certainement il n'y a aucun avantage à persécuter ceux qui ne sont pas de notre avis, & à nous en faire haïr. Il y a donc, encore une fois, de l'absurdité dans l'intolérance. Mais, dira-t-on, ceux qui ont intérêt à gêner les consciences, ne sont point absurdes. C'est à eux que s'adresse le petit Chapitre suivant.

### Chapter XVI

*Dialogue entre un mourant & un homme qui se porte bien.*

UN Citoyen était à l'agonie dans une Ville de Province; un homme en bonne santé vint insulter à ses derniers moments, & lui dit:

Misérable! pense comme moi tout-à-l'heure, signe cet Ecrit, confesse que cinq propositions sont dans un Livre que ni toi ni moi n'avons jamais lu; sois tout-à-l'heure du sentiment de *Lamfran* contre *Berenger*, de *St. Thomas* contre *St. Bonaventure*; embrasse le second Concile de Nicée contre le Concile de Francfort; explique-moi dans l'instant, comment ces paroles: *Mon pere est plus grand que moi*, signifient expressément: *Je suis aussi grand que lui*.

Dis-moi comment le Pere communique tout au Fils, excepté la paternité, ou je vais faire jetter ton corps à la voirie; tes enfants n'hériteront point, ta femme sera privée de sa dot, & ta famille mendiera du pain que mes pareils ne lui donneront pas.

*Le Mourant.*

J'entends à peine ce que vous me dites; les menaces que vous me faites parviennent confusément à mon oreille, elles troublent mon ame, elles rendent ma mort affreuse. Au nom de Dieu, ayez pitié de moi!

*Le Barbare.*

De la pitié! je n'en puis avoir si tu n'es pas de mon avis en tout.

*Le Mourant.*

Hélas! vous sentez qu'à ces derniers moments tous mes sens sont flétris, toutes les portes de mon entendement sont fermées, mes idées s'enfuyent, ma pensée s'éteint. Suis-je en état de disputer?

*Le Barbare.*

Eh bien, si tu ne peux pas croire ce que je veux, dis que tu le crois, & cela me suffit.

*Le Mourant.*

Comment puis-je me parjurer pour vous plaire? Je vais paroître dans un moment devant le Dieu qui punit le parjure.

*Le Barbare.*

N'importe; tu auras le plaisir d'être enterré dans un cimetiere; & ta femme, tes enfants auront de quoi vivre. Meurs en hypocrite: l'hypocrisie est une bonne chose; c'est, comme on dit, un hommage que le vice rend à la vertu. Un peu d'hypocrisie, mon Ami, qu'est-ce que cela coûte?

*Le Mourant.*

Hélas! vous méprisez Dieu, ou vous ne le reconnaissez pas, puisque vous me demandez un mensonge à l'article de la mort, vous qui devez bientôt recevoir votre jugement de lui, & qui répondrez de ce mensonge.

*Le Barbare.*

Comment, insolent! je ne reconnais point de Dieu?

*Le Mourant.*

Pardon, mon frere, je crains que vous n'en connaissiez pas. Celui que j'adore ranime en ce moment mes forces, pour vous dire d'une voix mourante, que si vous croyez en Dieu, vous devez user envers moi de charité. Il m'a donné ma femme & mes enfants, ne les faites pas périr de misere. Pour mon corps, faites-en ce que vous voudrez, je vous l'abandonne; mais croyez en Dieu, je vous en conjure!

*Le Barbare.*

Fais, sans raisonner, ce que je t'ai dit; je le veux, je l'ordonne.

*Le Mourant.*

Et quel intérêt avez-vous à me tant tourmenter?

*Le Barbare.*

Comment! quel intérêt? si j'ai ta signature, elle me vaudra un bon Canonicat.

*Le Mourant.*

Ah, mon frere! voici mon dernier moment; je meurs; je vais prier Dieu qu'il vous touche & qu'il vous convertisse.

*Le Barbare.*

Au diable soit l'impertinent qui n'a point signé! Je vais signer pour lui, & contrefaire son écriture.

*La Lettre suivante est une confirmation de la même morale.*

### Chapter XVII

*Lettre écrite au Jésuite* Le Tellier, *par un Bénéficier, le 6 Mai 1714.*

Mon Révérend Pere,

J'Obéis aux ordres que Votre Révérence m'a donnés de lui présenter les moyens les plus propres de délivrer Jesus & sa Compagnie de leurs ennemis. Je crois qu'il ne reste plus que cinq cents mille Huguenots dans le Royaume, quelques-uns disent un million, d'autres quinze cents mille; mais en quelque nombre qu'ils soient, voici mon avis, que je soumets très-humblement au vôtre, comme je le dois.

1o. Il est aisé d'attraper en un jour tous les Prédicants, & de les pendre tous à la fois dans une même place, non-seulement pour l'édification publique, mais pour la beauté du spectacle.

2o. Je ferais assassiner dans leurs lits, tous les peres & meres, parce que si on les tuait dans les rues, cela pourrait causer quelque tumulte; plusieurs même pourraient se sauver, ce qu'il faut éviter, sur toute chose. Cette exécution est un corollaire nécessaire de nos principes; car s'il faut tuer un hérétique, comme tant de grands Théologiens le prouvent, il est évident qu'il faut les tuer tous.

3o. Je marierais le lendemain toutes les filles à de bons Catholiques, attendu qu'il ne faut pas dépeupler trop l'Etat après la derniere guerre; mais à l'égard des garçons de quatorze & quinze ans, déja imbus de mauvais principes, qu'on ne peut se flatter de détruire, mon opinion est qu'il faut les châtrer tous, afin que cette engeance ne soit jamais reproduite. Pour les autres petits garçons, ils seront élevés dans vos Colleges, & on les fouettera jusqu'à ce qu'ils sachent par cœur les Ouvrages de *Sanchez* & de *Molina*.

4o. Je pense, sauf correction, qu'il en faut faire autant à tous les Luthériens d'Alsace, attendu que dans l'année 1704, j'apperçus deux vieilles de ce Pays-là qui riaient le jour de la bataille d'Hochstedt.

5o. L'article des Jansénistes paraîtra peut-être un peu plus embarrassant; je les crois au nombre de six millions, au moins; mais un esprit tel que le vôtre ne doit pas s'en effrayer. Je comprends parmi les Jansénistes tous les Parlements, qui soutiennent si indignement les Libertés de l'Eglise Gallicane. C'est à Votre Révérence de peser avec sa prudence ordinaire les moyens de vous soumettre tous ces esprits revêches. La conspiration des poudres n'eut pas le succès desiré, parce qu'un des Conjurés eut l'indiscrétion de vouloir sauver la vie à son ami: mais comme vous n'avez point d'ami, le même inconvénient n'est point à craindre; il vous sera fort aisé de faire sauter tous les Parlements du Royaume avec cette invention du Moine *Shwarts*, qu'on appelle *pulvis pyrius*. Je calcule qu'il faut, l'un portant l'autre, trente-six tonneaux de poudre pour chaque Parlement; & ainsi en multipliant douze Parlements par trente-six tonneaux, cela ne compose que quatre cents trente-deux tonneaux, qui, à cent écus piece, font la somme de cent-vingt-neuf mille six cents livres; c'est une bagatelle pour le Révérend Pere Général.

Les Parlements une fois sautés, vous donnerez leurs Charges à vos Congréganistes, qui sont parfaitement instruits des Loix du Royaume.

6o. Il sera aisé d'empoisonner Mr. le Cardinal de *Noailles*, qui est un homme simple, & qui ne se défie de rien.

Votre Révérence employera les mêmes moyens de conversion auprès de quelques Evêques rénitents: leurs Evêchés seront mis entre les mains des Jésuites, moyennant un bref du Pape; alors tous les Evêques étant du parti de la bonne cause, & tous les Curés étant habilement choisis par les Evêques, voici ce que je conseille, sous le bon plaisir de Votre Révérence.

7o. Comme on dit que les Jansénistes communient au moins à Pâques, il ne serait pas mal de saupoudrer les Hosties de la drogue dont on se servit pour faire justice de l'Empereur *Henri VII*. Quelque Critique me dira peut-être, qu'on risquerait dans cette opération, de donner aussi de la mort aux rats aux Molinistes: cette objection est forte; mais il n'y a point de projet qui n'ait des inconvénients, point de systême qui ne menace ruine par quelque endroit. Si on était arrêté par ces petites difficultés, on ne viendroit jamais à bout de rien: & d'ailleurs, comme il s'agit de procurer le plus grand bien qu'il soit possible, il ne faut pas se scandaliser si ce grand bien entraîne après lui quelques mauvaises suites, qui ne sont de nulle considération.

Nous n'avons rien à nous reprocher: il est démontré que tous les prétendus Réformés, tous les Jansénistes, sont dévolus à l'Enfer; ainsi nous ne faisons que hâter le moment où ils doivent entrer en possession.

Il n'est pas moins clair que le Paradis appartient de droit aux Molinistes; donc en les faisant périr par mégarde, & sans aucune mauvaise intention, nous accélérons leur joye: nous sommes dans l'un & l'autre cas les Ministres de la Providence.

Quant à ceux qui pourraient être un peu effarouchés du nombre, Votre Paternité pourra leur faire remarquer, que depuis les jours florissants de l'Eglise, jusqu'à 1707, c'est-à-dire, depuis environ quatorze cents ans, la Théologie a procuré le massacre de plus de cinquante millions d'hommes; & que je ne propose d'en étrangler, ou égorger, ou empoisonner qu'environ six millions cinq cents mille.

On nous objectera peut-être encore que mon compte n'est pas juste, & que je viole la regle de trois; car, dira-t-on, si en quatorze cents ans il n'a péri que cinquante millions d'hommes pour des distinctions, des dilemmes, & des enthymêmes Théologiques, cela ne fait par année que trente-cinq mille sept cents quatorze personnes, avec fraction; & qu'ainsi je tue six millions soixante-quatre mille deux cents quatre-vingt-cinq personnes de trop, avec fraction, pour la présente année. Mais, en vérité, cette chicane est bien puérile; on peut même dire qu'elle est impie: car ne voit-on pas par mon procédé que je sauve la vie à tous les Catholiques jusqu'à la fin du Monde? On n'aurait jamais fait, si on voulait répondre à toutes les critiques.

Je suis avec un profond respect, de Votre Paternité,

*Le très-humble, très-dévot & très-doux R..., natif d'Angoulême, Préfet de la Congrégation*.

Ce projet ne put être exécuté, parce qu'il fallut beaucoup de temps pour prendre de justes mesures, & que le Pere *Le Tellier* fut exilé l'année suivante. Mais comme il faut examiner le pour & le contre, il est bon de rechercher dans quels cas on pourrait légitimement suivre en partie les vues du Correspondant du Pere *Le Tellier*. Il paraît qu'il serait dur d'exécuter ce projet dans tous ses points; mais il faut voir dans quelles occasions on doit rouer, ou pendre, ou mettre aux galeres les gens qui ne sont pas de notre avis: c'est l'objet du Chapitre suivant.

### Chapter XVIII

*Seuls cas où l'Intolérance est de droit humain.*

POur qu'un Gouvernement ne soit pas en droit de punir les erreurs des hommes, il est nécessaire que ces erreurs ne soient pas des crimes; elles ne sont des crimes que quand elles troublent la Société; elles troublent cette Société, dès qu'elles inspirent le fanatisme; il faut donc que les hommes commencent par n'être pas fanatiques, pour mériter la Tolérance.

Si quelques jeunes Jésuites, sachant que l'Eglise a les Réprouvés en horreur, que les Jansénistes sont condamnés par une Bulle, qu'ainsi les Jansénistes sont réprouvés, s'en vont bruler une maison des Peres de l'Oratoire, parce que *Quesnel* l'Oratorien était Janséniste, il est clair qu'on sera bien obligé de punir ces Jésuites.

De même, s'ils ont débité des maximes coupables, si leur institut est contraire aux Loix du Royaume, on ne peut s'empêcher de dissoudre leur Compagnie, & d'abolir les Jésuites pour en faire des Citoyens; ce qui au fond est un mal imaginaire, & un bien réel pour eux: car où est le mal de porter un habit court au-lieu d'une soutane, & d'être libre au-lieu d'être esclave? On réforme à la paix des Régiments entiers, qui ne se plaignent pas: pourquoi les Jésuites poussent-ils de si hauts cris, quand on les réforme pour avoir la paix?

Que les Cordeliers, transportés d'un saint zele pour la Vierge *Marie*, aillent démolir l'Eglise des Jacobins, qui pensent que *Marie* est née dans le péché originel; on sera alors obligé de traiter les Cordeliers à peu près comme les Jésuites.

On en dira autant des Luthériens & des Calvinistes: ils auront beau dire, nous suivons les mouvements de notre conscience, il vaut mieux obéir à Dieu qu'aux hommes; nous sommes le vrai troupeau, nous devons exterminer les loups. Il est évident qu'alors ils sont loups eux-mêmes.

Un des plus étonnants exemples de fanatisme, a été une petite secte en Dannemark, dont le principe était le meilleur du monde. Ces gens-là voulaient procurer le salut éternel à leurs freres; mais les conséquences de ce principe étaient singulieres. Ils savaient que tous les petits enfants qui meurent sans Baptême sont damnés, & que ceux qui ont le bonheur de mourir immédiatement après avoir reçu le Baptême, jouissent de la gloire éternelle: ils allaient égorgeant les garçons & les filles nouvellement baptisés, qu'ils pouvaient rencontrer; c'était sans doute leur faire le plus grand bien qu'on pût leur procurer: on les préservait à la fois du péché, des miseres de cette vie, & de l'Enfer; on les envoyait infailliblement au Ciel. Mais ces gens charitables ne considéraient pas qu'il n'est pas permis de faire un petit mal pour un grand bien; qu'ils n'avaient aucun droit sur la vie de ces petits enfants; que la plupart des peres & meres sont assez charnels pour aimer mieux avoir auprès d'eux leurs fils & leurs filles, que de les voir égorger pour aller en Paradis; & qu'en un mot, le Magistrat doit punir l'homicide, quoiqu'il soit fait à bonne intention.

Les Juifs sembleraient avoir plus de droit que personne, de nous voler & de nous tuer. Car bien qu'il y ait cent exemples de tolérance dans l'ancien Testament, cependant il y a aussi quelques exemples & quelques Loix de rigueur. Dieu leur a ordonné quelquefois de tuer les idolâtres, & de ne réserver que les filles nubiles: ils nous regardent comme idolâtres; & quoique nous les tolérions aujourd'hui, ils pourraient bien, s'ils étaient les Maîtres, ne laisser au monde que nos filles.

Ils seraient sur-tout dans l'obligation indispensable d'assassiner tous les Turcs; cela va sans difficulté: car les Turcs possedent le Pays des Hétéens, des Jébuséens, des Amorrhéens, Jersénéens, Hévéens, Aracéens, Cinéens, Hamatéens, Samaréens; tous ces Peuples furent dévoués à l'anathême; leur Pays, qui était de plus de vingt-cinq lieues de long, fut donné aux Juifs par plusieurs pactes consécutifs; ils doivent rentrer dans leur bien: les Mahométans en sont les usurpateurs depuis plus de mille ans.

Si les Juifs raisonnaient ainsi aujourd'hui, il est clair qu'il n'y aurait d'autre réponse à leur faire que de les empaler.

Ce sont à peu près les seuls cas où l'intolérance paraît raisonnable.

### Chapter XIX

*Relation d'une dispute de controverse à la Chine.*

DAns les premieres années du regne du grand Empereur *Kam-hi*, un Mandarin de la Ville de Kanton entendit de sa maison un grand bruit qu'on faisait dans la maison voisine; il s'informa si l'on ne tuait personne; on lui dit que c'était l'Aumônier de la Compagnie Danoise, un Chapelain de Batavia, & un Jésuite qui disputaient: il les fit venir, leur fit servir du thé & des confitures, & leur demanda pourquoi ils se querellaient.

Ce Jésuite lui répondit qu'il était bien douloureux pour lui, qui avait toujours raison, d'avoir à faire à des gens qui avaient toujours tort; que d'abord il avait argumenté avec la plus grande retenue, mais qu'enfin la patience lui avait échappé.

Le Mandarin leur fit sentir, avec toute la discrétion possible, combien la politesse est nécessaire dans la dispute, leur dit qu'on ne se fâchait jamais à la Chine, & leur demanda de quoi il s'agissait?

Le Jésuite lui répondit: Monseigneur, je vous en fais juge; ces deux Messieurs refusent de se soumettre aux décisions du Concile de Trente.

Cela m'étonne, dit le Mandarin. Puis se tournant vers les deux réfractaires: Il me paraît, leur dit-il, Messieurs, que vous devriez respecter les avis d'une grande Assemblée; je ne sais pas ce que c'est que le Concile de Trente; mais plusieurs personnes sont toujours plus instruites qu'une seule. Nul ne doit croire qu'il en sait plus que les autres, & que la raison n'habite que dans sa tête; c'est ainsi que l'enseigne notre grand *Confucius*; & si vous m'en croyez, vous ferez très-bien de vous en rapporter au Concile de Trente.

Le Danois prit alors la parole, & dit: Monseigneur parle avec la plus grande sagesse; nous respectons les grandes Assemblées comme nous le devons; aussi sommes-nous entiérement de l'avis de plusieurs Assemblées qui se sont tenues avant celle de Trente.

Oh! si cela est ainsi, dit le Mandarin, je vous demande pardon, vous pourriez bien avoir raison. Ça, vous êtes donc du même avis, ce Hollandais & vous, contre ce pauvre Jésuite.

Point du tout, dit le Hollandais: cet homme-ci a des opinions presque aussi extravagantes que celles de ce Jésuite, qui fait ici le doucereux avec vous; il n'y a pas moyen d'y tenir.

Je ne vous conçois pas, dit le Mandarin: N'êtes-vous pas tous trois Chrétiens? ne venez-vous pas tous trois enseigner le Christianisme dans notre Empire? & ne devez-vous pas par conséquent avoir les mêmes dogmes?

Vous voyez, Monseigneur, dit le Jésuite: ces deux gens-ci sont ennemis mortels, & disputent tous deux contre moi; il est donc évident qu'ils ont tous les deux tort, & que la raison n'est que de mon côté. Cela n'est pas si évident, dit le Mandarin: il se pourrait faire à toute force que vous eussiez tort tous trois; je serais curieux de vous entendre l'un après l'autre.

Le Jésuite fit alors un assez long discours, pendant lequel le Danois & le Hollandais levaient les épaules; le Mandarin n'y comprit rien. Le Danois parla à son tour; ses deux Adversaires le regarderent en pitié, & le Mandarin n'y comprit pas davantage. Le Hollandais eut le même sort. Enfin, ils parlerent tous trois ensemble, ils se dirent de grosses injures. L'honnête Mandarin eut bien de la peine à mettre le hola, & leur dit: Si vous voulez qu'on tolere ici votre Doctrine, commencez par n'être ni intolérants ni intolérables.

Au sortir de l'audience, le Jésuite rencontra un Missionnaire Jacobin; il lui apprit qu'il avait gagné sa cause, l'assurant que la vérité triomphait toujours. Le Jacobin lui dit: Si j'avais été là, vous ne l'auriez pas gagnée; je vous aurais convaincu de mensonge & d'idolâtrie. La querelle s'échauffa; le Jacobin & le Jésuite se prirent aux cheveux. Le Mandarin informé du scandale les envoya tous deux en prison. Un Sous-Mandarin dit au Juge: Combien de temps votre Excellence veut-elle qu'ils soient aux Arrêts? Jusqu'à ce qu'ils soient d'accord, dit le Juge. Ah! dit le Sous-Mandarin, ils seront donc en prison toute leur vie. Eh bien, dit le Juge, jusqu'à ce qu'ils se pardonnent. Ils ne se pardonneront jamais, dit l'autre, je les connais. Eh bien donc, dit le Mandarin, jusqu'à ce qu'ils fassent semblant de se pardonner.

### Chapter XX

*S'il est utile d'entretenir le Peuple dans la superstition?*

TElle est la faiblesse du Genre-Humain, & telle sa perversité, qu'il vaut mieux sans doute pour lui d'être subjugué par toutes les superstitions possibles, pourvu qu'elles ne soient point meurtrieres, que de vivre sans Religion. L'homme a toujours eu besoin d'un frein; & quoiqu'il fût ridicule de sacrifier aux Faunes, aux Sylvains, aux Naïades, il était bien plus raisonnable & plus utile d'adorer ces images fantastiques de la Divinité, que de se livrer à l'athéisme. Un Athée qui serait raisonneur, violent & puissant, serait un fléau aussi funeste qu'un superstitieux sanguinaire.

Quand les hommes n'ont pas de notions saines de la Divinité, les idées fausses y suppléent, comme dans les temps malheureux on trafique avec de la mauvaise monnoye, quand on n'en a pas de bonne. Le Païen craignait de commettre un crime de peur d'être puni par les faux Dieux. Le Malabare craint d'être puni par sa Pagode. Par-tout où il y a une Société établie, une Religion est nécessaire; les Loix veillent sur les crimes commis, & la Religion sur les crimes secrets.

Mais lorsqu'une fois les hommes sont parvenus à embrasser une Religion pure & sainte, la superstition devient, non-seulement inutile, mais très-dangereuse. On ne doit pas chercher à nourrir de gland ceux que Dieu daigne nourrir de pain.

La superstition est à la Religion ce que l'Astrologie est à l'Astronomie, la fille très-folle d'une mere très-sage. Ces deux filles ont long-temps subjugué toute la terre.

Lorsque dans nos siecles de barbarie il y avait à peine deux Seigneurs féodaux qui eussent chez eux un nouveau Testament, il pouvait être pardonnable de présenter des fables au vulgaire, c'est-à-dire, à ces Seigneurs féodaux, à leurs femmes imbécilles, & aux brutes, leurs vassaux: on leur faisait croire que *St. Christophe* avait porté l'enfant Jesus du bord d'une riviere à l'autre; on les repaissait d'histoires de Sorciers & de possédés: ils imaginaient aisément que *St. Genou* guérissait de la goutte, & que *Ste. Claire* guérissait les yeux malades. Les enfants croyaient au loup-garou, & les peres au cordon de *St. François*. Le nombre des Reliques était innombrable.

La rouille de tant de superstitions a subsisté encore quelque temps chez les Peuples, lors même qu'enfin la Religion fut épurée. On sait que quand Mr. *de Noailles*, Evêque de Châlons, fit enlever & jetter au feu la prétendue Relique du saint nombril de Jesus-Christ, toute la ville de Châlons lui fit un procès; mais il eut autant de courage que de piété, & il parvint bientôt à faire croire aux Champenois, qu'on pouvait adorer Jesus-Christ en esprit & en vérité, sans avoir son nombril dans une Eglise.

Ceux qu'on appellait Jansénistes, ne contribuerent pas peu à déraciner insensiblement dans l'esprit de la Nation, la plupart des fausses idées qui déshonoraient la Religion Chrétienne. On cessa de croire qu'il suffisait de réciter l'Oraison de trente jours à la Vierge *Marie*, pour obtenir tout ce qu'on voulait, & pour pécher impunément.

Enfin, la Bourgeoisie a commencé à soupçonner que ce n'était pas *Ste. Genevieve* qui donnait ou arrêtait la pluye, mais que c'était Dieu lui-même qui disposait des éléments. Les Moines ont été étonnés que leurs Saints ne fissent plus de miracles; & si les Ecrivains de la Vie de *St. François-Xavier* revenaient au monde, ils n'oseraient pas écrire que ce Saint ressuscita neuf morts, qu'il se trouva en même-temps sur mer & sur terre, & que son Crucifix étant tombé dans la mer, un cancre vint le lui rapporter.

Il en a été de même des excommunications. Nos Historiens nous disent que lorsque le Roi *Robert* eut été excommunié par le Pape *Grégoire V*, pour avoir épousé la Princesse *Berthe*, sa commere, ses domestiques jettaient par les fenêtres les viandes qu'on avait servies au Roi, & que la Reine *Berthe* accoucha d'une oye en punition de ce mariage incestueux. On doute aujourd'hui que les Maîtres-d'Hôtel d'un Roi de France excommunié, jettassent son dîner par la fenêtre, & que la Reine mît au monde un oison en pareil cas.

S'il y a quelques convulsionnaires dans un coin d'un fauxbourg, c'est une maladie pédiculaire, dont il n'y a que la plus vile populace qui soit attaquée. Chaque jour la raison pénetre en France dans les boutiques des Marchands, comme dans les Hôtels des Seigneurs. Il faut donc cultiver les fruits de cette raison, d'autant plus qu'il est impossible de les empêcher d'éclorre. On ne peut gouverner la France après qu'elle a été éclairée par les *Paschals*, les *Nicoles*, les *Arnauds*, les *Bossuets*, les *Descartes*, les *Gassendis*, les *Bayles*, les *Fontenelles*, &c., comme on la gouvernait du temps des *Garasses* & des *Menots*.

Si les Maîtres d'erreur, je dis les grands Maîtres, si long-temps payés & honorés pour abrutir l'espece humaine, ordonnaient aujourd'hui de croire que le grain doit pourrir pour germer, que la terre est immobile sur ses fondements, qu'elle ne tourne point autour du Soleil, que les marées ne sont pas un effet naturel de la gravitation, que l'arc-en-ciel n'est pas formé par la réfraction & la réflexion des rayons de la lumiere, &c., & s'ils se fondaient sur des passages mal-entendus de la sainte Ecriture pour appuyer leurs ordonnances, comment seraient-ils regardés par tous les hommes instruits? Le terme de *bêtes* serait-il trop fort? Et si ces sages Maîtres se servaient de la force & de la persécution pour faire régner leur ignorance insolente, le terme de *bêtes farouches* serait-il déplacé?

Plus les superstitions des Moines sont méprisées, plus les Evêques sont respectés, & les Curés considérés; ils ne font que du bien, & les superstitions monachales ultramontaines feraient beaucoup de mal. Mais de toutes les superstitions, la plus dangereuse, n'est-ce pas celle de haïr son Prochain pour ses opinions? & n'est-il pas évident qu'il serait encore plus raisonnable d'adorer le saint nombril, le saint prépuce, le lait & la robe de la Vierge *Marie*, que de détester & de persécuter son frere?

### Chapter XXI

*Vertu vaut mieux que science.*

MOins de dogmes, moins de disputes; & moins de disputes, moins de malheurs: si cela n'est pas vrai, j'ai tort.

La Religion est instituée pour nous rendre heureux dans cette vie & dans l'autre. Que faut-il pour être heureux dans la vie à venir? Etre juste.

Pour être heureux dans celle-ci, autant que le permet la misere de notre nature, que faut-il? Etre indulgent.

Ce serait le comble de la folie, de prétendre amener tous les hommes à penser d'une maniere uniforme sur la Métaphysique. On pourrait beaucoup plus aisément subjuguer l'Univers entier par les armes, que de subjuguer tous les esprits d'une seule Ville.

*Euclide* est venu aisément à bout de persuader à tous les hommes les vérités de la Géométrie; pourquoi? parce qu'il n'y en a pas une qui ne soit un corollaire évident de ce petit axiome: *Deux & deux font quatre*. Il n'en est pas tout-à-fait de même dans le mélange de la Métaphysique & de la Théologie.

Lorsque l'Evêque *Alexandre*, & le Prêtre *Arios* ou *Arius*, commencerent à disputer sur la maniere dont le *Logos* était une émanation du Pere, l'Empereur *Constantin* leur écrivit d'abord ces paroles rapportées par *Eusebe*, & par *Socrate*: *Vous êtes de grands fous de disputer sur des choses que vous ne pouvez entendre*.

Si les deux partis avaient été assez sages pour convenir que l'Empereur avait raison, le monde Chrétien n'aurait pas été ensanglanté pendant trois cents années.

Qu'y a-t-il en effet de plus fou & de plus horrible que de dire aux hommes: «Mes amis, ce n'est pas assez d'être des sujets fideles, des enfants soumis, des peres tendres, des voisins équitables, de pratiquer toutes les vertus, de cultiver l'amitié, de fuir l'ingratitude, d'adorer Jesus-Christ en paix, il faut encore que vous sachiez comment on est engendré de toute éternité, sans être fait de toute éternité; & si vous ne savez pas distinguer l'*Omousion* dans l'hypostase, nous vous dénonçons que vous serez brulés à jamais; & en attendant, nous allons commencer par vous égorger?

Si on avait présenté une telle décision à un *Archimede*, à un *Possidonius*, à un *Varron*, à un *Caton*, à un *Cicéron*, qu'auraient-ils répondu?

*Constantin* ne persévera point dans la résolution d'imposer silence aux deux partis; il pouvait faire venir les Chefs de l'ergotisme dans son Palais; il pouvait leur demander par quelle autorité ils troublaient le monde: «Avez-vous les titres de la Famille divine? Que vous importe que le *Logos* soit fait ou engendré, pourvu qu'on lui soit fidele, pourvu qu'on prêche une bonne morale, & qu'on la pratique si on peut? J'ai commis bien des fautes dans ma vie, & vous aussi: vous êtes ambitieux, & moi aussi: l'Empire m'a coûté des fourberies & des cruautés; j'ai assassiné presque tous mes proches, je m'en repens; je veux expier mes crimes en rendant l'Empire Romain tranquille; ne m'empêchez pas de faire le seul bien qui puisse faire oublier mes anciennes barbaries; aidez-moi à finir mes jours en paix. Peut-être n'aurait-il rien gagné sur les disputeurs: peut-être fut-il flatté de présider à un Concile, en long habit rouge, la tête chargée de pierreries.

Voilà pourtant ce qui ouvrit la porte à tous ces fléaux qui vinrent de l'Asie inonder l'Occident. Il sortit de chaque verset contesté une furie armée d'un sophisme & d'un poignard, qui rendit tous les hommes insensés & cruels. Les Huns, les Hérules, les Goths & les Vandales qui survinrent, firent infiniment moins de mal; & le plus grand qu'ils firent, fut de se prêter enfin eux-mêmes à ces disputes fatales.

### Chapter XXII

*De la Tolérance universelle.*

IL ne faut pas un grand art, une éloquence bien recherchée, pour prouver que des Chrétiens doivent se tolérer les uns les autres. Je vais plus loin; je vous dis qu'il faut regarder tous les hommes comme nos freres. Quoi! mon frere le Turc? mon frere le Chinois? le Juif? le Siamois? Oui, sans doute; ne sommes-nous pas tous enfants du même Pere, & créatures du même Dieu?

Mais ces Peuples nous méprisent; mais ils nous traitent d'idolâtres! Eh bien! je leur dirai qu'ils ont grand tort. Il me semble que je pourrais étonner au moins l'orgueilleuse opiniâtreté d'un Iman, ou d'un Talapoin, si je leur parlais à peu près ainsi.

Ce petit globe, qui n'est qu'un point, roule dans l'espace, ainsi que tant d'autres globes; nous sommes perdus dans cette immensité. L'homme, haut d'environ cinq pieds, est assurément peu de chose dans la création. Un de ces êtres imperceptibles dit à quelques-uns de ses voisins, dans l'Arabie, ou dans la Cafrerie; «Ecoutez-moi; car le Dieu de tous ces mondes m'a éclairé: il y a neuf cents millions de petites fourmis comme nous sur la terre; mais il n'y a que ma fourmilliere qui soit chere à Dieu, toutes les autres lui sont en horreur de toute éternité; elle sera seule heureuse, & toutes les autres seront éternellement infortunées.

Ils m'arrêteraient alors, & me demanderaient, quel est le fou qui a dit cette sottise? Je serais obligé de leur répondre: C'est vous-mêmes. Je tâcherais ensuite de les adoucir, mais cela serait bien difficile.

Je parlerai maintenant aux Chrétiens, & j'oserais dire, par exemple, à un Dominicain Inquisiteur pour la Foi: «Mon Frere, vous savez que chaque Province d'Italie a son jargon, & qu'on ne parle point à Venise & à Bergame comme à Florence. L'Académie de la *Crusca* a fixé la Langue; son Dictionnaire est une regle dont on ne doit pas s'écarter, & la Grammaire de *Buon Matei* est un guide infaillible qu'il faut suivre: mais, croyez-vous que le Consul de l'Académie, & en son absence *Buon Matei*, auraient pu en conscience faire couper la langue à tous les Vénitiens & à tous les Bergamasques qui auraient persisté dans leur patois?

L'Inquisiteur me répond; «Il y a bien de la différence, il s'agit ici du salut de votre ame; c'est pour votre bien que le Directoire de l'Inquisition ordonne qu'on vous saisisse sur la déposition d'une seule personne, fût-elle infame & reprise de Justice; que vous n'ayiez point d'Avocat pour vous défendre, que le nom de votre accusateur ne vous soit pas seulement connu; que l'Inquisiteur vous promette grace, & ensuite vous condamne; qu'il vous applique à cinq tortures différentes, & qu'ensuite vous soyez ou fouetté, ou mis aux galeres, ou brulé en cérémonie:[36] le Pere *Ivonet*, le Docteur *Chucalon*, *Zanchinus*, *Campegius*, *Royas*, *Felinus*, *Gomarus*, *Diabarus*, *Gemelinus*, y sont formels, & cette pieuse pratique ne peut souffrir de contradiction.

Je prendrais la liberté de lui répondre: «Mon Frere, peut-être avez-vous raison, je suis convaincu du bien que vous voulez me faire, mais ne pourrais-je pas être sauvé sans tout cela?»

Il est vrai que ces horreurs absurdes ne souillent pas tous les jours la face de la terre; mais elles ont été fréquentes, & on en composerait aisément un volume beaucoup plus gros que les Evangiles qui les réprouvent. Non-seulement il est bien cruel de persécuter, dans cette courte vie, ceux qui ne pensent pas comme nous; mais je ne sais s'il n'est pas bien hardi de prononcer leur damnation éternelle. Il me semble qu'il n'appartient guères à des atomes d'un moment, tels que nous sommes, de prévenir ainsi les arrêts du Créateur. Je suis bien loin de combattre cette sentence, *hors de l'Eglise point de salut*: je la respecte, ainsi que tout ce qu'elle enseigne; mais en vérité, connaissons-nous toutes les voyes de Dieu, & toute l'étendue de ses miséricordes? n'est-il pas permis d'espérer en lui autant que de le craindre? N'est-ce pas assez d'être fideles à l'Eglise? faudra-t-il que chaque Particulier usurpe les droits de la Divinité, & décide avant elle du sort éternel de tous les hommes?

Quand nous portons le deuil d'un Roi de Suede, ou de Dannemark, ou d'Angleterre, ou de Prusse, disons-nous que nous portons le deuil d'un Réprouvé qui brûle éternellement en Enfer? Il y a dans l'Europe quarante millions d'Habitants qui ne sont pas de l'Eglise de Rome: dirons-nous à chacun d'eux, «Monsieur, attendu que vous êtes infailliblement damné, je ne veux ni manger, ni contracter, ni converser avec vous?

Quel est l'Ambassadeur de France, qui, étant présenté à l'audience du Grand Seigneur, se dira dans le fond de son cœur: Sa Hautesse sera infailliblement brulée pendant toute l'éternité, parce qu'elle s'est soumise à la circoncision? S'il croyait réellement que le Grand Seigneur est l'ennemi mortel de Dieu, & l'objet de sa vengeance, pourrait-il lui parler? devrait-il être envoyé vers lui? Avec quel homme pourrait-on commercer? quel devoir de la vie civile pourrait-on jamais remplir, si en effet on était convaincu de cette idée que l'on converse avec des Réprouvés?

O sectateurs d'un Dieu clément! si vous aviez un cœur cruel, si en adorant celui dont toute la Loi consistait en ces paroles, *Aimez Dieu & votre Prochain*, vous aviez surchargé cette Loi pure & sainte, de sophisme & de disputes incompréhensibles; si vous aviez allumé la discorde, tantôt pour un mot nouveau, tantôt pour une seule lettre de l'alphabet; si vous aviez attaché des peines éternelles à l'omission de quelques paroles, de quelques cérémonies que d'autres Peuples ne pouvaient connaître, je vous dirais en répandant des larmes sur le Genre-humain: «Transportez-vous avec moi au jour où tous les hommes seront jugés, & où Dieu rendra à chacun selon ses œuvres.

«Je vois tous les morts des siecles passés & du nôtre, comparaître en sa présence. Etes-vous bien sûrs que notre Créateur & notre Pere dira au sage & vertueux *Confucius*, au Législateur *Solon*, à *Pythagore*, à *Zaleucus*, à *Socrate*, à *Platon*, aux divins *Antonins*, au bon *Trajan*, à *Titus* les délices du Genre-humain, à *Epictete*, à tant d'autres hommes, les modeles des hommes: Allez, monstres! allez subir des châtiments infinis, en intensité & en durée; que votre supplice soit éternel comme moi. Et vous, mes bien-aimés, *Jean Chatel*, *Ravaillac*, *Damiens*, *Cartouche*, *&c.* qui êtes morts avec les formules prescrites, partagez à jamais à ma droite mon Empire & ma félicité?

Vous reculez d'horreur à ces paroles; & après qu'elles me sont échappées, je n'ai plus rien à vous dire.

[36] *Voyez* l'excellent Livre, intitulé: *Le Manuel de l'Inquisition*.

### Chapter XXIII

*Priere à Dieu.*

CE n'est donc plus aux hommes que je m'adresse, c'est à toi, Dieu de tous les êtres, de tous les mondes & de tous les temps, s'il est permis à de faibles créatures perdues dans l'immensité, & imperceptibles au reste de l'Univers, d'oser te demander quelque chose, à toi qui as tout donné, à toi dont les Décrets sont immuables comme éternels. Daigne regarder en pitié les erreurs attachées à notre nature! que ces erreurs ne fassent point nos calamités! Tu ne nous as point donné un cœur pour nous haïr, & des mains pour nous égorger; fais que nous nous aidions mutuellement à supporter le fardeau d'une vie pénible & passagere! que les petites différences entre les vêtements qui couvrent nos débiles corps, entre tous nos langages insuffisants, entre tous nos usages ridicules, entre toutes nos Loix imparfaites, entre toutes nos opinions insensées, entre toutes nos conditions si disproportionnées à nos yeux, & si égales devant toi; que toutes ces petites nuances qui distinguent les atomes appellés hommes, ne soient pas des signaux de haine & de persécution! que ceux qui allument des cierges en plein midi pour te célébrer, supportent ceux qui se contentent de la lumiere de ton soleil! que ceux qui couvrent leur robe d'une toile blanche pour dire qu'il faut t'aimer, ne détestent pas ceux qui disent la même chose sous un manteau de laine noire! qu'il soit égal de t'adorer dans un jargon formé d'une ancienne Langue, ou dans un jargon plus nouveau! que ceux dont l'habit est teint en rouge ou en violet, qui dominent sur une petite parcelle d'un petit tas de la boue de ce monde, & qui possedent quelques fragments arrondis d'un certain métal, jouissent sans orgueil de ce qu'ils appellent grandeur & richesse, & que les autres les voyent sans envie! car tu sais qu'il n'y a dans ces vanités ni de quoi envier, ni de quoi s'enorgueillir.

Puissent tous les hommes se souvenir qu'ils sont freres! qu'ils ayent en horreur la tyrannie exercée sur les ames, comme ils ont en exécration le brigandage, qui ravit par la force le fruit du travail & de l'industrie paisible! Si les fléaux de la guerre sont inévitables, ne nous haïssons pas, ne nous déchirons pas les uns les autres dans le sein de la paix, & employons l'instant de notre existence à bénir également en mille langages divers, depuis Siam jusqu'à la Californie, ta bonté qui nous a donné cet instant!

### Chapter XXIV

*Postscriptum.*

TAndis qu'on travaillait à cet Ouvrage, dans l'unique dessein de rendre les hommes plus compatissants & plus doux, un autre homme écrivait dans un dessein tout contraire; car chacun a son opinion. Cet homme faisait imprimer un petit Code de persécution, intitulé: *l'Accord de la Religion & de l'Humanité*: (c'est une faute de l'Imprimeur, lisez *de l'Inhumanité*.)

L'Auteur de ce saint Libelle s'appuye sur *St. Augustin*, qui, après avoir prêché la douceur, prêcha enfin la persécution, attendu qu'il était alors le plus fort, & qu'il changeait souvent d'avis. Il cite aussi l'Evêque de Meaux, *Bossuet*, qui persécuta le célebre *Fénelon*, Archevêque de Cambrai, coupable d'avoir imprimé que Dieu vaut bien la peine qu'on l'aime pour lui-même.

*Bossuet* était éloquent, je l'avoue; l'Evêque d'Hippone, quelquefois inconséquent, était plus disert que ne sont les autres Africains; je l'avoue encore: mais je prendrais la liberté de leur dire avec *Armande*, dans les *Femmes savantes*:

Quand sur une personne on prétend se régler,
C'est par les beaux côtés qu'il faut lui ressembler.

Je dirais à l'Evêque d'Hippone: Monseigneur, vous avez changé d'avis, permettez-moi de m'en tenir à votre premiere opinion; en vérité, je la crois la meilleure.

Je dirais à l'Evêque de Meaux: Monseigneur, vous êtes un grand homme; je vous trouve aussi savant, pour le moins, que *St. Augustin*, & beaucoup plus éloquent; mais pourquoi tant tourmenter votre Confrere, qui était aussi éloquent que vous dans un autre genre, & qui était plus aimable?

L'Auteur du saint Libelle sur l'inhumanité n'est ni un *Bossuet*, ni un *Augustin*; il me paraît tout propre à faire un excellent Inquisiteur; je voudrais qu'il fût à Goa à la tête de ce beau Tribunal. Il est de plus homme d'Etat, & il étale de grands principes de politique. *S'il y a chez vous*, dit-il, *beaucoup d'hétérodoxes, menagez-les, persuadez-les; s'il n'y en a qu'un petit nombre, mettez en usage la potence & les galeres, & vous vous en trouverez fort bien.* C'est ce qu'il conseille à la page 89 & 90.

Dieu merci, je suis bon Catholique; je n'ai point à craindre ce que les Huguenots appellent *le martyre*: mais si cet homme est jamais premier Ministre, comme il paraît s'en flatter dans son Libelle, je l'avertis que je pars pour l'Angleterre, le jour qu'il aura ses Lettres patentes.

En attendant, je ne puis que remercier la Providence de ce qu'elle permet que les gens de son espece soient toujours de mauvais raisonneurs. Il va jusqu'à citer *Bayle* parmi les partisans de l'Intolérance; cela est sensé & adroit: & de ce que *Bayle* accorde qu'il faut punir les factieux & les frippons, notre homme en conclut qu'il faut persécuter à feu & à sang les gens de bonne foi qui sont paisibles, *page 98*.

Presque tout son Livre est une imitation de l'Apologie de la *St. Barthelemi*. C'est cet Apologiste ou son écho. Dans l'un ou dans l'autre cas, il faut espérer que ni le Maître ni le Disciple ne gouverneront l'Etat.

Mais s'il arrive qu'ils en soient les Maîtres, je leur présente de loin cette Requête, au sujet de deux lignes de la page 93 du saint Libelle:

*Faut-il sacrifier au bonheur du vingtieme de la Nation, le bonheur de la Nation entiere?*

Supposez qu'en effet il y ait vingt Catholiques Romains en France contre un Huguenot, je ne prétends point que le Huguenot mange les vingt Catholiques; mais aussi, pourquoi ces vingt Catholiques mangeraient-ils ce Huguenot? & pourquoi empêcher ce Huguenot de se marier? N'y a-t-il pas des Evêques, des Abbés, des Moines qui ont des Terres en Dauphiné, dans le Gévaudan, devers Agde, devers Carcassonne? Ces Evêques, ces Abbés, ces Moines, n'ont-ils pas des Fermiers qui ont le malheur de ne pas croire à la transsubstantiation? N'est-il pas de l'intérêt des Evêques, des Abbés, des Moines, & du Public, que ces Fermiers ayent de nombreuses familles? N'y aura-t-il que ceux qui communieront sous une seule espece, à qui il sera permis de faire des enfants? En vérité, cela n'est ni juste, ni honnête.

*La révocation de l'Edit de Nantes n'a point autant produit d'inconvénients qu'on lui en attribue*, dit l'Auteur.

Si en effet on lui en attribue plus qu'elle n'en a produit, on exagere; & le tort de presque tous les Historiens est d'exagérer; mais c'est aussi le tort de tous les Controversistes de réduire à rien le mal qu'on leur reproche. N'en croyons ni les Docteurs de Paris, ni les Prédicants d'Amsterdam.

Prenons pour Juge Mr. le Comte d'*Avaux*, Ambassadeur en Hollande depuis 1685 jusqu'en 1688. Il dit, *page 181*, *tom. 5*, qu'un seul homme avait offert de découvrir plus de vingt millions, que les persécutés faisaient sortir de France. *Louis XIV* répond à Mr. d'*Avaux*: *Les avis que je reçois tous les jours d'un nombre infini de conversions, ne me laissent plus douter que les plus opiniâtres ne suivent l'exemple des autres*.

On voit par cette Lettre de *Louis XIV*, qu'il était de très-bonne foi sur l'étendue de son pouvoir. On lui disait tous les matins, Sire, vous êtes le plus grand Roi de l'Univers; tout l'Univers fera gloire de penser comme vous, dès que vous aurez parlé. *Pélisson*, qui s'était enrichi dans la place de premier Commis des finances; *Pélisson* qui avait été trois ans à la Bastille, comme complice de *Fouquet*; *Pélisson*, qui de Calviniste était devenu Diacre & Bénéficier, qui faisait imprimer des Prieres pour la Messe, & des Bouquets à *Iris*, qui avait obtenu la place des Economats, & de Convertisseur; *Pélisson*, dis-je, apportait tous les trois mois une grande liste d'abjurations, à sept ou huit écus la piece; & faisait accroire à son Roi, que quand il voudrait, il convertirait tous les Turcs au même prix. On se relayait pour le tromper: pouvait-il résister à la séduction?

Cependant, le même Mr. d'*Avaux* mande au Roi qu'un nommé *Vincent* maintient plus de cinq cents Ouvriers auprès d'Angoulême, & que sa sortie causera du préjudice, *page 194*, *tom. 5*.

Le même Mr. d'*Avaux* parle de deux Régiments que le Prince d'Orange fait déja lever par les Officiers Français réfugiés: il parle de Matelots qui déserterent de trois vaisseaux pour servir sur ceux du Prince d'Orange. Outre ces deux Régiments, le Prince d'Orange forme encore une Compagnie de Cadets réfugiés, commandés par deux Capitaines, *page 240*. Cet Ambassadeur écrit encore le 9 Mai 1686, à Mr. de *Seignelay*, qu'*il ne peut lui dissimuler la peine qu'il a de voir les Manufactures de France s'établir en Hollande, d'où elles ne sortiront jamais*.

Joignez à tous ces témoignages ceux de tous les Intendants du Royaume, en 1698, & jugez si la révocation de l'Edit de Nantes n'a pas produit plus de mal que de bien, malgré l'opinion du respectable Auteur de *l'Accord de la Religion & de l'inhumanité*.

Un Maréchal de France, connu par son esprit supérieur, disait, il y a quelques années: *Je ne sais pas si la dragonnade a été nécessaire, mais il est nécessaire de n'en plus faire*.

J'avoue que j'ai cru aller un peu trop loin, quand j'ai rendu publique la Lettre du Correspondant du Pere *Le Tellier*, dans laquelle ce Congréganiste propose des tonneaux de poudre. Je me disais à moi-même: On ne m'en croira pas, on regardera cette Lettre comme une piece supposée: mes scrupules heureusement ont été levés, quand j'ai lu dans *l'Accord de la Religion & de l'Inhumanité*, page 149, ces douces paroles:

*L'extinction totale des Protestants en France, n'affaiblirait pas plus la France, qu'une saignée n'affaiblit un malade bien constitué.*

Ce Chrétien compatissant, qui a dit tout-à-l'heure que les Protestants composent le vingtieme de la Nation, veut donc qu'on répande le sang de cette vingtieme partie, & ne regarde cette opération que comme une saignée d'une palette! Dieu nous préserve avec lui des trois vingtiemes!

Si donc cet honnête-homme propose de tuer le vingtieme de la Nation, pourquoi l'Ami du Pere *Le Tellier* n'aurait-il pas proposé de faire sauter en l'air, d'égorger & d'empoisonner le tiers? Il est donc très-vraisemblable que la Lettre au Pere *Le Tellier* a été réellement écrite.

Le saint Auteur finit enfin par conclurre que l'intolérance est une chose excellente, *parce qu'elle n'a pas été*, dit-il, *condamnée expressément par* Jesus-Christ. Mais Jesus-Christ n'a pas condamné non plus ceux qui mettraient le feu aux quatre coins de Paris; est-ce une raison pour canoniser les incendiaires?

Ainsi donc, quand la nature fait entendre d'un côté sa voix douce & bienfaisante, le fanatisme, cet ennemi de la nature, pousse des hurlements; & lorsque la paix se présente aux hommes, l'intolérance forge ses armes. O vous, Arbitres des Nations, qui avez donné la paix à l'Europe, décidez entre l'esprit pacifique, & l'esprit meurtrier.

### Chapter XXV

*Suite & Conclusion.*

NOus apprenons que le 7 Mars 1763, tout le Conseil d'Etat, assemblé à Versailles, les Ministres d'Etat y assistant, le Chancelier y présidant, Mr. *de Crosne*, Maître des Requêtes, rapporta l'affaire des *Calas* avec l'impartialité d'un Juge, l'exactitude d'un homme parfaitement instruit, & l'éloquence simple & vraie d'un Orateur homme d'Etat, la seule qui convienne dans une telle Assemblée. Une foule prodigieuse de personnes de tout rang attendait dans la Galerie du Château la décision du Conseil. On annonça bientôt au Roi que toutes les voix, sans en excepter une, avaient ordonné que le Parlement de Toulouse enverrait au Conseil les pieces du procès, & les motifs de son arrêt, qui avait fait expirer *Jean Calas* sur la roue; Sa Majesté approuva le jugement du Conseil.

Il y a donc de l'humanité & de la justice chez les hommes! & principalement dans le Conseil d'un Roi aimé, & digne de l'être. L'affaire d'une malheureuse famille de Citoyens obscurs a occupé Sa Majesté, ses Ministres, le Chancelier, & tout le Conseil, & a été discutée avec un examen aussi réfléchi que les plus grands objets de la guerre & de la paix peuvent l'être. L'amour de l'équité, l'intérêt du Genre-humain ont conduit tous les Juges. Graces en soient rendues à ce Dieu de clémence, qui seul inspire l'équité & toutes les vertus!

Nous l'attestons, que nous n'avons jamais connu ni cet infortuné *Calas*, que les huit Juges de Toulouse firent périr sur les indices les plus faibles, contre les Ordonnances de nos Rois, & contre les Loix de toutes les Nations; ni son fils *Marc-Antoine*, dont la mort étrange a jetté ces huit Juges dans l'erreur; ni la mere, aussi respectable que malheureuse; ni ses innocentes filles, qui sont venues avec elle de deux cents lieues mettre leur désastre & leur vertu au pied du Trône.

Ce Dieu sait que nous n'avons été animés que d'un esprit de justice, de vérité & de paix, quand nous avons écrit ce que nous pensons de la Tolérance, à l'occasion de *Jean Calas*, que l'esprit d'intolérance a fait mourir.

Nous n'avons pas cru offenser les huit Juges de Toulouse, en disant qu'ils se sont trompés, ainsi que tout le Conseil l'a présumé: au contraire, nous leur avons ouvert une voye de se justifier devant l'Europe entiere: cette voye est d'avouer que des indices équivoques, & les cris d'une multitude insensée, ont surpris leur justice, de demander pardon à la veuve, & de réparer autant qu'il est en eux la ruine entiere d'une famille innocente, en se joignant à ceux qui la secourent dans son affliction. Ils ont fait mourir le pere injustement; c'est à eux de tenir lieu de pere aux enfants, supposé que ces orphelins veuillent bien recevoir d'eux une faible marque d'un très-juste repentir. Il sera beau aux Juges de l'offrir, & à la famille de le refuser.

C'est sur-tout au *Sr. David*, Capitoul de Toulouse, s'il a été le premier persécuteur de l'innocence, à donner l'exemple de remords. Il insulta un pere de famille mourant sur l'échafaud. Cette cruauté est bien inouie; mais puisque Dieu pardonne, les hommes doivent aussi pardonner à qui répare ses injustices.

On m'a écrit du Languedoc cette Lettre, du 20 Février 1763.

…

…

*Votre Ouvrage sur la Tolérance me paraît plein d'humanité, & de vérité; mais je crains qu'il ne fasse plus de mal que de bien à la famille des* Calas. *Il peut ulcérer les huit Juges qui ont opiné à la roue: ils demanderont au Parlement qu'on brule votre Livre; & les Fanatiques, car il y en a toujours, répondront par des cris de fureur à la voix de la raison, &c.*

Voici ma Réponse:

*Les huit Juges de Toulouse peuvent faire bruler mon Livre s'il est bon; il n'y a rien de plus aisé: on a bien brulé les* Lettres Provinciales *qui valaient sans doute beaucoup mieux: chacun peut bruler chez lui les Livres & papiers qui lui déplaisent.*

*Mon Ouvrage ne peut faire ni bien ni mal aux* Calas, *que je ne connais point. Le Conseil du Roi, impartial & ferme, juge suivant les Loix, suivant l'équité, sur les Pieces, sur les Procédures, & non sur un Ecrit qui n'est point juridique, & dont le fonds est absolument étranger à l'affaire qu'il juge.*

*On auroit beau imprimer des in-folio pour ou contre les huit Juges de Toulouse, & pour ou contre la Tolérance; ni le Conseil, ni aucun Tribunal ne regardera ces Livres comme des Pieces du Procès.*

*Je conviens qu'il y a des Fanatiques qui crieront, mais je maintiens qu'il y a beaucoup de Lecteurs sages qui raisonneront.*

*J'apprends que le Parlement de Toulouse & quelques autres Tribunaux ont une Jurisprudence singuliere; ils admettent des quarts, des tiers, des sixiemes de preuve. Ainsi, avec six oui-dires d'un côté, trois de l'autre, & quatre quarts de présomption, ils forment trois preuves complettes; & sur cette belle démonstration, ils vous rouent un homme sans miséricorde. Une légere connaissance de l'art de raisonner suffirait pour leur faire prendre une autre méthode. Ce qu'on appelle une demi-preuve, ne peut être qu'un soupçon: il n'y a point à la rigueur de demi-preuve; ou une chose est prouvée, ou elle ne l'est pas; il n'y a point de milieu.*

*Cent mille soupçons réunis ne peuvent pas plus établir une preuve, que cent mille zéros ne peuvent composer un nombre.*

*Il y a des quarts de ton dans la Musique, encore ne les peut-on exécuter; mais il n'y a ni quart de vérité, ni quart de raisonnement.*

*Deux témoins qui soutiennent leur déposition sont censés faire une preuve; mais ce n'est point assez: il faut que ces deux témoins soient sans passion, sans préjugés, & sur-tout, que ce qu'ils disent ne choque point la raison.*

*Quatre personnages des plus graves auraient beau dire qu'ils ont vu un vieillard infirme saisir au collet un jeune homme vigoureux, & le jetter par une fenêtre à quarante pas: il est clair qu'il faudrait mettre ces quatre témoins aux petites maisons.*

*Or, les huit Juges de Toulouse ont condamné* Jean Calas *sur une accusation beaucoup plus improbable; car il n'y a point eu de témoin oculaire, qui ait dit avoir vu un vieillard infirme, de soixante & huit ans, pendre tout seul un jeune homme de vingt-huit ans, extrêmement robuste.*

*Des Fanatiques ont dit seulement que d'autres Fanatiques leur avaient dit qu'ils avaient entendu dire à d'autres Fanatiques, que* Jean Calas, *par une force surnaturelle, avait pendu son fils. On a donc rendu un jugement absurde sur des accusations absurdes.*

*Il n'y a d'autre remede à une telle Jurisprudence, sinon que ceux qui achetent le droit de juger les hommes, fassent dorénavant de meilleures études.*

Cet Ecrit sur la Tolérance est une Requête que l'humanité présente très-humblement au pouvoir & à la prudence. Je seme un grain qui pourra un jour produire une moisson. Attendons tout du temps, de la bonté du Roi, de la sagesse de ses Ministres, & de l'esprit de raison qui commence à répandre par-tout sa lumiere.

La nature dit à tous les hommes: Je vous ai tous fait naître faibles & ignorants, pour végéter quelques minutes sur la terre & pour l'engraisser de vos cadavres. Puisque vous êtes faibles, secourez-vous; puisque vous êtes ignorants, éclairez-vous & supportez-vous. Quand vous seriez tous du même avis, ce qui certainement n'arrivera jamais, quand il n'y aurait qu'un seul homme d'un avis contraire, vous devriez lui pardonner; car c'est moi qui le fais penser comme il pense. Je vous ai donné des bras pour cultiver la terre, & une petite lueur de raison pour vous conduire: j'ai mis dans vos cœurs un germe de compassion pour vous aider les uns les autres à supporter la vie. N'étouffez pas ce germe; ne le corrompez pas; apprenez qu'il est divin; & ne substituez pas les misérables fureurs de l'école à la voix de la nature.

C'est moi seule qui vous unis encore malgré vous par vos besoins mutuels, au milieu même de vos guerres cruelles si légérement entreprises, théâtre éternel des fautes, des hasards & des malheurs. C'est moi seule qui dans une Nation arrête les suites funestes de la division interminable entre la Noblesse & la Magistrature, entre ces deux Corps & celui du Clergé, entre le Bourgeois même & le Cultivateur. Ils ignorent tous les bornes de leurs droits; mais ils écoutent tous malgré eux à la longue ma voix qui parle à leur cœur. Moi seule, je conserve l'équité dans les Tribunaux, où tout serait livré sans moi à l'indécision & aux caprices, au milieu d'un amas confus de Loix faites souvent au hasard, & pour un besoin passager, différentes entre elles de Province en Province, de Ville en Ville, & presque toujours contradictoires entre elles dans le même lieu. Seule je peux inspirer la justice, quand les Loix n'inspirent que la chicane: celui qui m'écoute, juge toujours bien; & celui qui ne cherche qu'à concilier des opinions qui se contredisent, est celui qui s'égare.

Il y a un édifice immense dont j'ai posé le fondement de mes mains; il était solide & simple, tous les hommes pouvaient y entrer en sûreté; ils ont voulu y ajouter les ornements les plus bizarres, les plus grossiers & les plus inutiles; le bâtiment tombe en ruine de tous les côtés; les hommes en prennent les pierres, & se les jettent à la tête; je leur crie: Arrêtez, écartez ces décombres funestes qui sont votre ouvrage, & demeurez avec moi en paix dans l'édifice inébranlable qui est le mien.

### Newly Added Article

Dans lequel on rend compte du dernier arrêt rendu en faveur de la famille des Calas.

Depuis le 7 mars 1763 jusqu’au jugement définitif, il se passa encore deux années: tant il est facile au fanatisme d’arracher la vie à l’innocence, et difficile à la raison de lui faire rendre justice. Il fallut essuyer des longueurs inévitables, nécessairement attachées aux formalités. Moins ces formalités avaient été observées dans la condamnation de Calas, plus elles devaient l’être rigoureusement par le conseil d’État. Une année entière ne suffit pas pour forcer le parlement de Toulouse à faire parvenir au conseil toute la procédure, pour en faire l’examen, pour le rapporter. M. de Crosne fut encore chargé de ce travail pénible. Une assemblée de près de quatre-vingts juges cassa l’arrêt de Toulouse, et ordonna la révision entière du procès.

D’autres affaires importantes occupaient alors presque tous les tribunaux du royaume. On chassait les jésuites; on abolissait leur société en France: ils avaient été intolérants et persécuteurs[37]; ils furent persécutés à leur tour.

L’extravagance des billets de confession, dont on les crut les auteurs secrets, et dont ils étaient publiquement les partisans, avait déjà ranimé contre eux la haine de la nation. Une banqueroute immense d’un de leurs missionnaires[38], banqueroute que l’on crut en partie frauduleuse, acheva de les perdre. Ces seuls mots de *missionnaires* et de *banqueroutiers,* si peu faits pour être joints ensemble, portèrent dans tous les esprits l’arrêt de leur condamnation. Enfin les ruines de Port-Royal[39] et les ossements de tant d’hommes célèbres insultés par eux dans leurs sépultures, et exhumés au commencement du siècle par des ordres que les jésuites seuls avaient dictés, s’élevèrent tous contre leur crédit expirant. On peut voir l’histoire de leur proscription dans l’excellent livre intitulé *Sur la Destruction des jésuites en France*[40], ouvrage impartial, parce qu’il est d’un philosophe, écrit avec la finesse et l’éloquence de Pascal, et surtout avec une supériorité de lumières qui n’est pas offusquée, comme dans Pascal, par des préjugés qui ont quelquefois séduit de grands hommes.

Cette grande affaire, dans laquelle quelques partisans des jésuites disaient que la religion était outragée, et où le plus grand nombre la croyait vengée, fit pendant plusieurs mois perdre de vue au public le procès des Calas; mais le roi ayant attribué au tribunal qu’on appelle *les requêtes de l’hôtel* le jugement définitif, le même public, qui aime à passer d’une scène à l’autre, oublia les jésuites, et les Calas saisirent toute son attention.

La chambre des requêtes de l’hôtel est une cour souveraine composée de maîtres des requêtes, pour juger les procès entre les officiers de la cour et les causes que le roi leur renvoie. On ne pouvait choisir un tribunal plus instruit de l’affaire: c’étaient précisément les mêmes magistrats qui avaient jugé deux fois les préliminaires de la révision, et qui étaient parfaitement instruits du fond et de la forme. La veuve de Jean Calas, son fils, et le sieur de Lavaisse, se remirent en prison: on fit venir du fond du Languedoc cette vieille servante catholique qui n’avait pas quitté un moment ses maîtres et sa maîtresse, dans le temps qu’on supposait, contre toute vraisemblance, qu’ils étranglaient leur fils et leur frère. On délibéra enfin sur les mêmes pièces qui avaient servi à condamner Jean Calas à la roue, et son fils Pierre au bannissement.

Ce fut alors que parut un nouveau mémoire de l’éloquent M. de Beaumont[41], et un autre du jeune M. de Lavaisse, si injustement impliqué dans cette procédure criminelle par les juges de Toulouse, qui, pour comble de contradiction, ne l’avaient pas déclaré absous. Ce jeune homme fit lui-même un factum qui fut jugé digne par tout le monde de paraître à côté de celui de M. de Beaumont. Il avait le double avantage de parler pour lui-même et pour une famille dont il avait partagé les fers. Il n’avait tenu qu’à lui de briser les siens et de sortir des prisons de Toulouse, s’il avait voulu seulement dire qu’il avait quitté un moment les Calas dans le temps qu’on prétendait que le père et la mère avaient assassiné leur fils. On l’avait menacé du supplice; la question et la mort avaient été présentées à ses yeux; un mot lui aurait pu rendre sa liberté: il aima mieux s’exposer au supplice que de prononcer ce mot, qui aurait été un mensonge. Il exposa tout ce détail dans son factum, avec une candeur si noble, si simple, si éloignée de toute ostentation, qu’il toucha tous ceux qu’il ne voulait que convaincre, et qu’il se fit admirer sans prétendre à la réputation.

Son père, fameux avocat, n’eut aucune part à cet ouvrage: il se vit tout d’un coup égalé par son fils, qui n’avait jamais suivi le barreau.

Cependant les personnes de la plus grande considération venaient en foule dans la prison de Mme Calas, où ses filles s’étaient renfermées avec elle. On s’y attendrissait jusqu’aux larmes. L’humanité, la générosité, leur prodiguaient des secours. Ce qu’on appelle la *charité* ne leur en donnait aucun. La charité, qui d’ailleurs est si souvent mesquine et insultante, est le partage des dévots, et les dévots tenaient encore contre les Calas.

Le jour arriva (9 mars 1765) où l’innocence triompha pleinement. M. de Baquencourt ayant rapporté toute la procédure, et ayant instruit l’affaire jusque dans les moindres circonstances, tous les juges, d’une voix unanime, déclarèrent la famille innocente, tortionnairement et abusivement jugée par le parlement de Toulouse. Ils réhabilitèrent la mémoire du père. Ils permirent à la famille de se pourvoir devant qui il appartiendrait pour prendre ses juges à partie, et pour obtenir les dépens, dommages et intérêts que les magistrats toulousains auraient dû offrir d’eux-mêmes.

Ce fut dans Paris une joie universelle: on s’attroupait dans les places publiques, dans les promenades; on accourait pour voir cette famille si malheureuse et si bien justifiée; on battait des mains en voyant passer les juges, on les comblait de bénédictions. Ce qui rendait encore ce spectacle plus touchant, c’est que ce jour, neuvième mars, était le jour même où Calas avait péri par le plus cruel supplice (trois ans auparavant).

Messieurs les maîtres des requêtes avaient rendu à la famille Calas une justice complète, et en cela ils n’avaient fait que leur devoir. Il est un autre devoir, celui de la bienfaisance, plus rarement rempli par les tribunaux, qui semblent se croire faits pour être seulement équitables. Les maîtres des requêtes arrêtèrent qu’ils écriraient en corps à Sa Majesté pour la supplier de réparer par ses dons la ruine de la famille. La lettre fut écrite. Le roi y répondit en faisant délivrer trente-six mille livres à la mère et aux enfants; et de ces trente-six-mille livres, il y en eut trois mille pour cette servante vertueuse qui avait constamment défendu la vérité en défendant ses maîtres.

Le roi, par cette bonté, mérita, comme par tant d’autres actions, le surnom que l’amour de la nation lui a donné[42]. Puisse cet exemple servir à inspirer aux hommes la tolérance, sans laquelle le fanatisme désolerait la terre, ou du moins l’attristerait toujours! Nous savons qu’il ne s’agit ici que d’une seule famille, et que la rage des sectes en a fait périr des milliers; mais aujourd’hui qu’une ombre de paix laisse reposer toutes les sociétés chrétiennes, après des siècles de carnage, c’est dans ce temps de tranquillité que le malheur des Calas doit faire une plus grande impression, à peu près comme le tonnerre qui tombe dans la sérénité d’un beau jour. Ces cas sont rares, mais ils arrivent, et ils sont l’effet de cette sombre superstition qui porte les âmes faibles à imputer des crimes à quiconque ne pense pas comme elles.

[37] Voyez page 96.

[38] Le Père La Valette; voyez tome XVI, page 100.

[39] Voyez tome XV, page 39 et suiv.

[40] Par d’Alembert, 1765, in-12; 1767, in-12; et dans les Œuvres de cet auteur.

[41] *Mémoire à consulter et Consultation pour les enfants du défunt J. Calas, marchand à Toulouse.* Délibéré, à Paris, ce 22 janvier 1765. Signé: Lambon, Mallard, d’Outremont, Mariette, Gerbier, Legouvé, Loyseau de Mauléon, Élie de Beaumont.

[42] Voyez tome XXIII, page 268.

## Translation — Mouseia

> Complete machine-assisted Musean translation directly from French, reviewed against it. Includes all 25 chapters, Voltaire’s notes and the added Article with six edition references. Article transcription: French Wikisource, Garnier 1879, revision 15479820. Translation and Article: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

### Chapter I

On the occasion of the death of Jean Calas.

*A brief history of the death of Jean Calas.*

The murder of *Calas*, committed in Toulouse with the sword of justice on March 9, 1762, is one of the most extraordinary events to deserve the attention of our age and of posterity. We soon forget the multitude who have died in countless battles, not only because this is the inevitable fate of war, but because those who die by force of arms could also have killed their enemies, and did not perish without defending themselves. Where danger and advantage are equal, astonishment ceases, and even pity grows weak. But if an innocent father is delivered into the hands of error, passion, or fanaticism; if the accused has no defense but his virtue; if those who decide his life risk nothing in slaughtering him except being mistaken; if they can kill with impunity by a judicial sentence—then a public outcry rises, everyone fears for himself. We see that no one's life is safe before a tribunal established to protect the lives of citizens, and every voice joins in demanding vengeance.

This strange affair concerned religion, suicide, the murder of a son by his parents. The question was whether a father and mother had strangled their son to please God, whether a brother had strangled his brother, whether a friend had strangled his friend, and whether the judges had to reproach themselves for having an innocent father broken on the wheel, or for sparing a guilty mother, brother, and friend.

*Jean Calas*, sixty-eight years old, had worked as a merchant in Toulouse for more than forty years, and everyone who had lived with him knew him as a good father. He was a Protestant, as were his wife and all his children except one, who had renounced heresy and whom his father supported with a small allowance. He seemed so far removed from that absurd fanaticism which breaks every bond of society that he approved the conversion of his son *Louis Calas*, and for thirty years had employed a devout Catholic servant who had brought up all his children.

One of *Jean Calas*'s sons, named *Marc-Antoine*, was a man of letters, reputed to have a restless, gloomy, and violent temperament. Unable either to succeed in commerce, for which he had no aptitude, or to gain admission to the bar, because this required certificates of Catholic faith which he could not obtain, the young man resolved to end his life and gave one of his friends an intimation of his plan. He strengthened his resolve by reading everything ever written about suicide.

At last, one day, having lost his money gambling, he chose that very day to carry out his plan. A friend of his and of his family named *Lavaisse*, a young man of nineteen known for his candor and gentle character, the son of a celebrated Toulouse lawyer, had arrived[1] from Bordeaux the day before; he happened to have supper with the *Calas* family. The father, the mother, *Marc-Antoine*, their eldest son, and *Pierre*, their second son, ate together. After supper they withdrew to a small sitting room; *Marc-Antoine* disappeared. At last, when young *Lavaisse* wished to leave, he and *Pierre Calas* went downstairs and found *Marc-Antoine* below, near the shop, hanging from a door in his shirt, with his coat folded on the counter. His shirt was not even disarranged; his hair was neatly combed. There was not a wound or bruise on his body.[2]

We pass over all the details the lawyers have recounted; we will not describe the grief and despair of the father and mother. Their cries were heard by the neighbors. Beside themselves, *Lavaisse* and *Pierre Calas* ran to find surgeons and officers of justice.

While they were carrying out this duty, while the father and mother were sobbing and weeping, the people of Toulouse gathered around the house. These people are superstitious and hotheaded; they regard their brothers who do not share their religion as monsters. It was in Toulouse that solemn thanks were offered to God for the death of *Henry III*, and an oath was sworn to slaughter the first person who spoke of acknowledging the great and good *Henry IV*. Every year this city still celebrates, with a procession and bonfires, the day on which it massacred four thousand heretical citizens two centuries ago. Six decrees of the Council have forbidden this hateful festival in vain: the people of Toulouse have always celebrated it, just as they celebrate the Floral Games.

Some fanatic in the mob cried out that *Jean Calas* had hanged his own son *Marc-Antoine*. The cry was repeated, and in a moment everyone had taken it up. Others added that the dead man had been due to renounce his faith the next day, and that his family and young *Lavaisse* had strangled him out of hatred for the Catholic religion. A moment later there was no longer any doubt. The whole city was convinced that it was an article of Protestant faith that a father and mother must murder their son as soon as he wished to convert.

Once minds are inflamed, they stop at nothing. People imagined that the Protestants of Languedoc had assembled the day before; that by majority vote they had chosen an executioner for the sect; that the choice had fallen on young *Lavaisse*; and that within twenty-four hours this young man had received word of his election and arrived from Bordeaux to help *Jean Calas*, his wife, and their son *Pierre* strangle a friend, a son, a brother.

Mr. *David*, a capitoul, or municipal magistrate, of Toulouse, stirred up by these rumors and eager to distinguish himself through swift action, conducted proceedings in violation of the rules and ordinances. The *Calas* family, the Catholic servant, and *Lavaisse* were put in irons.

An ecclesiastical summons calling for testimony was published, as defective as the proceedings themselves. They went further. *Marc-Antoine Calas* had died a Calvinist, and if he had taken his own life, his body should have been dragged on a hurdle. Instead, he was buried with the greatest pomp in the Church of Saint-Étienne, despite the parish priest, who protested against this profanation.

There are four confraternities of penitents in Languedoc: the white, the blue, the gray, and the black. The brothers wear a long hood with a cloth mask pierced by two eyeholes. They tried to enlist the Duke of *Fitz-James*, commander of the province, in their order, but he refused. The White Penitents held a solemn service for *Marc-Antoine Calas* as a martyr. No church ever celebrated the feast of a true martyr with greater pomp; but this pomp was terrible. Above a magnificent catafalque they had raised a moving skeleton representing *Marc-Antoine Calas*, holding in one hand a palm branch and in the other the pen with which he was to sign his renunciation of heresy—and which was, in fact, writing his father's death sentence.

The unfortunate man who had taken his own life now lacked only canonization. All the people regarded him as a saint: some invoked him; others went to pray at his tomb; others asked him for miracles; others told of those he had performed. A monk pulled out some of his teeth to obtain lasting relics. A devout woman, somewhat deaf, said she had heard the sound of bells. A priest suffering from apoplexy recovered after taking an emetic. Official records of these wonders were drawn up. The author of this account possesses an attestation that a young man of Toulouse went mad after praying for several nights at the new saint's tomb and failing to obtain the miracle he implored.

Some of the magistrates belonged to the confraternity of White Penitents. From that moment, *Jean Calas*'s death seemed certain.

What above all prepared the way for his execution was the approach of that singular festival which the people of Toulouse celebrate every year in memory of a massacre of four thousand Huguenots; 1762 marked the bicentenary. The city was preparing the decorations for this solemnity, and the preparations themselves further kindled the people's fevered imagination. It was said publicly that the scaffold on which the *Calas* family would be broken on the wheel would be the festival's finest ornament; that Providence itself was bringing these victims to be sacrificed to our holy religion. Twenty people heard such remarks, and still more violent ones. And this is in our own day! At a time when philosophy has made such progress! When a hundred academies are writing to inspire gentleness in human conduct! It seems that fanaticism, lately outraged by reason's successes, struggles beneath it with all the greater fury.

Thirteen judges met every day to bring the trial to a conclusion. There was, and could be, no evidence against the family; but religion led astray took the place of evidence. Six judges long persisted in condemning *Jean Calas*, his son, and *Lavaisse* to the wheel, and *Jean Calas*'s wife to the stake. Seven others, more moderate, wanted at least an inquiry. The debates were long and repeatedly renewed. One of the judges, convinced of the defendants' innocence and the impossibility of the crime, spoke vigorously on their behalf. He opposed zeal for humanity to zeal for severity; in every house in Toulouse, where the incessant cries of deluded religion demanded the blood of these unfortunate people, he became the *Calas* family's public advocate. Another judge, known for his violence, spoke against the *Calas* family throughout the city with as much fury as the first showed eagerness to defend them. At last the uproar became so great that both were obliged to withdraw from the case; they retired to the country.

But, by a strange misfortune, the judge favorable to the *Calas* family had the scruple to maintain his withdrawal, while the other returned to cast his vote against people he had no right to judge. It was this vote that secured the sentence of the wheel: there were eight votes against five, one of the six opposing judges having at last, after much dispute, gone over to the harsher side.

It seems that when a father is accused of murdering his child, and the question is whether to deliver a family man to the most dreadful torture, the judgment ought to be unanimous, because the evidence of so unheard-of a crime[3] ought to be plainly clear to everyone. In such a case, the slightest doubt should suffice to make a judge tremble before signing a death sentence. The weakness of our reason and the inadequacy of our laws make themselves felt every day; but when is their wretchedness more apparent than when the weight of a single vote sends a citizen to the wheel? In Athens, fifty votes beyond half were required before anyone dared pronounce a death sentence. What follows from this? What we know, to very little purpose: that the Greeks were wiser and more humane than we are.

It seemed impossible that *Jean Calas*, an old man of sixty-eight whose legs had long been swollen and weak, could by himself have strangled and hanged a son of twenty-eight, a man of uncommon strength. He must necessarily have been assisted in the deed by his wife, his son *Pierre Calas*, *Lavaisse*, and the servant. They had not left one another for a single moment on the evening of that fatal event. But this supposition was as absurd as the other. How could a devout Catholic servant have allowed Huguenots to murder a young man she had raised, to punish him for loving her own religion? How could *Lavaisse* have come expressly from Bordeaux to strangle his friend, whose supposed conversion he knew nothing about? How could a loving mother have laid hands on her son? How could all of them together have strangled a young man as strong as all of them, without a long and violent struggle, without terrible cries that would have summoned the entire neighborhood, without repeated blows, without bruises, without torn clothing?

It was clear that if the murder of the son could have been committed, all the accused were equally guilty, since they had not left one another for a moment. It was clear that they were not guilty; it was clear that the father alone could not be guilty; and yet the judgment condemned this father alone to die on the wheel.

The grounds for the judgment were as inconceivable as everything else. The judges who had resolved on *Jean Calas*'s execution persuaded the others that this feeble old man could not withstand the torture, and that under the executioners' blows he would confess his crime and that of his accomplices. They were confounded when the old man, dying on the wheel, called God to witness his innocence and implored him to forgive his judges.

They were obliged to issue a second judgment contradicting the first, releasing the mother, her son *Pierre*, young *Lavaisse*, and the servant. But one of the councilors pointed out that this judgment gave the lie to the other; that they were condemning themselves; that, since all the accused had always been together at the time of the supposed murder, the release of all the survivors proved beyond dispute the innocence of the father they had executed. They then decided to banish his son *Pierre Calas*. This banishment seemed as inconsistent and absurd as everything else: *Pierre Calas* was either guilty or innocent of the murder. If guilty, he should have been broken on the wheel like his father; if innocent, he should not have been banished. But the judges, appalled by the father's execution and the moving piety with which he had died, imagined they could save their honor by letting people believe they were showing mercy to the son—as though showing mercy in such a case would not have been another breach of duty. They thought that banishing this young man, poor and without protectors, was of no consequence, and no great injustice after the one they had had the misfortune to commit.

They began by threatening *Pierre Calas* in his dungeon with the same treatment as his father if he did not renounce his religion. This is what the young man[4] attests under oath.

As *Pierre Calas* was leaving the city, he met an abbé intent on conversion, who made him return to Toulouse. He was shut up in a Dominican convent and forced to perform every Catholic observance. This was part of what they wanted; it was the price of his father's blood, and the religion they had thought to avenge seemed satisfied.

The daughters were taken from their mother and shut up in a convent. This woman, almost spattered with her husband's blood, who had held her eldest son dead in her arms, who saw the other banished, who had been deprived of her daughters and stripped of all her possessions, was alone in the world, without bread, without hope, dying under the weight of her suffering. Some people, after carefully examining every circumstance of this horrible affair, were so deeply struck that they urged Madame *Calas*, who had withdrawn into seclusion, to dare to come and ask for justice at the foot of the throne. She could scarcely stand then; her life was ebbing away. Besides, born an Englishwoman and brought to a French province at an early age, she was frightened by the very name of Paris. She imagined that the kingdom's capital must be even more barbarous than Toulouse. At last the duty of vindicating her husband's memory prevailed over her weakness. She arrived in Paris at the point of death. She was astonished to find welcome, help, and tears.

In Paris, reason prevails over fanaticism, however great it may be; in the provinces, by contrast, fanaticism almost always prevails over reason.

Mr. *de Beaumont*, a celebrated lawyer at the Parlement of Paris, immediately took up her defense and drew up a legal opinion signed by fifteen lawyers. Mr. *Loiseau*, no less eloquent, composed a brief on behalf of the family. Mr. *Mariette*, a lawyer at the Council, drafted a formal petition that brought conviction to every mind.

These three generous defenders of the laws and of innocence gave the widow the proceeds from the publication of their pleadings.[5] Paris and all Europe were moved to pity, and joined this unfortunate woman in demanding justice. The whole public had pronounced its judgment long before the Council could sign it.

Compassion reached even the ministry, despite the ceaseless torrent of business that often leaves no room for pity, and despite the habit of seeing suffering people, which can harden the heart still further. The daughters were restored to their mother. All three, dressed in mourning crape and bathed in tears, were seen to draw tears from their judges.

Yet this family still had a few enemies, for religion was involved. Several people called *devout*[6] in France declared openly that it was far better to let an innocent old Calvinist be broken on the wheel than to expose eight councilors of Languedoc to admitting they had been mistaken. They even used this expression: “There are more magistrates than *Calases*”; and from this they inferred that the *Calas* family must be sacrificed to the honor of the judiciary. It did not occur to them that the honor of judges, like that of other men, consists in repairing their mistakes. In France we do not believe that the pope, assisted by his cardinals, is infallible; we might believe the same of eight judges in Toulouse. All the other reasonable and disinterested people said that the Toulouse judgment would be overturned throughout Europe, even if particular considerations prevented its being overturned in the Council.

Such was the state of this astonishing affair when it prompted some impartial but compassionate people to offer the public a few reflections on tolerance, on forbearance, on compassion—which the Abbé *Houteville*, in his swollen declamation riddled with factual errors, calls a *monstrous doctrine*, and which reason calls the birthright of human nature.

Either the judges of Toulouse, swept away by the fanaticism of the mob, had an innocent father broken on the wheel, which is without precedent; or this father and his wife strangled their eldest son, assisted in this murder by another son and a friend, which is contrary to nature. In either case, the abuse of the holiest religion has produced a great crime. It is therefore in the interest of the human race to examine whether religion should be charitable or barbarous.

[1] October 12, 1761.

[2] After the body was taken to the town hall, all that was found was a small scratch on the tip of his nose and a small mark on his chest, caused by some carelessness in moving the body.

[3] I know only two examples in history of fathers accused of murdering their sons for religion. The first is the father of Saint *Barbara*, whom we call Saint *Barbe*. He had ordered two windows for his bathing room; in his absence, *Barbe* added a third in honor of the Holy Trinity. With *the tip of her finger* she made the sign of the cross on marble columns, and the sign became deeply engraved in them. Her angry father ran after her, sword in hand, but she fled through a mountain that opened for her. Her father went around the mountain and caught his daughter. She was whipped naked, but God covered her with a white cloud; at last her father cut off her head. This is what the Fleur des Saints relates.

The second example is Prince *Hermenegild*. He rebelled against the king his father, fought him in 584, was defeated, and was killed by an officer. He has been made a martyr because his father was an Arian.

[4] “A Dominican came into my dungeon and threatened me with the same kind of death if I did not renounce my faith. This I attest before God, July 23, 1762.”

*Pierre Calas.*

[5] Counterfeit editions were printed in several cities, and Madame *Calas* lost the benefit of this generosity.

[6] *Devout* comes from the Latin word *devotus*. The *Devoti* of ancient Rome were men who devoted themselves to the salvation of the republic: men such as *Curtius* and the *Decii*.

### Chapter II

*Consequences of the execution of Jean Calas.*

If the White Penitents caused the execution of an innocent man, the utter ruin and dispersal of a family, and the disgrace that ought to attach only to injustice but instead attaches to punishment; if the White Penitents' haste to celebrate as a saint a man whose body should have been dragged on a hurdle sent a virtuous father to the wheel—then surely this misfortune should make them true penitents for the rest of their lives. They and the judges must weep, but not in a long white robe and a mask that would conceal their tears.

We respect all confraternities; they are edifying. But however much good they may do the state, does it equal the terrible evil they have caused? They seem to have been established by the zeal that animates the Catholics of Languedoc against those we call Huguenots. One would think they had taken a vow to hate their brothers; for we have enough religion to hate and persecute, but not enough to love and help. And what if these confraternities were governed by fanatics, as some congregations of Artisans and *Gentlemen* once were, among whom the habit of seeing visions was reduced to an art and a system, as one of our most eloquent and learned magistrates has said? What if these confraternities established those dark rooms called meditation chambers, where they had devils painted with horns and claws, pits of flame, crosses and daggers, with the holy name of Jesus above the picture? What a spectacle for eyes already spellbound, and imaginations as inflamed as they were submissive to their spiritual directors!

There have been times, as we know only too well, when confraternities were dangerous. The Fraticelli and the Flagellants caused disturbances. The League began with such associations. Why set oneself apart from other citizens in this way? Did they believe themselves more perfect? That in itself insults the rest of the nation. Did they want all Christians to join the confraternity? What a fine spectacle Europe would make in hoods and masks, with two little round holes in front of the eyes! Does anyone honestly think that God prefers this costume to a coat? More than that: this dress is a uniform for religious disputants, warning their adversaries to take up arms. It can kindle a kind of civil war in people's minds, which might end in disastrous excesses if the king and his ministers were not as wise as the fanatics are senseless.

We know well enough what it has cost us since Christians began disputing points of doctrine: blood has flowed on scaffolds and battlefields from the fourth century to our own day. Let us confine ourselves here to the wars and horrors stirred up by the quarrels of the Reformation, and see where they began in France. Perhaps a brief and faithful picture of so many calamities will open the eyes of some who are poorly informed, and move hearts that are well disposed.

### Chapter III

*An account of the sixteenth-century Reformation.*

When minds began to be enlightened at the revival of learning, complaints about abuses became general. Everyone admits that these complaints were justified.

Pope *Alexander VI* had openly bought the tiara, and his five bastards shared in its benefits. His son, the Cardinal Duke of *Borgia*, acting in concert with the pope his father, had the *Vitelli*, the *Urbino*, the *Gravina*, the *Oliveretto*, and a hundred other lords put to death in order to seize their domains. *Julius II*, moved by the same spirit, excommunicated *Louis XII*, gave his kingdom to whoever could take it, and himself, helmet on his head and breastplate on his back, laid part of Italy waste with fire and sword. *Leo X*, to pay for his pleasures, traded in indulgences as people sell goods in a public market. Those who rose against so much brigandage were at least not wrong in their morals; let us see whether they wronged us in politics.

They said that since Jesus Christ had never demanded first-year revenues from benefices or reserved benefices for himself, nor sold dispensations for this world and indulgences for the next, people could dispense with paying a foreign prince for all these things. Even if first-year revenues, lawsuits in the court of Rome, and the dispensations that still exist today cost us only five hundred thousand francs a year, it is clear that since *Francis I*, in two hundred and fifty years, we have paid one hundred and twenty million; and allowing for the different values of a mark of silver, this amounts to some two hundred and fifty million in today's money. We may therefore admit without blasphemy that the heretics, in proposing the abolition of these peculiar taxes, which will astonish posterity, were doing the kingdom no great harm, and were better accountants than they were bad subjects. Let us add that they alone knew Greek and were acquainted with antiquity. Let us not conceal the fact that, despite their errors, we owe them the development of the human mind, long buried in the deepest barbarism.

But since they denied purgatory, which must not be doubted and which, besides, brought the monks a great deal of money; since they did not revere relics, which must be revered but which brought in still more; and since, finally, they attacked highly respected doctrines,[7] the first answer was simply to have them burned. The king who protected them and paid them subsidies in Germany marched through Paris at the head of a procession, after which several of these unfortunates were executed. Here is how the execution was carried out. They were suspended from the end of a long beam that pivoted like a seesaw on a standing tree. A great fire was lit beneath them, and they were alternately plunged into it and raised again. They suffered torment and death by degrees, until they expired under the longest and most dreadful torture barbarity has ever invented.

Shortly before the death of *Francis I*, some members of the Parlement of Provence, incited by churchmen against the inhabitants of Mérindol and Cabrières, asked the king for troops to support the execution of nineteen people of that district whom they had condemned. They had six thousand slaughtered, sparing neither women, the old, nor children, and reduced thirty towns to ashes. These people, unknown until then, were doubtless wrong to have been born Waldensians: that was their only crime. For three hundred years they had lived in wildernesses and on mountains which they had made fertile through incredible labor. Their peaceful, pastoral life recalled the innocence attributed to the world's earliest ages. They knew the neighboring towns only through the produce they went there to sell. They knew nothing of lawsuits or war. They did not defend themselves; they were slaughtered like fleeing animals killed within an enclosure.[8]

After the death of *Francis I*, a prince nevertheless better known for his love affairs and misfortunes than for his cruelties, the execution of a thousand heretics, above all that of the parlement councilor *Dubourg*, and finally the massacre of Vassy, drove the persecuted to take up arms. Their sect had multiplied in the glare of the pyres and beneath the executioners' blades. Rage succeeded patience; they imitated the cruelties of their enemies. Nine civil wars filled France with carnage. A peace more disastrous than war produced the *Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre*, without precedent in the annals of crime.

The League assassinated *Henry III* and *Henry IV* by the hands of a Dominican friar and a monster who had been a Feuillant brother. Some people maintain that humanity, forbearance, and freedom of conscience are horrible things. But honestly, would they have produced comparable calamities?

[7] They revived *Berengar*'s view of the Eucharist. They denied that a body could be in a hundred thousand different places, even through divine omnipotence; they denied that attributes could subsist without a substance; they believed it absolutely impossible for what is bread and wine to the eyes, the palate, and the stomach to be annihilated at the very moment it exists. They upheld all these errors formerly condemned in *Berengar*. They relied on several passages from the early Church Fathers, especially *Saint Justin*, who says expressly in his Dialogue contre *Typhon*: “The offering of fine flour is the figure of the Eucharist, which Jesus Christ commands us to perform in memory of his Passion.” “And the offering of fine flour, &c., was a figure of the bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord Jesus Christ commanded us to prepare in remembrance of his Passion, &c.”

They recalled everything said in the early centuries against the veneration of relics; they quoted these words of *Vigilantius*: “Must you respect, or even adore, worthless dust? Do the souls of martyrs still love their ashes? The customs of idolaters have entered the Church; people are beginning to light torches at midday. During our lives we can pray for one another; but after death, what use are these prayers?”

But they did not say how vigorously *Saint Jerome* had spoken against these words of *Vigilantius*. In short, they wanted to bring everything back to apostolic times, and refused to admit that as the Church had grown and strengthened, its discipline had necessarily needed to grow and strengthen too. They condemned riches, which nevertheless seemed necessary to sustain the majesty of worship.

[8] The truthful and respected President *de Thou* speaks of these innocent and unfortunate people as follows: *“They were people who, some three hundred years earlier, had taken rough and uncultivated land from their lords in return for rent, and by unremitting labor and constant cultivation had made it fruitful in crops and suitable for livestock. They were most enduring of toil and hunger, averse to lawsuits, generous to the needy, diligent and scrupulously faithful in paying taxes to the prince and dues to their lords. They displayed their worship of God through constant prayer, and innocence in their conduct; but they rarely entered churches dedicated to saints, except when they went to towns near their borders to trade or conduct business. If they sometimes set foot in them, they did not prostrate themselves before statues of God and the saints, or place candles or offerings before them. They did not ask priests to celebrate divine service for themselves or the souls of their relatives, nor mark their foreheads with a cross as others customarily did. When the heavens thundered, they did not sprinkle themselves with holy water, but raised their eyes to heaven and implored God's help. They did not travel on religious pilgrimages or bare their heads before images of crosses along the roads. They celebrated their rites in a different manner and in the common tongue. Finally, they paid no honor to the pope or bishops, but had certain men chosen from their own number as their leaders and teachers. When these things were reported to Francis on the sixth day before the Ides of February in the year, &c.”*

Madame *de Cental*, who owned part of the ravaged lands, where nothing could now be seen but the bodies of their inhabitants, sought justice from King *Henry II*, who referred her to the Parlement of Paris. The advocate general of Provence, named *Guérin*, the principal author of the massacres, was the only man condemned to be beheaded. *De Thou* says that he alone paid the penalty for the other guilty men, *“because he lacked the favor of courtiers”*—because he had no friends at court.

### Chapter IV

*Whether tolerance is dangerous, and among which peoples it is practiced.*

Some have said that to show fatherly forbearance toward our erring brothers, who pray to God in bad French, would be to put weapons in their hands; that we would see new battles of Jarnac, Moncontour, Coutras, Dreux, Saint-Denis, &c. I do not know, for I am no prophet. But it seems to me poor reasoning to say: “These men rose up when I harmed them; therefore they will rise up when I do them good.”

I would venture to take the liberty of inviting those at the head of government, and those destined for high office, to consider carefully whether there is really reason to fear that gentleness will produce the same rebellions that cruelty brought about; whether what happened in one set of circumstances must happen in another; whether times, opinions, and ways of life are always the same.

The Huguenots were undoubtedly intoxicated with fanaticism and stained with blood, as we were. But is the present generation as barbarous as their fathers? Have time, reason—which is making such progress—good books, and the gentleness of social life made no impression on those who guide these people's minds? And do we not see that almost all Europe has changed its face over the past fifty years or so?

Government has grown stronger everywhere, while manners have grown gentler. Public order, sustained by large standing armies, moreover leaves no reason to fear a return to those anarchic times when Calvinist peasants fought Catholic peasants, hastily formed into regiments between sowing and harvest.

Other times, other concerns. It would be absurd today to put a tenth of the Sorbonne to death because it once petitioned to have the *Maid of Orléans* burned; because it declared that *Henry III* had forfeited his right to reign, excommunicated him, and outlawed the great *Henry IV*. Surely no one will call to account the kingdom's other corporate bodies that committed the same excesses in those frenzied times. It would be not only unjust, but as mad as purging all the inhabitants of Marseille because they had the plague in 1720.

Shall we sack Rome, as the troops of *Charles V* did, because *Sixtus V*, in 1585, granted nine years of indulgence to every Frenchman who took up arms against his sovereign? Is it not enough to prevent Rome from ever committing such excesses again?

The fury inspired by dogmatism and the abuse of a misunderstood Christianity has shed as much blood and caused as many disasters in Germany, England, and even Holland as in France. Yet today differences of religion cause no disturbance in those states. Jews, Catholics, Greek Christians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Socinians, Mennonites, Moravians, and so many others live as brothers in those lands, and contribute equally to society's welfare.

In Holland there is no longer any fear that the disputes of a *Gomarus*[9] over predestination will cause the grand pensionary to be beheaded. In London there is no longer any fear that quarrels between Presbyterians and Episcopalians over a liturgy and a surplice will spill a king's blood on a scaffold.[10] Ireland, populous and prosperous, will no longer see its Catholic citizens spend two months sacrificing their Protestant fellow citizens to God: burying them alive; hanging mothers from gibbets, tying daughters around their mothers' necks, and watching them die together; cutting open pregnant women, tearing out their half-formed children, and feeding them to pigs and dogs; putting a dagger into the hands of their bound prisoners and guiding their arms into the breasts of their wives, fathers, mothers, and daughters, imagining that they were making them murder their own families and damning them all by exterminating them all. This is what *Rapin-Thoyras*, an officer in Ireland and nearly a contemporary, relates; what all the annals and all the histories of England relate; and what surely will never be imitated. Philosophy, philosophy alone, that sister of religion, has disarmed hands so long bloodied by superstition; and the human mind, awakening from its intoxication, has marveled at the excesses into which fanaticism carried it.

We ourselves have a wealthy province in France where Lutheranism predominates over Catholicism. The university in Alsace is in Lutheran hands; Lutherans hold some of the municipal offices. Not the slightest religious quarrel has disturbed this province's peace since it came under our kings. Why? Because no one there has been persecuted. Do not try to constrain people's hearts, and every heart will be yours.

I do not say that everyone who does not share the prince's religion should share the offices and honors of those who belong to the dominant faith. In England, Catholics, regarded as adherents of the Pretender, cannot hold public office; they even pay double taxes. But otherwise they enjoy all the rights of citizens.

Some French bishops have been suspected of thinking that having Calvinists in their dioceses serves neither their honor nor their interest; this has been called the greatest obstacle to tolerance. I cannot believe it. The body of French bishops consists of men of high birth who think and act with a nobility worthy of their origins. They are charitable and generous; justice requires us to acknowledge it. They must realize that the fugitives from their dioceses will certainly not convert in foreign lands, whereas, returned to their pastors, they might be enlightened by their teaching and moved by their example. There would be honor in converting them; their temporal revenues would not suffer; and the more citizens there were, the greater the yield of the prelates' lands.

A bishop of Warmia, in Poland, had an Anabaptist as a tenant farmer and a Socinian as a revenue collector. He was urged to dismiss and prosecute one because he did not believe in consubstantiality, and the other because he did not baptize his son until the age of fifteen. He replied that they would be eternally damned in the next world, but that in this one they were very necessary to him.

Let us leave our little sphere and examine the rest of our globe. The Grand Signor governs twenty peoples of different religions in peace. Two hundred thousand Greek Christians live safely in Constantinople; the mufti himself names the Greek patriarch and presents him to the emperor; a Latin patriarch is tolerated there. The sultan appoints Latin bishops for certain Greek islands,[11] using this formula: *“I command him to go and reside as bishop on the island of Chios, according to their ancient custom and their vain ceremonies.”* This empire is full of Jacobites, Nestorians, and Monothelites; there are Copts, Christians of *Saint John*, Jews, Guebres, and Banians. The Turkish annals mention no rebellion stirred up by any of these religions.

Go to India, Persia, Tartary: you will find the same tolerance and the same peace. *Peter the Great* favored every form of worship in his vast empire. Commerce and agriculture benefited, and the body politic never suffered.

In the more than four thousand years for which it has been known, the government of China has never adopted any worship but that of the *Noahides*, the simple adoration of one God. Yet it tolerates the superstitions of *Fo* and a multitude of bonzes who would be dangerous if the wisdom of the courts had not always kept them in check.

It is true that the great Emperor *Yongzheng*, perhaps the wisest and most magnanimous China has ever had, expelled the Jesuits. But this was not because he was intolerant; on the contrary, it was because the Jesuits were. They themselves report in their Lettres curieuses what this good prince told them: *“I know that your religion is intolerant; I know what you have done in Manila and Japan. You deceived my father; do not expect to deceive me as well.”* Read the whole speech he deigned to address to them, and you will find him the wisest and most merciful of men. Could he really keep European natural philosophers who, under the pretext of showing thermometers and aeolipiles at court, had already stirred a prince of the blood to rebellion? And what would this emperor have said if he had read our histories, if he had known the days of our League and the Gunpowder Plot?

It was enough for him to be informed of the unseemly quarrels among Jesuits, Dominicans, Capuchins, and secular priests sent into his states from the ends of the earth. They came to preach the truth, and they anathematized one another. The emperor merely sent away foreign troublemakers. But with what kindness he sent them away! What fatherly care he took of them on their journey, and to prevent their being insulted along the road! Their very banishment was an example of tolerance and humanity.

The Japanese[12] were the most tolerant of all people: twelve peaceful religions were established in their empire. The Jesuits came to make a thirteenth; but soon they would tolerate no other, and we know the result. A civil war as dreadful as those of the League ravaged the country. The Christian religion was at last drowned in torrents of blood. The Japanese closed their empire to the rest of the world, and regarded us only as savage beasts, like those the English have purged from their island. In vain the minister *Colbert*, aware of our need for the Japanese, who have no need of us, tried to establish trade with their empire. He found them unyielding.

Thus our entire continent proves that we must neither preach nor practice intolerance.

Look to the other hemisphere; consider Carolina, whose lawgiver was the wise *Locke*. Any head of a family with only seven people in his household may establish a religion of his choice, provided those seven people agree with him. This liberty has produced no disorder. God forbid that we should cite this example to encourage every household to devise a worship of its own. We give it only to show that the furthest extreme to which tolerance can go has not been followed by the slightest dissension.

But what shall we say of those peaceful *Primitives*, mockingly called *Quakers*, who, with customs perhaps ridiculous, have been so virtuous, and have taught peace to the rest of humanity in vain? They number a hundred thousand in Pennsylvania. Discord and controversy are unknown in the happy homeland they have made for themselves; and the very name of their city, Philadelphia, constantly reminding them that human beings are brothers, is an example and a reproach to peoples who do not yet know tolerance.

In short, tolerance has never stirred up a civil war; intolerance has covered the earth with carnage. Now judge between these two rivals: between the mother who wants her son slaughtered and the mother who gives him up, provided he lives.

I speak here only of the interest of nations; respecting theology, as I must, I consider in this discussion only society's physical and moral welfare. I beg every impartial reader to weigh these truths, correct them, and carry them further. Attentive readers who share their thoughts with one another always go further than the author.[13]

[9] *Franciscus Gomarus* was a Protestant theologian. Against his colleague *Arminius*, he maintained that God had destined the greater part of humanity, from all eternity, to be burned eternally. This infernal doctrine was upheld, as it deserved to be, by persecution. The grand pensionary *Barneveldt*, who belonged to the party opposed to *Gomarus*, was beheaded at the age of 72, on May 13, 1619, *“for having grieved the Church of God to the utmost.”*

[10] A declaimer, in the Apologie de la Révocation de l'Edit de Nantes, says of England: *“A false religion was bound to produce such fruits; only one remained to ripen, and these islanders are harvesting it: the contempt of nations.”* We must admit that the author chooses his moment badly for saying that the English are contemptible and despised by the whole earth. Surely it is not when a nation distinguishes itself by its courage and generosity, when it is victorious in all four parts of the world, that one can expect a welcome for saying it is contemptible and despised. This singular passage appears in a chapter on intolerance. Those who preach intolerance deserve to write like this. This abominable book, which seems the work of the madman of *Verberies*, is by a man with no religious commission—for what pastor would write like this? The fury in this book goes so far as to justify the *Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre*. One would think a work filled with such dreadful paradoxes would be in everyone's hands, if only for its singularity; yet it is scarcely known.

[11] See *Ricaut*.

[12] See *Kempfer*, and all the accounts of Japan.

[13] Mr. *de la Bourdonnaie*, intendant of Rouen, says that hatmaking has collapsed in Caudebec and Neufchâtel because the refugees fled. Mr. *Foucaut*, intendant of Caen, says that trade in his administrative district has fallen by half. Mr. *de Maupeou*, intendant of Poitiers, says that the manufacture of drugget has been destroyed. Mr. *de Bezons*, intendant of Bordeaux, complains that trade in Clérac and Nérac scarcely survives. Mr. *de Miroménil*, intendant of Touraine, says that trade in Tours has fallen by ten million a year—and all this through persecution. See the Mémoires des Intendants, 1698. Above all, count the army and naval officers and sailors who have been obliged to serve against France, often with disastrous success; and consider whether intolerance has done the state any harm.

We do not presume here to propose policies to ministers whose genius and high principles are well known, and whose hearts are as noble as their birth. They will readily see that rebuilding the navy requires some forbearance toward the inhabitants of our coasts.

### Chapter V

*How tolerance may be admitted.*

I venture to suppose that an enlightened and magnanimous minister, a humane and wise prelate, a prince who knows that his interest lies in having many subjects and his glory in their happiness, deigns to look over this shapeless and defective work. He supplies its deficiencies with his own understanding; he says to himself: “What will I risk by seeing the land cultivated and adorned by more hardworking hands, tax revenues increased, the state more prosperous?”

Germany would be a wilderness covered with the bones of Catholics, Evangelicals, Reformed Christians, and Anabaptists slaughtered by one another, if the Peace of Westphalia had not at last secured freedom of conscience.

We have Jews in Bordeaux, Metz, and Alsace; we have Lutherans, Molinists, and Jansenists. Can we not tolerate Calvinists and keep them in check on much the same terms as Catholics are tolerated in London? The more sects there are, the less dangerous each becomes; their number weakens them. All are restrained by just laws that forbid riotous assemblies, insults, and sedition, and are always kept in force by the power to compel obedience.

We know that several heads of families who have built great fortunes in foreign countries are ready to return to their homeland. They ask only for the protection of natural law, the validity of their marriages, certainty about their children's legal status, the right to inherit from their fathers, and personal freedom. No public churches, no right to municipal offices or high dignities: Catholics have none in London or in several other countries. It is no longer a question of granting vast privileges and fortified places to a faction, but of allowing a peaceful people to live, of softening edicts that may once have been necessary and are so no longer. It is not for us to tell the ministry what it can do; it is enough to implore its aid for the unfortunate.

How many ways there are to make them useful and prevent them from ever being dangerous! The wisdom of the ministry and Council, supported by force, will readily find the means that so many other nations employ so successfully.

There are still fanatics among the Calvinist rabble; but there are certainly more among the Convulsionary rabble. The dregs of the madmen of *Saint-Médard* count for nothing in the nation; those of the Calvinist prophets have disappeared. The great means of reducing the number of these maniacs, if any remain, is to leave this sickness of the mind to the care of reason, which enlightens humanity slowly but unfailingly. Reason is gentle, humane; it inspires forbearance, stifles discord, strengthens virtue, and makes obedience to the laws attractive, doing more in this way than force does to uphold them. And shall we count for nothing the ridicule that all respectable people now attach to religious frenzy? This ridicule is a powerful barrier against the extravagances of every sectarian. Past times are as though they had never been. We must always begin from where we are, and from the point nations have reached.

There was a time when people thought themselves obliged to issue decrees against anyone who taught a doctrine contrary to *Aristotle*'s categories, nature's abhorrence of a vacuum, quiddities, and universals existing in things themselves. We have in Europe more than a hundred volumes of jurisprudence on witchcraft and the means of distinguishing false sorcerers from true ones. The excommunication of locusts and insects harmful to crops was once widely practiced, and still appears in several ritual books. The practice has passed; *Aristotle*, sorcerers, and locusts are left in peace. There are countless examples of these solemn follies, once so important. Others recur from time to time; but when they have run their course, when people have had their fill, they vanish. If someone today took it into his head to become a Carpocratian, a Eutychian, a Monothelite, a Monophysite, a Nestorian, a Manichaean, &c., what would happen? People would laugh at him as at a man dressed in an old-fashioned ruff and doublet.

The nation was beginning to open its eyes when the Jesuits *Le Tellier* and *Doucin* manufactured the bull *Unigenitus* and sent it to Rome. They thought they were still living in those ignorant times when peoples accepted the most absurd assertions without examination. They dared condemn this proposition, universally true in every case and at every time: *“Fear of an unjust excommunication must not prevent anyone from doing his duty.”* This was to condemn reason, the liberties of the Gallican Church, and the foundation of morality. It was to tell humanity: “God commands you never to do your duty whenever you fear injustice.” Common sense has never been more brazenly affronted; the consultors in Rome took no notice. The court of Rome was persuaded that this bull was necessary and that the nation desired it. It was signed, sealed, and sent; we know the consequences. Certainly, had they been foreseen, the bull would have been softened. The quarrels were fierce; the king's wisdom and goodness have at last calmed them.

The same holds for many of the points that divide Protestants from us. Some are of no consequence; others are more serious, but the fury of dispute over them has so subsided that Protestants themselves no longer preach controversy in any of their churches.

It is therefore this time of distaste, of satiety—or rather, of reason—that we may seize upon as a turning point and a pledge of public peace. Controversy is an epidemic disease nearing its end; this plague, of which we have been cured, now requires only gentle care. In short, the state's interest is for its exiled sons to return modestly to their father's house. Humanity demands it, reason advises it, and statecraft has nothing to fear from it.

### Chapter VI

*Whether intolerance is sanctioned by natural law and human law.*

Natural law is the law that nature makes known to all people. You have raised your child: he owes you respect as his father, gratitude as his benefactor. You have a right to the produce of the land you have cultivated with your own hands. You have given and received a promise: it must be kept.

Human law can never rest on any foundation but this law of nature; and the great principle, the universal principle of both, throughout the earth, is: *“Do not do what you would not want done to you.”* Now it is hard to see how, following this principle, one person could say to another: *“Believe what I believe, and what you cannot believe, or you will perish.”* This is what is said in Portugal, Spain, and Goa. In some other countries people are now content to say: *“Believe, or I abhor you; believe, or I will do you all the harm I can. Monster, you do not have my religion, so you have no religion. Your neighbors, your city, your province must look on you with horror.”*

If human law sanctioned such conduct, then the Japanese would have to detest the Chinese, who would loathe the Siamese; the Siamese would persecute the Gangarides, who would fall upon the inhabitants of the Indus. A Mogul would tear the heart from the first Malabari he found; the Malabari could slaughter the Persian, who could massacre the Turk; and all together would fall upon the Christians, who have devoured one another for so long.

The right to intolerance is therefore absurd and barbarous; it is the right of tigers—and far more horrible, for tigers tear only to eat, while we have exterminated one another over paragraphs.

### Chapter VII

*Whether intolerance was known to the Greeks.*

The peoples of whom history has given us some faint knowledge all regarded their different religions as bonds uniting them with one another: this was an association of the human race. There was a kind of right of hospitality among gods as among men. When a stranger arrived in a city, he began by worshiping the gods of the country; people never failed to venerate even the gods of their enemies. The Trojans prayed to the gods who fought for the Greeks.

*Alexander* went into the deserts of Libya to consult the god *Ammon*, whom the Greeks called *Zeus* and the Latins *Jupiter*, although both peoples had their own *Jupiter* and *Zeus* at home. When a city was besieged, sacrifices and prayers were offered to its gods to win their favor. Thus, even in the midst of war, religion brought people together and sometimes softened their fury, though at other times it commanded inhuman and horrible deeds.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that none of the civilized peoples of antiquity restricted freedom of thought. All had a religion; but it seems they treated people as they treated their gods. All acknowledged a supreme God, but associated with him a prodigious number of lesser divinities. They had only one public worship, but allowed a multitude of individual systems of thought.

The Greeks, for example, religious as they were, accepted the Epicureans' denial of providence and the existence of the soul. I say nothing of the other sects, all of which offended the sound ideas one ought to have of the Creator, and all of which were tolerated.

*Socrates*, who came closest to knowledge of the Creator, paid the penalty for it, we are told, and died a martyr to the Deity. He is the only man the Greeks put to death for his opinions. If this was indeed the cause of his condemnation, it does intolerance no credit, since they punished the one man who alone gave glory to God, and honored all those who offered the most unworthy notions of the Deity. In my opinion, the enemies of tolerance should not invoke the hateful example of *Socrates*' judges.

It is clear, moreover, that he fell victim to a furious faction roused against him. He had made implacable enemies of the Sophists, orators, and poets who taught in the schools, and even of all the tutors responsible for children of high birth. He himself admits, in the speech reported by *Plato*, that he went from house to house proving to these tutors that they were mere ignoramuses. Such conduct was unworthy of the man an oracle had declared the wisest of all. A priest and a member of the Council of Five Hundred were unleashed against him and brought charges. I admit that I do not know precisely what those charges were; I find only vagueness in his defense. He is made to say in general that he was accused of instilling in young people principles hostile to religion and government. This is how slanderers behave every day throughout the world. But a court requires established facts, precise and detailed charges; the trial of *Socrates* supplies us with none. We know only that he initially had two hundred and twenty votes in his favor. The court of five hundred therefore contained two hundred and twenty philosophers: that is a great many; I doubt they could be found elsewhere. In the end, the majority voted for hemlock. But let us also remember that the Athenians, returning to their senses, came to abhor the accusers and judges; that *Meletus*, the principal author of the sentence, was condemned to death for this injustice; that the others were banished; and that a temple was raised to *Socrates*. Never was philosophy so well avenged or so greatly honored. The example of *Socrates* is, at bottom, the most devastating argument that can be brought against intolerance. The Athenians had an altar dedicated to foreign gods, gods they could not know. Could there be stronger proof not only of forbearance toward all nations, but also of respect for their worship?

An honorable man, an enemy neither of reason, literature, integrity, nor his country, recently justified the *Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre* and cited the war of the Phocaeans, called *the Sacred War*, as though it had been kindled over worship, doctrine, or theological arguments. The question was who would own a field: that is the subject of every war. Sheaves of wheat are not a symbol of belief; no Greek city ever fought over opinions. Besides, what is this modest and gentle man proposing? Does he want us to wage a sacred war?

### Chapter VIII

*Whether the Romans Were Tolerant.*

Among the ancient Romans, from *Romulus* to the time when Christians disputed with the priests of the empire, you will not find a single man persecuted for his opinions. *Cicero* doubted everything; *Lucretius* denied everything; and neither incurred the slightest reproach. Freedom went so far that *Pliny* the Naturalist begins his book by denying a God and saying that, if there is one, it is the sun. Speaking of the underworld, *Cicero* says: *“There is no old woman so foolish as to believe”*: “There is not even an old woman foolish enough to believe in it.” *Juvenal* says: *“Nor do children believe”*: “Children believe none of it.” On the Roman stage they sang: *“After death there is nothing, and death itself is nothing”*: “Nothing comes after death; death itself is nothing.” Let us abhor these maxims and, at most, forgive them in a people whom the Gospels had not enlightened. They are false; they are impious. But let us conclude that the Romans were very tolerant, since these maxims never raised the slightest murmur.

The great principle of the Senate and the Roman people was: *“Offenses against the gods are the gods’ concern”*; “It is for the gods alone to concern themselves with offenses against the gods.” This sovereign people thought only of conquering, governing, and civilizing the world. They were our lawmakers as well as our conquerors; and *Caesar*, who gave us chains, laws, and games, never sought to force us to abandon our Druids for him, though he was the high priest of the nation that ruled us.

The Romans did not practice every form of worship or give them all public sanction, but they permitted them all. Under *Numa* they had no material object of worship, no images, no statues; soon they raised them to the gods *of the first rank*, whom the Greeks had made known to them. The law of the Twelve Tables, *“Let them not worship foreign gods,”* came to mean simply that public worship was granted only to the greater or lesser divinities approved by the Senate. *Isis* had a temple in Rome until *Tiberius* demolished it, after its priests, bribed with *Mundus’s* money, let him sleep in the temple under the name of the god *Anubis*, with a woman called *Paulina*. It is true that *Josephus* alone tells this story; he was not a contemporary, and he was credulous and prone to exaggeration. It is scarcely likely that, in an age as enlightened as that of *Tiberius*, a lady of the highest rank would have been foolish enough to believe she was enjoying the favors of the god *Anubis*.

But whether this anecdote is true or false, it remains certain that Egyptian superstition had raised a temple in Rome with public consent. The Jews had traded there since the time of the Punic War; they had synagogues there in the days of *Augustus*, and retained them almost without interruption, as they have in modern Rome. Could there be stronger evidence that the Romans regarded tolerance as the most sacred law governing relations among peoples?

We are told that as soon as Christians appeared, they were persecuted by these same Romans, who persecuted no one. It seems plain to me that this assertion is quite false; I ask no other proof than *St. Paul* himself. Chap. 21. & 22. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that, when the Jews accused *St. Paul* of seeking to destroy the Mosaic law through Jesus Christ, *St. James* proposed that *St. Paul* shave his head and go to purify himself in the temple with four Jews, *“so that everyone may know that everything said about you is false, and that you continue to observe the law of Moses.”*

*Paul*, a Christian, therefore went to perform all the Jewish ceremonies for seven days; but before the seven days were over, some Jews from *Asia* recognized him. Seeing that he had entered the temple not only with Jews but also with Gentiles, they cried sacrilege. He was seized and brought before the governor *Felix*, and afterward the case was taken to the tribunal of *Festus*. The Jews thronged together to demand his death. Actes des Apôtres, Chap. 25. *Festus* answered them: *“It is not the custom of the Romans to condemn a man before the accused has his accusers before him and has been given freedom to defend himself.”*

These words are all the more remarkable in this Roman magistrate because he seems to have had no regard for *St. Paul*, and to have felt only contempt for him. Misled by the false light of his reason, he took him for a madman; he told him to his face that he was out of his mind: Act. des Ap. Ch. 26. v. 34. *“Your great learning is driving you insane.”* *Festus*, then, listened only to the equity of Roman law when he extended his protection to a stranger he could not esteem.

Here the Holy Spirit himself declares that the Romans were not persecutors, and that they were just. It was not the Romans who rose against *St. Paul*; it was the Jews. *St. James*, the brother of Jesus, was stoned by order of a Sadducean Jew, not a Roman; the Jews alone stoned *St. Stephen*;[14] and when *St. Paul* guarded the executioners’ cloaks, he certainly was not acting as a Roman citizen.

The first Christians surely had no quarrel with the Romans; their only enemies were the Jews, from whom they were beginning to separate. We know the implacable hatred all sectarians bear those who abandon their sect. There were undoubtedly disturbances in the synagogues of Rome. *Suetonius* says in the Life of Claudius: *“He expelled from Rome the Jews, who were continually rioting at Christ’s instigation.”* He was mistaken in saying that it was at Christ’s instigation: he could not have known the details of a people as despised in Rome as the Jewish people were. But he was not mistaken about the occasion of these quarrels. *Suetonius* wrote under *Hadrian*, in the second century; in Roman eyes, Christians were not then distinct from Jews. The passage in *Suetonius* shows that, far from oppressing the first Christians, the Romans were then restraining the Jews who persecuted them. They wanted the synagogue of Rome to show its separated brethren the same indulgence that the Senate showed the synagogue itself. The banished Jews soon returned; they even attained public honors despite the laws that excluded them: *Dio Cassius* and *Ulpian* tell us so.[15] Is it possible that, after the destruction of Jerusalem, the emperors showered dignities on the Jews while persecuting Christians, whom they regarded as a Jewish sect, and delivering them to executioners and wild beasts!

*Nero*, we are told, persecuted them. *Tacitus* tells us that they were accused of setting fire to Rome and abandoned to the fury of the people. In such an accusation, was their religious belief at issue? Certainly not. Shall we say that the Chinese whom the Dutch slaughtered a few years ago in the outskirts of Batavia were sacrificed to religion? However eager we may be to deceive ourselves, it is impossible to attribute to intolerance the disaster that befell a few wretches, half Jewish and half Christian, under *Nero*.[16]

[14] Although the Jews no longer had the power to impose the death penalty after *Archelaus* had been banished to the land of the Allobroges and Judea was governed as a province of the empire, the Romans often closed their eyes when the Jews carried out the judgment of zeal—that is, when, in a sudden riot, they zealously stoned someone they believed had blasphemed.

[15] Ulpianus l.... tit. II. *“They permitted those who follow the Jewish superstition to attain public honors, etc.”*

[16] Tacitus says: *“Those whom the common people called Christians, hated for their crimes.”*

It is very unlikely that the name Christian was already known in Rome; *Tacitus* wrote under *Vespasian* and *Domitian*, and spoke of Christians as people spoke of them in his own day. I would venture to say that the words *“convicted of hatred of the human race”* might well mean, in *Tacitus’s* style, *“convicted of being hated by the human race”* just as readily as *“convicted of hating the human race.”*

Indeed, what were these first missionaries doing in Rome? They were trying to win a few souls; they taught them the purest morality; they rose against no authority; the humility of their hearts was as profound as the lowliness of their station and circumstances. They were scarcely known, scarcely distinct from the other Jews: how could the human race, which knew nothing of them, hate them? And how could they be convicted of detesting the human race?

When London burned, Catholics were accused; but this was after wars of religion, after the Gunpowder Plot, in which several Catholics, unworthy of the name, had been proved guilty.

The first Christians in *Nero’s* time were certainly not in the same position. It is very difficult to penetrate the darkness of history. *Tacitus* gives no reason for the suspicion that *Nero* himself had wished to reduce Rome to ashes; there would have been much stronger grounds for suspecting *Charles II* of burning London. The blood of his father the king, executed on a scaffold before the people who demanded his death, could at least have furnished *Charles II* with an excuse. But *Nero* had neither excuse, pretext, nor interest. These senseless rumors may be the common people’s lot in every country; in our own day we have heard some just as foolish and unjust.

*Tacitus*, who knows the character of princes so well, should also have known that of the people: always vain, always excessive in their violent and fleeting opinions, incapable of seeing anything, and capable of saying everything, believing everything, and forgetting everything.

*Philo* says that *Sejanus persecuted them under Tiberius, but that after Sejanus’s death the emperor restored all their rights*. They had the rights of Roman citizens, however much Roman citizens despised them; they shared in the distributions of grain, and even when a distribution fell on the Sabbath, theirs was deferred to another day. This was probably in consideration of the sums of money they had given the state; for in every country they have bought tolerance and very quickly recouped what it cost them.

This passage in *Philo* perfectly explains the one in *Tacitus* which says that four thousand Jews or Egyptians were sent to Sardinia, and that if the harsh climate had killed them, it would have been a slight loss, *a trifling loss*.

I will add to this observation that *Philo* regards *Tiberius* as a wise and just prince. I readily believe that he was just only insofar as justice agreed with his interests; but the good that *Philo* says of him makes me doubt a little the horrors with which *Tacitus* and *Suetonius* reproach him. It does not seem at all likely to me that an infirm old man of seventy retired to the island of Capri to indulge in elaborate debaucheries scarcely within the bounds of nature, and unknown even to Rome’s most unbridled youth. Neither *Tacitus* nor *Suetonius* had known this emperor; they delighted in gathering popular rumors. *Octavian*, *Tiberius*, and their successors had been hated because they ruled a people who ought to have been free. Historians delighted in defaming them, and these historians were taken at their word because there were then no memoirs, journals of the time, or documents available. Thus the historians cite no one; no one could contradict them; they defamed whomever they pleased and settled the judgment of posterity as they chose. It is for the discerning reader to judge how far to distrust historians’ truthfulness, what credence to give public events attested by serious authors born in an enlightened nation, and what limits to set to belief in anecdotes those same authors relate without any proof.

### Chapter IX

*On Martyrs.*

There were Christian martyrs in later times. It is very difficult to know precisely why these martyrs were condemned; but I venture to believe that under the first *Caesars* none was condemned for his religion alone. All religions were tolerated. How could obscure men with a worship of their own have been hunted down and prosecuted when every other form of worship was permitted?

The *Tituses*, the *Trajans*, the *Antonines*, the *Deciuses* were not barbarians. Can we imagine that they would have denied Christians alone a freedom enjoyed by the whole earth? Would anyone even have dared accuse them of having secret mysteries, when the mysteries of *Isis*, of *Mithras*, of the Syrian goddess—all foreign to Roman worship—were permitted without objection? Persecution must have had other causes; private hatreds, sustained by reasons of state, must have shed Christian blood.

For example, when *St. Lawrence* refuses to give the prefect of Rome, *Cornelius Secularis*, the Christians’ money entrusted to his keeping, it is natural that the prefect and the emperor should be angered. They did not know that *St. Lawrence* had distributed this money to the poor and performed a charitable and holy deed; they regarded him as an insubordinate man and put him to death.[17]

Consider the martyrdom of *St. Polyeuctus*. Was he condemned for his religion alone? He enters the temple where thanks are being offered to the gods for the emperor *Decius’s* victory; he insults the priests, overturns and smashes the altars and statues. In what country in the world would such an outrage be forgiven? The Christian who publicly tore up the emperor *Diocletian’s* edict, bringing the great persecution upon his brethren in the last two years of that prince’s reign, had a zeal not guided by knowledge; and it was a great misfortune for him to cause his own party’s disaster. This reckless zeal, which often broke out and which several Fathers of the Church themselves condemned, was probably the source of all the persecutions.

I certainly do not compare the first Sacramentarians to the first Christians; I do not set error beside truth. But *Farel*, *John Calvin’s* predecessor, did in Arles what *St. Polyeuctus* had done in Armenia. A statue of *St. Anthony* the Hermit was being carried through the streets in procession. *Farel*, with some of his followers, falls upon the monks carrying *St. Anthony*, beats them, scatters them, and throws *St. Anthony* into the river. He deserved the death he escaped because he had time to flee. Had he merely shouted to these monks that he did not believe a raven had brought half a loaf to *St. Anthony* the Hermit, or that *St. Anthony* had conversed with centaurs and satyrs, he would have deserved a stern reprimand for disturbing the peace. But if that evening, after the procession, he had calmly examined the story of the raven, the centaurs, and the satyrs, no one could have reproached him.

What! The Romans would have allowed the infamous *Antinous* to be placed among the lesser gods, yet torn to pieces and thrown to wild beasts all those who could be charged with nothing but peacefully worshiping a just man! What! They would have acknowledged a supreme God,[18] a sovereign God, master of all the subordinate gods, as the formula *“God, best and greatest”* attests, yet hunted down those who worshiped one God!

It is not credible that there was ever an Inquisition against Christians under the emperors—that is, that people went into their homes to question them about their beliefs. No Jew, Syrian, Egyptian, bard, Druid, or philosopher was ever troubled on that account. The martyrs, then, were those who rose against the false gods. Not to believe in them was very wise and very pious; but if, not content to worship one God in spirit and in truth, they violently attacked the established worship, however absurd it might be, we are forced to admit that they themselves were intolerant.

*Tertullian*, in his Apology, admits that Christians were regarded as agitators. Chap. 39. The accusation was unjust, but it proved that it was not the Christians’ religion alone that stirred the magistrates’ zeal. Chap. 35. He admits that Christians refused to adorn their doors with laurel branches during public celebrations of the emperors’ victories: this blameworthy display could easily be taken for the crime of treason.

The first judicial severity exercised against Christians was *Domitian’s*; but it went no further than an exile lasting less than a year: *“He readily checked what he had begun, restoring those he himself had banished,”* says *Tertullian*. *Lactantius*, whose style is so impassioned, concedes that from *Domitian* to *Decius*—Chap. 3.—the Church was peaceful and flourishing. This long peace, he says, was interrupted when that execrable animal *Decius* oppressed the Church: *“After many years there arose that execrable animal Decius, to harass the Church.”*

There is no wish here to discuss the learned *Dodwell’s* opinion on the small number of martyrs. But if the Romans had persecuted the Christian religion so fiercely, if the Senate had put so many innocent people to death by unheard-of torments, if they had plunged Christians into boiling oil, if they had exposed naked girls to wild beasts in the circus, how could they have left all the first bishops of Rome in peace? Among these bishops, *St. Irenaeus* counts only *Telesphorus* as a martyr, in the year 139 of the common era; and there is no proof that this *Telesphorus* was put to death. *Zephyrinus* governed the flock of Rome for eighteen years and died peacefully in 219. It is true that almost all the first popes appear in the ancient martyrologies; but the word *martyr* was then understood only in its true sense: *martyrdom* meant *testimony*, not *execution*.

It is difficult to reconcile this frenzy of persecution with the freedom Christians enjoyed to hold fifty-six councils, which ecclesiastical writers count in the first three centuries.

There were persecutions; but had they been as violent as we are told, *Tertullian*, who wrote so forcefully against the established worship, would probably not have died in his bed. We know very well that the emperors did not read his Apology, that an obscure work composed in Africa does not reach those charged with governing the world. But it must have been known to people close to the proconsul of Africa; it must have brought its author a great deal of hatred. Yet he did not suffer martyrdom.

*Origen* taught publicly in Alexandria and was not put to death. This same *Origen*, who spoke so freely to pagans and Christians, proclaiming Jesus to the former and denying a God in three Persons to the latter, expressly admits in his third book against *Celsus* that *“there have been very few martyrs, and those at long intervals.”* *“Yet,”* he says, *“Christians neglect nothing to bring everyone to embrace their religion; they travel through cities, towns, and villages.”*

Certainly these continual journeys could easily have been denounced as seditious by hostile priests; yet these missions were tolerated despite the Egyptian people, always turbulent, seditious, and cowardly—a people who had torn a Roman to pieces for killing a cat; a people contemptible in every age, whatever the admirers of the pyramids may say.[19]

Who was more likely to rouse the priests and the government against him than *St. Gregory Thaumaturgus*, *Origen’s* disciple? One night *Gregory* had seen an old man sent by God, accompanied by a woman radiant with light: this woman was the Holy Virgin, and this old man was *St. John* the Evangelist. *St. John* dictated a creed to him, which *St. Gregory* went out to preach. On his way to Neocaesarea, he passed a temple where oracles were given, and rain obliged him to spend the night there; he made several signs of the cross. The next day the temple’s high priest was astonished that the demons who had previously answered him no longer wished to deliver oracles. He summoned them; the devils came to tell him that they would come no more. They informed him that they could no longer inhabit this temple because Gregory had spent the night there and made signs of the cross. The priest had *Gregory* seized, and Gregory answered him: *“I can drive demons from wherever I wish and make them enter wherever I please.” “Then make them return to my temple,”* said the priest. *Gregory* then tore a small piece from a volume he held in his hand and wrote these words on it: *“Gregory to Satan: I command you to return to this temple.”* The note was placed on the altar; the demons obeyed and delivered their oracles that day as usual, after which, as we know, they ceased.

It is *St. Gregory of Nyssa* who relates these events in the Life of *St. Gregory Thaumaturgus*. The priests of the idols must surely have been incensed against *Gregory* and, in their blindness, have denounced him to the magistrate; yet their greatest enemy suffered no persecution.

The history of *St. Cyprian* says that he was the first bishop of Carthage condemned to death. *St. Cyprian’s* martyrdom dates from the year 258 of our era; therefore, for a very long time, no bishop of Carthage was sacrificed for his religion. History does not tell us what slanders arose against *St. Cyprian*, what enemies he had, or why the proconsul of Africa was angered against him. *St. Cyprian* writes to *Cornelius*, bishop of Rome: *“There was recently a popular disturbance in Carthage, and twice the cry went up that I should be thrown to the lions.”* It is very likely that the frenzy of Carthage’s savage populace finally caused *Cyprian’s* death; and it is quite certain that it was not the emperor *Gallus* who condemned him from so far away for his religion, since he left *Cornelius*, who lived under his very eyes, in peace.

So many hidden causes often mingle with the apparent cause, so many unknown forces work to persecute a man, that in later centuries it is impossible to disentangle the hidden source of the misfortunes of even the most eminent men—much less the source of the execution of a private individual who could have been known only to those of his own party.

Observe that *St. Gregory Thaumaturgus* and *St. Dionysius*, bishop of Alexandria, who were not executed, lived in *St. Cyprian’s* time. Why did they remain in peace, though at least as well known as this bishop of Carthage? And why was *St. Cyprian* delivered to execution? Is there not some likelihood that one succumbed to powerful personal enemies, to slander, to the pretext of reasons of state so often joined to religion, while the others had the good fortune to escape human malice?

It is hardly possible that the accusation of Christianity alone brought *St. Ignatius* to his death under the merciful and just *Trajan*, since Christians were allowed to accompany and console him when he was taken to Rome.[20] There had often been riots in Antioch, an ever-turbulent city where *Ignatius* was the Christians’ secret bishop. Perhaps these riots, maliciously imputed to innocent Christians, drew the attention of the government, which was deceived, as has happened all too often.

*St. Simeon*, for example, was accused before *Shapur* of being a Roman spy. The history of his martyrdom relates that King *Shapur* proposed that he worship the sun; but we know that the Persians did not worship the sun. They regarded it as an emblem of the good principle, of *Oromase*, or *Orosmade*, the Creator God whom they acknowledged.

However tolerant we may be, we cannot help feeling some indignation against those declaimers who accuse *Diocletian* of persecuting Christians from the moment he came to the throne. Let us rely on *Eusebius of Caesarea*; his testimony cannot be rejected. *Constantine’s* favorite and panegyrist, the violent enemy of the preceding emperors, must be believed when he vindicates them. Here are his words: Hist. Ecclésiastiq. Liv. 8. “The emperors long gave Christians great marks of goodwill; they entrusted provinces to them; several Christians lived in the palace; they even married Christian women; *Diocletian* took *Prisca* as his wife, whose daughter became the wife of *Maximian Galerius*, etc.”

Let this decisive testimony teach people to slander no more; let them judge whether the persecution stirred up by *Galerius*, after nineteen years of a reign of mercy and beneficence, must not have had its source in some intrigue unknown to us.

Consider how absurd is the fable of the Theban, or Thebaean, Legion, supposedly massacred to the last man for its religion. It is ridiculous to have brought this legion from Asia by way of the Great St. Bernard; it is impossible that it should have been summoned from Asia to quell a revolt in Gaul a year after that revolt had been suppressed. It is no less impossible that six thousand infantrymen and seven hundred cavalrymen should have been slaughtered in a pass where two hundred men could hold off an entire army. The account of this alleged butchery begins with an obvious imposture: *“While the earth groaned beneath Diocletian’s tyranny, heaven was filling with martyrs.”* Now this adventure, as we have said, is supposed to have occurred in 286, when *Diocletian* most favored the Christians and the Roman Empire was at its happiest. Finally, what should spare us all these discussions is that there never was a Theban Legion: the Romans were too proud and too sensible to form a legion from those Egyptians who served in Rome only as slaves, *a homeborn slave of Canopus*. It would be as if they had had a Jewish Legion. We have the names of the thirty-two legions that formed the main strength of the Roman Empire; the Theban Legion is certainly not among them. Let us therefore place this tale beside the Sibyls’ acrostic verses predicting the miracles of Jesus Christ, and so many other forged writings that a false zeal lavished on the world to exploit its credulity.

[17] We certainly respect everything the Church makes worthy of respect; we invoke the holy martyrs. But while revering *St. Lawrence*, may we not doubt that *St. Sixtus* told him, *“You will follow me in three days”*; that within this short interval the prefect of Rome had the Christians’ money demanded of him; that the deacon *Lawrence* had time to gather all the city’s poor; that he walked before the prefect to lead him to the place where these poor people were; that he was tried and put to torture; that the prefect ordered a blacksmith to make a gridiron large enough to roast a man; that Rome’s chief magistrate attended this strange execution in person; that *St. Lawrence*, on this gridiron, said, “I am cooked enough on one side; have me turned over to the other if you want to eat me”? This gridiron is scarcely in the Roman spirit; and how can it be that no pagan author mentioned any of these adventures?

[18] We need only open *Virgil* to see that the Romans acknowledged a supreme God, sovereign over all heavenly beings.

*O you who rule the affairs of men and gods*
*With everlasting power, and terrify with your thunderbolt,*
*O Father, eternal power of men and gods, etc.*

*Horace* speaks far more strongly:

*From whom nothing greater than himself is born,*
*Nor does anything flourish that is his like or second.*

Nothing but the unity of God was sung in the mysteries into which almost all Romans were initiated. See the beautiful Hymn of *Orpheus*; read the letter of *Maximus of Madaura* to *St. Augustine*, in which he says that *“only fools can fail to acknowledge a sovereign God.”* *Longinianus*, a pagan, writes to the same *St. Augustine* that *“God is one, incomprehensible, ineffable.”* *Lactantius* himself, who cannot be accused of excessive indulgence, admits in his Book V that *“the Romans subject all the gods to the supreme God”*: *“He subjects and binds them to God.”* Even *Tertullian*, in his Apology, admits that the whole empire acknowledged a God who ruled the world, whose power and majesty are infinite: *“The ruler of the world, of perfect power and majesty.”* Above all, open *Plato*, Cicero’s master in philosophy, and you will see that *“there is only one God,”* that *“we must worship him, love him, and strive to resemble him through holiness and justice.”* *Epictetus* in chains and *Marcus Aurelius* on the throne say the same thing in a hundred places.

[19] This assertion needs proof. We must acknowledge that, ever since history succeeded fable, we see in the Egyptians only a people as cowardly as they are superstitious. *Cambyses* takes Egypt in a single battle; *Alexander* gives it laws without fighting a single engagement, without any city daring to await a siege; the *Ptolemies* take possession of it without striking a blow; *Caesar* and *Augustus* subjugate it just as easily. *Omar* takes all Egypt in a single campaign; the Mamluks, peoples from Colchis and the lands around Mount Caucasus, are its masters after *Omar*. It is they, not the Egyptians, who defeat *St. Louis’s* army and take that king prisoner. Finally, once the Mamluks have become Egyptians—that is, soft, cowardly, idle, and fickle, like the native inhabitants of that climate—they pass in three months under the yoke of *Selim I*, who hangs their sultan and leaves this province annexed to the Turkish Empire, until one day other barbarians seize it.

*Herodotus* relates that in fabulous times an Egyptian king called *Sesostris* left his country with the express intention of conquering the world. It is plain that such a plan is worthy only of *Picrochole* or *Don Quixote*; and quite apart from the fact that the name *Sesostris* is not Egyptian, this event, like all the earlier ones, may be ranked with the *Thousand and One Nights*. Nothing is more common among conquered peoples than to retail fables about their former greatness, just as in certain countries certain wretched families claim descent from ancient sovereigns. The priests of Egypt told *Herodotus* that this king, whom he calls *Sesostris*, had gone to subjugate Colchis; it is as if we were told that a king of France had set out from Touraine to subjugate Norway.

These tales may be repeated in thousands upon thousands of volumes without becoming any more plausible. It is far more natural that the robust and savage inhabitants of the Caucasus, the Colchians and the other Scythians, who so often came to ravage Asia, should have penetrated as far as Egypt; and if the priests of Colchis later brought the custom of circumcision home with them, that does not prove that they had been subjugated by the Egyptians. *Diodorus* of Sicily relates that every king conquered by *Sesostris* came each year from the depths of his kingdom to bring him tribute, and that *Sesostris* used them as carriage horses, having them harnessed to his chariot when he went to the temple. These tales of *Gargantua* are faithfully copied every day. Certainly those kings were very obliging to come from so far away to serve as horses in this fashion.

As for the pyramids and the other antiquities, they prove nothing but the pride and bad taste of Egypt’s princes, and the slavery of a foolish people who used their arms, their sole possession, to satisfy their masters’ vulgar ostentation. Even in the times so greatly praised, this people’s government seems absurd and tyrannical: we are told that all the land belonged to their monarchs. Such slaves were just the people to conquer the world!

This profound learning of the Egyptian priests is another of the most enormous absurdities of ancient history—that is, of fable. Men who claimed that in the course of eleven thousand years the sun had risen twice in the west and set twice in the east, beginning its course anew, were surely far beneath the author of the Liège Almanac. The religion of these priests who governed the state could not compare with that of the most savage peoples of America. We know that they worshiped crocodiles, monkeys, cats, and onions; and perhaps today, on the whole earth, only the worship of the great *Lama* is as absurd.

Their arts are scarcely better than their religion. There is not a single ancient Egyptian statue that is tolerable, and everything good they possessed was made in Alexandria under the *Ptolemies* and the *Caesars*, by artists from Greece. They needed a Greek to teach them geometry.

The illustrious *Bossuet* goes into raptures over Egyptian merit in his *Discourse on Universal History*, addressed to *Louis XIV’s* son. He may dazzle a young prince, but he gives scholars very little satisfaction. It is a highly eloquent declamation, but a historian should be more philosopher than orator. Besides, this reflection on the Egyptians is offered only as a conjecture: what other name can we give to everything said about antiquity?

[20] The death of *St. Ignatius* is not called into question; but let a person of good sense read the account of his martyrdom—will he not feel some doubts rising in his mind? The unknown author of this account says that *“Trajan believed something would be lacking in his glory if he did not subject the Christians’ God to his empire.”* What a notion! Was *Trajan* a man who wished to triumph over the gods? When *Ignatius* appeared before the emperor, that prince said to him: *“Who are you, impure spirit?”* It is scarcely likely that an emperor would have spoken to a prisoner and condemned him himself; that is not how sovereigns act. If *Trajan* summoned *Ignatius* before him, he did not ask him, *“Who are you?”* He knew very well. Could those words, *“impure spirit,”* have been uttered by a man like *Trajan*? Do we not see that this is an exorcist’s expression, which a Christian puts into an emperor’s mouth? Good God, is that *Trajan’s* style?

Can we imagine that *Ignatius* answered that his name was *Theophorus* because he carried Jesus in his heart, and that *Trajan* debated Jesus Christ with him? At the end of the conversation *Trajan* is made to say: *“We order that Ignatius, who boasts of carrying the Crucified within him, shall be put in chains, etc.”* A sophist hostile to Christians might have called Jesus Christ *“the Crucified”*; but it is scarcely likely that such a term would have been used in a judicial decree. Execution on the cross was so common among the Romans that the language of the law could not have designated the object of Christian worship as *“the Crucified”*; and this is not how laws and emperors pronounce their judgments.

Next *St. Ignatius* is made to write a long letter to the Christians of Rome. *“I write to you,”* he says, *“though I am entirely in chains.”* Certainly, if he was allowed to write to the Christians of Rome, those Christians were not being hunted down; *Trajan* therefore did not intend to subject their God to his empire. Or, if those Christians were under the scourge of persecution, *Ignatius* committed a very great imprudence in writing to them: he was exposing them, handing them over, making himself their informer.

It seems that those who drew up these acts should have paid greater heed to plausibility and propriety. The martyrdom of *St. Polycarp* raises still more doubts. We are told that a voice cried from heaven, *“Courage, Polycarp!”*; that the Christians heard it, but the others heard nothing. We are told that when *Polycarp* had been bound to the stake and the pyre was ablaze, the flames drew away from him and formed an arch above his head; that a dove came out of it; that the saint, spared by the fire, gave off a fragrance of spices that perfumed the entire gathering; but that he whom fire dared not approach could not withstand the sword’s edge. We must admit that those who find more piety than truth in these stories deserve forgiveness.

### Chapter X

*On the Danger of False Legends and Persecution.*

Falsehood has deceived humanity for too long. It is time to learn the few truths we can discern through those clouds of fables that cover Roman history from *Tacitus* and *Suetonius* onward, and that have almost always shrouded the annals of other ancient nations.

How can we believe, for example, that the Romans—that grave and stern people from whom we derive our laws—condemned Christian virgins, girls of high birth, to prostitution? This shows a very poor understanding of the austere dignity of our lawmakers, who punished the lapses of the Vestals so severely. *Ruinart’s Authentic Acts* relate these infamies; but must we believe *Ruinart’s Acts* as we believe the Acts of the Apostles? These *Authentic Acts*, following *Bollandus*, say that in the city of Ancyra there were seven Christian virgins, each about seventy years old; that the governor *Theodectes* condemned them to pass through the hands of the city’s young men; but that, since these virgins were spared—as was only natural—he obliged them to serve naked in the mysteries of *Diana*, which, however, no one ever attended without a veil. *St. Theodotus*, who was admittedly a tavern keeper but no less zealous for that, prayed fervently that God would be pleased to put these holy maidens to death, lest they yield to temptation. God granted his prayer: the governor had them thrown into a lake with stones around their necks. They immediately appeared to *Theodotus* and begged him not to allow *“their bodies to be eaten by fish”*: those were their very words.

The holy tavern keeper and his companions went by night to the shore of the lake, which was guarded by soldiers. A heavenly torch went before them all the way, and when they reached the guards’ post, a heavenly horseman in full armor pursued the guards, lance in hand. *St. Theodotus* drew the virgins’ bodies from the lake; he was brought before the governor, and the heavenly horseman did not prevent his head from being cut off. Let us never cease repeating that we venerate true martyrs, but that this story of *Bollandus* and *Ruinart* is difficult to believe.

Must we recount here the tale of young *St. Romanus*? He was thrown into the fire, says *Eusebius*, and some Jews who were present reviled Jesus Christ for leaving his confessors to burn, when God had rescued *Shadrach*, *Meshach*, and *Abednego* from the fiery furnace. Scarcely had the Jews spoken when *St. Romanus* emerged triumphant from the pyre. The emperor ordered him pardoned and told the judge that he wanted no quarrel with God. (Strange words for *Diocletian*!) Despite the emperor’s indulgence, the judge ordered *St. Romanus’s* tongue cut out; and although he had executioners, he had a physician perform the operation. Young *Romanus*, born with a stammer, spoke fluently as soon as his tongue had been cut out. The physician was reprimanded; and to show that the operation had been performed according to the rules of his art, he seized a passerby and cut out exactly as much of his tongue as he had cut from *St. Romanus’s*, whereupon the passerby died on the spot: *“For,”* the author adds learnedly, *“anatomy teaches us that a man cannot live without a tongue.”* Truly, if *Eusebius* wrote such nonsense, if it was not added to his writings, what reliance can we place on his history?

We are given the martyrdom of *St. Felicity* and her seven children, supposedly sent to their deaths by the wise and pious *Antoninus*, without being told the author of the account. It is very likely that some author, more zealous than truthful, wished to imitate the history of the *Maccabees*. The account begins: *“St. Felicity was a Roman woman; she lived in the reign of Antoninus.”* These words make it plain that the author was not a contemporary of *St. Felicity*. He says that the praetor judged them from his tribunal in the *Field of Mars*; but the prefect of Rome held his tribunal on the Capitol, not in the *Field of Mars*, which, after having served for the assemblies of the people, was then used for reviews of soldiers, races, and military games. This alone proves the forgery.

We are also told that, after the judgment, the emperor entrusted different judges with carrying out the sentence—a practice entirely contrary to all the formalities of those times, and of every age.

There is likewise a *St. Hippolytus* supposedly dragged by horses, like *Hippolytus*, son of *Theseus*. This punishment was never known among the ancient Romans; the resemblance of the names alone gave rise to this fable.

Observe, too, that in the accounts of martyrdoms, composed exclusively by Christians themselves, we almost always see crowds of Christians freely visiting the condemned man’s prison, following him to his execution, gathering his blood, burying his body, and working miracles with his relics. If religion alone had been persecuted, would not these avowed Christians have been sacrificed too—these Christians who assisted their condemned brethren and were accused of working enchantments with the remains of martyred bodies? Would they not have been treated as we treated the Waldensians, the Albigensians, the Hussites, and the various Protestant sects? We slaughtered them, burned them in crowds, without distinction of age or sex. Is there a single incident in the authenticated accounts of ancient persecutions that approaches the *St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre* or the massacres in Ireland? A single one resembling the annual festival still celebrated in Toulouse—a cruel festival, one to be abolished forever—in which an entire people thanks God in procession and congratulates itself on having slaughtered four thousand of its fellow citizens two hundred years ago?

I say it with horror, but truthfully: it is we Christians, we ourselves, who have been persecutors, executioners, murderers! And of whom? Of our brothers. It is we who have destroyed a hundred cities, crucifix or Bible in hand, and who have never ceased shedding blood and lighting pyres, from the reign of *Constantine* to the frenzies of the cannibals who inhabited the Cévennes—frenzies which, thank heaven, no longer survive today.

We still sometimes send poor people from Poitou, Vivarais, Valence, and Montauban to the gallows. Since 1745 we have hanged eight of those men called preachers, or ministers of the Gospel, whose only crime was to have prayed to God for the king in their local speech and given a drop of wine and a piece of leavened bread to a few foolish peasants. Nothing is known of this in Paris, where pleasure is the only matter of importance, where nothing is known of what happens in the provinces or abroad. These trials take an hour, less time than it takes to judge a deserter. If the king were informed, he would grant a pardon.

Catholic priests are treated this way in no Protestant country. There are more than a hundred Catholic priests in England and Ireland; they are known, and they were allowed to live very peacefully during the last war.

Shall we always be the last to embrace the sound opinions of other nations? They have reformed; when shall we reform? It took sixty years to make us accept what *Newton* had demonstrated; we are scarcely beginning to dare to save our children’s lives by inoculation; only very recently have we begun to practice the true principles of agriculture. When shall we begin to practice the true principles of humanity? And with what effrontery can we reproach the pagans for having made martyrs, when we have been guilty of the same cruelty in the same circumstances?

Let us grant that the Romans put a multitude of Christians to death for their religion alone; in that case the Romans were deeply culpable. Would we wish to commit the same injustice? And when we reproach them for having persecuted, would we wish to be persecutors?

If someone were so devoid of good faith, or so fanatical, as to say to me here, “Why do you come to expose our errors and our faults? Why destroy our false miracles and our false legends? They nourish many people’s piety; some errors are necessary. Do not tear from the body an inveterate ulcer whose removal would destroy the body itself”—this is what I would answer.

All these false miracles, by which you shake the faith owed to genuine ones, all these absurd legends you add to the truths of the Gospel, extinguish religion in people’s hearts. Too many who wish to learn, but have no time to learn enough, say: “The teachers of my religion have deceived me, so there is no religion. Better to throw myself into the arms of nature than into those of error; I would rather depend on natural law than on human inventions.” Others have the misfortune to go still further. They see that imposture has put a bridle on them, and they refuse even the bridle of truth; they incline toward atheism. People become depraved because others have been deceitful and cruel.

These are certainly the consequences of all pious frauds and all superstitions. People generally reason only halfway. It is a very bad argument to say: “*Voragine*, author of the Golden Legend, and the Jesuit *Ribadeneira*, compiler of *The Flower of the Saints*, wrote nothing but nonsense; therefore there is no God. Catholics slaughtered a certain number of Huguenots, and Huguenots in turn murdered a certain number of Catholics; therefore there is no God. Confession, Communion, and all the sacraments have been used to commit the most horrible crimes; therefore there is no God.” I would conclude the opposite: therefore there is a God who, after this fleeting life, in which we have so misunderstood him and committed so many crimes in his name, will deign to console us for so many dreadful misfortunes. For when we consider the wars of religion, the forty papal schisms, almost all bloody, the impostures, almost all disastrous, the irreconcilable hatreds kindled by differing opinions—when we see all the evils false zeal has produced—humanity has long had its hell in this life.

### Chapter XI

*The Abuses of Intolerance.*

But what! Shall every citizen be allowed to believe only his own reason, and to think whatever that reason, enlightened or deceived, dictates to him? He must be,[21] provided he does not disturb the peace; for it is not in a man’s power to believe or disbelieve, but it is in his power to respect the customs of his country. And if you said it was a crime not to believe in the dominant religion, you would yourselves be accusing the first Christians, your fathers, and vindicating those whom you accuse of having delivered them to execution.

You answer that the difference is great: all religions are the work of men, and the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church alone is the work of God. But in good faith, because our religion is divine, must it reign through hatred, fury, exile, confiscation of property, prisons, torture, murder, and thanksgiving offered to God for these murders? The more divine the Christian religion is, the less it falls to man to impose it. If God made it, God will sustain it without you. You know that intolerance produces only hypocrites or rebels. What a disastrous choice! Finally, would you uphold through executioners the religion of a God whom executioners put to death, and who preached only gentleness and patience?

Consider, I beg you, the dreadful consequences of a right to intolerance. If it were permissible to strip a citizen of his property, throw him into a dungeon, or kill him because, at a particular degree of latitude, he did not profess the religion accepted at that degree, what exception would exempt the foremost men of the state from the same penalties? Religion binds the monarch and the beggar equally. And so more than fifty theologians or monks have asserted this monstrous horror: that it was permissible to depose and kill sovereigns who did not think as the dominant Church did. The kingdom’s sovereign law courts have never ceased proscribing these abominable rulings of abominable theologians.[22]

The blood of *Henry the Great* was still smoking when the Parlement of Paris issued a decree establishing the independence of the Crown as a fundamental law. Cardinal *Du Perron*, who owed his cardinal’s purple to *Henry the Great*, rose in the Estates of 1614 against the court’s decree and had it suppressed. All the journals of the time report the words *Du Perron* used in his speeches: *“If a prince became an Arian,”* he said, *“we would certainly be obliged to depose him.”*

Certainly not, Your Eminence. Let us accept your fanciful supposition: one of our kings, having read the history of the councils and the Fathers, struck also by the words *“my Father is greater than I,”* taking them too literally, and wavering between the Council of Nicaea and that of Constantinople, should declare for *Eusebius of Nicomedia*. I would obey my king no less; I would consider myself no less bound by the oath I had sworn him. And if you dared to rise against him, and I were one of your judges, I would pronounce you guilty of treason.

*Du Perron* carried the dispute further, and I abridge it. This is not the place to probe these revolting fantasies. I will confine myself to saying, with all citizens, that obedience was owed to *Henry IV* not because he was consecrated at Chartres, but because the incontestable right of birth gave the Crown to that prince, who deserved it through his courage and goodness.

Let us therefore be allowed to say that every citizen ought, by the same right, to inherit his father’s property, and that we cannot see how he deserves to be deprived of it and dragged to the gallows because he agrees with *Ratramnus* against *Paschasius Radbertus*, and with *Berengar* against *Scotus*.

We know that not all our dogmas have always been clearly explained and universally accepted in our Church. Since Jesus Christ did not tell us how the Holy Spirit proceeded, the Latin Church long believed, with the Greek, that he proceeded from the Father alone; at last it added to the Creed that he proceeded also from the Son. I ask whether, on the day after this decision, a citizen who had held to the previous day’s creed would have deserved death. Would it be any less cruel or unjust today to punish someone who thought as people once thought? In the time of *Honorius I*, was it a crime to believe that Jesus did not have two wills?

The Immaculate Conception has not been established for long; the Dominicans still do not believe in it. At what point will the Dominicans begin to deserve punishment in this world and the next?

If we should learn from anyone how to conduct ourselves in our endless disputes, it is surely from the Apostles and the Evangelists. There was enough to provoke a violent schism between *St. Paul* and *St. Peter*. In his Epistle to the Galatians, *Paul* expressly says that he withstood *Peter* to his face because *Peter* was blameworthy, because he practiced dissimulation as *Barnabas* did, because they ate with Gentiles before *James* arrived, then secretly withdrew and separated themselves from the Gentiles for fear of offending the circumcised. *“I saw,”* he adds, *“that they were not walking uprightly according to the Gospel; I said to Cephas: If you, a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as Jews?”*

Here was cause for a violent quarrel. The question was whether the new Christians would follow Jewish practices or not. At that very time *St. Paul* went to offer sacrifice in the temple of Jerusalem. We know that the first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were circumcised Jews who observed the Sabbath and abstained from forbidden meats. A Spanish or Portuguese bishop who had himself circumcised and observed the Sabbath would be burned in an *auto-da-fé*. Yet peace was not disturbed over this fundamental matter, either among the Apostles or among the first Christians.

Had the Evangelists resembled modern writers, they would have had a vast field on which to fight one another. *St. Matthew* counts twenty-eight generations from *David* to Jesus. *St. Luke* counts forty-one; and these generations are entirely different. Yet we see no dissension arise among the disciples over these apparent contradictions, so well reconciled by several Fathers of the Church. Charity was not wounded; peace was preserved. What greater lesson could there be in tolerating one another in our disputes and humbling ourselves before everything we do not understand?

*St. Paul*, in his epistle to some Jews of Rome converted to Christianity, devotes the whole end of Chapter III to saying that faith alone glorifies, and that works justify no one. *St. James*, on the contrary, in his epistle to the twelve tribes scattered throughout the earth, Chapter II, never ceases saying that one cannot be saved without works. This is what has separated two great communions among us, and what did not divide the Apostles.

If persecuting those with whom we dispute were a holy deed, we must admit that whoever had the most heretics killed would be the greatest saint in paradise. What figure would a man who had contented himself with stripping his brothers of their property and plunging them into dungeons cut beside a zealot who had massacred hundreds on *St. Bartholomew’s Day*? Here is the proof.

*St. Peter’s* successor and his consistory cannot err; they approved, celebrated, and consecrated the deed of *St. Bartholomew’s Day*: therefore this deed was most holy; therefore, of two assassins equal in piety, the one who had disemboweled twenty-four pregnant Huguenot women must be raised to twice the glory of the one who had disemboweled only twelve. For the same reason, the fanatics of the Cévennes must have believed that they would be raised to glory in proportion to the number of priests, men in religious orders, and Catholic women whose throats they had cut. These are strange claims to eternal glory.

[21] *See* *Locke’s* excellent Lettre sur la Tolérance.

[22] The Jesuit *Busenbaum*, with commentary by the Jesuit *La Croix*, says that *“it is permissible to kill a prince excommunicated by the pope, in whatever country that prince may be found, because the universe belongs to the pope, and whoever accepts this commission performs a most charitable deed.”* This proposition, invented in the madhouses of hell, has done more than anything else to rouse all France against the Jesuits. They were then reproached more than ever for this doctrine, so often taught by them and so often disavowed. They thought to justify themselves by showing almost the same rulings in *St. Thomas* and several Dominicans.[A] Indeed, *St. Thomas Aquinas*, the Angelic Doctor, interpreter of the divine will—such are his titles—asserts that an apostate prince loses his right to the Crown and must no longer be obeyed;[B] that the Church may punish him with death; that the emperor *Julian* was tolerated only because Christians did not have the greater strength;[C] that by right every heretic ought to be killed;[D] that those who deliver a people from a prince who governs tyrannically are highly praiseworthy, etc., etc. The Angel of the Schools is greatly respected; but if, in the days of his fellow Dominican *Jacques Clément* and of the Feuillant *Ravaillac*, he had come to France to maintain such propositions, how would the Angel of the Schools have been treated?

[A] See, if you can, the *Lettre* d'un homme du monde à un Théologien sur *St. Thomas*; it is a Jesuit pamphlet of 1762.

[B] Liv. II, part. 2, question 12.

[C] Liv. II, part. 2, question 12.

[D] Ibid. question 11 & 12.

We must admit that *Jean Gerson*, chancellor of the University, went still further than *St. Thomas*, and the Franciscan *Jean Petit* infinitely further than *Gerson*. Several Franciscans upheld *Jean Petit’s* horrible theses. We must admit that this diabolical doctrine of regicide derives solely from the mad idea, long held by almost all monks, that the pope is a God on earth who can dispose as he pleases of kings’ thrones and lives. In this we have sunk far below those Tatars who believe the great *Lama* immortal: he distributes the contents of his close-stool to them; they dry these relics, place them in shrines, and kiss them devoutly. For my part, I confess that, for the sake of peace, I would rather wear such relics around my neck than believe that the pope has the slightest right over the worldly affairs of kings, or even over my own, in any case whatever.

### Chapter XII

*Was intolerance a matter of divine law in Judaism, and was it always practiced?*

By *divine law*, I believe, we mean the precepts God himself has given. He required the Jews to eat a lamb cooked with lettuce, and the guests to eat it standing, staff in hand, in commemoration of the *Passover*. He ordained that the high priest should be consecrated by placing blood on his right ear, his right hand, and his right foot—customs extraordinary to us, but not to antiquity. He required that the goat *Hazazel* be laden with the people's iniquities; he forbade them to eat fish without scales, pigs, hares, hedgehogs, owls, griffons, ixions, and so on. Deutér. Chap. 14.

He instituted festivals and ceremonies. All these things, which seemed arbitrary to other nations, subject to enacted law and custom, became divine law for the Jews because God himself commanded them, just as everything Jesus Christ, son of *Mary*, son of God, has commanded us is divine law for us.

Let us not inquire here why God replaced the law he had given *Moses* with a new one, or why he commanded more things of *Moses* than of the patriarch *Abraham*, and more of *Abraham* than of *Noah*.[23] He seems to condescend to adapt himself to the times and to the size of the human population: a father's gradual instruction. But these abysses lie too deep for our feeble sight. Let us keep within the bounds of our subject, and first examine what intolerance was among the Jews.

It is true that in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy—Amos, Chap. 5, v. 26.

Jérém. Chap. 7, v. 22.

Actes des Ap. Ch. 7, v. 42.—there are very severe laws governing worship, and still more severe punishments. Several commentators struggle to reconcile the accounts of *Moses* with passages in *Jeremiah* and *Amos*, and with *St. Stephen's* celebrated speech, reported in the Acts of the Apostles. *Amos* says that throughout their time in the wilderness the Jews worshiped *Moloch*, *Remphan*, and *Kium*. *Jeremiah* expressly says that God asked no sacrifice of their fathers when they came out of Egypt. *St. Stephen*, addressing the Jews, puts it this way: “They worshiped the host of heaven; for forty years in the wilderness they offered neither sacrifices nor sacrificial victims; they carried the tabernacle of the god *Moloch* and the star of their god *Rempham*.”

Other critics infer from the worship of so many foreign gods that *Moses* tolerated those gods, and offer these words of Deuteronomy as proof: Deutér. Chap. 12, v. 8. “*When you are in the land of Canaan, you shall not do as we do today, when everyone does whatever seems good to him*.”[24]

They support their view by observing that no religious observance by the people in the wilderness is mentioned: no Passover celebrated, no Pentecost; no mention of a Feast of Tabernacles, no established public prayer. Even circumcision, the seal of God's covenant with *Abraham*, was not practiced.

They also appeal to the history of *Joshua*. Josué, Ch. 14. v. 15 & suiv. This conqueror says to the Jews: “The choice is yours: choose whichever course you please, whether to worship the gods you served in the land of the Amorites, or those you acknowledged in Mesopotamia.” The people answer: “That shall not be; we will serve *Adonai*.” *Joshua* replies: “You have chosen for yourselves; then remove the foreign gods from among you.” It is therefore beyond dispute that under *Moses* they had gods other than *Adonai*.

There is no point here in refuting the critics who think the Pentateuch was not written by *Moses*. Everything on this subject was said long ago; and even if some small part of the books of *Moses* had been written in the time of the judges, kings, or high priests, those books would be no less inspired and no less divine.

It is enough, I think, that Holy Scripture proves that despite the extraordinary punishment the Jews brought upon themselves by worshiping *Apis*, they long retained complete freedom. Perhaps even the slaughter of twenty-three thousand men, which *Moses* ordered because of the calf erected by his brother, taught him that severity gained nothing, and obliged him to close his eyes to the people's passion for foreign gods.

He himself soon seems to transgress the law he has given. Nomb. Chap. 21, v. 9. He has forbidden every graven image, yet he erects a bronze serpent. The same exception to the law appears later in *Solomon's* Temple. That prince has twelve oxen carved to support the Temple's great basin; cherubim are placed in the Ark, with an eagle's head and a calf's head. Apparently it was this crudely fashioned calf's head, found in the Temple by Roman soldiers, that long gave rise to the belief that the Jews worshiped a donkey.

The ban on worshiping foreign gods is in vain: *Solomon* is an idolater undisturbed. *Jeroboam*, to whom God gave ten shares of the kingdom, erects two golden calves and reigns for twenty-two years, uniting in his own person the offices of monarch and high priest. Under *Rehoboam*, the little kingdom of Judah sets up foreign altars and statues. The holy king *Asa* does not destroy the high places. The high priest *Uriah* erects an altar belonging to the king of Syria in the Temple, in place of the altar of burnt offerings. Liv. IV. des Rois, Chap. 16. In short, we see no religious coercion. I know that most Jewish kings destroyed and murdered one another; but it was always for their own interests, not for their beliefs.

It is true that among the prophets—Liv. III. des Rois, Chap. 18, v. 38 & 40.

Liv. IV. des Rois, Chap. 2, v. 24.—there were some who enlisted heaven in their vengeance. *Elijah* called down heavenly fire to consume the priest of *Baal*; *Elisha* summoned bears to devour forty-two little children who had called him *baldhead*. But these are rare miracles, and deeds it would be rather harsh to wish to imitate.

It is further objected that the Jewish people were very ignorant and very barbarous. Nomb. Chap. 31. We are told that in their war against the Midianites,[25] *Moses* ordered them to kill all the male children and all the mothers, and to divide the spoils. The victors found 675,000 sheep, 72,000 oxen, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000 girls in the camp; they divided these among themselves and killed all the rest. Several commentators even maintain that thirty-two girls were sacrificed to the Lord: *thirty-two souls fell to the Lord's share*.

Indeed, the Jews sacrificed human beings to the Divinity: witness the sacrifice of *Jephthah*,[26] witness King *Agag*,[27] hacked to pieces by the priest *Samuel*. *Ezekiel* himself promises them human flesh to eat as an encouragement. Ezéch. Chap. 39, v. 18. “*You shall eat*,” he says, “*the horse and the rider; you shall drink the blood of princes*.” In the entire history of this people we find no act of generosity, greatness of soul, or beneficence; yet through the cloud of this barbarism, so long and so dreadful, rays of universal tolerance are always breaking.

*Jephthah*, inspired by God, to whom he sacrificed his daughter, says to the Ammonites: Juges, Chap. 11, v. 24. “*Does not what your god Chemosh has given you belong to you by right? Allow us, then, to take the land our God has promised us.*” This declaration is explicit; it can lead a very long way. At the very least, it plainly proves that God tolerated *Chemosh*. For Holy Scripture does not say: “You think you have a right to the lands you say the god *Chemosh* has given you.” It says positively: “You have a right”; *they belong to you by right*—which is the true meaning of the Hebrew words *Otho thirasch*.

The story of *Micah* and the Levite, told in chapters 17 and 18 of the Book of Judges, is another indisputable proof of the tolerance and the very great freedom allowed among the Jews. *Micah's* mother, a very wealthy woman of Ephraim, had lost eleven hundred pieces of silver. Her son returned them to her; she dedicated this money to the Lord and had idols made from it. She built a little chapel; a Levite served the chapel for ten pieces of silver, a tunic, a cloak each year, and his board; and *Micah* exclaimed: Chap. 17 v. dernier. “*Now God will do me good, for I have a priest of the line of Levi in my house*.”

Meanwhile, six hundred men of the tribe of *Dan* were looking for some village in the country to seize and settle in. They had no Levite priest with them, and needed one so that God would favor their venture. They went to *Micah's* house and took his ephod, his idols, and his Levite, despite the priest's protests and the cries of *Micah* and his mother. Then they confidently attacked the village called *Laish*, putting everything to fire and sword, as was their custom. They renamed *Laish* *Dan* in memory of their victory, and placed *Micah's* idol on an altar. Still more remarkable, *Jonathan*, the grandson of *Moses*, became high priest of this temple, where both the God of Israel and *Micah's* idol were worshiped.

After *Gideon's* death, the Hebrews worshiped *Baal-berith* for nearly twenty years and abandoned the worship of *Adonai*, without any leader, judge, or priest calling for vengeance. Their crime was great, I admit; but if even this idolatry was tolerated, how much more must differences within the true worship have been tolerated?

Some offer the following as proof of intolerance. The Lord himself allowed his Ark to be captured by the Philistines in battle. He punished the Philistines only by afflicting them with a disease of the private parts resembling hemorrhoids, toppling the statue of *Dagon*, and sending a multitude of rats into their fields. But when the Philistines, to appease his wrath, sent the Ark back, drawn by two cows still nursing their calves, and offered God five golden rats and five golden anuses, the Lord killed seventy elders of Israel and fifty thousand of the people for having looked at the Ark. The answer is that the Lord's punishment did not fall upon a belief, a difference in worship, or any idolatry.

Had the Lord wished to punish idolatry, he would have destroyed all the Philistines who dared to capture his Ark and who worshiped *Dagon*. Instead, he destroyed fifty thousand and seventy of his own people solely because they had looked at his Ark, which they were not permitted to look at. So greatly do the laws, the customs of that age, and the Jewish dispensation differ from everything we know; so far above our ways are the inscrutable ways of God. “*The severity shown*,” says the judicious Dom Calmet, “*toward this great number of men will seem excessive only to those who have failed to understand how much God wished to be feared and revered among his people, and who judge God's purposes and designs only by the feeble light of their own reason*.”

God therefore punishes not a foreign worship, but a profanation of his own: an indiscreet curiosity, a disobedience, perhaps even a spirit of rebellion. Plainly, such punishments belong to God alone within the Jewish theocracy. We cannot repeat too often that those times and customs bear no relation to our own.

Finally, when in later centuries *Naaman* the idolater asked *Elisha* whether he was permitted to follow his king into the temple of Remnon and *worship there with him*, did not this same *Elisha*, who had had the children devoured by bears, answer: “*Go in peace*”? Liv. IV. des Rois, Chap. 20, v. 25.

There is much more. The Lord commands *Jeremiah* to put ropes around his neck, with collars[28] and yokes, and to send them to the petty kings, or Melchim, of Moab, Ammon, Edom, Tyre, and Sidon. Through *Jeremiah*, the Lord tells them: Jérém. Chap. 27, v. 6. “*I have given all your lands to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, my servant*.” Here is an idolatrous king declared God's servant and favorite.

The same *Jeremiah*, whom the Jewish Melk, or petty king, *Zedekiah*, had thrown into a dungeon, obtained his pardon from *Zedekiah* and advised him in God's name to surrender to the king of Babylon: Jérém. Chap. 18, v. 19. “*If you go and surrender to his officers*,” he says, “*your soul shall live*.” God therefore finally takes the side of an idolatrous king. He delivers to him the Ark, the mere sight of which had cost fifty thousand and seventy Jews their lives. He delivers to him the Holy of Holies and the rest of the Temple, whose construction had cost a hundred and eight thousand talents of gold, a million and seventeen thousand talents of silver, and ten thousand gold drachmas, left by *David* and his officers for building the House of the Lord. Without counting the money spent by *Solomon*, this amounts to some nineteen billion sixty-two million at today's rates. Never was idolatry better rewarded. I know this calculation is exaggerated, and that there is probably a copyist's error; but reduce the sum by half, to a quarter, even to an eighth, and it will still astonish you. We are scarcely less surprised by the riches *Herodotus* says he saw in the temple at Ephesus. In the end, treasures are nothing in God's eyes; the title of his servant, given to *Nebuchadnezzar*, is the true and priceless treasure.

God favors no less the *Kir*, or *Koresh*, or *Kosroes*, whom we call *Cyrus*. Isaïe, Chap. 44 & 45. He calls him *his Christ*, *his Anointed*, although he was not anointed in the ordinary sense of the word, and followed the religion of *Zoroaster*. He calls him his *Shepherd*, although in men's eyes he was a usurper. In all Holy Scripture there is no greater sign of special favor.

You see in *Malachi* that *from east to west the name of God is great among the nations, and pure offerings are made to him everywhere*. God cares for the idolatrous Ninevites as he does for the Jews; he threatens them and forgives them. *Melchizedek*, who was not a Jew, was a priest of God. *Balaam*, an idolater, was a prophet. Scripture thus teaches us that God not only tolerated all other peoples, but watched over them with a father's care—and we dare to be intolerant!

[23] Since we intend to add a few useful notes to this work, we will observe here that God is said to have made a covenant with *Noah* and with all the animals. Yet he allows *Noah* to *eat everything that lives and moves*, excepting only blood, which he does not permit him to consume. God adds *that he will exact vengeance from every animal that has shed human blood*.

From these passages and many others we may infer what all antiquity has always believed down to our own day, and what all sensible people believe: that animals possess some understanding. God makes no covenant with trees and stones, which have no feeling; he makes one with animals, whom he has deigned to endow with feeling often more acute than ours, and with certain ideas necessarily bound to that feeling. That is why he forbids the barbarity of feeding on their blood: blood is indeed the source of life, and therefore of feeling. Drain an animal of all its blood, and every organ falls still. Scripture is thus entirely right to say in a hundred places that the soul—that is, what was called the sensitive soul—is in the blood; and this very natural idea has been shared by every people.

On this idea rests the compassion we owe to animals. Of the seven precepts of the *Noahides* accepted among the Jews, one forbids eating a limb taken from a living animal. This precept proves that men had been cruel enough to mutilate animals in order to eat their severed limbs, leaving them alive so that they could feed in turn on the different parts of their bodies. This custom did in fact survive among certain barbarous peoples, as we see in the sacrifices on the island of Chios to *Bacchus Omadios*, the eater of raw flesh. In allowing animals to serve as our food, God therefore urges some humanity toward them. We must admit that making them suffer is barbarous, and certainly only habit can diminish our natural horror at slaughtering an animal we have fed with our own hands. There have always been peoples who felt grave scruples about it. These scruples persist on the Indian peninsula; the entire school of *Pythagoras*, in Italy and Greece, consistently abstained from meat. In his book on abstinence, *Porphyry* reproaches his disciple for leaving his school merely to indulge a barbarous appetite.

It seems to me that anyone who dares to maintain that beasts are nothing but machines must have renounced the light of natural reason. There is a manifest contradiction in admitting that God has given beasts all the organs of feeling, yet maintaining that he has given them no feeling.

It also seems to me that anyone who fails to distinguish in animals the different voices of need, suffering, joy, fear, love, anger, and all their affections can never have observed them. It would be very strange if they expressed so well what they did not feel.

This observation may give practiced minds much to reflect on concerning the power and goodness of the Creator, who deigns to grant life, feeling, ideas, and memory to the beings he himself has fashioned with his almighty hand. We know neither how these organs were formed, nor how they develop, nor how life is received, nor by what laws feelings, ideas, memory, and will are bound to that life. And in this profound, eternal ignorance inherent in our nature, we argue without end and persecute one another, like bulls fighting with their horns without knowing why or how they have horns.

[24] Several writers rashly conclude from this passage that the chapter concerning the golden calf—which is nothing other than the god *Apis*—was added to the books of *Moses*, along with several other chapters.

*Ibn Ezra* was the first who believed he could prove that the Pentateuch had been compiled in the time of the kings. *Wollaston*, *Collins*, *Tindal*, *Shaftesbury*, *Bolingbroke*, and many others have argued that engraving one's thoughts on polished stone, brick, lead, or wood was the only way of writing. They say that in *Moses'* day the Chaldeans and Egyptians wrote in no other way; that only the essence of what one wished to transmit to posterity could then be engraved, very briefly and in hieroglyphics, not detailed histories; that it was impossible to engrave great books in a wilderness where one moved so often, where there was no one to supply clothing, cut it out, or even mend sandals, and where God was obliged to work a forty-year miracle to preserve his people's clothes and shoes. They say it is unlikely that there were so many engravers of characters when the most necessary crafts were lacking, and even bread could not be made. If told that the pillars of the Tabernacle were bronze and their capitals solid silver, they answer that the order may have been given in the wilderness, but was carried out only in happier times.

They cannot conceive how this poor people could have demanded a solid-gold calf to worship at the very foot of the mountain where God was speaking to *Moses*, amid thunderbolts and lightning that the people could see, and to the sound of the heavenly trumpet they could hear. They are astonished that on the very day before *Moses* came down from the mountain, the entire people appealed to *Moses'* brother for a solid-gold calf. How did *Aaron* cast it in a single day? How did *Moses* then reduce it to powder? They say that no craftsman can make a gold statue in less than three months, and that even the most advanced chemistry is insufficient to reduce it to a powder that can be swallowed. Thus *Aaron's* transgression and *Moses'* operation would have been two miracles.

Their humanity, the goodness of heart that misleads them, prevents them from believing that *Moses* had twenty-three thousand people slaughtered to atone for this sin. They cannot imagine twenty-three thousand men allowing themselves to be massacred by Levites in this way without a third miracle. Finally, they find it strange that *Aaron*, the guiltiest of all, should have been rewarded for the crime for which the others were so horribly punished, and made high priest while the bloodied corpses of twenty-three thousand of his brothers lay heaped at the foot of the altar where he was about to sacrifice.

They raise the same difficulties about the twenty-four thousand Israelites massacred by order of *Moses* to expiate the offense of a single man discovered with a Moabite girl. So many Jewish kings, and *Solomon* above all, married foreign women with impunity that these critics cannot accept that union with a Moabite was so great a crime. *Ruth* was a Moabite, although her family originally came from Bethlehem; Holy Scripture always calls her *Ruth the Moabite*. Yet on her mother's advice she went and lay in *Boaz's* bed, received six bushels of barley from him, afterward married him, and became *David's* forebear. *Rahab* was not only a foreigner but a prostitute; the Vulgate gives her no other title than *prostitute*. She married *Solomon*, prince of Judah, and it is also from this *Solomon* that *David* descends. *Rahab* is even regarded as a figure of the Christian Church; this is the view of several Fathers, and especially of *Origen* in his 7th homily on *Joshua*.

*Bathsheba*, the wife of *Uriah*, by whom *David* fathered *Solomon*, was a Hittite. Go further back, and the patriarch *Judah* married a Canaanite woman; his sons married *Tamar*, of the line of *Aram*. This woman, with whom *Judah* unwittingly committed incest, was not of the line of *Israel*.

Thus our Lord Jesus Christ deigned to take flesh among the Jews in a family whose ancestry included five foreigners, to show that foreign nations would share in his inheritance.

Rabbi *Ibn Ezra* was, as we have said, the first who dared to maintain that the Pentateuch had been compiled long after *Moses*. He bases his view on several passages: “The Canaanites were then in this country. Mount Moriah, called the mountain of God. The bed of *Og*, king of Bashan, may still be seen in *Rabbah*, and he called all this land of Bashan the villages of Jair, to this day. There has never been a prophet in Israel like *Moses*. These are the kings who reigned in Edom before any king reigned over Israel.” He maintains that these passages, speaking of things that happened after *Moses*, cannot be by *Moses*. The answer to these objections is that these passages are notes added long afterward by copyists.

*Newton*, whose name should otherwise be spoken only with respect, but who could err since he was human, attributes the books of *Moses*, *Joshua*, and *Judges* to much later sacred authors in the introduction to his commentaries on *Daniel* and *St. John*. He bases this on chapter 36 of Genesis; on four chapters of Judges, 17, 18, 19, and 21; on *Samuel*, chapter 8; on Chronicles, chapter 2; and on the Book of *Ruth*, chapter 4. Indeed, if chapter 36 of Genesis speaks of kings, if they are mentioned in the books of Judges, if the Book of *Ruth* speaks of *David*, it seems that all these books were compiled in the time of the kings. This is also the view of some theologians, headed by the famous *Le Clerc*. But this opinion has only a few followers whose curiosity plumbs these abysses. Such curiosity is surely not among our human duties. When the learned and the ignorant, princes and shepherds, appear after this brief life before the Master of eternity, each of us will then wish to have been just, humane, compassionate, and generous. No one will boast of having known precisely in what year the Pentateuch was written, or of having disentangled the text from the notes customary among the scribes. God will not ask whether we sided with the Masoretes against the Talmud, whether we never mistook a *kaph* for a *beth*, a *yod* for a *vau*, a *daleth* for a *resh*. Surely he will judge us by our actions, not by our understanding of Hebrew. We hold firmly to the Church's decision, as is the reasonable duty of a believer.

Let us end this note with an important passage from Leviticus, a book composed after the worship of the golden calf. Levit. Chap. 17. It commands the Jews to stop worshiping the hairy ones, *the goats with which they have even committed infamous abominations*. We do not know whether this strange worship came from Egypt, the homeland of superstition and sorcery. But it is believed that the custom of our supposed sorcerers—going to the Sabbath, worshiping a goat there, and abandoning themselves with it to inconceivable obscenities whose very idea inspires horror—came from the ancient Jews. Indeed, it was they who taught sorcery in part of Europe. What a people! So strange an infamy seemed to deserve a punishment like the one brought upon them by the golden calf; yet the lawgiver is content simply to prohibit it. This fact is reported here only to make the Jewish nation known. Bestiality must have been common among them, since theirs is the only known nation whose laws were obliged to prohibit a crime no other lawgiver elsewhere had even suspected. Lévit. Chap. 18 v. 23.

We may suppose that amid the hardships and privations the Jews endured in the deserts of Paran, Horeb, and Kadesh-barnea, the female sex, weaker than the other, had succumbed. The Jews must indeed have lacked girls, since they are always ordered, whenever they seize a town or village, whether to the left or right of the Asphaltic Lake, to kill everyone except girls of marriageable age.

The Arabs who still inhabit part of these deserts always stipulate in their treaties with caravans that they be given girls of marriageable age. It is likely that the young men in these dreadful lands carried the depravity of human nature so far as to couple with goats, as is said of certain shepherds in Calabria.

It remains to be determined whether these couplings produced monsters, and whether there is any foundation to the ancient tales of satyrs, fauns, centaurs, and minotaurs. History says so; natural science has not yet enlightened us on this monstrous question.

[25] Midian was not included in the Promised Land. It is a small district of Idumea, in Arabia Petraea, beginning to the north at the torrent of Arnon and ending at the torrent of Zared, amid rocks and on the eastern shore of the Asphaltic Lake. This country is now inhabited by a small band of Arabs; it may be about eight leagues long, and a little less wide.

[26] The text leaves no doubt that *Jephthah* sacrificed his daughter. “*God did not approve these consecrations*,” says *Dom Calmet* in his dissertation on *Jephthah's* vow; “*but once they have been made, he requires their fulfillment, if only to punish those who made them, or to restrain the heedlessness with which they would have been made had their fulfillment not been feared*.” *St. Augustine* and almost all the Fathers condemn *Jephthah's* act. It is true that Scripture says *he was filled with the spirit of God*; and *St. Paul*, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 11, praises *Jephthah*, placing him alongside *Samuel* and *David*.

*St. Jerome*, in his epistle to *Julian*, says: “*Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to the Lord, and for that reason the Apostle numbers him among the saints*.” Here are judgments on either side upon which we are not permitted to pass our own; we must fear even to hold an opinion.

[27] The death of King *Agag* may be regarded as a true sacrifice. *Saul* had taken this king of the Amalekites prisoner in war and accepted his surrender on terms. But the priest *Samuel* had ordered him to spare nothing, saying in these very words: Liv. I. des Rois, Chapitre 15. “*Kill everyone, from men to women, down to little children and those still at the breast.*”

*Samuel hacked King Agag to pieces before the Lord at Gilgal.*

“The zeal that animated this prophet,” says *Dom Calmet*, “put the sword in his hand on this occasion, to avenge the glory of the Lord and confound *Saul*.”

In this fatal affair we see a consecration, a priest, a victim: it was therefore a sacrifice.

Every people whose history we possess has sacrificed human beings to the Divinity, except the Chinese. *Plutarch* reports that even the Romans did so in the days of the Republic.

We see in *Caesar's* Commentaries that the Germans were about to sacrifice the hostages he had given them when he freed those hostages by his victory.

I have observed elsewhere that this violation of the law of nations against *Caesar's* hostages, and these human victims sacrificed—to crown the horror—by women's hands, somewhat belie *Tacitus'* panegyric of the Germans in his treatise *De moribus Germanorum*. In that treatise, *Tacitus* seems more intent on satirizing the Romans than on praising the Germans, whom he did not know.

Let us say here in passing that *Tacitus* loved satire even more than truth. He wants to make everything hateful, even actions indifferent in themselves; and his malice pleases us almost as much as his style, because we love malicious gossip and wit.

Let us return to human victims. Our ancestors sacrificed them just as the Germans did. This is the lowest depth of stupidity to which our nature, left to itself, can sink, and one of the fruits of our feeble judgment. We said: “We must offer God what is most precious and most beautiful to us; nothing is more precious to us than our children; we must therefore choose the most beautiful and the youngest to sacrifice to the Divinity.”

*Philo* says that in the land of Canaan people sometimes sacrificed their children before God commanded *Abraham* to sacrifice his only son *Isaac* to test his faith.

*Sanchuniathon*, quoted by *Eusebius*, reports that in great dangers the Phoenicians sacrificed their dearest child, and that *Ilus* sacrificed his son *Jehud* at about the time God put *Abraham's* faith to the test. It is difficult to penetrate the darkness of that antiquity; but it is all too true that these horrible sacrifices were practiced almost everywhere. Peoples abandoned them only as they grew more civilized. Cultivation brings humanity.

[28] Those unfamiliar with ancient customs, who judge only by what they see around them, may be astonished by these peculiarities. But we must remember that in Egypt and much of Asia at that time, most things were expressed through figures, hieroglyphics, signs, and symbols.

The prophets, called *seers* among the Egyptians and the Jews, not only expressed themselves in allegories but represented the events they foretold through signs. Thus *Isaiah*, the first of the four great Jewish prophets, takes a scroll and writes on it: “*Shas bas, plunder quickly*.” Isaïe, Chapitre 8. Then he approaches the prophetess; she conceives and bears a son, whom he calls *Maher-shalal-hash-baz*. This figures the evils the peoples of Egypt and Assyria will inflict upon the Jews.

This prophet says: “*Before the child is old enough to eat butter and honey, and knows how to reject evil and choose good, the land you hate will be delivered from the two kings. The Lord will whistle for the flies of Egypt and the bees of Assyria. The Lord will take a hired razor and shave off all the beard and the hair of the feet of the king of Assyria.*”

This prophecy of bees, beard, and shorn hair of the feet can be understood only by those who know that it was customary to summon swarms with the sound of a flageolet or some other rustic instrument; that the greatest insult one could offer a man was to cut off his beard; that “the hair of the feet” meant pubic hair; and that this hair was shaved only in filthy diseases such as leprosy. All these figures, so alien to our style, mean nothing more than that in a few years the Lord will free his people from oppression.

The same *Isaiah* walks completely naked to signify that the king of Assyria will lead away from Egypt and Ethiopia a multitude of captives with nothing to cover their nakedness. Isaïe, Chapitre 20

*Ezekiel* eats the parchment scroll presented to him. Ezéch. Chap. 4 & suiv. Then he covers his bread with excrement and lies on his left side for three hundred and ninety days, and on his right for forty days, to convey that the Jews will lack bread and to signify the years their captivity is to last. He puts on chains, representing those of the people; he cuts off his hair and beard and divides them into three parts. The first third represents those who are to perish in the city; the second, those who will be put to death around the walls; the third, those who are to be carried away to Babylon.

The prophet *Hosea* joins himself to an adulterous woman, whom he buys for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer and a half of barley. Ozée, Chap. 3. “*You shall wait for me*,” he tells her, “*many days, and during that time no man shall approach you. Such is the state in which the children of Israel will long remain, without kings, without princes, without sacrifices, without an altar, and without an ephod.*” In short, the Nabi, the seers, the prophets, almost never predict anything without representing the thing predicted by a sign.

*Jeremiah* therefore merely follows custom when he binds himself with ropes and puts collars and yokes on his back, to signify the enslavement of those to whom he sends these symbols. Look closely, and those times are like those of an ancient world that differs in every way from the new one: civil life, laws, the manner of waging war, religious ceremonies—everything is utterly different. We need only open *Homer* and the first book of *Herodotus* to be convinced that we bear no resemblance to the peoples of remote antiquity, and that we must distrust our judgment when we try to compare their customs with our own.

Nature itself was not what it is today. Magicians had a power over it they no longer possess: they charmed serpents, called up the dead, and so on. God sent dreams, and men interpreted them. The gift of prophecy was common. There were transformations such as *Nebuchadnezzar's* into an ox, *Lot's* wife into a pillar of salt, and five cities into a lake of bitumen.

There were kinds of human beings that no longer exist. The race of giants—*Rephaim*, *Emim*, *Nephilim*, *Anakim*—has disappeared. *St. Augustine*, in *la Cité de Dieu*, Livre V, says he saw the tooth of an ancient giant as large as a hundred of our molars. *Ezekiel* speaks of the *Gammadim* pygmies, a cubit tall, who fought at the siege of Tyre; and in almost all this the sacred authors agree with the secular ones. Diseases and remedies were not the same as in our day: the possessed were cured with the root called *Barad*, set in a ring that was held beneath their noses.

In the end, that entire ancient world was so different from ours that we can draw no rule of conduct from it today. And if, in that distant antiquity, people persecuted and oppressed one another in turn over their worship, we should not imitate such cruelty under the law of grace.

### Chapter XIII

*The extreme tolerance of the Jews*

Thus under *Moses*, under the judges, under the kings, you always find examples of tolerance. There is more: *Moses* says several times *that God punishes fathers in their children, down to the fourth generation*. Exode, Chap. 20, v. 5. This threat was necessary for a people to whom God had revealed neither the immortality of the soul nor punishments and rewards in another life. These truths were proclaimed to them neither in the Decalogue nor in any law of Leviticus or Deuteronomy. They were doctrines of the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Cretans; but they formed no part of the Jewish religion. *Moses* does not say: “*Honor your father and mother if you wish to go to heaven*”; but: “*Honor your father and mother so that you may live long upon the earth*.” Deutér. Chap. 28. He threatens them only with bodily afflictions: dry scabies, festering scabies, malignant ulcers on their knees and calves; exposure to their wives' infidelities; having to borrow at interest from foreigners while being unable to lend at interest themselves; perishing of famine and being forced to eat their children. Nowhere does he tell them that their immortal souls will suffer torments after death or taste bliss. God, who himself led his people, punished or rewarded them immediately after their good or evil actions. Everything belonged to this world; and this is the evidence the learned Bishop *Warburton* offers to demonstrate that the Jewish law was divine:[29] since God himself was their king, dispensing justice immediately after transgression or obedience, he had no need to reveal a doctrine he was reserving for the time when he would no longer govern his people. Those who ignorantly maintain that *Moses* taught the immortality of the soul deprive the New Testament of one of its greatest advantages over the Old. It is certain that the law of *Moses* proclaimed only temporal punishments down to the fourth generation. Yet despite this law's precise wording, despite God's express declaration that he would punish down to the fourth generation, *Ezekiel* announces—Ezéch. Chap. 18, v. 20.

Ezéch. Chap. 20, v. 25.—the very opposite to the Jews, telling them that the son will not bear his father's iniquity. He even goes so far as to make God say that he had given them *precepts that were not good*.[30]

The Book of *Ezekiel* was nonetheless included in the canon of authors inspired by God. It is true that the synagogue did not permit it to be read before the age of thirty, as *St. Jerome* tells us; but that was for fear that the young might misuse the overly explicit pictures, in chapters 16 and 23, of the debauchery of the two sisters *Oholah* and *Oholibah*. In short, his book was always accepted, despite its direct contradiction of *Moses*.

Finally,[31] when the immortality of the soul became an accepted doctrine—a development that had probably begun during the Babylonian captivity—the sect of the Sadducees continued to believe that there were neither punishments nor rewards after death, and that the faculty of feeling and thinking perished with us, like our active strength, our ability to walk and digest. They denied the existence of angels. They differed far more from other Jews than Protestants differ from Catholics; yet they remained in communion with their brothers. There were even high priests of their sect.

The Pharisees believed in fate[32] and the transmigration of souls.[33] The Essenes thought that the souls of the just went to the Fortunate Isles,[34] and those of the wicked to a kind of Tartarus. They offered no sacrifices; they gathered among themselves in a synagogue of their own. In short, anyone willing to examine Judaism closely will be astonished to find the greatest tolerance amid the most barbarous horrors. It is a contradiction, certainly; almost every people has governed itself through contradictions. Happy the contradiction that brings gentleness of manners where the laws are written in blood!

[29] There is only one passage in the laws of *Moses* from which we might conclude that he knew the opinion prevailing among the Egyptians, that the soul does not die with the body. This passage is very important; it is in chapter 18 of Deuteronomy: “*Do not consult the diviners who foretell by examining the clouds, who charm serpents, who consult the spirit of Python, the seers, the adepts who question the dead and ask them for the truth.*”

This passage seems to suggest that, if people called up the souls of the dead, this supposed sorcery presumed the souls' continued existence. It is also possible that the magicians *Moses* mentions, being nothing but crude impostors, had no clear idea of the sorcery they believed they performed. They made people believe that they forced the dead to speak, that by their magic they restored them to the condition those bodies had enjoyed in life, without even considering whether the doctrine of the immortality of the soul could be inferred from their ridiculous operations. Sorcerers have never been philosophers; they have always been stupid conjurers performing before fools.

We may also observe how strange it is that the word *Python* should appear in Deuteronomy long before this Greek word could have been known to the Hebrews. In fact, the term *Python* is not in the Hebrew, of which we have no exact translation.

That language presents insurmountable difficulties. It is a mixture of Phoenician, Egyptian, Syrian, and Arabic, and this ancient mixture is greatly altered today. Hebrew never had more than two verbal forms, the present and the future; the others must be guessed from the sense. Different vowels were often expressed by the same characters—or rather, they did not express the vowels; and the inventors of the points only increased the difficulty. Each adverb has twenty different meanings. The same word is used in opposite senses. Add to this confusion the dryness and poverty of the language: the Jews, lacking the arts, could not express what they did not know. In short, Hebrew is to Greek what a peasant's speech is to an academician's.

[30] *Ezekiel's* view eventually prevailed in the synagogue; but there were always Jews who believed in eternal punishments and also believed that God visited the fathers' iniquities upon their children. Today they are punished beyond the fiftieth generation, and still have eternal punishments to fear. The question is asked: how can the descendants of the Jews who were not accomplices in the death of Jesus Christ—those who were in Jerusalem but took no part in it, and those scattered over the rest of the earth—be punished in this world in their children, who are as innocent as their fathers? This temporal punishment, or rather this manner of living differently from other peoples and carrying on trade without a homeland, may not be regarded as a punishment in comparison with the eternal torments they bring upon themselves by their unbelief, and which they can escape through sincere conversion.

[31] Those who have sought in the Pentateuch the doctrine of hell and paradise as we understand them have been strangely deluded. Their error rests only on an idle dispute over words. The Vulgate translated the Hebrew word *Sheol*, the pit, by the Latin *Infernum*; and the Latin word *Infernum* was translated into French as *Enfer*. This ambiguity has been used to make people believe that the ancient Hebrews possessed the notion of the Greeks' *Hades* and *Tartarus*, which other nations had known earlier under other names.

Chapter 16 of Numbers relates that the earth opened its mouth beneath the tents of *Korah*, *Dathan*, and *Abiram*, swallowed them with their tents and their possessions, and hurled them alive into the grave, into the underground. This passage certainly concerns neither the souls of these three Hebrews, nor the torments of hell, nor eternal punishment.

It is strange that the *Dictionnaire Encyclopédique*, under *Enfer*, should say that the ancient Hebrews *acknowledged its reality*. If that were so, it would be an untenable contradiction in the Pentateuch. How could *Moses* have spoken of punishments after death in one single, isolated passage, and never spoken of them in his laws? Chapter 32 of Deuteronomy is quoted, but mutilated; here it is in full: “*They have provoked me with what was not God, and angered me with their vanity; and I shall provoke them with what is not a people, and anger them with a senseless nation. And a fire has been kindled in my fury, and it will burn to the depths of the earth; it will devour the earth to its seed, and burn the foundations of the mountains. And I shall heap evils upon them, and fill them with my arrows; they will be consumed by hunger, birds will devour them with bitter bites. I shall unleash upon them the teeth of beasts that crawl furiously over the earth, and serpents.*”

Is there the slightest connection between these expressions and the idea of infernal punishments as we conceive them? It seems, rather, that these words have been quoted only to make it plain that our hell was unknown to the ancient Jews.

The author of that article also quotes the passage from *Job*, chapter 24: “*The adulterer's eye watches for darkness, saying, the eye will not see me, and he will cover his face; he breaks into houses in the darkness, as he had said in the daytime, and they have not known the light. If dawn appears suddenly, they think it the shadow of death, and so they walk in darkness as in light. He is light upon the surface of the water; may his portion be cursed upon the earth; may he not walk by the way of the vineyard; may he pass from snow waters to excessive heat; and they have sinned the tomb*”; or else, “*the tomb has scattered those who sin*”; or else, according to the Septuagint, “*their sin has been called to remembrance*.”

I quote the passages in full and literally; without that, it is always impossible to form a true idea of them.

Is there, I ask you, a single word here from which we can conclude that *Moses* had taught the Jews the clear and simple doctrine of punishments and rewards after death?

The Book of *Job* has no connection with the laws of *Moses*. Moreover, it is very likely that *Job* was not a Jew; this is *St. Jerome's* opinion in his Hebrew Questions on Genesis. The word *Satan*, which appears in *Job*, was unknown to the Jews, and you never find it in the Pentateuch. The Jews learned this name only in Chaldea, along with the names *Gabriel* and *Raphael*, which were unknown before their enslavement in Babylon. *Job* is therefore cited here quite inappropriately.

The last chapter of *Isaiah* is also quoted: “*And from month to month, and Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh will come to worship me, says the Lord; and they will go out and see on the rubbish heap the corpses of those who have transgressed; their worm will not die, their fire will not be quenched, and they will be exposed to the eyes of all flesh until it has had its fill*.”

Certainly, if they are thrown on the rubbish heap, exposed to the sight of passersby until they have had their fill, and eaten by worms, this does not mean that *Moses* taught the Jews the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. And the words *the fire will not be quenched* do not mean that corpses exposed to the people's gaze undergo the eternal punishments of hell.

How can anyone cite a passage from *Isaiah* to prove that the Jews in *Moses'* day had received the doctrine of the immortality of the soul? According to Hebrew reckoning, *Isaiah* was prophesying in the year of the world 3380. *Moses* lived around the year of the world 2500; eight centuries elapsed between them. It is an insult to common sense, or a mere joke, to abuse the freedom to quote in this way: to claim to prove that an author held a certain opinion by a passage from an author who came eight hundred years later and did not discuss that opinion. It is beyond dispute that the immortality of the soul, punishments and rewards after death, are proclaimed, acknowledged, and established in the New Testament; and it is beyond dispute that they are found nowhere in the Pentateuch.

Although the Jews later believed in the immortality of the soul, they were not enlightened as to its spiritual nature. Like almost every other nation, they thought the soul something fine and airy, a light substance that retained some semblance of the body it had animated. These were what people called the shades, the departed spirits of bodies. Several Fathers of the Church held this opinion. *Tertullian*, in his work *de l'Ame*, Chap. 22, puts it this way: “*We define the soul as born of God's breath, immortal, corporeal, possessed of a form, simple in substance*”; “We define the soul as born of God's breath, immortal, corporeal, formed, simple in its substance.”

*St. Irenaeus* says in his Livre II, Chap. 34: “*Souls are incorporeal in comparison with mortal bodies*.” “Souls are incorporeal in comparison with mortal bodies.” He adds that “Jesus Christ taught that souls preserve the images of the body”: “*the form of the bodies in which they are received, and so on*.” We do not find that Jesus Christ ever taught this doctrine, and it is difficult to guess *St. Irenaeus'* meaning.

*St. Hilary* is more explicit and more definite in his commentary on *St. Matthew*. He plainly attributes a bodily substance to the soul: “*By their nature they are allotted a corporeal substance*.”

*St. Ambrose*, in his work on *Abraham*, Liv. II, Chap. 8, maintains that nothing is free of matter except the substance of the Holy Trinity.

One might reproach these venerable men for their bad philosophy; but we may believe that at bottom their theology was very sound, since, although they did not know the soul's incomprehensible nature, they declared it immortal and wished it to be Christian.

We know that the soul is spiritual, but we do not know at all what spirit is. We know matter very imperfectly, and it is impossible for us to have a distinct idea of what is not matter. Knowing so little of what touches our senses, we can know nothing by ourselves of what lies beyond them. We carry a few words from our ordinary language into the abysses of metaphysics and theology, to give ourselves some faint idea of things we can neither conceive nor express. We try to shore ourselves up with these words, to sustain our feeble understanding, if we can, in these unknown regions.

Thus we use the word *spirit*, which corresponds to *breath* and *wind*, to express something that is not matter. And since this word—*breath*, *wind*, *spirit*—leads us back despite ourselves to the idea of a fine and light substance, we strip away from it whatever more we can in order to arrive at a conception of pure spirituality. But we never reach a distinct notion. We do not even know what we are saying when we utter the word *substance*: literally, it means what lies beneath; and by that very fact it warns us that it is incomprehensible. For what, indeed, is that which lies beneath? Knowledge of God's secrets is not our portion in this life. Here, plunged in profound darkness, we fight one another, striking at random in the midst of this night, without knowing precisely why we fight.

If we reflect carefully on all this, no reasonable person can fail to conclude that we must show indulgence toward the opinions of others, and earn it for our own.

None of these observations is foreign to the heart of the question, which is whether human beings should tolerate one another. For if they prove how much people on every side have erred in every age, they prove that in every age people should have treated one another with indulgence.

[32] The doctrine of fate is ancient and universal; you find it everywhere in *Homer*. *Jupiter* would like to save the life of his son *Sarpedon*, but Fate has condemned him to death; *Jupiter* can only obey. Among philosophers, Fate meant either the necessary chain of causes and effects necessarily produced by nature, or this same chain ordained by Providence—which is much more reasonable. The whole system of fate is contained in this verse of *Annaeus Seneca*: *The Fates lead the willing and drag the unwilling*. It has always been agreed that God governs the universe by eternal, universal, immutable laws. This truth was the source of all those unintelligible disputes over freedom, because freedom was never defined until the wise *Locke* appeared. He proved that freedom is the power to act. God grants this power, and man, acting freely according to God's eternal ordinances, is one of the wheels in the great machine of the world. All antiquity disputed freedom, but no one persecuted anyone over it until our own day. What an absurd horror, to have imprisoned or exiled for this dispute a *Pomponne d'Andilly*, an *Arnauld*, a *Sacy*, a *Nicole*, and so many others who have been the light of France!

[33] The theological romance of the transmigration of souls comes from India, from which we have received far more fables than is commonly thought. This doctrine is explained in the admirable twelfth book of *Ovid's* Metamorphoses. It has been accepted almost throughout the world; it has always been disputed. But we do not find that any priest in antiquity ever obtained a royal warrant for the imprisonment of a disciple of *Pythagoras*.

[34] Neither the ancient Jews, nor the Egyptians, nor their Greek contemporaries believed that the human soul went to heaven after death. The Jews thought that the moon and sun were a few leagues above us, in the same circle, and that the firmament was a thick, solid vault supporting the weight of the waters, which escaped through certain openings. Among the ancient Greeks, the palace of the gods was on Mount Olympus. In *Homer's* day, the dwelling of heroes after death was on an island beyond the Ocean, and this was the Essenes' opinion.

After *Homer*, planets were assigned to the gods; but there was no more reason for men to put a god on the moon than for the moon's inhabitants to put a god on the planet Earth. *Juno* and *Iris* had no palace but the clouds; there was nowhere there to rest a foot. Among the Sabaeans, each god had his star; but since a star is a sun, there is no way to live there unless one is made of fire. It is therefore quite pointless to ask what the ancients thought about heaven. The best answer is that they did not think.

### Chapter XIV

*Was intolerance taught by* Jesus Christ?

Let us now see whether Jesus Christ established bloodthirsty laws, whether he commanded intolerance, whether he had the dungeons of the Inquisition built, whether he instituted the executioners of the *autos-da-fé*.

Unless I am mistaken, there are only a few passages in the Gospels from which the persecuting spirit could infer that intolerance and coercion are legitimate. One is the parable in which the kingdom of heaven is compared to a king inviting guests to his son's wedding. This monarch sends word through his servants: St. Math. Chap. 22. “*I have killed my oxen and my poultry; everything is ready; come to the wedding*.” Some disregard the invitation and go to their country houses, others to their business; others abuse the king's servants and kill them. The king sends his armies against these murderers and destroys their city. He sends out onto the highways to invite everyone his servants find to the feast. One of them sits down at the table without putting on a wedding garment; he is put in chains and thrown into the outer darkness.

Since this allegory plainly concerns only the kingdom of heaven, surely no one should derive from it a right to bind or imprison a neighbor who has come to supper without suitable wedding clothes. I know of no prince in history who had a courtier hanged for such a reason. Nor need we fear that when the emperor sends pages to princes of the Empire to invite them to supper, those princes will kill the pages. The invitation to the feast signifies the preaching of salvation; the murder of the prince's messengers represents the persecution of those who preach wisdom and virtue.

The other parable concerns a private man who invites his friends to a great supper. St. Luc, Chap. 14. When he is ready to sit down, he sends his servant to tell them. One excuses himself because he has bought a piece of land and is going to inspect it. This excuse hardly seems valid: people do not go to look at their land at night. Another says he has bought five pairs of oxen and must try them out; he is as much at fault as the first, since one does not try out oxen at suppertime. A third answers that he has just married, and his excuse is certainly quite acceptable. The angry master of the house has the blind and the lame brought to his feast; and seeing that places are still empty, he tells his servant: “*Go out onto the highways and along the hedges, and compel people to come in*.”

It is true that we are not expressly told this parable represents the kingdom of heaven. These words, “*Compel them to come in*,” have been abused only too often. But plainly a single servant cannot forcibly compel everyone he meets to come to supper at his master's house; and guests brought there by force would hardly make the meal agreeable. According to the most respected commentators, “*Compel them to come in*” means nothing more than: ask, entreat, urge, prevail upon them. What connection, I ask you, is there between this entreaty, this supper, and persecution?

If everything is taken literally, must we be blind, lame, and brought in by force to be within the Church? In the same parable Jesus says: “*Do not invite either your friends or your rich relations to dinner*.” Has anyone ever inferred that we really must not dine with our relations and friends once they have a little money?

After the parable of the feast, Jesus Christ says: St. Luc, Chap. 14, v. 26 & suiv. “*If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, his mother, his brothers, his sisters, and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple, and so on. For which of you, wishing to build a tower, does not first calculate the expense?*” Is anyone in the world so unnatural as to conclude that we must hate our father and mother? Do we not readily understand that these words mean: “Do not hesitate between me and your dearest affections”?

The passage from *St. Matthew* is quoted: “*Let whoever does not listen to the Church be as a pagan and a customs collector*.” St. Math. Chap. 8, v. 17. This certainly does not say that pagans and the farmers of the king's taxes should be persecuted. They are accursed, it is true, but they are not handed over to the secular authorities. Far from depriving these tax farmers of any citizen's right, we have granted them the greatest privileges. Theirs is the only profession condemned in Scripture, and the one most favored by governments. Why, then, should we not show our erring brothers as much indulgence as we lavish consideration on our brothers the tax farmers?

Another passage that has been grossly abused is the one in *St. Matthew* and *St. Mark* where Jesus, hungry in the morning, approaches a fig tree and finds nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. He curses the fig tree, which withers at once.

Several different explanations of this miracle are offered; but is there a single one that can authorize persecution? A fig tree could not produce figs around the beginning of March, and was made to wither: is that a reason to make our brothers wither with grief at every season of the year? Let us revere in Scripture everything that may raise difficulties in our curious and vain minds, but let us not abuse it to become harsh and implacable.

The persecuting spirit, which abuses everything, also seeks justification in the expulsion of the merchants driven from the Temple, and in the legion of demons sent from the body of a possessed man into the bodies of two thousand unclean animals. But who fails to see that these two examples are simply acts of justice that God himself deigns to carry out against a violation of the law? It was disrespectful to the House of the Lord to turn its forecourt into a merchants' shop. The Sanhedrin and the priests might permit this trade for the convenience of sacrifices, but the God to whom those sacrifices were offered, though hidden in human form, surely had the power to end this profanation. He could likewise punish those who brought into the country whole herds of animals forbidden by a law he himself deigned to observe. These examples have not the slightest connection with persecution over doctrine. The spirit of intolerance must rest on very poor reasons indeed, since everywhere it seeks the emptiest pretexts.

Almost all the rest of Jesus Christ's words and deeds preach gentleness, patience, and indulgence. There is the father who welcomes the prodigal son; the laborer who comes at the last hour and is paid like the others; the charitable Samaritan. Jesus himself defends his disciples for not fasting; he forgives the sinful woman; he is content to recommend fidelity to the adulteress. He even deigns to enter into the innocent joy of the guests at Cana, who, already warmed with wine, ask for more. He is willing to work a miracle for them, turning water into wine.

He does not even lash out against *Judas*, who is to betray him. He commands *Peter* never to use the sword; he rebukes the sons of *Zebedee*, who, following *Elijah's* example, wanted to call down fire from heaven upon a town that had refused him lodging.

Finally, he dies a victim of envy. If we dare compare the sacred with the secular, and a God with a man, his death, humanly speaking, has much in common with that of *Socrates*. The Greek philosopher perished through the hatred of the Sophists, the priests, and the leading men of the people; the lawgiver of the Christians succumbed to the hatred of the scribes, the Pharisees, and the priests. *Socrates* could have avoided death and chose not to; Jesus Christ offered himself willingly. The Greek philosopher not only forgave his slanderers and his unjust judges, but asked them one day to treat his children as they had treated him, if his children were fortunate enough to deserve their hatred as he had. The lawgiver of the Christians, infinitely superior, prayed to his Father to forgive his enemies.

If Jesus Christ seemed to fear death, if his anguish was so extreme that his sweat was mingled with blood—the most violent and rarest of symptoms—it was because he deigned to descend into all the weakness of the human body he had assumed. His body trembled, and his soul was unshakable. He taught us that true strength, true greatness, consist in enduring evils beneath which our nature gives way. There is supreme courage in hastening toward death while dreading it.

*Socrates* had called the Sophists ignorant and convicted them of bad faith. Jesus, exercising his divine rights, called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, fools, blind men, wicked men, serpents, a brood of vipers. St. Math. Chap. 23.

*Socrates* was not accused of wishing to found a new sect; Jesus Christ was not accused of wishing to introduce one. St. Math. Chap. 26. We are told that the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus in order to put him to death.

Now, if they were seeking false testimony, they were not accusing him of having preached publicly against the law. Indeed, he submitted to the law of *Moses* from childhood to death. He was circumcised on the eighth day like all other children. If he was later baptized in the Jordan, that was an established ceremony among the Jews, as among all the peoples of the East. Every legal impurity was washed away by baptism; this was how priests were consecrated. People immersed themselves in water at the feast of solemn atonement; proselytes were baptized.

Jesus observed every point of the law. He kept every Sabbath, abstained from forbidden meats, celebrated all the festivals, and even before his death had celebrated the Passover. He was accused neither of any new opinion nor of observing any foreign rite. Born an Israelite, he lived consistently as an Israelite.

Two witnesses came forward and accused him of having said *that he could destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days*. St. Math. chap. 26, v. 61. Such words were incomprehensible to the carnal-minded Jews, but this was not an accusation of wishing to found a new sect.

The high priest questioned him, saying: “*I command you by the living* God *to tell us whether you are the* Christ, *the Son of* GOD.” We are not told what the high priest meant by *Son of* God. This expression was sometimes used to mean a righteous man,[35] just as the words *son of Belial* were used to mean a wicked man. The unenlightened Jews had no idea of the sacred mystery of a Son of God, himself God, coming to earth.

Jesus answered him: “*You have said it; but I tell you that you will soon see the son of man seated at the right hand of the power of* God, *coming upon the clouds of heaven*.”

The enraged Sanhedrin regarded this answer as blasphemy. The Sanhedrin no longer had the power to impose the death penalty. They brought Jesus before the Roman governor of the province and slanderously accused him of being a disturber of the public peace who said that tribute should not be paid to *Caesar* and who also called himself king of the Jews. It is therefore perfectly clear that he was accused of a crime against the state.

When the governor *Pilate* learned that he was a Galilean, he first sent him to *Herod*, tetrarch of Galilee. *Herod* thought it impossible that Jesus could aspire to become the head of a faction and lay claim to kingship. He treated him with contempt and sent him back to *Pilate*, who had the disgraceful weakness to condemn him in order to appease the tumult stirred up against himself, all the more because, as *Josephus* tells us, he had already faced a Jewish revolt. *Pilate* did not show the same generosity that the governor *Festus* later showed.

I now ask: is it tolerance or intolerance that belongs to divine law? If you wish to resemble Jesus Christ, be martyrs, not executioners.

[35] It was indeed very difficult for the Jews, not to say impossible, to understand without a special revelation this ineffable mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God, himself God. Genesis (chap. 6.) calls the sons of powerful men *sons of God*, just as the great cedars in the Psalms are called the cedars of God. *Samuel* says that a fear of God fell upon the people, meaning a great fear; a great wind is a wind of God; *Saul's* illness is a melancholy of God. Yet it seems that the Jews understood literally that Jesus called himself Son of God in the proper sense. But if they regarded those words as blasphemy, that may be further proof of their ignorance of the mystery of the Incarnation, and of God, Son of God, sent to earth for the salvation of humankind.

### Chapter XV

*Testimonies against Intolerance.*

“It is impious, in matters of religion, to rob people of their freedom and prevent them from choosing a divinity; neither man nor God would wish for service given under compulsion.” (*Apologétique, ch. 24.*)

“If violence were used to defend the faith, the bishops would oppose it.” (*St. Hilaire, Liv. I.*)

“Religion imposed by force is religion no longer; we must persuade, not compel. Religion cannot be commanded.” (*Lactance, Liv. 3.*)

“It is an execrable heresy to try to drag people by force, by blows, by imprisonment, when reason has failed to convince them.” (*St. Athanase, Liv. I.*)

“Nothing is more contrary to religion than coercion.” (*St. Justin, Martyr, Liv. 5.*)

“Shall we persecute those whom God tolerates?” *said St. Augustine, before his quarrel with the Donatists made him too severe.*

“Let no violence be done to the Jews.” (*4me. Concile de Tolede, 56me. canon.*)

“Counsel, and do not compel.” (*Lettres de saint Bernard.*)

“We do not propose to destroy errors by violence.” (*Discours du Clergé de France à Louis XIII.*)

“We have always disapproved of harsh measures.” (*Assemblée du Clergé, 11me. Aoust 1560.*)

“We know that faith is won by persuasion, not imposed by command.” (*Fléchier, Evêque de Nîmes, Lettre 19.*)

“We must not even use insulting words.” (*L'Evêque du Belley dans une Instr. pastorale.*)

“Remember that the soul's diseases cannot be cured by compulsion and violence.” (*Le Cardinal le Camus, Instruction pastorale de 1688.*)

“Grant civil toleration to everyone.” (*Fénelon, Archevêque de Cambrai, au Duc de Bourgogne.*)

“The forcible imposition of a religion is clear proof that the spirit directing it is an enemy of truth.” (*Dirois, Docteur de Sorbonne, Liv. 6, chap. 4.*)

“Violence can make hypocrites; we do not persuade by making threats resound on every side.” (*Tillemont, Hist. Eccl. tom. 6.*)

“It has seemed to us consistent with equity and sound reason to follow in the footsteps of the ancient Church, which used no violence to establish and extend religion.” (*Remontr. du Parlement de Paris à Henri II.*)

“Experience teaches us that violence is more likely to inflame than to cure an evil rooted in the mind, etc.” (*De Thou, Epître dédicatoire à Henri IV.*.)

“Faith is not inspired by sword blows.” (*Cérisier, sur les regnes de Henri IV & de Louis XIII.*)

“It is a barbarous zeal that claims to plant religion in people's hearts, as though persuasion could be the effect of coercion.” (*Boulainvilliers, Etat de la France.*)

“Religion is like love: commands can do nothing there, and coercion still less; nothing is more independent than loving and believing.” (*Amelot de la Houssaye, sur les Lettres du Cardinal d'Ossat.*)

“If Heaven has loved you enough to let you see the truth, it has bestowed a great grace upon you; but should those who possess their Father's inheritance hate those who do not?” (*Esprit des Loix, Liv. 25.*)

An enormous book could be composed entirely of passages like these. Our histories, our speeches, our sermons, our works on morals, our catechisms—all breathe, all teach today this sacred duty of forbearance. By what fatality, by what inconsistency would we contradict in practice a doctrine we proclaim every day? When our actions contradict our morality, it is because we believe there is some advantage for us in doing the opposite of what we teach; but there is certainly no advantage in persecuting those who disagree with us and making them hate us. Once again, then, intolerance is absurd. But, someone will say, those who have an interest in constraining consciences are not absurd. The short chapter that follows is addressed to them.

### Chapter XVI

*Dialogue between a Dying Man and a Man in Good Health.*

A citizen lay at the point of death in a provincial town. A man in good health came to insult his final moments and said to him:

“Wretch! Think as I do this instant; sign this paper; confess that five propositions appear in a book neither you nor I have ever read. Take *Lanfranc*’s side against *Berengar* at once, and *St. Thomas*’s against *St. Bonaventure*. Uphold the Second Council of Nicaea against the Council of Frankfurt. Explain to me this instant how these words, *My Father is greater than I*, expressly mean, *I am as great as he is*.

“Tell me how the Father communicates everything to the Son except fatherhood, or I shall have your body thrown on the refuse heap. Your children will not inherit; your wife will be deprived of her dowry; and your family will beg for bread that men like me will not give them.”

*The Dying Man.*

“I can scarcely make out what you are saying. Your threats reach my ears indistinctly; they trouble my soul and make my death dreadful. In God's name, have pity on me!”

*The Barbarian.*

“Pity! I can have none unless you agree with me in everything.”

*The Dying Man.*

“Alas! You can see that in these last moments all my senses have withered, all the doors of my understanding are closed, my ideas are fleeing, my thought is going out. Am I in any condition to dispute?”

*The Barbarian.*

“Well, if you cannot believe what I wish, say that you believe it, and that will satisfy me.”

*The Dying Man.*

“How can I swear falsely to please you? In a moment I shall appear before the God who punishes perjury.”

*The Barbarian.*

“No matter; you will have the pleasure of being buried in a cemetery, and your wife and children will have the means to live. Die a hypocrite: hypocrisy is a good thing; it is, as people say, the homage vice pays to virtue. A little hypocrisy, my friend—what does it cost?”

*The Dying Man.*

“Alas! You despise God, or do not acknowledge him, since you demand a lie from me at the hour of death—you who must soon receive your own judgment from him and answer for this lie.”

*The Barbarian.*

“What, insolent man! I do not acknowledge God?”

*The Dying Man.*

“Forgive me, my brother; I fear you do not know him. The God I worship is reviving my strength at this moment so that, with my dying voice, I may tell you that if you believe in God, you must treat me with charity. He gave me my wife and children: do not let them perish in poverty. As for my body, do what you will with it; I leave it to you. But believe in God, I implore you!”

*The Barbarian.*

“Do what I told you, without arguing. I wish it; I command it.”

*The Dying Man.*

“And what interest have you in tormenting me so much?”

*The Barbarian.*

“What! What interest? If I have your signature, it will earn me a good canonry.”

*The Dying Man.*

“Ah, my brother! My last moment is here; I am dying; I shall pray to God to touch your heart and convert you.”

*The Barbarian.*

“To the devil with the impertinent fellow who would not sign! I shall sign for him and counterfeit his handwriting.”

*The following letter confirms the same moral lesson.*

### Chapter XVII

*Letter Written to the Jesuit* Le Tellier *by the Holder of a Benefice, May 6, 1714.*

My Reverend Father,

I obey Your Reverence's orders to lay before you the means best suited to rid Jesus and his Society of their enemies. I believe only five hundred thousand Huguenots remain in the kingdom; some say a million, others a million and a half. But whatever their number, here is my opinion, which, as duty requires, I most humbly submit to yours.

1. It is easy to catch all the Protestant preachers in a single day and hang them all at once in the same square, not only for public edification but for the beauty of the spectacle.

2. I would have all the fathers and mothers murdered in their beds, because killing them in the streets might cause a disturbance; several might even escape, which must above all be prevented. This execution follows necessarily from our principles: for if a heretic must be killed, as so many great theologians prove, it is evident that all of them must be killed.

3. The next day I would marry all the girls to good Catholics, since we must not depopulate the state too much after the last war. As for the boys of fourteen and fifteen, already imbued with bad principles we cannot hope to destroy, my opinion is that they must all be castrated, so that this breed may never reproduce. The younger boys will be brought up in your colleges and whipped until they know the works of *Sanchez* and *Molina* by heart.

4. Subject to correction, I think the same should be done to all the Lutherans of Alsace, since in 1704 I noticed two old women from that country laughing on the day of the battle of Höchstädt.

5. The matter of the Jansenists may seem somewhat more troublesome; I believe they number at least six million. But a mind such as yours should not take fright. I include among the Jansenists all the parlements, which so unworthily uphold the liberties of the Gallican Church. It is for Your Reverence, with your customary prudence, to weigh the means of bringing all these unruly spirits into submission. The Gunpowder Plot did not meet with the desired success because one of the conspirators was indiscreet enough to wish to save his friend's life; but since you have no friends, the same difficulty need not be feared. It will be very easy for you to blow up all the kingdom's parlements with that invention of the monk *Schwarz* called *gunpowder*. I calculate that each parlement will require, on average, thirty-six barrels of powder. Multiplying twelve parlements by thirty-six barrels gives only four hundred thirty-two barrels, which, at a hundred écus each, amount to a hundred twenty-nine thousand six hundred livres: a trifle for the Reverend Father General.

Once the parlements have been blown up, you will give their offices to the members of your congregation, who are perfectly versed in the laws of the kingdom.

6. It will be easy to poison Cardinal *de Noailles*, who is a simple man and suspects nothing.

Your Reverence will employ the same means of conversion upon a few resistant bishops. Their bishoprics will be placed in the hands of the Jesuits by means of a papal brief. Then, with all the bishops on the side of the good cause and all the parish priests skillfully chosen by the bishops, here is what I advise, subject to Your Reverence's pleasure.

7. Since the Jansenists are said to take communion at least at Easter, it would not be a bad thing to sprinkle the hosts with the drug used to do justice upon Emperor *Henry VII*. Some critic may tell me that this operation would risk giving rat poison to the Molinists too. The objection is weighty; but no project is without drawbacks, no system without some point at which it threatens to collapse. If we let such small difficulties stop us, we would never accomplish anything. Besides, since our aim is to procure the greatest possible good, we must not be scandalized if this great good brings with it some evil consequences of no account.

We have nothing to reproach ourselves with. It is demonstrated that all the so-called Reformed and all the Jansenists are allotted to Hell; thus we merely hasten the moment when they must take possession.

It is no less clear that Paradise belongs by right to the Molinists; therefore, by causing their deaths inadvertently and without any ill intention, we hasten their joy. In either case we are the ministers of Providence.

As for those who might be somewhat alarmed by the number, Your Fatherhood may point out to them that from the flourishing days of the Church down to 1707—that is, in about fourteen hundred years—theology has brought about the massacre of more than fifty million people, whereas I propose to strangle, cut the throats of, or poison only about six million five hundred thousand.

Someone may object, again, that my calculation is wrong and that I violate the rule of three. For, they will say, if in fourteen hundred years only fifty million people have perished over theological distinctions, dilemmas, and enthymemes, that amounts to only thirty-five thousand seven hundred fourteen people a year, with a fraction; and so, for the present year, I am killing six million sixty-four thousand two hundred eighty-five people too many, with a fraction. But truly, this quibbling is quite childish; one might even call it impious. For does my procedure not plainly save the lives of all Catholics until the end of the world? We would never finish if we wished to answer every criticism.

With profound respect, I remain Your Fatherhood's

*Most humble, most devout, and most gentle R…, a native of Angoulême, Prefect of the Congregation.*

This project could not be carried out, because much time was needed to make proper arrangements and Father *Le Tellier* was exiled the following year. But since we must examine both sides, it is worth asking in what cases we might legitimately follow, in part, the views of Father *Le Tellier's* correspondent. It would seem harsh to carry out this project in every particular; but we must see on what occasions people who disagree with us should be broken on the wheel, hanged, or sent to the galleys. That is the subject of the following chapter.

### Chapter XVIII

*The Only Cases in Which Intolerance Is Warranted by Human Law.*

For a government to have no right to punish people's errors, those errors must not be crimes. They are crimes only when they disturb society; they disturb society as soon as they inspire fanaticism. People must therefore begin by ceasing to be fanatics before they deserve toleration.

If some young Jesuits, knowing that the Church abhors the reprobate, that the Jansenists are condemned by a papal bull, and that the Jansenists are therefore reprobate, go off to burn down a house of the Fathers of the Oratory because *Quesnel*, an Oratorian, was a Jansenist, it is clear that we shall be obliged to punish those Jesuits.

Likewise, if they have proclaimed criminal maxims, if their order's constitution is contrary to the laws of the kingdom, we cannot avoid dissolving their Society and abolishing the Jesuits to make citizens of them. At bottom this is an imaginary evil and a real benefit to them: for what harm is there in wearing a short coat instead of a cassock, and in being free instead of enslaved? Whole regiments are disbanded at the peace and do not complain: why do the Jesuits cry out so loudly when they are disbanded so that we may have peace?

If the Franciscans, carried away by holy zeal for the Virgin *Mary*, go to demolish the church of the Dominicans, who think that *Mary* was born in original sin, we shall then be obliged to treat the Franciscans much as we treat the Jesuits.

The same must be said of the Lutherans and Calvinists. It will be useless for them to say, “We follow the promptings of our conscience; it is better to obey God than men; we are the true flock; we must exterminate the wolves.” It is evident that they themselves are then wolves.

One of the most astonishing examples of fanaticism was a small sect in Denmark whose principle was the best in the world. These people wished to procure eternal salvation for their brothers; but the consequences they drew from this principle were singular. They knew that all little children who die without baptism are damned, and that those fortunate enough to die immediately after baptism enjoy eternal glory. They went about cutting the throats of whatever newly baptized boys and girls they could find. This was doubtless doing them the greatest good one could procure for them: they were preserved at once from sin, the miseries of this life, and Hell; they were sent infallibly to Heaven. But these charitable people did not consider that we are not permitted to do a small evil for a great good; that they had no right over these little children's lives; that most fathers and mothers are carnal enough to prefer having their sons and daughters beside them to seeing their throats cut so that they may go to Paradise; and, in a word, that the magistrate must punish homicide even when it is committed with good intentions.

The Jews would seem to have more right than anyone to rob and kill us. For although the Old Testament contains a hundred examples of toleration, it also contains some examples and some laws of severity. God sometimes ordered them to kill idolaters and spare only girls of marriageable age. They regard us as idolaters; and although we tolerate them today, if they were masters they might well leave none of us in the world but our daughters.

Above all, they would be under an indispensable obligation to murder all the Turks; that follows without difficulty. For the Turks possess the country of the Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Jerseneans, Hivites, Araceans, Cineans, Hamathites, and Samareans. All these peoples were devoted to destruction; their country, which was more than twenty-five leagues long, was given to the Jews by several successive covenants. They must recover their property: the Muslims have usurped it for more than a thousand years.

If the Jews reasoned in this way today, it is clear that there would be no other answer to give them than to impale them.

These are almost the only cases in which intolerance seems reasonable.

### Chapter XIX

*An account of a theological dispute in China.*

In the first years of the great Emperor *Kangxi*’s reign, a mandarin in the city of Canton heard a great uproar in the house next door. He asked whether anyone was being killed; he was told that the chaplain of the Danish Company, a chaplain from Batavia, and a Jesuit were disputing. He had them brought before him, served them tea and preserves, and asked why they were quarreling.

The Jesuit replied that it was deeply painful for him, who was always right, to deal with people who were always wrong; that he had begun by arguing with the utmost restraint, but had finally lost patience.

With all possible tact, the mandarin impressed upon them how necessary courtesy was in debate, told them that no one ever grew angry in China, and asked what the matter was.

The Jesuit replied, “My lord, I leave you to judge: these two gentlemen refuse to submit to the decisions of the Council of Trent.”

“That surprises me,” said the mandarin. Then, turning to the two dissenters, he said, “Gentlemen, it seems to me that you ought to respect the opinions of a great assembly. I do not know what the Council of Trent is, but several people are always better informed than one. No one should believe that he knows more than everyone else, or that reason dwells in his head alone. That is what our great *Confucius* teaches; and if you take my advice, you would do very well to defer to the Council of Trent.”

The Dane then spoke. “Your lordship speaks with the greatest wisdom. We respect great assemblies as we should; indeed, we agree entirely with several assemblies held before the one at Trent.”

“Oh! If that is so,” said the mandarin, “I beg your pardon: you may well be right. Well then, you and this Dutchman share the same opinion against this poor Jesuit?”

“Not at all,” said the Dutchman. “This man’s opinions are almost as extravagant as those of this Jesuit, who is acting so sweetly toward you here. It is more than anyone can bear.”

“I do not understand you,” said the mandarin. “Are you not all three Christians? Have you not all three come to teach Christianity in our empire? And should you not therefore hold the same doctrines?”

“You see, my lord,” said the Jesuit, “these two men are mortal enemies, yet both argue against me. It is therefore clear that both are wrong and that reason is on my side alone.” “That is not so clear,” said the mandarin. “It is just possible that all three of you are wrong. I would be curious to hear you one at a time.”

The Jesuit then delivered a fairly long speech, during which the Dane and the Dutchman shrugged their shoulders; the mandarin understood none of it. The Dane spoke in his turn; his two adversaries looked at him with pity, and the mandarin understood no more than before. The Dutchman met with the same fate. At last all three spoke at once, hurling gross insults at one another. The worthy mandarin had great difficulty calling them to order, and said, “If you wish your doctrine to be tolerated here, begin by being neither intolerant nor intolerable.”

On leaving the audience, the Jesuit met a Dominican missionary. He told him that he had won his case, assuring him that truth always triumphed. The Dominican said, “Had I been there, you would not have won it. I would have proved you guilty of falsehood and idolatry.” The quarrel grew heated; the Dominican and the Jesuit seized each other by the hair. Informed of the scandal, the mandarin sent them both to prison. A subordinate mandarin asked the judge, “How long does Your Excellency wish them to remain under arrest?” “Until they agree,” said the judge. “Ah!” said the subordinate, “then they will be in prison all their lives.” “Very well,” said the judge, “until they forgive each other.” “They will never forgive each other,” the other replied. “I know them.” “Well then,” said the mandarin, “until they pretend to forgive each other.”

### Chapter XX

*Is it useful to keep the people in superstition?*

Such is the weakness of the human race, and such its perversity, that it is surely better for it to be subjected to every possible superstition, provided none is murderous, than to live without religion. Humanity has always needed a restraint; and although it was absurd to sacrifice to fauns, woodland gods, and naiads, it was far more reasonable and useful to worship these fanciful images of the Divinity than to surrender to atheism. An atheist given to argument, violent, and powerful would be as deadly a scourge as a bloodthirsty believer in superstition.

When people have no sound notions of the Divinity, false ideas take their place, just as in unhappy times people trade with bad money when they have none that is good. The pagan feared to commit a crime lest the false gods punish him. The inhabitant of Malabar fears punishment by his idol. Wherever an established society exists, religion is necessary: the laws watch over crimes committed, and religion over secret crimes.

But once people have come to embrace a pure and holy religion, superstition becomes not only useless but very dangerous. We should not seek to feed acorns to those whom God deigns to feed with bread.

Superstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy: the very foolish daughter of a very wise mother. These two daughters long held the whole earth in subjection.

When, in our centuries of barbarism, scarcely two feudal lords had a New Testament in their homes, it might have been pardonable to offer fables to the vulgar—that is, to those feudal lords, their witless wives, and the brutes who were their vassals. They were made to believe that *St. Christopher* had carried the child Jesus from one bank of a river to the other; they were fed stories of sorcerers and the possessed. They readily imagined that *St. Genou* cured gout and *St. Clare* cured diseased eyes. Children believed in the werewolf, and their fathers in the cord of *St. Francis*. Relics were beyond counting.

The rust of so many superstitions lingered among the people for some time even after religion was at last purified. It is well known that when Monsieur *de Noailles*, bishop of Châlons, had the supposed relic of Jesus Christ’s holy navel removed and thrown into the fire, the whole city of Châlons brought a lawsuit against him. But he had as much courage as piety, and he soon persuaded the people of Champagne that they could worship Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth without keeping his navel in a church.

Those called Jansenists contributed a great deal to gradually uprooting from the nation’s mind most of the false ideas that dishonored the Christian religion. People ceased to believe that merely reciting the thirty-day prayer to the Virgin *Mary* was enough to obtain whatever they wanted and to sin with impunity.

At last the townspeople began to suspect that it was not *St. Geneviève* who sent or stopped the rain, but God himself who governed the elements. The monks were astonished that their saints no longer worked miracles; and if the authors of the life of *St. Francis Xavier* returned to this world, they would not dare write that this saint raised nine dead people, that he was at sea and on land at the same time, or that when his crucifix fell into the sea, a crab brought it back to him.

The same has happened with excommunications. Our historians tell us that when King *Robert* was excommunicated by Pope *Gregory V* for marrying Princess *Bertha*, linked to him by godparenthood, his servants threw the food served to the king out of the windows, and Queen *Bertha* gave birth to a goose as punishment for this incestuous marriage. Today people doubt that the stewards of an excommunicated king of France would throw his dinner out of the window, or that the queen would bring a gosling into the world in such a case.

If there are a few convulsionaries in some corner of a suburb, theirs is a disease of lice that attacks only the lowest rabble. Every day reason makes its way into the shops of France’s merchants as into the mansions of its nobles. We must therefore cultivate the fruits of that reason, all the more because it is impossible to prevent them from developing. After France has been enlightened by the *Pascals*, the *Nicoles*, the *Arnaulds*, the *Bossuets*, the *Descartes*, the *Gassendis*, the *Bayles*, the *Fontenelles*, and others, it cannot be governed as it was in the days of the *Garasses* and the *Menots*.

If the masters of error—I mean the great masters, so long paid and honored for brutalizing the human race—were now to order people to believe that grain must rot in order to sprout, that the earth stands motionless on its foundations and does not revolve around the sun, that the tides are not a natural effect of gravitation, that the rainbow is not formed by the refraction and reflection of rays of light, and so on; and if they based their decrees on misunderstood passages of Holy Scripture, how would all educated people regard them? Would the word *beasts* be too strong? And if these wise masters used force and persecution to impose their insolent ignorance, would the words *savage beasts* be misplaced?

The more the monks’ superstitions are despised, the more bishops are respected and parish priests esteemed. They do nothing but good, while the monks’ Rome-centered superstitions would do much harm. But of all superstitions, is not the most dangerous the hatred of one’s neighbor for his opinions? And is it not clear that it would still be more reasonable to worship the holy navel, the holy foreskin, the Virgin *Mary*’s milk and robe, than to detest and persecute one’s brother?

### Chapter XXI

*Virtue is worth more than learning.*

Fewer dogmas, fewer disputes; and fewer disputes, fewer calamities. If that is not true, I am wrong.

Religion was established to make us happy in this life and the next. What is needed to be happy in the life to come? To be just.

To be happy in this life, as far as the misery of our nature allows, what is needed? To be forbearing.

It would be the height of madness to claim to bring everyone to think alike about metaphysics. It would be far easier to conquer the entire world by force of arms than to conquer every mind in a single city.

*Euclid* easily succeeded in persuading everyone of the truths of geometry. Why? Because every one of them is an evident corollary of this little axiom: *Two and two make four*. Things are not quite the same in the mixture of metaphysics and theology.

When Bishop *Alexander* and the priest *Arios*, or *Arius*, began to dispute the manner in which the *Word* emanated from the Father, Emperor *Constantine* first wrote them these words, reported by *Eusebius* and *Socrates*: *“You are great fools to dispute things you cannot understand.”*

Had both sides been wise enough to agree that the emperor was right, the Christian world would not have been drenched in blood for three hundred years.

What, indeed, could be madder or more horrible than to tell people, “My friends, it is not enough to be loyal subjects, obedient children, loving fathers, fair-minded neighbors; to practice every virtue, cultivate friendship, shun ingratitude, and worship Jesus Christ in peace. You must also know how one is begotten from all eternity without being made from all eternity. And if you cannot distinguish *consubstantiality* within the hypostasis, we warn you that you will burn forever; meanwhile, we shall begin by cutting your throats”?

Had such a ruling been put before an *Archimedes*, a *Posidonius*, a *Varro*, a *Cato*, a *Cicero*, what would they have answered?

*Constantine* did not persist in his resolve to silence both sides. He could have summoned the leaders of this hairsplitting to his palace; he could have asked by what authority they were troubling the world: “Do you hold the divine family’s records? What does it matter to you whether the *Word* is made or begotten, provided people remain faithful to him, provided sound morality is preached and practiced if possible? I have committed many faults in my life, and so have you. You are ambitious, and so am I. The empire has cost me deceit and cruelty; I have murdered almost all my relatives, and I repent it. I wish to atone for my crimes by bringing peace to the Roman Empire. Do not prevent me from doing the one good deed that might consign my former barbarities to oblivion. Help me end my days in peace.” Perhaps he would have gained nothing from the disputants; perhaps it flattered him to preside over a council in a long red robe, his head laden with jewels.

Yet this was what opened the door to all those scourges that came from Asia to inundate the West. From every disputed verse sprang a fury armed with a sophism and a dagger, driving all humanity to madness and cruelty. The Huns, Heruli, Goths, and Vandals who came after did infinitely less harm; and the greatest harm they did was finally to enter into these fatal disputes themselves.

### Chapter XXII

*On universal tolerance.*

No great art, no elaborate eloquence is needed to prove that Christians ought to tolerate one another. I go further: I tell you that we must regard all people as our brothers. What! The Turk my brother? The Chinese my brother? The Jew? The Siamese? Yes, certainly. Are we not all children of the same Father, creatures of the same God?

“But these peoples despise us; they call us idolaters!” Very well: I shall tell them they are quite wrong. It seems to me that I could at least shake the proud obstinacy of an imam or a Buddhist monk if I spoke to them somewhat as follows.

This little globe, which is no more than a point, rolls through space like so many other globes; we are lost in this immensity. A human being, about five feet tall, is surely a very small thing in creation. One of these imperceptible beings says to a few of his neighbors in Arabia or Kaffraria, “Listen to me, for the God of all these worlds has enlightened me. There are nine hundred million little ants like us on earth; but only my anthill is dear to God. All the others have been hateful to him from all eternity. Mine alone will be happy, and all the others eternally wretched.”

They would stop me then and ask what madman had uttered such nonsense. I would be obliged to answer, “You yourselves.” I would then try to soothe them, but that would be very difficult.

I shall now address Christians, and would venture to say, for example, to a Dominican inquisitor of the faith: “My brother, you know that every province of Italy has its own jargon, and that people do not speak in Venice and Bergamo as they do in Florence. The *Crusca* Academy has established the language; its dictionary is a rule from which one must not depart, and *Buon Matei*’s grammar is an infallible guide that must be followed. But do you believe that the academy’s consul, or *Buon Matei* in his absence, could in good conscience have had the tongues cut out of every Venetian and Bergamasque who persisted in speaking their dialect?”

The inquisitor answers me: “There is a great difference: the salvation of your soul is at stake here. It is for your own good that the Directory of the Inquisition orders that you be arrested on the testimony of a single person, even one disgraced and convicted of a crime; that you have no lawyer to defend you; that even your accuser’s name be kept from you; that the inquisitor promise you mercy and then condemn you; that he subject you to five different forms of torture; and that you then be whipped, sent to the galleys, or ceremonially burned.[36] Father *Ivonet*, Doctor *Chucalon*, *Zanchinus*, *Campegius*, *Royas*, *Felinus*, *Gomarus*, *Diabarus*, and *Gemelinus* are explicit on this point, and this pious practice admits no contradiction.”

I would take the liberty of replying, “My brother, perhaps you are right. I am convinced of the good you wish to do me; but could I not be saved without all that?”

It is true that these absurd horrors do not defile the face of the earth every day. But they have been frequent, and one could easily compile from them a volume much larger than the Gospels that condemn them. Not only is it very cruel to persecute, in this short life, those who do not think as we do; I wonder whether it is not also very presumptuous to pronounce their eternal damnation. It seems to me that momentary atoms such as ourselves have little right to anticipate the Creator’s judgments in this way. I am far from disputing the maxim *outside the Church there is no salvation*: I respect it, as I respect everything the Church teaches. But in truth, do we know all the ways of God and the full extent of his mercies? May we not hope in him as well as fear him? Is it not enough to be faithful to the Church? Must every individual usurp the rights of the Divinity and decide, before God does, the eternal fate of all humanity?

When we wear mourning for a king of Sweden, Denmark, England, or Prussia, do we say that we are mourning a reprobate who burns eternally in hell? There are forty million inhabitants of Europe who do not belong to the Church of Rome. Shall we say to each of them, “Sir, since you are infallibly damned, I will neither eat nor enter into contracts nor converse with you”?

What French ambassador, when presented at an audience with the sultan, will say in his heart, “His Highness will infallibly burn for all eternity because he submitted to circumcision”? If he truly believed that the sultan was God’s mortal enemy and the object of his vengeance, could he speak to him? Should he be sent to him? With whom could anyone have dealings? What duty of civil life could anyone ever fulfill, if truly convinced that he was conversing with the damned?

O followers of a merciful God! If your hearts were cruel; if, while worshiping him whose entire law lay in these words, *Love God and your neighbor*, you had burdened that pure and holy law with sophistry and incomprehensible disputes; if you had kindled discord, now over a new word, now over a single letter of the alphabet; if you had attached eternal punishments to the omission of a few words, a few ceremonies that other peoples could not know, I would say to you, shedding tears for the human race, “Come with me to the day when all people will be judged, and God will reward each according to his works.

“I see all the dead of past centuries and of our own appear before him. Are you quite certain that our Creator and Father will say to the wise and virtuous *Confucius*, to the lawgiver *Solon*, to *Pythagoras*, to *Zaleucus*, to *Socrates*, to *Plato*, to the divine *Antonines*, to good *Trajan*, to *Titus*, the delight of humankind, to *Epictetus*, to so many others who were models for humanity: ‘Go, monsters! Go suffer punishments infinite in intensity and duration; let your torment be eternal as I am. And you, my beloved *Jean Châtel*, *Ravaillac*, *Damiens*, *Cartouche*, and the rest, who died with the prescribed formulas, share forever at my right hand my dominion and my bliss’?”

You recoil in horror at these words; and now that they have escaped me, I have nothing more to say to you.

[36] *See* the excellent book entitled *Le Manuel de l'Inquisition*.

### Chapter XXIII

*Prayer to God.*

It is no longer to human beings, then, that I turn, but to you, God of all beings, all worlds, and all times—if weak creatures, lost in immensity and imperceptible to the rest of the universe, may dare to ask anything of you, who have given everything, whose decrees are as unchanging as they are eternal. Look with pity on the errors bound to our nature! Let these errors not become our calamities! You did not give us hearts to hate one another, or hands to cut one another’s throats. Let us help one another bear the burden of a painful and fleeting life! Let the small differences between the garments covering our frail bodies, between all our inadequate languages, all our ridiculous customs, all our imperfect laws, all our senseless opinions, all our stations in life, so unequal in our eyes and so equal before you—let all these slight shades that distinguish the atoms called human beings not become signals of hatred and persecution! Let those who light candles at midday to honor you tolerate those content with the light of your sun! Let those who cover their robes with white linen to say that we must love you not detest those who say the same beneath a cloak of black wool! Let it be all the same whether we worship you in a jargon formed from an ancient language or in a newer jargon! Let those whose garments are dyed red or violet, who rule over a tiny portion of a little heap of this world’s mud and possess a few rounded fragments of a certain metal, enjoy without pride what they call greatness and wealth, and let others look upon them without envy! For you know that in these vanities there is nothing to envy, nothing to be proud of.

May all people remember that they are brothers! May they abhor the tyranny exercised over souls as they abominate the robbery that forcibly steals the fruits of labor and peaceful industry! If the scourges of war are inevitable, let us not hate one another, let us not tear one another apart in the midst of peace; and let us use the instant of our existence to bless alike, in a thousand different languages, from Siam to California, your goodness, which has given us that instant!

### Chapter XXIV

*Postscript.*

While this work was being written, with the sole aim of making people more compassionate and gentle, another man was writing with precisely the opposite aim; for everyone has his opinion. This man was having a little code of persecution printed, entitled *l'Accord de la Religion & de l'Humanité*. (That is a printer’s error: read *de l'Inhumanité*.)

The author of this holy libel relies on *St. Augustine*, who, after preaching gentleness, ended by preaching persecution, since he was then the stronger party and often changed his mind. He also cites *Bossuet*, bishop of Meaux, who persecuted the celebrated *Fénelon*, archbishop of Cambrai, guilty of having published the claim that God was well worth loving for his own sake.

*Bossuet* was eloquent, I admit; the bishop of Hippo, though sometimes inconsistent, was more articulate than other Africans, I admit that too. But I would take the liberty of saying to them, with *Armande* in *Femmes savantes*:

When you choose someone as your guide,
Resemble them upon their better side.

I would say to the bishop of Hippo, “My lord, you changed your mind; allow me to hold to your first opinion. In truth, I think it the better one.”

I would say to the bishop of Meaux, “My lord, you are a great man. I find you at least as learned as *St. Augustine*, and far more eloquent. But why so torment your fellow bishop, who was as eloquent as you in another way, and more lovable?”

The author of the holy libel on inhumanity is neither a *Bossuet* nor an *Augustine*. He seems to me eminently suited to make an excellent inquisitor; I wish he were in Goa at the head of that fine tribunal. He is a statesman too, and parades great political principles. *“If there are many heterodox people among you,”* he says, *“handle them carefully and persuade them; if there are only a few, employ the gallows and the galleys, and you will find it most beneficial.”* That is his advice on pages 89 and 90.

Thank God, I am a good Catholic; I have nothing to fear from what the Huguenots call *martyrdom*. But if this man ever becomes prime minister, as he seems to flatter himself he will in his libel, I warn him that I shall leave for England the day he receives his letters patent.

Meanwhile, I can only thank Providence for allowing people of his sort always to reason badly. He goes so far as to cite *Bayle* among the supporters of intolerance: how sensible and clever! Because *Bayle* allows that seditious people and scoundrels must be punished, our man concludes that peaceable people of good faith must be persecuted with fire and sword, *page 98*.

Almost his entire book is an imitation of the Apology for the *St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre*. He is either that apologist or his echo. In either case, let us hope that neither master nor disciple will govern the state.

But should they become its masters, I submit this petition to them from a distance, concerning two lines on page 93 of the holy libel:

*“Must the happiness of the entire nation be sacrificed to the happiness of one twentieth of the nation?”*

Suppose that there really are twenty Roman Catholics in France for every Huguenot. I do not propose that the Huguenot should eat the twenty Catholics; but why should those twenty Catholics eat that Huguenot? And why prevent the Huguenot from marrying? Are there not bishops, abbots, and monks who own lands in Dauphiné, in Gévaudan, around Agde and Carcassonne? Do these bishops, abbots, and monks not have tenant farmers who have the misfortune not to believe in transubstantiation? Is it not in the interest of the bishops, abbots, monks, and public that these farmers should have large families? Will only those who take communion in one kind be allowed to have children? In truth, that is neither just nor decent.

*“The revocation of the Edict of Nantes did not cause as much harm as is attributed to it,”* the author says.

If more harm is indeed attributed to it than it caused, that is exaggeration; and exaggeration is the fault of almost all historians. But reducing the evil of which they are accused to nothing is also the fault of all religious controversialists. Let us believe neither the doctors of Paris nor the preachers of Amsterdam.

Let us take as judge the Count d’*Avaux*, ambassador to Holland from 1685 to 1688. He says, *page 181*, *tom. 5*, that a single man had offered to uncover more than twenty million that the persecuted were taking out of France. *Louis XIV* replies to Monsieur d’*Avaux*: *“The reports I receive every day of an infinite number of conversions no longer leave me in doubt that the most obstinate will follow the others’ example.”*

This letter of *Louis XIV* shows that he was entirely sincere in his belief in the extent of his power. Every morning he was told, “Sire, you are the greatest king in the universe; the whole universe will take pride in thinking as you do, as soon as you have spoken.” *Pélisson*, who had grown rich as chief clerk of finance; *Pélisson*, who had spent three years in the Bastille as *Fouquet*’s accomplice; *Pélisson*, who from a Calvinist had become a deacon and holder of a benefice, who had prayers for Mass and bouquets of verse to *Iris* printed, who had obtained the office administering the revenues of vacant benefices and that of converter—*Pélisson*, I say, brought a long list of abjurations every three months, at seven or eight écus apiece, and made his king believe that whenever he wished he could convert all the Turks at the same price. People took turns deceiving him: could he resist the seduction?

Yet the same Monsieur d’*Avaux* informs the king that a man named *Vincent* employs more than five hundred workers near Angoulême, and that his departure will cause harm, *page 194*, *tom. 5*.

The same Monsieur d’*Avaux* mentions two regiments that the Prince of Orange is already having raised by French refugee officers; he mentions sailors who deserted three ships to serve aboard the Prince of Orange’s vessels. Besides these two regiments, the Prince of Orange is also forming a company of refugee cadets commanded by two captains, *page 240*. On May 9, 1686, this ambassador further writes to Monsieur de *Seignelay* that *“he cannot conceal from him the distress he feels at seeing France’s manufacturing industries established in Holland, which they will never leave.”*

Add to all this testimony that of every intendant of the kingdom in 1698, and judge whether the revocation of the Edict of Nantes did not do more harm than good, despite the opinion of the respectable author of *l'Accord de la Religion & de l'inhumanité*.

A marshal of France, known for his superior intelligence, said a few years ago, *“I do not know whether the dragonnades were necessary, but it is necessary never to repeat them.”*

I admit that I thought I had gone a little too far when I published the letter from Father *Le Tellier*’s correspondent, in which that member of a religious congregation proposes barrels of gunpowder. I said to myself, “People will not believe me; they will regard this letter as a forgery.” Happily, my scruples were dispelled when I read these gentle words on page 149 of *l'Accord de la Religion & de l'Inhumanité*:

*“The complete extinction of the Protestants in France would no more weaken France than bloodletting weakens a patient of sound constitution.”*

This compassionate Christian, who said just now that Protestants make up one twentieth of the nation, therefore wishes the blood of that twentieth part to be spilled, and regards this operation as no more than letting a small basin of blood! God preserve us from his three-twentieths levy!

If this worthy man proposes killing one twentieth of the nation, why should Father *Le Tellier*’s friend not have proposed blowing up, slaughtering, and poisoning one third? It is therefore very likely that the letter to Father *Le Tellier* was actually written.

The holy author finally concludes that intolerance is an excellent thing, *because*, he says, *it was not expressly condemned by* Jesus Christ. But Jesus Christ did not condemn those who would set fire to the four corners of Paris either. Is that a reason to canonize arsonists?

Thus, while nature makes her gentle, beneficent voice heard on one side, fanaticism, nature’s enemy, shrieks its howls; and when peace presents itself to humanity, intolerance forges its weapons. O arbiters of nations, who have given peace to Europe, judge between the spirit of peace and the spirit of murder.

### Chapter XXV

*Continuation and conclusion.*

We learn that on March 7, 1763, the entire Council of State having assembled at Versailles, with the ministers of state in attendance and the chancellor presiding, Monsieur *de Crosne*, master of requests, reported on the *Calas* case with a judge’s impartiality, the precision of a thoroughly informed man, and the simple, truthful eloquence of an orator and statesman—the only eloquence suited to such an assembly. An immense crowd of people of every rank waited in the palace gallery for the council’s decision. The king was soon informed that every vote, without a single exception, had ordered the Toulouse parlement to send the council the trial documents and the grounds for its judgment, which had caused *Jean Calas* to die on the wheel. His Majesty approved the council’s ruling.

There is, then, humanity and justice among human beings! And above all in the council of a king who is loved and deserves to be. The case of an unfortunate family of obscure citizens has occupied His Majesty, his ministers, the chancellor, and the entire council, and has been examined as thoughtfully as the greatest matters of war and peace could be. Love of equity and concern for the human race have guided every judge. Thanks be given to that God of mercy who alone inspires equity and every virtue!

We attest that we have never known either the unfortunate *Calas*, whom the eight judges of Toulouse put to death on the flimsiest evidence, against the ordinances of our kings and the laws of every nation; or his son *Marc-Antoine*, whose strange death led those eight judges into error; or the mother, as worthy of respect as she is unfortunate; or her innocent daughters, who have traveled two hundred leagues with her to lay their calamity and their virtue at the foot of the throne.

God knows that we were moved only by a spirit of justice, truth, and peace when we wrote our thoughts on tolerance on the occasion of *Jean Calas*, whom the spirit of intolerance put to death.

We did not believe we were offending the eight judges of Toulouse by saying that they were mistaken, as the entire council has presumed. On the contrary, we opened a way for them to justify themselves before all Europe: to acknowledge that ambiguous evidence and the cries of a senseless multitude took their judgment by surprise; to ask the widow’s forgiveness; and to repair, as far as they can, the complete ruin of an innocent family by joining those who help it in its affliction. They unjustly put the father to death; it falls to them to take a father’s place toward his children, supposing these orphans are willing to receive from them a slight token of a most just repentance. It will be noble of the judges to offer it, and of the family to refuse.

Above all, it falls to *Monsieur David*, a capitoul of Toulouse, if he was the first persecutor of innocence, to set an example of remorse. He insulted a father dying on the scaffold. Such cruelty is unheard of; but since God forgives, human beings must also forgive those who repair their injustices.

This letter, dated February 20, 1763, was sent to me from Languedoc.

…

…

*“Your work on tolerance seems to me full of humanity and truth; but I fear it may do the* Calas *family more harm than good. It may embitter the eight judges who voted for the wheel. They will ask the parlement to have your book burned; and the fanatics—for there are always some—will answer the voice of reason with cries of fury, and so on.”*

Here is my reply:

*“The eight judges of Toulouse may have my book burned if it is good; nothing could be easier. The* Provincial Letters, *which were doubtless much better, were burned too. Everyone may burn in his own home the books and papers that displease him.*

*“My work can do neither good nor harm to the* Calas *family, whom I do not know. The king’s council, impartial and firm, judges according to the laws, according to equity, on the documents and the proceedings—not on a piece of writing that is not a legal pleading, and whose substance is entirely foreign to the case before it.*

*“Folio volumes might be printed for or against the eight judges of Toulouse, and for or against tolerance, without either the council or any court regarding those books as documents in the case.*

*“I agree that there are fanatics who will shout, but I maintain that there are many wise readers who will reason.*

*“I learn that the Toulouse parlement and some other courts have a peculiar jurisprudence: they admit quarters, thirds, and sixths of a proof. Thus, with six pieces of hearsay on one side, three on the other, and four quarters of a presumption, they construct three complete proofs; and on this splendid demonstration they break a man on the wheel without mercy. A slight acquaintance with the art of reasoning would suffice to make them adopt another method. What is called a half-proof can only be a suspicion: strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a half-proof. Either something is proved or it is not; there is no middle ground.*

*“A hundred thousand suspicions combined can no more establish a proof than a hundred thousand zeros can make a number.*

*“There are quarter tones in music, though they cannot be performed; but there is no quarter of a truth or quarter of an argument.*

*“Two witnesses who stand by their testimony are held to constitute a proof; but that is not enough. Those two witnesses must be free of passion and prejudice, and above all what they say must not offend reason.*

*“Four of the most respectable persons might claim that they had seen an infirm old man seize a vigorous young man by the collar and throw him forty paces through a window: plainly, those four witnesses would have to be put in a madhouse.*

*“Yet the eight judges of Toulouse condemned* Jean Calas *on a far more improbable accusation, for there was no eyewitness who said he had seen an infirm old man of sixty-eight hang, single-handed, an extremely robust young man of twenty-eight.*

*“Some fanatics merely said that other fanatics had told them they had heard other fanatics say that* Jean Calas, *by supernatural strength, had hanged his son. An absurd judgment was therefore delivered on absurd accusations.*

*“There is no remedy for such jurisprudence except for those who buy the right to judge human beings to pursue better studies in the future.”*

This work on tolerance is a petition that humanity most humbly submits to power and prudence. I am sowing a seed that may one day yield a harvest. Let us expect everything from time, from the king’s goodness, from his ministers’ wisdom, and from the spirit of reason that is beginning to shed its light everywhere.

Nature says to all people: “I brought you all into the world weak and ignorant, to vegetate for a few minutes upon the earth and fertilize it with your corpses. Since you are weak, help one another; since you are ignorant, enlighten and bear with one another. Even if you all held the same opinion—which certainly will never happen—and there were only one person of a contrary opinion, you ought to forgive him; for it is I who make him think as he does. I gave you arms to cultivate the earth and a small glimmer of reason to guide you. I placed a seed of compassion in your hearts to help you bear life together. Do not stifle that seed; do not corrupt it. Know that it is divine, and do not substitute the wretched frenzies of the schools for nature’s voice.

“It is I alone who still unite you, despite yourselves, through your mutual needs, even in the midst of your cruel wars, so lightly undertaken, that eternal theater of mistakes, accidents, and misfortunes. It is I alone who, within a nation, check the fatal consequences of the endless division between the nobility and the judiciary, between those two bodies and the clergy, even between the townsman and the farmer. None of them knows the bounds of his rights; yet despite themselves, in the end they all listen to my voice speaking to their hearts. I alone preserve equity in the courts, where without me everything would be left to indecision and caprice amid a confused mass of laws, often made at random and for a passing need, differing from province to province, from town to town, and almost always contradicting one another in the same place. I alone can inspire justice when the laws inspire only legal wrangling. Whoever listens to me always judges well; whoever seeks only to reconcile contradictory opinions is the one who goes astray.

“There is an immense building whose foundation I laid with my own hands. It was solid and simple; everyone could enter it safely. People wished to add the strangest, crudest, and most useless ornaments. The building is falling into ruin on every side; people seize its stones and throw them at one another’s heads. I cry to them, ‘Stop! Clear away these deadly ruins of your own making, and live with me in peace in the unshakable building that is mine.’”

### Newly Added Article

Giving an account of the final judgment delivered in favor of the Calas family.

From March 7, 1763, to the final judgment, another two years passed: so easy is it for fanaticism to take the life of the innocent, and so difficult for reason to obtain justice for them. Unavoidable delays, necessarily bound up with legal formalities, had to be endured. The less those formalities had been observed in condemning Calas, the more rigorously the Council of State had to observe them. An entire year was not enough to compel the Toulouse parlement to send the council the complete proceedings, to examine them, and to report on them. Monsieur de Crosne was again entrusted with this arduous task. An assembly of nearly eighty judges quashed the Toulouse judgment and ordered a complete review of the trial.

Other important matters then occupied almost all the kingdom’s courts. The Jesuits were being expelled; their society was being abolished in France. They had been intolerant and persecutors[37]; they were persecuted in their turn.

The absurd business of confession certificates, of which they were believed to be the secret authors and were publicly the supporters, had already revived the nation’s hatred against them. The immense bankruptcy of one of their missionaries[38], a bankruptcy believed to be partly fraudulent, completed their ruin. Those two words alone, *missionaries* and *bankrupts*, so ill-suited to be joined together, brought a sentence of condemnation into every mind. Finally, the ruins of Port-Royal[39] and the bones of so many celebrated men, whom they had insulted in their graves and who had been exhumed at the beginning of the century by orders dictated by the Jesuits alone, all rose against their expiring influence. The history of their proscription may be read in the excellent book entitled *Sur la Destruction des jésuites en France*[40], an impartial work because it is a philosopher’s, written with Pascal’s subtlety and eloquence, and above all with a superior enlightenment not obscured, as in Pascal, by prejudices that have sometimes beguiled great men.

This great affair, in which some supporters of the Jesuits said that religion was being outraged, while most believed it was being avenged, caused the public to lose sight of the Calas trial for several months. But once the king assigned the final judgment to the court called the *Requests of the Royal Household*, that same public, which likes to pass from one scene to another, forgot the Jesuits, and the Calas family claimed all its attention.

The chamber of the Requests of the Royal Household is a sovereign court composed of masters of requests, judging lawsuits between officers of the royal household and cases referred to it by the king. No court better informed about the case could have been chosen: these were precisely the same magistrates who had twice judged the preliminary proceedings for the review, and who knew both the substance and the procedure thoroughly. Jean Calas’s widow, his son, and Monsieur de Lavaisse surrendered themselves to prison again. The elderly Catholic servant was brought from the depths of Languedoc: she had not left her masters and mistress for a moment during the time when, against all probability, they were supposed to have been strangling their son and brother. At last the court deliberated on the same documents that had served to condemn Jean Calas to the wheel and his son Pierre to banishment.

It was then that a new memorial by the eloquent Monsieur de Beaumont[41] appeared, and another by young Monsieur de Lavaisse, so unjustly implicated in these criminal proceedings by the judges of Toulouse, who, to crown their contradictions, had not declared him acquitted. The young man himself wrote a statement of his case that everyone judged worthy to appear beside Monsieur de Beaumont’s. He had the double advantage of speaking for himself and for a family whose chains he had shared. It had rested with him alone to break his own chains and leave the prisons of Toulouse, had he been willing merely to say that he had left the Calas family for a moment at the time when the father and mother were alleged to have murdered their son. He had been threatened with execution; torture and death had been held before his eyes. One word could have restored his freedom: he preferred to expose himself to execution rather than utter that word, which would have been a lie. He set out all these details in his statement with a candor so noble, so simple, so free of any ostentation that he moved everyone whom he sought only to convince, and won admiration without aspiring to fame.

His father, a famous lawyer, had no part in this work: he suddenly found himself equaled by his son, who had never practiced at the bar.

Meanwhile, people of the highest standing flocked to Madame Calas’s prison, where her daughters had confined themselves with her. Visitors were moved to tears. Humanity and generosity lavished help upon them. What is called *charity* gave them none. Charity, which moreover is so often petty and insulting, belongs to the devout, and the devout still held out against the Calas family.

The day arrived—March 9, 1765—when innocence triumphed completely. Monsieur de Baquencourt having reported on the entire proceedings and examined the case down to its slightest circumstances, every judge, with one unanimous voice, declared the family innocent and wrongfully and abusively judged by the Toulouse parlement. They restored the father’s good name. They allowed the family to apply to the proper authority to bring proceedings against their judges and obtain the costs, damages, and compensation that the Toulouse magistrates should have offered of their own accord.

There was universal joy in Paris. People gathered in public squares and promenades; they hurried to see this family, so unfortunate and so fully vindicated; they applauded the judges as they passed and showered blessings upon them. What made the spectacle still more moving was that this day, the ninth of March, was the very day on which Calas had perished by the cruelest of executions three years before.

The masters of requests had rendered complete justice to the Calas family, and in doing so had merely done their duty. There is another duty, that of beneficence, more rarely fulfilled by courts, which seem to believe themselves established only to be equitable. The masters of requests resolved to write as a body to His Majesty, begging him to repair the family’s ruin through his gifts. The letter was written. The king answered by having thirty-six thousand livres paid to the mother and children; and of those thirty-six thousand livres, three thousand went to the virtuous servant who had steadfastly defended the truth in defending her employers.

By this act of goodness, as by so many other deeds, the king deserved the name that the nation’s love has given him[42]. May this example help inspire tolerance in humanity, without which fanaticism would lay waste the earth, or at least forever darken it! We know that only a single family is at issue here, and that the rage of sects has destroyed thousands. But today, when a shadow of peace allows all Christian societies to rest after centuries of slaughter, it is in this time of tranquility that the Calas family’s misfortune must make a deeper impression, much like a thunderbolt falling in the serenity of a beautiful day. Such cases are rare, but they happen; and they are the effect of that dark superstition which leads weak souls to impute crimes to anyone who does not think as they do.

[37] Voyez page 96.

[38] Le Père La Valette; voyez tome XVI, page 100.

[39] Voyez tome XV, page 39 et suiv.

[40] Par d’Alembert, 1765, in-12; 1767, in-12; et dans les Œuvres de cet auteur.

[41] *Mémoire à consulter et Consultation pour les enfants du défunt J. Calas, marchand à Toulouse.* Délibéré, à Paris, ce 22 janvier 1765. Signé: Lambon, Mallard, d’Outremont, Mariette, Gerbier, Legouvé, Loyseau de Mauléon, Élie de Beaumont.

[42] Voyez tome XXIII, page 268.

## Translation — Mouseia

> Independent, complete machine-assisted Plain English translation directly from French, reviewed against it. All 25 chapters, author’s notes and added Article with six edition references are retained. Article transcription: French Wikisource, Garnier 1879, revision 15479820. Translation and Article: creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.

### Chapter I

On the death of Jean Calas.

*A brief account of the death of Jean Calas.*

The murder of *Calas*, committed in Toulouse by the sword of justice on March 9, 1762, is one of the most extraordinary events deserving the attention of our time and of future generations. We soon forget the crowds of dead who have perished in countless battles. This is not only because death is the unavoidable fate of war, but because those who die by force of arms could also have killed their enemies, and did not die without defending themselves. Where the danger and the advantage are equal, we stop being shocked, and even our pity grows weaker. But suppose an innocent father is handed over to error, passion, or fanaticism. Suppose the accused has nothing to defend him but his good character, and those who decide his fate risk nothing by killing him except being wrong. Suppose they can kill with impunity by issuing a judgment. Then the public cries out. Everyone fears for themselves. We see that no one's life is safe before a court established to protect the lives of citizens, and everyone joins in demanding retribution.

This strange case involved religion, suicide, and the killing of a family member. The question was whether a father and mother had strangled their son to please God, whether a brother had strangled his brother, whether a friend had strangled his friend, and whether the judges had to blame themselves for having an innocent father broken on the wheel or for sparing a guilty mother, brother, and friend.

*Jean Calas*, aged sixty-eight, had worked as a merchant in Toulouse for more than forty years. Everyone who had lived with him knew him as a good father. He was a Protestant, as were his wife and all his children except one, who had renounced heresy and received a small allowance from his father. Calas seemed so far from the absurd fanaticism that breaks every bond of society that he approved of the conversion of his son *Louis Calas*. He had also kept a devoted Catholic servant in his house for thirty years, and she had brought up all his children.

One of *Jean Calas*'s sons, named *Marc-Antoine*, was a man of letters. He was thought to have a restless, gloomy, and violent temperament. This young man could not succeed in business, for which he had no aptitude. Nor could he qualify as a lawyer, because he needed certificates proving he was Catholic, which he could not obtain. He decided to end his life and gave one of his friends some hint of his plan. He strengthened his resolve by reading everything ever written about suicide.

At last, one day, after losing his money gambling, he chose that very day to carry out his plan. A friend of his and of his family, named *Lavaisse*, had arrived[1] from Bordeaux the day before. He was nineteen, the son of a well-known Toulouse lawyer, and was known for his honesty and gentle manners. He happened to have supper with the *Calas* family. The father, the mother, their eldest son *Marc-Antoine*, and their second son *Pierre* ate together. After supper they went into a small sitting room. *Marc-Antoine* disappeared. Finally, when young *Lavaisse* was ready to leave, he and *Pierre Calas* went downstairs. There, near the shop, they found *Marc-Antoine* hanging from a door in his shirt, with his clothes folded on the counter. His shirt was not even disarranged. His hair was neatly combed. There was no wound or bruise on his body.[2]

I pass over all the details the lawyers have reported. I will not describe the parents' grief and despair. Their cries were heard by the neighbors. *Lavaisse* and *Pierre Calas*, beside themselves, ran to get surgeons and the legal authorities.

While they were doing this, and while the father and mother were sobbing and weeping, the people of Toulouse gathered around the house. These people are superstitious and hotheaded. They regard their fellow human beings who do not share their religion as monsters. It was in Toulouse that people solemnly thanked God for the death of *Henry III* and swore to cut the throat of the first person who spoke of recognizing the great and good *Henry IV* as king. Every year this city still marks, with a procession and bonfires, the day when it massacred four thousand heretical citizens two centuries ago. Six decrees of the Council have forbidden this hateful festival in vain. The people of Toulouse have always celebrated it, just as they celebrate the Floral Games.

Some fanatic in the crowd shouted that *Jean Calas* had hanged his own son *Marc-Antoine*. The shout was repeated, and in a moment everyone was saying it. Others added that the dead man had been due to renounce his faith the next day, and that his family and young *Lavaisse* had strangled him out of hatred for the Catholic religion. A moment later no one doubted it. The whole city was convinced that Protestants believe a father and mother have a religious duty to murder their son as soon as he wants to convert.

Once people's minds are inflamed, they do not stop. People imagined that the Protestants of Languedoc had met the day before and chosen, by majority vote, an executioner from their sect. The choice had fallen on young *Lavaisse*. Within twenty-four hours, this young man had received news of his election and arrived from Bordeaux to help *Jean Calas*, his wife, and their son *Pierre* strangle a friend, a son, a brother.

Mr. *David*, a capitoul, or city magistrate, of Toulouse, was stirred up by these rumors. Wanting to make a name for himself by acting quickly, he conducted proceedings in violation of the rules and ordinances. The *Calas* family, the Catholic servant, and *Lavaisse* were put in chains.

A church summons calling for testimony was published, as defective as the proceedings themselves. Things went further. *Marc-Antoine Calas* had died a Calvinist, and if he had killed himself, his body should have been dragged on a hurdle. Instead, he was buried with the greatest pomp in the church of Saint-Étienne, despite the parish priest, who protested against this desecration.

There are four brotherhoods of penitents in Languedoc: the white, the blue, the gray, and the black. The members wear a long hood with a cloth mask pierced with two holes to let them see. They tried to persuade the Duke of *Fitz-James*, commander of the province, to join their order, but he refused. The white penitents held a solemn service for *Marc-Antoine Calas* as a martyr. No church ever celebrated the feast of a real martyr with greater pomp. But this pomp was terrifying. Above a magnificent funeral platform they had set up a skeleton that could be made to move. It represented *Marc-Antoine Calas*, holding a palm branch in one hand and, in the other, the pen with which he was supposed to sign his renunciation of heresy. In fact, it was writing his father's death sentence.

Now the unfortunate man who had killed himself lacked only canonization. All the people regarded him as a saint. Some called on him in prayer; others went to pray at his grave. Some asked him for miracles; others told stories of miracles he had performed. A monk pulled out some of his teeth to obtain lasting relics. A devout woman, who was somewhat deaf, said she had heard the bells ringing. A priest suffering from apoplexy recovered after taking an emetic. Official records were drawn up of these wonders. The writer of this account has a written statement that a young man in Toulouse went mad after praying for several nights at the new saint's tomb and failing to obtain the miracle he begged for.

Some of the magistrates belonged to the white penitents. From that moment, *Jean Calas*'s death seemed certain.

What did most to prepare the way for his execution was the approaching date of that strange festival the people of Toulouse celebrate every year in memory of the massacre of four thousand Huguenots. The year 1762 was the two-hundredth anniversary. The city was making preparations for the ceremony, and this further inflamed the people's already heated imaginations. People said publicly that the scaffold on which the *Calas* family would be broken on the wheel would be the festival's finest ornament. They said Providence itself was bringing these victims to be sacrificed to our holy religion. Twenty people heard these remarks, and still more violent ones. And this is happening in our own day! At a time when philosophy has made so much progress! When a hundred academies are writing to encourage gentler behavior! It seems that fanaticism, recently outraged by the successes of reason, is struggling beneath it with greater fury.

Thirteen judges met every day to conclude the trial. There was no evidence against the family, nor could there be any. But misguided religion took the place of evidence. Six judges long insisted on condemning *Jean Calas*, his son, and *Lavaisse* to the wheel, and *Jean Calas*'s wife to the stake. The other seven, more moderate, wanted at least to investigate. Their debates were repeated and lengthy. One judge, convinced that the accused were innocent and the crime impossible, spoke forcefully in their favor. He opposed the zeal for severity with a zeal for humanity. In every house in Toulouse he became the public defender of the *Calas* family, while the constant cries of misled religion demanded these unfortunate people's blood. Another judge, known for his violent temper, spoke against the *Calas* family throughout the city with as much fury as the first showed eagerness to defend them. At last the scandal became so great that both were obliged to withdraw from the case. They retired to the country.

But through a strange misfortune, the judge favorable to the *Calas* family was scrupulous enough to maintain his withdrawal, while the other returned to vote against people he should not have been judging. His vote secured the sentence of death on the wheel. There were eight votes against five, since one of the six opposing judges had finally joined the harsher side after much argument.

When the charge is the killing of a family member, and a father is to be handed over to the most terrible torture, it seems the verdict should be unanimous. The evidence for such an unheard-of crime[3] should be plainly obvious to everyone. In a case like this, the slightest doubt should be enough to make a judge tremble before signing a death sentence. Every day we feel the weakness of our reason and the inadequacy of our laws. But when do their failings become clearer than when a single deciding vote sends a citizen to be broken on the wheel? In Athens, fifty votes beyond half the total were needed before anyone dared pronounce a death sentence. What follows from this? Something we know, to no practical purpose: the Greeks were wiser and more humane than we are.

It seemed impossible that *Jean Calas*, an old man of sixty-eight whose legs had long been swollen and weak, could single-handedly have strangled and hanged a son of twenty-eight who was unusually strong. His wife, his son *Pierre Calas*, *Lavaisse*, and the servant must all have helped him carry it out. They had not left one another for a single moment that fatal evening. But this supposition was just as absurd as the other. How could a devoted Catholic servant have allowed Huguenots to murder a young man she had brought up, to punish him for loving her own religion? How could *Lavaisse* have come all the way from Bordeaux to strangle his friend, knowing nothing about his supposed conversion? How could a loving mother have laid hands on her son? How could they all have strangled a young man as strong as all of them together without a long and violent struggle, without terrible cries that would have brought the whole neighborhood, without repeated blows, bruises, or torn clothes?

It was obvious that if this family murder could have been committed, all the accused were equally guilty, because they had not left one another for a moment. It was obvious that they were not guilty. It was obvious that the father alone could not be guilty. Yet the judgment condemned this father alone to die on the wheel.

The reasoning behind the judgment was as incomprehensible as everything else. The judges determined to have *Jean Calas* executed persuaded the others that this weak old man could not withstand torture. Under the executioners' blows, he would confess his crime and that of his accomplices. They were confounded when, dying on the wheel, the old man called on God to witness his innocence and begged him to forgive his judges.

They were obliged to issue a second judgment contradicting the first, releasing the mother, her son *Pierre*, young *Lavaisse*, and the servant. But one of the court's judges pointed out that this judgment contradicted the other and condemned the judges themselves. All the accused had always been together at the time of the supposed murder. Releasing all the survivors therefore proved beyond dispute that the father they had executed was innocent. They then decided to banish his son *Pierre Calas*. This banishment seemed as inconsistent and absurd as everything else. *Pierre Calas* was either guilty or innocent of the murder. If guilty, he should have been broken on the wheel like his father. If innocent, he should not have been banished. But the judges were frightened by the father's execution and the moving piety with which he had died. They imagined they could save their honor by letting people believe they were showing mercy to the son—as though showing such mercy would not itself have been another abuse of office. They thought that banishing this young man, poor and without support, would have no consequences and was no great injustice after the one they had had the misfortune to commit.

They began by threatening *Pierre Calas* in his dungeon with the same treatment as his father unless he renounced his religion. This is what the young man[4] states under oath.

As *Pierre Calas* was leaving the city, he met an abbé who sought converts and brought him back to Toulouse. He was shut up in a Dominican convent and forced to perform all the duties of a Catholic. This was part of what they wanted. It was the price of his father's blood, and the religion they thought they had avenged seemed satisfied.

The daughters were taken from their mother and shut up in a convent. This woman, almost drenched in her husband's blood, had held her eldest son dead in her arms. Now her other son was banished, her daughters were taken away, and she was stripped of all her property. She was alone in the world, without bread or hope, dying from the weight of her misery. Some people carefully examined every circumstance of this horrible affair. They were so appalled that they urged Madame *Calas*, who had withdrawn into seclusion, to dare to come and ask for justice at the foot of the throne. At that point she could scarcely support herself; her life was fading. Besides, she was English by birth and had been brought to a French province as a young child. The very name of Paris frightened her. She imagined that the kingdom's capital must be even more barbarous than Toulouse. At last the duty of vindicating her husband's memory overcame her weakness. She arrived in Paris close to death. She was astonished to find a welcome, help, and tears.

In Paris, reason gets the better of fanaticism, however great it may be. In the provinces, by contrast, fanaticism almost always gets the better of reason.

Mr. *de Beaumont*, a celebrated lawyer of the Parlement of Paris, immediately took up her defense and drew up a legal opinion signed by fifteen lawyers. Mr. *Loiseau*, no less eloquent, wrote a statement of the case in the family's favor. Mr. *Mariette*, a lawyer at the Council, drew up a legal petition that convinced everyone who read it.

These three generous defenders of the law and of innocence gave the widow the proceeds from publishing their arguments.[5] Paris and all Europe were moved to pity and joined this unfortunate woman in demanding justice. The entire public had pronounced its judgment long before the Council could sign it.

Pity reached even the ministry, despite the constant flood of business that often leaves no room for it, and despite the habit of seeing unfortunate people, which can harden the heart still more. The daughters were returned to their mother. All three were seen wearing black crape and bathed in tears, bringing tears to the eyes of their judges.

Yet this family still had some enemies, because religion was involved. Several people who in France are called *devout*[6] said openly that it was much better to let an innocent old Calvinist be broken on the wheel than to expose eight judges of Languedoc to admitting they had been wrong. People even used this expression: “There are more magistrates than members of the *Calas* family.” From this they concluded that the *Calas* family must be sacrificed to the honor of the judiciary. They did not consider that judges' honor, like everyone else's, consists in repairing their mistakes. In France we do not believe that the pope, assisted by his cardinals, is infallible. We might likewise believe that eight judges in Toulouse are not infallible. All other sensible and disinterested people said that the Toulouse judgment would be overturned throughout Europe, even if particular considerations prevented its being overturned in the Council.

This was the state of this astonishing affair when it led some impartial but compassionate people to offer the public a few thoughts on tolerance, forbearance, and compassion. The Abbé *Houteville* calls compassion a *monstrous doctrine* in his inflated and factually mistaken tirade. Reason calls it a quality belonging to human nature.

Either the judges of Toulouse, carried away by the crowd's fanaticism, had an innocent father broken on the wheel—something without precedent—or this father and his wife strangled their eldest son, helped in this family murder by another son and a friend—something contrary to nature. In either case, the abuse of the holiest religion has produced a great crime. It is therefore in humanity's interest to examine whether religion should be charitable or barbarous.

[1] October 12, 1761.

[2] After the body was taken to the town hall, all that was found on it was a small scratch on the tip of the nose and a small mark on the chest, caused by some carelessness while moving it.

[3] I know of only two examples in history of fathers accused of murdering their sons for religion. The first is the father of Saint *Barbara*, whom we call Saint *Barbe*. He had ordered two windows for his bathroom. In his absence, *Barbe* had a third made in honor of the Holy Trinity. With *the tip of her finger* she made the sign of the cross on marble columns, and the sign was deeply engraved in them. Her angry father ran after her, sword in hand, but she escaped through a mountain that opened up for her. Her father went around the mountain and caught his daughter. She was whipped naked, but God covered her with a white cloud. Finally her father cut off her head. This is what the Fleur des Saints reports.

The second example is Prince *Hermenegild*. He rebelled against his father the king, fought him in 584, was defeated, and was killed by an officer. He has been made a martyr because his father was an Arian.

[4] “A Dominican came into my dungeon and threatened me with the same kind of death if I did not renounce my religion. I state this before God, July 23, 1762.”

*Pierre Calas.*

[5] Unauthorized editions were printed in several cities, and Madame *Calas* lost the benefit of this generosity.

[6] *Devout* comes from the Latin word *devotus*. The *Devoti* of ancient Rome were those who devoted themselves to saving the republic. They were men like *Curtius* and the *Decii*.

### Chapter II

*Consequences of Jean Calas's execution.*

If the white penitents caused an innocent man's execution, a family's complete ruin and dispersal, and the disgrace that should attach only to injustice but in fact attaches to punishment; if their rush to celebrate as a saint a man whose body should have been dragged on a hurdle led to a good father being broken on the wheel, then this disaster should surely make them truly penitent for the rest of their lives. They and the judges must weep, but not in a long white robe with a mask over their faces that would hide their tears.

All the brotherhoods are respected. They set an example of piety. But however much good they may do the state, does it equal the terrible harm they have caused? They seem to have been established by the zeal that drives Catholics in Languedoc against those we call Huguenots. You would think people had vowed to hate their fellow human beings. We have enough religion to hate and persecute, but not enough to love and help. And what if these brotherhoods were run by religious fanatics, as some congregations of Artisans and *Gentlemen* once were? Among them, the habit of having visions was turned into an art and a system, as one of our most eloquent and learned magistrates puts it. What if the brotherhoods set up those dark rooms called meditation rooms? In them, devils with horns and claws were painted, along with pits of flame, crosses, and daggers, with the holy name of Jesus above the picture. What a sight for eyes already under a spell, and for imaginations as inflamed as they were obedient to their spiritual directors!

There have been times, as we know only too well, when brotherhoods were dangerous. The Fraticelli and the Flagellants caused unrest. The League began with associations like these. Why set yourselves apart from other citizens in this way? Did you think it made you more perfect? That in itself insults the rest of the nation. Did you want all Christians to join the brotherhood? What a fine sight Europe would be in hoods and masks, with two little round holes in front of the eyes! Does anyone honestly think God prefers this outfit to an ordinary coat? There is more: this clothing is a uniform for religious disputants, warning their opponents to take up arms. It can stir up a kind of civil war in people's minds. That might end in terrible violence if the king and his ministers were not as wise as the fanatics are senseless.

We know well enough what Christian disputes about doctrine have cost. Blood has flowed on scaffolds and battlefields from the fourth century to our own day. Let us consider here only the wars and horrors stirred up by the quarrels over the Reformation, and see where they began in France. Perhaps a brief and accurate picture of so many disasters will open the eyes of some poorly informed people and move hearts capable of feeling.

### Chapter III

*An outline of the sixteenth-century Reformation.*

When learning revived and people's minds began to become enlightened, there were widespread complaints about abuses. Everyone admits that these complaints were justified.

Pope *Alexander VI* had openly bought the papal crown, and his five illegitimate children shared its benefits. His son, the Cardinal Duke of *Borgia*, worked with his father the pope to kill the *Vitelli*, the *Urbino*, the *Gravina*, the *Oliveretto*, and a hundred other lords in order to seize their lands. *Julius II*, driven by the same spirit, excommunicated *Louis XII*, gave his kingdom to whoever could seize it first, and personally put part of Italy to fire and sword, wearing a helmet and breastplate. *Leo X* sold indulgences to pay for his pleasures, just as people sell goods in a public market. Those who protested against so much robbery were at least not wrong on moral grounds. Let us see whether they wronged us in political terms.

They said that Jesus Christ had never demanded the first year's income from church benefices or reserved church appointments for himself, nor sold dispensations for this world and indulgences for the next. People could therefore do without paying a foreign prince the price of all these things. Even if those first-year payments, lawsuits at the court of Rome, and the dispensations that still exist today cost us only five hundred thousand francs a year, it is clear that in the two hundred and fifty years since *Francis I* we have paid a hundred and twenty million. Allowing for the changing value of the silver mark, that amounts to about two hundred and fifty million in today's money. So we can admit without blasphemy that the heretics did no great harm to the kingdom by proposing the abolition of these strange taxes, which will astonish future generations. In this they were good at arithmetic rather than bad subjects. Let us add that they alone knew Greek and were familiar with antiquity. Let us not hide the fact that, despite their errors, we owe them the development of the human mind, long buried in the deepest barbarism.

But they denied purgatory, which must not be doubted and which, besides, brought the monks a great deal of money. They did not revere relics, which must be revered and which brought in still more. Finally, they attacked highly respected doctrines.[7] At first the only answer was to burn them. The king who protected and paid them in Germany led a procession in Paris, after which several of these unfortunate people were executed. This was how the execution was carried out. They were suspended from the end of a long beam that pivoted like a seesaw on a standing tree. A great fire was lit beneath them. They were plunged into it and lifted out in turn. They experienced torture and death by degrees, until they died under the longest and most terrible punishment barbarism has ever invented.

Shortly before the death of *Francis I*, some members of the Parlement of Provence, stirred up by churchmen against the inhabitants of Mérindol and Cabrières, asked the king for troops to support the execution of nineteen people from that area whom they had condemned. They had six thousand people slaughtered, sparing neither women, old people, nor children. They burned thirty towns to ashes. These people, unknown until then, were undoubtedly wrong to have been born Waldensians: that was their only crime. For three hundred years they had lived in wildernesses and on mountains that they had made fertile through incredible labor. Their quiet pastoral life recalled the innocence attributed to the world's earliest ages. They knew the neighboring towns only through the trade in produce they took there to sell. They knew nothing of lawsuits or war. They did not defend themselves. They were slaughtered like fleeing animals killed inside an enclosure.[8]

After the death of *Francis I*—a prince better known, however, for his love affairs and misfortunes than for his cruelties—the execution of a thousand heretics, especially that of *Dubourg*, a judge of the Parlement, and finally the massacre of Vassy drove the persecuted to take up arms. Their sect had grown by the light of the burning stakes and under the executioners' blades. Rage replaced patience. They copied their enemies' cruelties. Nine civil wars filled France with slaughter. A peace more disastrous than war produced the *Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre*, which had no precedent in the records of crime.

The League murdered *Henry III* and *Henry IV* through the hands of a Dominican friar and a monster who had once been a Feuillant friar. Some people claim that humanity, forbearance, and freedom of conscience are horrible things. But honestly, would they have produced comparable disasters?

[7] They revived *Berengar*'s view of the Eucharist. They denied that a body could be in a hundred thousand different places, even through God's almighty power. They denied that attributes could exist without a substance. They believed it absolutely impossible for what is bread and wine to the eyes, the taste, and the stomach to be annihilated at the very moment it exists. They maintained all these errors previously condemned in *Berengar*. They based their views on several passages from the early Church Fathers, especially *Saint Justin*, who says explicitly in his Dialogue contre *Typhon*: “The offering of fine flour is the symbol of the Eucharist, which Jesus Christ commands us to celebrate in memory of his Passion.” “And the offering of fine flour, &c., was a symbol of the bread of the Eucharist, which our Lord Jesus Christ instructed us to make in remembrance of his Passion, &c.”

They recalled everything said in the early centuries against the worship of relics. They quoted these words of *Vigilantius*: “Must you respect or even worship worthless dust? Do the souls of the martyrs still love their ashes? The customs of idolaters have entered the Church. People are beginning to light torches in broad daylight. During our lives we can pray for one another, but after death, what use are these prayers?”

But they did not say how strongly *Saint Jerome* had attacked these words of *Vigilantius*. In short, they wanted to bring everything back to the apostolic age. They would not admit that, as the Church had expanded and grown stronger, its discipline had necessarily needed to expand and grow stronger too. They condemned wealth, which nevertheless seemed necessary to maintain the majesty of worship.

[8] The truthful and respected President *de Thou* speaks as follows of these innocent and unfortunate people: *“They were people who, about three hundred years earlier, had taken rough, uncultivated land from its lords in return for rent. Through tireless work and constant cultivation they had made it fertile in crops and fit for livestock. They were very patient in enduring labor and hunger, avoided lawsuits, were generous to the needy, and paid the prince's taxes and the lords' dues diligently and with the utmost honesty. They showed their worship of God through constant prayer and innocent conduct. But they seldom went to the churches of the saints, except when they happened to visit towns near their borders for trade or business. If they ever entered them, they did not bow down before statues of God and the saints, or place candles or offerings before them. They did not ask priests to celebrate services for themselves or the souls of their relatives. They did not mark their foreheads with the cross, as others customarily did. When the sky thundered, they did not sprinkle themselves with holy water, but raised their eyes to heaven and begged God's help. They did not travel on religious pilgrimages or uncover their heads before images of crosses along the roads. They celebrated their services with a different ritual and in the people's language. Finally, they paid no honor to the pope or bishops, but took certain men chosen from their own number as their leaders and teachers. When these things were reported to Francis on the sixth day before the Ides of February in the year, &c.”*

Madame *de Cental*, who owned part of the devastated lands, where nothing could now be seen but the inhabitants' corpses, asked King *Henry II* for justice. He referred her to the Parlement of Paris. The advocate general of Provence, named *Guérin*, the chief author of the massacres, was the only one sentenced to be beheaded. *De Thou* says that he alone suffered the punishment of the other guilty men, *“because he lacked the support of courtiers”*—because he had no friends at court.

### Chapter IV

*Whether tolerance is dangerous, and which peoples practice it.*

Some have said that showing fatherly kindness to our misguided brothers, who pray to God in bad French, would put weapons in their hands. We would see new battles of Jarnac, Moncontour, Coutras, Dreux, Saint-Denis, &c. I do not know, because I am not a prophet. But it seems to me that it is not consistent reasoning to say: “These men rebelled when I treated them badly, so they will rebel when I treat them well.”

I would venture to invite those at the head of government, and those destined for high office, to consider carefully whether there is really reason to fear that kindness will produce the same rebellions that cruelty brought about. Must what happened in one set of circumstances happen in another? Are the times, opinions, and habits always the same?

The Huguenots were undoubtedly drunk with fanaticism and stained with blood, just as we were. But is the present generation as barbarous as their fathers? Have time, reason with its great advances, good books, and the gentler ways of society had no influence on those who guide these people's thinking? And do we not see that almost all Europe has changed its appearance over the last fifty years or so?

Everywhere government has grown stronger while people's behavior has become gentler. Moreover, the general system of public order, supported by large standing armies, leaves no reason to fear a return to those lawless times when Calvinist peasants fought Catholic peasants, hastily formed into regiments between sowing and harvest.

Different times call for different concerns. It would be absurd today to put a tenth of the Sorbonne to death because it once petitioned to have the *Maid of Orléans* burned, or because it declared that *Henry III* had lost his right to rule, excommunicated him, and outlawed the great *Henry IV*. Surely no one will call to account the kingdom's other corporate bodies that committed the same excesses in those times of frenzy. That would not only be unjust. It would be as mad as giving purgatives to all the inhabitants of Marseille because they had the plague in 1720.

Shall we sack Rome, as *Charles V*'s troops did, because *Sixtus V*, in 1585, granted nine years of indulgence to every Frenchman who took up arms against his sovereign? Is it not enough to prevent Rome from ever going to such extremes again?

The fury inspired by dogmatism and the abuse of a misunderstood Christian religion has shed as much blood and caused as many disasters in Germany, England, and even Holland as in France. Yet today religious differences cause no unrest in those states. Jews, Catholics, Greek Christians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Socinians, Mennonites, Moravians, and so many others live as brothers in those countries and contribute equally to society's welfare.

In Holland there is no longer any fear that the disputes of a *Gomarus*[9] over predestination will lead to the grand pensionary being beheaded. In London there is no longer any fear that Presbyterian and Episcopalian quarrels over a liturgy and a surplice will spill a king's blood on a scaffold.[10] Ireland, now populous and prosperous, will no longer see its Catholic citizens spend two months sacrificing its Protestant citizens to God: burying them alive; hanging mothers from gallows, tying daughters to their mothers' necks, and watching them die together; cutting open pregnant women, pulling out their half-formed children, and feeding them to pigs and dogs; putting daggers into the hands of bound prisoners and guiding their arms into the breasts of their wives, fathers, mothers, and daughters. They imagined they were making the prisoners murder their own relatives and damning them all by exterminating them all. This is what *Rapin-Thoyras*, an officer in Ireland and almost a contemporary, reports. It is what all the annals and all the histories of England report, and surely it will never be repeated. Philosophy, philosophy alone, the sister of religion, has disarmed hands that superstition had so long stained with blood. The human mind, waking from its drunkenness, has been astonished at the extremes to which fanaticism carried it.

We ourselves have a wealthy province in France where Lutheranism predominates over Catholicism. The university of Alsace is in Lutheran hands. Lutherans hold some of the municipal offices. Not the slightest religious quarrel has disturbed this province's peace since it came under our kings. Why? Because no one there has been persecuted. Do not try to constrain people's hearts, and all their hearts will be yours.

I am not saying that everyone outside the prince's religion should share the offices and honors of those who belong to the dominant religion. In England, Catholics, regarded as supporters of the Pretender, cannot hold public office. They even pay double taxes. Otherwise, however, they enjoy all the rights of citizens.

Some French bishops have been suspected of thinking it is neither to their honor nor in their interest to have Calvinists in their dioceses, and this has been called the greatest obstacle to tolerance. I cannot believe it. The body of bishops in France consists of people of high birth who think and act with a nobility worthy of their origins. They are charitable and generous; we owe them that recognition. They must realize that members of their dioceses who have fled abroad certainly will not convert there. If they returned to their pastors, they might be enlightened by their teaching and moved by their examples. Converting them would be an honor. The bishops' material interests would not suffer, and the more citizens there were, the more income the prelates' lands would yield.

A bishop of Warmia, in Poland, had an Anabaptist as his tenant farmer and a Socinian as his revenue collector. Someone proposed dismissing and prosecuting one because he did not believe in consubstantiality and the other because he did not baptize his son until the age of fifteen. The bishop replied that they would be damned for all eternity in the next world, but in this one they were very necessary to him.

Let us step outside our little circle and examine the rest of the globe. The Ottoman sultan peacefully governs twenty peoples of different religions. Two hundred thousand Greek Christians live safely in Constantinople. The mufti himself appoints the Greek patriarch and presents him to the emperor. A Latin patriarch is also allowed there. The sultan appoints Latin bishops to some Greek islands,[11] using this formula: *“I command him to go and reside as bishop on the island of Chios, according to their ancient custom and their empty ceremonies.”* This empire is full of Jacobites, Nestorians, and Monothelites. There are Copts, Christians of *Saint John*, Jews, Guebres, and Banians. Turkish annals mention no rebellion stirred up by any of these religions.

Go to India, Persia, or Tartary. You will find the same tolerance and the same peace. *Peter the Great* encouraged every form of worship in his vast empire. Trade and farming benefited, and the state never suffered from it.

In the more than four thousand years for which it has been known, the government of China has never adopted anything but the worship of the *Noahides*, the simple adoration of one God. Yet it tolerates the superstitions of *Fo* and a multitude of Buddhist monks who would be dangerous if the wisdom of the courts had not always kept them in check.

It is true that the great emperor *Yongzheng*, perhaps the wisest and most generous-minded ruler China has ever had, expelled the Jesuits. But this was not because he was intolerant. On the contrary, it was because the Jesuits were intolerant. In their Lettres curieuses, they themselves report what this good prince said to them: *“I know that your religion is intolerant. I know what you have done in Manila and Japan. You deceived my father; do not expect to deceive me in the same way.”* Read the whole speech he was good enough to give them, and you will find him the wisest and most merciful of men. Could he really have kept European natural scientists who, under the pretext of showing thermometers and steam devices at court, had already stirred up a prince of the royal family? And what would this emperor have said if he had read our histories and known about the times of the League and the Gunpowder Plot?

It was enough for him to learn of the disgraceful quarrels among the Jesuits, Dominicans, Capuchins, and secular priests sent from the far side of the world into his states. They came to preach the truth and were cursing one another. So the emperor merely sent foreign troublemakers away. But how kindly he sent them away! What fatherly care he took over their journey and over preventing anyone from insulting them on the road! Even their banishment was an example of tolerance and humanity.

The Japanese[12] were the most tolerant of all people. Twelve peaceful religions were established in their empire. The Jesuits came to make a thirteenth. But soon they would tolerate no other, and we know the result. A civil war as terrible as those of the League devastated the country. Christianity was finally drowned in floods of blood. The Japanese closed their empire to the rest of the world and regarded us only as wild beasts, like those the English had cleared from their island. The minister *Colbert* understood how much we needed the Japanese, who have no need of us, and tried in vain to establish trade with their empire. He found them unbending.

Our entire continent therefore proves that we should neither preach nor practice intolerance.

Look at the other hemisphere. Consider Carolina, whose lawgiver was the wise *Locke*. There, any head of a household with just seven people in his home can establish a religion of his choice, provided those seven people agree with him. This freedom has caused no disorder. God forbid that we should cite this example to encourage each household to make up its own form of worship. We mention it only to show that tolerance taken to the greatest possible extreme has not been followed by the slightest discord.

And what shall we say of those peaceful *Primitives*, mockingly called *Quakers*? Their customs may be ridiculous, but they have been so virtuous and have taught peace to the rest of humanity in vain. There are a hundred thousand of them in Pennsylvania. Discord and religious controversy are unknown in the happy homeland they have made for themselves. The very name of their city, Philadelphia, constantly reminds them that human beings are brothers. It is an example and a reproach to peoples who still do not know tolerance.

In short, tolerance has never stirred up a civil war; intolerance has covered the earth with slaughter. Now let us judge between these two rivals: between the mother who wants her son killed and the mother who gives him up so long as he lives.

I am speaking here only of the interests of nations. While respecting theology, as I must, I consider in this section only society's physical and moral welfare. I ask every impartial reader to weigh these truths, correct them, and develop them further. Attentive readers who share their thoughts always go further than the author.[13]

[9] *Franciscus Gomarus* was a Protestant theologian. Against his colleague *Arminius*, he maintained that God had destined most human beings from all eternity to be burned eternally. This infernal doctrine was supported, appropriately enough, by persecution. The grand pensionary *Barneveldt*, who belonged to the party opposed to *Gomarus*, was beheaded at the age of 72 on May 13, 1619, *“for having distressed the Church of God as much as possible”*.

[10] A writer of tirades, speaking of England in the Apologie de la Révocation de l'Edit de Nantes, says: *“A false religion was bound to produce such fruits. Only one remained to ripen, and these islanders are harvesting it: the contempt of nations.”* We must admit that the author has chosen his moment badly to say the English are contemptible and despised by the whole earth. It seems to me that when a nation distinguishes itself by courage and generosity, and is victorious in all four parts of the world, a claim that it is contemptible and despised will not be well received. This strange passage appears in a chapter on intolerance. Those who preach intolerance deserve to write like this. This abominable book, which seems to have been written by the madman of *Verberies*, comes from a man with no pastoral commission—for what pastor would write like this? The book carries rage so far as to justify the *Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre*. You might think a work full of such dreadful paradoxes would be in everyone's hands, if only for its strangeness. Yet it is scarcely known.

[11] See *Ricaut*.

[12] See *Kempfer* and all the accounts of Japan.

[13] Mr. *de la Bourdonnaie*, intendant of Rouen, says that hat manufacturing has collapsed in Caudebec and Neufchâtel because of the refugees' departure. Mr. *Foucaut*, intendant of Caen, says trade in the administrative district has fallen by half. Mr. *de Maupeou*, intendant of Poitiers, says the manufacture of drugget cloth has been destroyed. Mr. *de Bezons*, intendant of Bordeaux, complains that trade in Clérac and Nérac scarcely exists anymore. Mr. *de Miroménil*, intendant of Touraine, says that trade in Tours has declined by ten million a year. And all this is due to persecution. See the Mémoires des Intendants, 1698. Above all, count the army and naval officers and the sailors who were forced to go and serve against France, often with a disastrous advantage over it. Then see whether intolerance has done the state any harm.

We do not presume here to offer plans to ministers whose ability and high principles are well known, and whose hearts are as noble as their birth. They will see well enough that rebuilding the navy calls for some forbearance toward the inhabitants of our coasts.

### Chapter V

*How tolerance can be allowed.*

I venture to suppose that an enlightened and generous-minded minister, a humane and wise prelate, or a prince who knows that his interest lies in having many subjects and his glory in their happiness, is willing to look at this rough and imperfect piece of writing. He fills its gaps with his own understanding. He says to himself: “What would I risk by seeing the land cultivated and improved by more hardworking hands, tax revenues increased, and the state more prosperous?”

Germany would be a desert covered with the bones of Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anabaptists who slaughtered one another if the Peace of Westphalia had not finally secured freedom of conscience.

We have Jews in Bordeaux, Metz, and Alsace. We have Lutherans, Molinists, and Jansenists. Can we not tolerate Calvinists and keep them under control on roughly the same terms as Catholics are tolerated in London? The more sects there are, the less dangerous each one is. Having so many different sects weakens each one. All are restrained by just laws that forbid disorderly gatherings, insults, and rebellions, and that are always backed by the power to enforce them.

We know that several heads of families who have made great fortunes abroad are ready to return to their homeland. They ask only for the protection of natural law, the validity of their marriages, certainty about their children's legal status, the right to inherit from their fathers, and personal freedom. They ask for no public churches and no right to municipal offices or high positions. Catholics have none of those in London or in several other countries. It is no longer a question of granting vast privileges and fortified places of refuge to a faction. It is a question of letting a peaceful people live and softening decrees that may once have been necessary but are no longer so. It is not for us to tell the ministry what it can do. It is enough to appeal to it on behalf of unfortunate people.

There are so many ways to make them useful and prevent them from ever being dangerous! The wisdom of the ministry and the Council, backed by force, will easily find these methods, which so many other nations use so successfully.

There are still fanatics among the Calvinist rabble, but there are certainly more among the Convulsionary rabble. The lowest of the madmen of *Saint-Médard* count for nothing in the nation; those of the Calvinist prophets have disappeared. If any of these maniacs remain, the great means of reducing their number is to leave this mental disease to the treatment of reason, which enlightens human beings slowly but unfailingly. Reason is gentle and humane. It encourages forbearance, stifles discord, strengthens virtue, and makes obedience to the laws attractive, doing even more than force does to uphold them. And should we count as nothing the ridicule that all sensible, decent people now attach to religious frenzy? That ridicule is a powerful barrier against the wild behavior of every sect. Past times are as though they had never been. We must always start from where we are and from the stage nations have reached.

There was a time when people thought they had to issue judgments against those who taught any doctrine contrary to *Aristotle*'s categories, nature's horror of a vacuum, the essential natures of things, or universals existing within things themselves. In Europe we have more than a hundred volumes of law on witchcraft and on how to distinguish false sorcerers from real ones. Excommunicating locusts and insects harmful to crops was once common and still appears in several ritual books. The practice has passed. *Aristotle*, sorcerers, and locusts are left in peace. There are countless examples of these solemn lunacies, once so important. Others recur from time to time, but when they have run their course and people have had enough of them, they disappear. If someone today took it into his head to become a Carpocratian, Eutychian, Monothelite, Monophysite, Nestorian, Manichaean, &c., what would happen? People would laugh at him as they would at a man wearing an old-fashioned ruff and doublet.

The nation was beginning to open its eyes when the Jesuits *Le Tellier* and *Doucin* manufactured the bull *Unigenitus* and sent it to Rome. They thought they were still in those ignorant times when people accepted the most absurd claims without examining them. They dared to condemn this proposition, which is universally true in all cases and at all times: *“Fear of an unjust excommunication must not prevent anyone from doing their duty.”* This was to condemn reason, the liberties of the Gallican Church, and the foundation of morality. It was to tell people: “God commands you never to do your duty whenever you fear injustice.” Common sense has never been defied more shamelessly. The advisers in Rome took no notice. The court of Rome was persuaded that this bull was necessary and that the nation wanted it. It was signed, sealed, and sent. We know what followed. Certainly, if the consequences had been foreseen, the bull would have been softened. The quarrels were fierce; the king's wisdom and kindness have finally calmed them.

The same is true of many of the points that divide Protestants from us. Some are of no consequence. Others are more serious, but the fury of the dispute over them has died down so much that today the Protestants themselves do not preach religious controversy in any of their churches.

We can therefore seize this time of disgust and weariness—or rather, of reason—as a turning point and a guarantee of public peace. Religious controversy is an epidemic disease that is coming to an end. This plague has been cured and now requires only gentle treatment. In short, the state's interest is for its sons living abroad to return modestly to their father's house. Humanity demands it, reason advises it, and sound policy has nothing to fear from it.

### Chapter VI

*Whether intolerance is justified by natural law and human law.*

Natural law is what nature points out to all human beings. You have brought up your child. He owes you respect as his father and gratitude as his benefactor. You have a right to the produce of land you have cultivated with your own hands. You have given and received a promise; it must be kept.

Human law can never be based on anything but this law of nature. The great principle, the universal principle of both, everywhere on earth, is: *“Do not do what you would not want done to you.”* Now, it is hard to see how, under this principle, one person could say to another: *“Believe what I believe, and what you cannot believe, or you will die.”* That is what people say in Portugal, Spain, and Goa. In some other countries today, they are content to say: *“Believe, or I will hate you. Believe, or I will do you all the harm I can. You monster, you do not have my religion, so you have no religion. Your neighbors, your city, and your province must regard you with horror.”*

If human law authorized such behavior, then the Japanese would have to detest the Chinese, who would loathe the Siamese. The Siamese would persecute the Gangarides, who would attack the inhabitants of the Indus. A Mogul would tear the heart out of the first person from Malabar he found. A person from Malabar could cut a Persian's throat, and the Persian could massacre a Turk. All of them together would fall on the Christians, who have spent so long devouring one another.

The supposed right to intolerance is therefore absurd and barbarous. It is the right of tigers—and much more horrible, because tigers tear apart only to eat, while we have exterminated one another over paragraphs.

### Chapter VII

*Whether the Greeks knew intolerance.*

All the peoples of whom history has given us some faint knowledge regarded their different religions as bonds joining them together. Religion was an association of the human race. There was a kind of right of hospitality among gods as among human beings. When a foreigner arrived in a city, he began by worshiping the local gods. People never failed to honor even their enemies' gods. The Trojans prayed to the gods who were fighting for the Greeks.

*Alexander* went into the deserts of Libya to consult the god *Ammon*, whom the Greeks called *Zeus* and the Latins *Jupiter*, although both peoples had their own *Jupiter* and *Zeus* at home. When people besieged a city, they offered sacrifices and prayers to that city's gods to win their favor. So even in the midst of war, religion brought people together and sometimes softened their fury, though at other times it commanded inhuman and horrible acts.

I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that none of the civilized peoples of antiquity restricted freedom of thought. All had a religion. But they seem to have treated people as they treated their gods. They all recognized a supreme God but associated a huge number of lesser divinities with him. They had only one form of public worship but allowed a host of individual systems of belief.

The Greeks, for example, religious as they were, accepted the Epicureans' denial of Providence and the existence of the soul. I will not discuss the other schools, all of which offended the sound ideas we should have of the Creator, and all of which were tolerated.

*Socrates*, who came closest to knowing the Creator, is said to have paid the penalty for it and died a martyr for God. He is the only person the Greeks put to death for his opinions. If that really was the reason for his condemnation, it does intolerance no credit. They punished the one man who alone gave glory to God and honored everyone who presented the most unworthy ideas of the divine. In my view, the enemies of tolerance should not use the hateful example of *Socrates*' judges to support their case.

Besides, he was clearly the victim of a furious faction stirred up against him. He had made irreconcilable enemies of the sophists, orators, and poets who taught in the schools, and even of all the tutors who looked after children of high birth. He himself admits, in his speech reported by *Plato*, that he went from house to house proving to these tutors that they were nothing but ignoramuses. Such behavior was unworthy of the man an oracle had declared the wisest of all. A priest and a member of the Council of Five Hundred were unleashed against him and brought charges. I admit that I do not know precisely what the charges were. I find only vagueness in his defense. He is made to say in general terms that he was accused of instilling principles opposed to religion and government in young people. This is how slanderers act every day throughout the world. But a court needs established facts and precise, detailed charges. The trial of *Socrates* provides us with none of these. We know only that at first he had two hundred and twenty votes in his favor. So the court of five hundred contained two hundred and twenty philosophers. That is a great many; I doubt they could be found elsewhere. In the end, the majority voted for hemlock. But let us also remember that the Athenians, when they came to their senses, regarded his accusers and judges with horror; that *Meletus*, the chief author of this judgment, was condemned to death for this injustice; that the others were banished; and that a temple was built to *Socrates*. Philosophy was never so fully avenged or so greatly honored. At bottom, the example of *Socrates* is the most devastating argument that can be brought against intolerance. The Athenians had an altar dedicated to foreign gods, gods they could not know. Could there be stronger proof not only of forbearance toward all nations, but also of respect for their forms of worship?

A decent man, who is no enemy of reason, literature, honesty, or his country, recently justified the *Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre* by citing the war of the Phocaeans, known as *the Sacred War*. He wrote as though that war had begun over worship, doctrine, or theological arguments. The question was who would own a field—the subject of all wars. Sheaves of wheat are not a symbol of belief. No Greek city ever fought over opinions. Besides, what does this modest and gentle man want? Does he want us to wage a sacred war?

### Chapter VIII

*Whether the Romans were tolerant.*

Among the ancient Romans, from *Romulus* to the time when Christians began arguing with the priests of the empire, you do not find a single person persecuted for his beliefs. *Cicero* questioned everything; *Lucretius* denied everything. Neither received even the slightest criticism for it. Freedom went so far that *Pliny* the Naturalist begins his book by denying that there is a God, and saying that if there is one, it is the sun. Speaking of the underworld, *Cicero* says: *“No old woman is so senseless as to believe it”*: “There is not even an old woman foolish enough to believe in it.” *Juvenal* says: *“Not even children believe”*: “Children do not believe in it.” On the Roman stage people sang: *“After death nothing exists, and death itself is nothing”*: “There is nothing after death, and death itself is nothing.” We should reject these ideas with horror and, at most, forgive them in a people whom the Gospels had not enlightened. They are false and irreligious. But we must conclude that the Romans were very tolerant, since these ideas never caused the slightest protest.

The great principle of the Roman Senate and people was: *“Offenses against the gods are the gods’ concern”*: “It is for the gods alone to concern themselves with offenses against the gods.” This ruling people thought only of conquering, governing, and bringing orderly government to the world. They gave us our laws as well as conquering us. And *Caesar*, who gave us chains, laws, and public games, never tried to force us to give up our Druids in his favor, even though he was the high priest of the nation that ruled us.

The Romans did not practice every religion or give every religion official approval, but they allowed them all. Under *Numa* they had no material objects of worship, no images, no statues. Soon they put up statues to the *major gods*, whom the Greeks introduced to them. The law of the Twelve Tables, *“Do not worship foreign gods,”* came to mean only that public worship was reserved for higher or lower divinities approved by the Senate. *Isis* had a temple in Rome until *Tiberius* demolished it. This happened after its priests, bribed by *Mundus*, let him sleep in the temple with a woman named *Paulina*, pretending to be the god *Anubis*. It is true that *Josephus* is the only one who tells this story. He did not live at the time, and he was gullible and given to exaggeration. It seems unlikely that, in a time as enlightened as that of *Tiberius*, a woman of the highest rank would have been foolish enough to believe she was enjoying the favors of the god *Anubis*.

But whether this story is true or false, it is certain that Egyptian superstition had built a temple in Rome with public consent. Jews were trading there as early as the Punic War. They had synagogues there in the time of *Augustus*, and kept them almost continuously, as they have in modern Rome. Could there be a stronger example showing that the Romans regarded tolerance as the most sacred law governing relations between peoples?

We are told that as soon as Christians appeared, these same Romans, who persecuted no one, began persecuting them. It seems clear to me that this claim is quite false. I ask for no other evidence than *St. Paul* himself. Chap. 21. & 22. The Acts of the Apostles tells us that the Jews accused *St. Paul* of wanting to destroy the law of Moses through Jesus Christ. *St. James* proposed that *St. Paul* shave his head and go to purify himself in the Temple with four Jews, *“so that everyone may know that everything said about you is false, and that you continue to keep the law of Moses.”*

So *Paul*, a Christian, went to carry out all the Jewish ceremonies for seven days. But before the seven days were over, some Jews from *Asia* recognized him. Seeing that he had entered the Temple not only with Jews but with Gentiles, they cried out that it had been defiled. He was seized and taken before the governor *Felix*, and later his case came before the court of *Festus*. A crowd of Jews demanded his death. Actes des Apôtres, Chap. 25. *Festus* answered: *“It is not the Roman custom to condemn a man before the accused has faced his accusers and been given the freedom to defend himself.”*

These words are all the more striking from this Roman official because he seems to have had no regard for *St. Paul*, only contempt. Misled by the false light of his reason, he took Paul for a madman. He told him to his face that he was out of his mind: Act. des Ap. Ch. 26. v. 34. *“Your great learning is driving you mad.”* In protecting an unknown man whom he could not respect, *Festus* was therefore following nothing but the fairness of Roman law.

Here the Holy Spirit himself declares that the Romans were not persecutors and that they were just. It was not the Romans who rose against *St. Paul*, but the Jews. *St. James*, the brother of Jesus, was stoned on the orders of a Sadducee Jew, not a Roman. The Jews alone stoned *St. Stephen*;[14] and when *St. Paul* guarded the executioners’ cloaks, he certainly was not acting as a Roman citizen.

The first Christians surely had no quarrel with the Romans. Their only enemies were the Jews, from whom they were beginning to separate. Everyone knows the relentless hatred that members of a sect feel toward those who leave it. There were undoubtedly disturbances in the synagogues of Rome. In his Life of Claudius, *Suetonius* says: *“He expelled from Rome the Jews who were continually rioting at Christ’s instigation.”* He was mistaken in saying it was at Christ’s instigation. He could not have known the details concerning a people as despised in Rome as the Jews were. But he was not mistaken about what gave rise to these quarrels. *Suetonius* wrote under *Hadrian*, in the second century. At that time the Romans did not distinguish Christians from Jews. This passage in *Suetonius* shows that, far from oppressing the first Christians, the Romans were then restraining the Jews who persecuted them. They wanted Rome’s synagogue to show its separated brothers the same tolerance that the Senate showed it. The expelled Jews soon returned. They even rose to public office, despite the laws that excluded them from it. *Dio Cassius* and *Ulpian* tell us this.[15] Is it possible that after Jerusalem’s destruction the emperors freely gave public honors to Jews, while persecuting Christians, whom they regarded as a Jewish sect, and handing them over to executioners and wild beasts?

“*Nero* persecuted them,” we are told. *Tacitus* tells us that they were accused of setting Rome on fire and were handed over to the people’s fury. Was their belief at issue in such an accusation? Certainly not. Should we say that the Chinese whom the Dutch slaughtered a few years ago in the suburbs of Batavia were sacrificed to religion? However eager people may be to deceive themselves, it is impossible to blame intolerance for the disaster that befell a few unfortunate half-Jews, half-Christians under *Nero*.[16]

[14] The Jews no longer had the power to impose death sentences after *Archelaus* was exiled among the Allobroges and Judea was governed as a province of the empire. Even so, the Romans often looked the other way when the Jews carried out a judgment of zeal. That is, in a sudden riot they would stone, out of religious zeal, someone they believed had blasphemed.

[15] Ulpianus l.... tit. II. *“They allowed those who follow the Jewish superstition to obtain public office, etc.”*

[16] Tacitus says: *“Those whom the common people called Christians, hated for their crimes.”*

It is very unlikely that the name Christian was already known in Rome. *Tacitus* wrote under *Vespasian* and *Domitian*. He spoke of Christians as people spoke of them in his own time. I would venture to say that, in *Tacitus’s* style, the words *“convicted of hatred of the human race”* might just as well mean *“found to be hated by the human race”* as *“found to hate the human race.”*

What were these first missionaries actually doing in Rome? They were trying to win a few souls. They taught them the purest morality. They did not rise against any authority. Their hearts were extremely humble, like their social standing and circumstances. They were barely known, barely separated from the other Jews. How could the human race, which knew nothing about them, hate them? And how could they be found guilty of hating the human race?

When London burned, Catholics were blamed. But that was after religious wars and after the Gunpowder Plot, in which several Catholics, unworthy of the name, had been proved guilty.

The first Christians in *Nero’s* time were certainly not in the same position. It is very difficult to see through the darkness of history. *Tacitus* gives no reason for the suspicion that *Nero* himself wanted to burn Rome to ashes. There would have been much more reason to suspect *Charles II* of burning London. The blood of his father the king, executed on a scaffold before the people who demanded his death, could at least have given *Charles II* an excuse. But *Nero* had no excuse, pretext, or interest in it. Such senseless rumors may circulate among the common people of any country. In our own day we have heard some just as foolish and unjust.

*Tacitus*, who understood the character of rulers so well, should also have understood the people’s character. They are always full of themselves, always extreme in their violent, short-lived opinions, incapable of seeing anything, and capable of saying anything, believing anything, and forgetting everything.

*Philo* says that *Sejanus persecuted them under Tiberius, but that after Sejanus’s death the emperor restored all their rights*. They had the rights of Roman citizens, however much Roman citizens despised them. They shared in the distributions of grain. Even when the distribution fell on a Sabbath, their share was held over for another day. This was probably in recognition of the money they had given the state. In every country they have bought tolerance, and very quickly recovered what it cost them.

This passage in *Philo* perfectly explains the one in *Tacitus* which says that four thousand Jews or Egyptians were sent to Sardinia, and that if the unhealthy climate had killed them, it would have been a small loss, *“a loss of little value.”*

I will add that *Philo* regards *Tiberius* as a wise and just ruler. I readily believe that he was just only when justice agreed with his interests. But the good that *Philo* says of him makes me doubt, a little, the horrors that *Tacitus* and *Suetonius* accuse him of. It does not seem likely to me that a sick old man of seventy retired to the island of Capri to indulge in elaborate forms of sexual excess barely possible in nature, and unknown even to Rome’s most unrestrained young people. Neither *Tacitus* nor *Suetonius* had known this emperor. They enjoyed collecting popular rumors. *Octavian*, *Tiberius*, and their successors had been hated because they ruled a people who should have been free. Historians took pleasure in slandering them, and people took those historians at their word because memoirs, journals from the time, and documents were then lacking. So the historians cite no one. They could not be contradicted. They slandered anyone they wanted and settled posterity’s judgment as they pleased. A sensible reader must judge how far to distrust historians’ truthfulness; how much to believe public events attested by serious writers born in an enlightened nation; and what limits to put on belief in stories those same writers tell without any evidence.

### Chapter IX

*On martyrs.*

There were Christian martyrs later on. It is very hard to know exactly why these martyrs were condemned. But I venture to believe that under the first *Caesars* none was condemned for his religion alone. All religions were tolerated. How could obscure people with a particular form of worship have been hunted down and prosecuted when every other form was allowed?

Rulers such as *Titus*, *Trajan*, the *Antonines*, and *Decius* were not barbarians. Can we imagine that they would have denied Christians alone a freedom enjoyed by the whole world? Would anyone even have dared accuse them of having secret mysteries, when the mysteries of *Isis*, *Mithras*, and the goddess of Syria, all foreign to Roman worship, were allowed without objection? Persecution must have had other causes. Private hatred, backed by reasons of state, must have shed Christian blood.

For example, when *St. Lawrence* refuses to hand over to the prefect of Rome, *Cornelius Secularis*, the Christians’ money in his keeping, it is natural that the prefect and the emperor should be angry. They did not know that *St. Lawrence* had distributed this money to the poor and had done a charitable and holy deed. They saw him as someone defying authority and put him to death.[17]

Consider the martyrdom of *St. Polyeuctus*. Was he condemned for his religion alone? He goes into the temple where thanks are being offered to the gods for the emperor *Decius’s* victory. There he insults the priests and knocks down and breaks the altars and statues. What country in the world would forgive such an attack? The Christian who publicly tore up the emperor *Diocletian’s* edict, bringing the great persecution on his brothers during the last two years of that ruler’s reign, had a zeal not guided by knowledge. It was deeply unfortunate that he caused his own community’s disaster. This thoughtless zeal, which often broke out and which several Fathers of the Church themselves condemned, was probably the source of all the persecutions.

Of course I am not comparing the first Sacramentarians with the first Christians. I am not putting error on a level with truth. But *Farel*, *John Calvin’s* predecessor, did the same thing in Arles that *St. Polyeuctus* had done in Armenia. A statue of *St. Anthony* the Hermit was being carried through the streets in a procession. *Farel* and some of his followers attacked the monks carrying *St. Anthony*, beat them, scattered them, and threw *St. Anthony* into the river. He deserved death, which he escaped because he had time to flee. Suppose he had merely shouted at these monks that he did not believe a raven had brought half a loaf of bread to *St. Anthony* the Hermit, or that *St. Anthony* had talked with centaurs and satyrs. He would have deserved a severe reprimand for disturbing the peace. But if that evening, after the procession, he had calmly examined the story of the raven, the centaurs, and the satyrs, there would have been nothing to reproach him for.

What! The Romans would have allowed the infamous *Antinous* to be ranked among the lesser gods, yet torn apart and thrown to wild beasts everyone whose only offense was quietly worshiping a righteous man! What! They would have acknowledged a supreme God,[18] a sovereign God, master of all the lesser gods, as the formula *“God, best and greatest”* attests, yet hunted down people who worshiped one God!

It is not believable that there was ever an Inquisition against Christians under the emperors—that is, that officials went to their homes to question them about their beliefs. No Jew, Syrian, Egyptian, bard, Druid, or philosopher was ever troubled on that point. The martyrs, then, were those who spoke out against the false gods. It was very wise and very religious not to believe in them. But if Christians were not content to worship one God in spirit and in truth, and violently attacked the established religion, however absurd it might be, we have to admit that they themselves were intolerant.

In his Apology, *Tertullian* admits that Christians were regarded as agitators. Chap. 39. The accusation was unjust, but it proved that it was not the Christians’ religion alone that stirred the officials’ zeal. Chap. 35. He admits that Christians refused to decorate their doors with laurel branches during public celebrations of the emperors’ victories. This blameworthy display could easily be taken as a crime against the sovereign.

The first legal severity against Christians was *Domitian’s*. But it went no further than exile lasting less than a year. *Tertullian* says: *“He readily stopped what he had begun, recalling those he himself had banished.”* *Lactantius*, whose style is so heated, acknowledges that from *Domitian* to *Decius*—Chap. 3.—the Church was peaceful and flourishing. This long peace, he says, was broken when that detestable animal *Decius* oppressed the Church: *“After many years there appeared the detestable animal Decius to torment the Church.”*

I do not intend to discuss here the learned *Dodwell’s* view that there were few martyrs. But if the Romans had persecuted the Christian religion so much, if the Senate had killed so many innocent people with unusual tortures, if they had plunged Christians into boiling oil, if they had exposed naked girls to wild beasts in the circus, how could they have left all the first bishops of Rome in peace? Among those bishops, *St. Irenaeus* counts only *Telesphorus* as a martyr, in the year 139 of the common era. And there is no evidence that this *Telesphorus* was put to death. *Zephyrinus* governed the flock of Rome for eighteen years and died peacefully in 219. It is true that the old martyrologies list almost all the first popes. But the word *martyr* was then used only in its true sense: *martyrdom* meant *testimony*, not *execution*.

It is hard to reconcile this fury of persecution with the Christians’ freedom to hold the fifty-six councils that Church writers count in the first three centuries.

There were persecutions. But if they had been as violent as people say, *Tertullian*, who wrote so forcefully against the established religion, would probably not have died in his bed. We know very well that the emperors did not read his Apology. An obscure work written in Africa does not reach the people responsible for governing the world. But it must have been known to people close to the proconsul of Africa. It must have brought its author a great deal of hatred. Yet he did not suffer martyrdom.

*Origen* taught publicly in Alexandria and was not put to death. This same *Origen*, who spoke so freely to pagans and Christians, preaching Jesus to the former and denying a God in three persons to the latter, expressly admits in his third book against *Celsus* that *“there have been very few martyrs, and those only at long intervals.”* *“Yet,”* he says, *“Christians leave nothing undone to get everyone to embrace their religion. They travel through cities, towns, and villages.”*

Certainly these continual journeys could easily have been labeled seditious by hostile priests. Yet these missions were tolerated, despite the Egyptian people, always unruly, rebellious, and cowardly. These were people who had torn a Roman apart for killing a cat, people contemptible in every age, whatever the admirers of the pyramids may say.[19]

Who was more likely to turn the priests and the government against him than *St. Gregory Thaumaturgus*, a disciple of *Origen*? During the night *Gregory* had seen an old man sent by God, accompanied by a woman shining with light. This woman was the Holy Virgin, and the old man was *St. John* the Evangelist. *St. John* dictated a creed to him, which *St. Gregory* went out to preach. On his way to Neocaesarea he passed a temple where oracles were given. Rain forced him to spend the night there, and he made several signs of the cross. The next day the temple’s high priest was astonished that the demons who had previously answered him would no longer give oracles. He called them. The devils came to tell him they would not come anymore. They explained that they could no longer live in the temple because Gregory had spent the night there and made signs of the cross. The priest had *Gregory* seized. Gregory answered him: *“I can drive demons out of wherever I want and make them go in wherever I please.” “Then make them go back into my temple,”* said the priest. So *Gregory* tore a small piece from a book he was holding and wrote these words on it: *“Gregory to Satan: I order you to go back into this temple.”* The note was placed on the altar. The demons obeyed and gave their oracles as usual that day. After that, as everyone knows, they stopped.

*St. Gregory of Nyssa* reports these events in his Life of *St. Gregory Thaumaturgus*. The idol priests must certainly have been angry with *Gregory* and, in their blindness, denounced him to the authorities. Yet their greatest enemy suffered no persecution.

The history of *St. Cyprian* says that he was the first bishop of Carthage sentenced to death. *St. Cyprian’s* martyrdom dates from the year 258 of our era. So for a very long time no bishop of Carthage was put to death for his religion. History does not tell us what slanders arose against *St. Cyprian*, what enemies he had, or why the proconsul of Africa was angry with him. *St. Cyprian* writes to *Cornelius*, bishop of Rome: *“There was recently a popular disturbance in Carthage, and twice people shouted that I should be thrown to the lions.”* It is very likely that the violent outbursts of Carthage’s savage people finally caused *Cyprian’s* death. And certainly it was not the emperor *Gallus* who condemned him from so far away for his religion, since he left *Cornelius*, who lived right under his eyes, in peace.

So many hidden causes often combine with the apparent one, so many unknown forces help persecute someone, that in later centuries it is impossible to untangle the hidden source of even the most important people’s misfortunes. It is all the more impossible to do so for the execution of a private individual who could have been known only to his own community.

Notice that *St. Gregory Thaumaturgus* and *St. Dionysius*, bishop of Alexandria, who were not executed, lived at the same time as *St. Cyprian*. Why were they left in peace, though they were at least as well known as this bishop of Carthage? And why was *St. Cyprian* handed over to execution? Is there not some reason to think that one fell victim to powerful personal enemies, slander, and the pretext of reasons of state, so often combined with religion, while the others had the good fortune to escape human malice?

It is hardly possible that the accusation of Christianity alone caused *St. Ignatius’s* death under the merciful and just *Trajan*, since Christians were allowed to accompany and comfort him when he was taken to Rome.[20] There had often been riots in Antioch, an endlessly turbulent city where *Ignatius* was the Christians’ secret bishop. Perhaps these riots, maliciously blamed on innocent Christians, drew the attention of the government, which was deceived, as has happened too often.

*St. Simeon*, for example, was accused before *Shapur* of being a Roman spy. The account of his martyrdom says that King *Shapur* asked him to worship the sun. But we know that the Persians did not worship the sun. They regarded it as an emblem of the good principle, *Oromase*, or *Orosmade*, the creator God whom they acknowledged.

However tolerant we may be, we cannot help feeling some indignation at the ranters who accuse *Diocletian* of persecuting Christians from the moment he took the throne. Let us trust *Eusebius of Caesarea*. His testimony cannot be rejected. As *Constantine’s* favorite and his writer of praise, and a fierce enemy of the previous emperors, he must be believed when he clears them. Here are his words: Hist. Ecclésiastiq. Liv. 8. “For a long time the emperors gave Christians great signs of goodwill. They entrusted provinces to them. Several Christians lived in the palace. The emperors even married Christian women. *Diocletian* took *Prisca* as his wife, and her daughter became the wife of *Maximian Galerius*, etc.”

Let this decisive testimony teach people to stop slandering. Consider whether the persecution stirred up by *Galerius*, after nineteen years of a reign marked by mercy and benefits, must not have arisen from some intrigue unknown to us.

Consider how absurd the story of the Theban, or Thebaean, legion is, supposedly massacred to the last man for its religion. It is ridiculous to claim that this legion was brought from Asia by way of the Great St. Bernard Pass. It is impossible that it was summoned from Asia to put down a rebellion in Gaul a year after that rebellion had been suppressed. It is equally impossible that six thousand infantrymen and seven hundred cavalrymen were slaughtered in a pass where two hundred men could stop a whole army. The account of this supposed butchery begins with an obvious falsehood: *“When the earth groaned under Diocletian’s tyranny, heaven was filling with martyrs.”* Yet this episode, as we have said, supposedly happened in 286, when *Diocletian* was most favorable to Christians and the Roman Empire was happiest. Finally, what should spare us all these discussions is that there never was a Theban legion. The Romans were too proud and too sensible to form a legion from those Egyptians who served in Rome only as slaves, *“a slave born in Canopus.”* It would be as if they had had a Jewish legion. We have the names of the thirty-two legions that made up the Roman Empire’s main forces. The Theban legion certainly is not among them. Let us put this tale alongside the Sibyls’ acrostic verses predicting Jesus Christ’s miracles, and so many forged documents that false zeal poured out to exploit people’s willingness to believe.

[17] We certainly respect everything the Church makes worthy of respect. We call on the holy martyrs. But while honoring *St. Lawrence*, may we not doubt that *St. Sixtus* told him, *“You will follow me in three days”*? May we not doubt that in this short interval the prefect of Rome sent to demand the Christians’ money from him; that the deacon *Lawrence* had time to gather all the city’s poor; that he walked ahead of the prefect to lead him to where these poor people were; that he was tried and tortured; that the prefect ordered a blacksmith to make a gridiron large enough to roast a man; that Rome’s highest official personally attended this strange execution; and that *St. Lawrence*, lying on this gridiron, said, “I am cooked enough on one side. Have me turned over to the other if you want to eat me”? This gridiron hardly fits the Roman character. And how can it be that no pagan writer mentioned any of these events?

[18] We need only open *Virgil* to see that the Romans acknowledged a supreme God, ruler of all heavenly beings.

*O you who govern the affairs of humans and gods*
*With eternal command, and terrify with your thunderbolt,*
*O Father, O eternal power over humans and gods, etc.*

*Horace* expresses it much more strongly:

*From whom nothing greater than himself is born,*
*And nothing lives that is his equal or his second.*

Nothing but the oneness of God was sung in the mysteries into which almost all Romans were initiated. See the beautiful hymn of *Orpheus*. Read the letter from *Maximus of Madaura* to *St. Augustine*, in which he says that *only fools can fail to acknowledge a sovereign God*. *Longinianus*, a pagan, writes to the same *St. Augustine* that *God is one, incomprehensible, and beyond words*. *Lactantius* himself, who cannot be accused of being too lenient, admits in his Book V that *the Romans subject all the gods to the supreme God*: *“He makes them subject and subordinate to God.”* Even *Tertullian*, in his Apology, admits that the whole empire acknowledged one God as master of the world, whose power and majesty are infinite: *“The ruler of the world, of perfect power and majesty.”* Above all, open *Plato*, Cicero’s teacher in philosophy. There you will see that *there is only one God*, that *we must worship him, love him, and work to resemble him through holiness and justice*. *Epictetus* in chains and *Marcus Aurelius* on the throne say the same thing in a hundred places.

[19] This claim needs proof. We must admit that ever since history replaced fable, the Egyptians appear only as a people as cowardly as they are superstitious. *Cambyses* takes Egypt in a single battle. *Alexander* gives it laws without fighting a single battle, without any city daring to wait for a siege. The *Ptolemies* take it without a blow. *Caesar* and *Augustus* subdue it just as easily. *Omar* takes all Egypt in a single campaign. After *Omar*, the Mamluks, people from Colchis and the region around Mount Caucasus, become its masters. It is they, not the Egyptians, who defeat *St. Louis’s* army and take that king prisoner. Finally, when the Mamluks have become Egyptians—that is, soft, cowardly, idle, and fickle, like the native inhabitants of that climate—they fall under the yoke of *Selim I* in three months. He hangs their sultan and leaves this province annexed to the Turkish Empire, until other barbarians take it one day.

*Herodotus* reports that in the age of fable an Egyptian king named *Sesostris* left his country with the definite intention of conquering the world. Obviously such a plan is worthy only of *Picrochole* or *Don Quixote*. Quite apart from the fact that the name *Sesostris* is not Egyptian, we can put this event, like all earlier ones, among the tales of the *Thousand and One Nights*. Nothing is more common among conquered peoples than to spread fables about their former greatness, just as in certain countries some wretched families claim descent from ancient rulers. The Egyptian priests told *Herodotus* that this king, whom he calls *Sesostris*, had gone off to conquer Colchis. That is like saying that a king of France left Touraine to conquer Norway.

These tales can be repeated in thousands upon thousands of books without becoming any more plausible. It is much more natural to suppose that the strong, fierce inhabitants of the Caucasus, the Colchians and the other Scythians, who came so often to ravage Asia, pushed as far as Egypt. And if the priests of Colchis later brought home the practice of circumcision, that does not prove that the Egyptians had conquered them. *Diodorus* of Sicily reports that all the kings defeated by *Sesostris* came every year from the depths of their kingdoms to bring him their tribute. He says that *Sesostris* used them as carriage horses, having them harnessed to his chariot to go to the temple. These *Gargantua* stories are faithfully copied every day. Those kings were certainly obliging to come so far to serve as horses in this way.

As for the pyramids and the other ancient monuments, they prove nothing but the pride and bad taste of Egypt’s rulers, and the enslavement of a foolish people. They used their arms, their only possession, to satisfy their masters’ crude taste for display. Even in the times people praise so highly, this people’s government seems absurd and tyrannical. It is claimed that all the land belonged to their monarchs. Such slaves were just the people to conquer the world!

The Egyptian priests’ profound learning is another of the most enormous absurdities of ancient history—that is, of fable. People who claimed that over eleven thousand years the sun had risen twice in the west and set twice in the east, restarting its course, were surely far below the author of the Liège Almanac. The religion of these priests, who governed the state, could not compare with that of the most savage peoples of America. We know that they worshiped crocodiles, monkeys, cats, and onions. Perhaps in the whole world today only the worship of the great *Lama* is equally absurd.

Their arts are hardly better than their religion. There is not a single ancient Egyptian statue that is bearable. Everything good they had was made in Alexandria under the *Ptolemies* and the *Caesars*, by Greek artists. They needed a Greek to teach them geometry.

The famous *Bossuet* goes into raptures over Egyptian merit in his *Discourse on Universal History*, addressed to *Louis XIV’s* son. He may dazzle a young prince, but he gives scholars very little satisfaction. It is a very eloquent piece of rhetoric, but a historian should be more of a philosopher than an orator. In any case, this reflection on the Egyptians is offered only as a conjecture. What other name can we give to anything said about antiquity?

[20] *St. Ignatius’s* death is not being questioned. But read the account of his martyrdom: will a sensible person not feel some doubts arise? The unknown author of this account says that *Trajan thought something would be missing from his glory unless he brought the Christians’ God under his rule*. What an idea! Was *Trajan* a man who wanted to triumph over the gods? When *Ignatius* appeared before the emperor, the ruler said to him: *“Who are you, unclean spirit?”* It is hardly likely that an emperor spoke to a prisoner and condemned him personally. That is not how sovereigns act. If *Trajan* had *Ignatius* brought before him, he did not ask, *“Who are you?”* He knew perfectly well. Could a man like *Trajan* have spoken the words *“unclean spirit”*? Can we not see that this is an exorcist’s expression, put into an emperor’s mouth by a Christian? Good God, is that *Trajan’s* style?

Can we imagine that *Ignatius* answered that his name was *Theophorus* because he carried Jesus in his heart, and that *Trajan* debated Jesus Christ with him? At the end of the conversation *Trajan* is made to say: *“We order that Ignatius, who boasts of carrying the Crucified within him, be put in chains, etc.”* A sophist hostile to Christians might call Jesus Christ *“the Crucified.”* But it is hardly likely that this term would have been used in a legal sentence. Crucifixion was so common among the Romans that legal language could not use *“the Crucified”* to identify the object of Christian worship. That is not how laws and emperors pronounce judgment.

Then *St. Ignatius* is made to write a long letter to the Christians of Rome. *“I write to you,”* he says, *“though I am entirely in chains.”* Certainly, if he was allowed to write to the Christians of Rome, those Christians were not being hunted down. *Trajan*, then, had no intention of bringing their God under his rule. Or, if those Christians were suffering persecution, *Ignatius* was being extremely reckless in writing to them. He was exposing them, giving them away, making himself their informer.

It seems that those who drew up these acts should have paid more attention to plausibility and fitness. The martyrdom of *St. Polycarp* raises still more doubts. We are told that a voice called from heaven, *“Courage, Polycarp!”* Christians heard it, but the others heard nothing. We are told that when *Polycarp* had been tied to the stake and the wood was blazing, the flames drew away from him and formed an arch over his head; that a dove came out of it; that the saint, spared by the fire, gave off a fragrance of spices that filled the whole gathering; but that the man whom fire dared not approach could not withstand the edge of a sword. We must admit that people who find more piety than truth in these stories deserve to be forgiven.

### Chapter X

*The danger of false legends and persecution.*

Falsehood has deceived people for far too long. It is time to recognize the few truths we can make out through the clouds of fables that cover Roman history from *Tacitus* and *Suetonius* onward, and that have almost always surrounded the records of other ancient nations.

How can anyone believe, for example, that the Romans, that serious, strict people from whom we received our laws, sentenced Christian virgins, girls of high birth, to prostitution? That is a very poor understanding of the stern dignity of our lawmakers, who punished the Vestal Virgins’ lapses so severely. *Ruinart’s Authentic Acts* report these shameful things. But should we believe *Ruinart’s Acts* as we believe the Acts of the Apostles? Following *Bollandus*, these *Authentic Acts* say that in the city of Ancyra there were seven Christian virgins, each about seventy years old. The governor *Theodectes* condemned them to be handed over to the city’s young men. But the virgins were spared, as one would expect. He then forced them to serve naked in the mysteries of *Diana*, which, however, no one ever attended without a veil. *St. Theodotus*, who was admittedly a tavern keeper but no less zealous for that, prayed fervently that God would let these holy women die, for fear they might give in to temptation. God answered him. The governor had them thrown into a lake with stones around their necks. They immediately appeared to *Theodotus* and begged him not to let *“their bodies be eaten by fish.”* Those were their very words.

The holy tavern keeper and his companions went by night to the edge of the lake, which soldiers were guarding. A heavenly torch led them all the way. When they reached the guards, a heavenly horseman in full armor chased the guards away, lance in hand. *St. Theodotus* recovered the virgins’ bodies from the lake. He was taken before the governor, and the heavenly horseman did not prevent his head from being cut off. Let us keep repeating that we honor true martyrs, but that this story from *Bollandus* and *Ruinart* is hard to believe.

Must I tell the story of young *St. Romanus* here? *Eusebius* says he was thrown into the fire. Some Jews who were present mocked Jesus Christ for letting those who professed his faith burn, after God had brought *Shadrach*, *Meshach*, and *Abednego* out of the fiery furnace. The Jews had barely spoken when *St. Romanus* came triumphantly out of the flames. The emperor ordered him pardoned and told the judge that he wanted no quarrel with God. Strange words for *Diocletian*! Despite the emperor’s mercy, the judge ordered *St. Romanus’s* tongue cut out. Though he had executioners, he had a doctor perform this operation. Young *Romanus*, who had stammered from birth, spoke fluently as soon as his tongue was cut out. The doctor was reprimanded. To show that the operation had been performed according to the rules of his profession, he took a passerby and cut off exactly as much of his tongue as he had cut from *St. Romanus’s*. The passerby died on the spot: *“for,”* the author learnedly adds, *“anatomy teaches us that a man cannot live without a tongue.”* Really, if *Eusebius* wrote such nonsense, if it was not added to his writings, how much trust can we put in his history?

We are given the martyrdom of *St. Felicity* and her seven children, supposedly sent to their deaths by the wise and religious *Antoninus*, without being told who wrote the account. It is very likely that some author, more zealous than truthful, wanted to imitate the story of the *Maccabees*. The account begins like this: *“St. Felicity was a Roman woman; she lived in the reign of Antoninus.”* These words make it clear that the author did not live at the same time as *St. Felicity*. He says that the praetor judged them from his tribunal on the Field of *Mars*. But the prefect of Rome held his court on the Capitol, not on the Field of *Mars*. After being used for popular assemblies, the Field was then used for military reviews, races, and military games. That alone proves the account is fabricated.

It also says that after the judgment the emperor assigned different judges to carry out the sentence. That is completely contrary to the procedures of those times, and of all times.

There is also a *St. Hippolytus* who is supposedly dragged by horses, like *Hippolytus*, the son of *Theseus*. The ancient Romans never knew this form of execution. The similarity of the names alone led to the invention of this fable.

Notice, too, that in the accounts of martyrdoms, written entirely by Christians themselves, we almost always see crowds of Christians freely visiting the condemned person in prison, following him to his execution, collecting his blood, burying his body, and working miracles with his relics. If religion alone had been persecuted, would these openly Christian people not have been killed too? They were helping their condemned brothers and were accused of performing magic with the remains of martyred bodies. Would they not have been treated as we treated the Waldensians, Albigensians, Hussites, and the different Protestant sects? We slaughtered and burned them in crowds, without distinction of age or sex. Is there a single detail in the verified accounts of ancient persecutions that comes close to the *St. Bartholomew’s Day* massacre or the massacres in Ireland? Is there a single one resembling the annual festival still celebrated in Toulouse? It is a cruel festival that should be abolished forever, in which an entire people thanks God in a procession and congratulates itself for having slaughtered four thousand of its fellow citizens two hundred years ago.

I say this with horror, but truthfully: it is we Christians who have been persecutors, executioners, murderers! And of whom? Our brothers. It is we who destroyed a hundred cities with a crucifix or Bible in our hands, who never stopped shedding blood and lighting fires for executions, from *Constantine’s* reign to the frenzies of the cannibals who lived in the Cévennes. Thank heaven, those frenzies no longer exist today.

We still sometimes send poor people from Poitou, Vivarais, Valence, and Montauban to the gallows. Since 1745 we have hanged eight of those called preachers, or ministers of the Gospel. Their only crime was praying to God for the king in their local dialect and giving a drop of wine and a piece of leavened bread to a few foolish peasants. None of this is known in Paris, where pleasure is the only important thing and people know nothing about what happens in the provinces or abroad. These trials are over in an hour, more quickly than a deserter is tried. If the king knew about them, he would grant pardons.

Catholic priests are not treated like this in any Protestant country. There are more than a hundred Catholic priests in England and Ireland. They are known, and during the last war they were allowed to live very peacefully.

Will we always be the last to adopt other nations’ sound views? They have reformed. When will we reform? It took sixty years to make us accept what *Newton* had demonstrated. We are only just beginning to dare to save our children’s lives through inoculation. We have been practicing the true principles of agriculture for only a very short time. When will we begin practicing the true principles of humanity? And how can we have the nerve to reproach pagans for making martyrs when we have been guilty of the same cruelty in the same circumstances?

Let us grant that the Romans killed a great many Christians for their religion alone. In that case, the Romans were very much to blame. Would we want to commit the same injustice? While reproaching them for persecuting, would we want to be persecutors?

Suppose someone dishonest enough or fanatical enough said to me here: “Why are you laying out our errors and faults? Why destroy our false miracles and false legends? They nourish many people’s religious devotion. Some errors are necessary. Do not tear a deep-rooted ulcer from the body if doing so would destroy the body itself.” Here is what I would answer.

All these false miracles, by which you shake the faith owed to real ones, all these absurd legends you add to the truths of the Gospel, extinguish religion in people’s hearts. Too many people who want to learn, but do not have time to learn enough, say: “The teachers of my religion have deceived me, so there is no religion. It is better to throw ourselves into the arms of nature than into the arms of error. I would rather depend on natural law than on human inventions.” Others have the misfortune to go further still. They see that deception has put a bridle on them, and they do not even want the bridle of truth. They lean toward atheism. People become depraved because others have been deceitful and cruel.

These are certainly the consequences of all pious frauds and superstitions. People usually reason only halfway. It is a very bad argument to say: “*Voragine*, author of the Golden Legend, and the Jesuit *Ribadeneira*, compiler of *The Flower of the Saints*, said nothing but foolish things; therefore there is no God. Catholics slaughtered a certain number of Huguenots, and Huguenots in turn murdered a certain number of Catholics; therefore there is no God. Confession, Communion, and all the sacraments have been used to commit the most horrible crimes; therefore there is no God.” I would conclude the opposite: therefore there is a God who, after this passing life in which we have so badly misunderstood him and committed so many crimes in his name, will be willing to comfort us for so many terrible misfortunes. For when we consider the religious wars, the forty papal schisms, almost all bloody, the frauds, almost all disastrous, and the irreconcilable hatreds kindled by different opinions—when we see all the evils false zeal has caused—human beings have long had their hell in this life.

### Chapter XI

*Abuses of intolerance.*

But what! Is every citizen to be allowed to trust only his own reason and think whatever that reason, enlightened or mistaken, tells him? He must be allowed to,[21] provided he does not disturb public order. Whether a person believes or does not believe is not within his control. But he can choose to respect his country’s customs. And if you said it was a crime not to believe in the dominant religion, you would be accusing the first Christians, your own forefathers, and justifying those whom you accuse of sending them to their deaths.

You answer that there is a great difference: all religions are human works, while the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church alone is God’s work. But honestly, because our religion is divine, must it rule through hatred, rage, exile, confiscation of property, prisons, torture, murder, and thanksgiving to God for those murders? The more divine the Christian religion is, the less it is for human beings to impose it. If God made it, God will sustain it without you. You know that intolerance produces only hypocrites or rebels. What a disastrous choice! In short, would you use executioners to uphold the religion of a God whom executioners killed, and who preached only gentleness and patience?

Please consider the terrible consequences of a right to be intolerant. Suppose it were permissible to strip a citizen of his property, throw him into a dungeon, or kill him because, at a particular degree of latitude, he did not profess the religion accepted at that latitude. What exception would exempt the highest people in the state from the same penalties? Religion binds the monarch and beggars equally. Accordingly, more than fifty theologians or monks have asserted this monstrous horror: that it is permissible to depose and kill sovereigns who do not think like the dominant Church. The kingdom’s sovereign law courts have never stopped condemning these abominable rulings by abominable theologians.[22]

*Henry the Great’s* blood was still steaming when the Parlement of Paris issued a ruling establishing the Crown’s independence as a fundamental law. Cardinal *Du Perron*, who owed his cardinal’s robes to *Henry the Great*, opposed the court’s ruling at the Estates-General of 1614 and had it suppressed. All the journals of the time report the terms *Du Perron* used in his speeches: *“If a ruler became an Arian,”* he said, *“we would certainly be obliged to depose him.”*

Certainly not, Cardinal. Let us accept your imaginary case: one of our kings reads the history of the councils and the Fathers; he is also struck by the words *“my Father is greater than I”* and takes them too literally; he hesitates between the Council of Nicaea and that of Constantinople, and declares himself for *Eusebius of Nicomedia*. I would obey my king no less, and consider myself no less bound by the oath I had sworn to him. And if you dared rise against him, and I were one of your judges, I would declare you guilty of a crime against the sovereign.

*Du Perron* took the argument further; I am shortening it. This is not the place to examine these outrageous fantasies in depth. I will limit myself to saying, with all citizens, that obedience was owed to *Henry IV* not because he was crowned at Chartres, but because the unquestionable right of birth gave the Crown to this ruler, who deserved it through his courage and goodness.

Then let us be allowed to say that every citizen should inherit his father’s property by the same right. There is no reason why he should deserve to lose it and be dragged to the gallows because he agrees with *Ratramnus* against *Paschasius Radbertus*, and with *Berengar* against *Scotus*.

We know that not all our doctrines have always been clearly explained and universally accepted in our Church. Since Jesus Christ did not tell us how the Holy Spirit proceeded, the Latin Church long believed, with the Greek Church, that he proceeded from the Father alone. Finally it added to the Creed that he also proceeded from the Son. I ask whether, on the day after this decision, a citizen who kept to the previous day’s creed would have deserved death. Would it be any less cruel and unjust to punish someone today for thinking as people once thought? In the time of *Honorius I*, was it a crime to believe that Jesus did not have two wills?

The Immaculate Conception was established only recently. The Dominicans still do not believe in it. At what point will the Dominicans begin to deserve punishment in this world and the next?

If we should learn from anyone how to behave in our endless disputes, it is surely from the Apostles and the Evangelists. There was enough to cause a violent split between *St. Paul* and *St. Peter*. In his Epistle to the Galatians, *Paul* expressly says that he opposed *Peter* to his face because *Peter* was at fault, because he was pretending, as was *Barnabas*. Before *James* arrived they had eaten with the Gentiles; afterward they quietly withdrew and separated themselves from the Gentiles for fear of offending the circumcised. *“I saw,”* he adds, *“that they were not walking straight according to the Gospel. I said to Cephas: If you, a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, why do you force the Gentiles to live as Jews?”*

Here was a subject for a violent quarrel. The question was whether the new Christians would follow Jewish practices or not. At that very time *St. Paul* went to offer sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem. We know that the first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were circumcised Jews who observed the Sabbath and abstained from forbidden meats. A Spanish or Portuguese bishop who had himself circumcised and observed the Sabbath would be burned in an *auto-da-fé*. Yet this fundamental issue did not disturb the peace among either the Apostles or the first Christians.

If the Evangelists had been like modern writers, they would have had a very broad field for attacking one another. *St. Matthew* counts twenty-eight generations from *David* to Jesus. *St. Luke* counts forty-one, and these generations are completely different. Yet we see no disagreement arise among the disciples over these apparent contradictions, which several Fathers of the Church have reconciled very well. Charity was not harmed; peace was preserved. What greater lesson could there be in tolerating one another in our disputes and being humble about everything we do not understand?

In his Epistle to some Jews in Rome who had converted to Christianity, *St. Paul* uses the whole end of Chapter III to say that faith alone brings glory and works justify no one. *St. James*, on the contrary, in Chapter II of his Epistle to the twelve tribes scattered throughout the earth, repeatedly says that we cannot be saved without works. This is what has separated two great religious communities among us, yet did not divide the Apostles.

If persecuting those with whom we argue were a holy act, we would have to admit that whoever had the most heretics killed would be the greatest saint in heaven. How would a man who had merely stripped his brothers of their property and plunged them into dungeons compare with a zealot who massacred hundreds on *St. Bartholomew’s Day*? Here is the proof.

*St. Peter’s* successor and his consistory cannot be wrong. They approved, celebrated, and consecrated the act of *St. Bartholomew’s Day*. Therefore that act was very holy. Therefore, of two murderers equally devout, the one who disemboweled twenty-four pregnant Huguenot women must be raised to twice the heavenly glory of the one who disemboweled only twelve. For the same reason, the fanatics of the Cévennes must have believed that they would be raised to glory in proportion to the number of priests, members of religious orders, and Catholic women they slaughtered. These are strange qualifications for eternal glory.

[21] *See* *Locke’s* excellent Lettre sur la Tolérance.

[22] The Jesuit *Busenbaum*, with commentary by the Jesuit *La Croix*, says that *“it is permissible to kill a ruler excommunicated by the pope, in whatever country that ruler is found, because the universe belongs to the pope, and whoever accepts this mission does a very charitable deed.”* This proposition, invented in the madhouses of hell, did more than anything else to turn all France against the Jesuits. More than ever, they were then reproached for this doctrine, which they had so often taught and so often disowned. They thought they could justify themselves by pointing to much the same rulings in *St. Thomas* and several Dominicans.[A] Indeed, *St. Thomas Aquinas*, the Angelic Doctor and interpreter of the divine will—those are his titles—asserts that an apostate ruler loses his right to the Crown and must no longer be obeyed;[B] that the Church can punish him with death; that the emperor *Julian* was tolerated only because Christians lacked the strength to do otherwise;[C] that by right every heretic should be killed;[D] that those who free the people from a ruler who governs tyrannically deserve great praise, etc., etc. The Angel of the Schools is greatly respected. But if, in the days of *Jacques Clément*, his fellow Dominican, and the Feuillant *Ravaillac*, he had come to France to defend such propositions, how would the Angel of the Schools have been treated?

[A] See, if you can, the *Lettre* d'un homme du monde à un Théologien sur *St. Thomas*. It is a Jesuit pamphlet of 1762.

[B] Liv. II, part. 2, question 12.

[C] Liv. II, part. 2, question 12.

[D] Ibid. question 11 & 12.

We must admit that *Jean Gerson*, chancellor of the university, went even further than *St. Thomas*, and that the Franciscan *Jean Petit* went infinitely further than *Gerson*. Several Franciscans defended *Jean Petit’s* horrible theses. We must admit that this devilish doctrine of regicide comes entirely from the mad idea, long held by almost all monks, that the pope is a God on earth who can dispose of kings’ thrones and lives as he pleases. In this we have fallen far below those Tatars who believe the great *Lama* is immortal. He distributes the contents of his commode to them; they dry these relics, put them in shrines, and devoutly kiss them. For my part, I admit that for the sake of peace I would rather wear such relics around my neck than believe that the pope has the slightest authority over kings’ worldly affairs, or even mine, under any circumstances whatever.

### Chapter XII

*Was intolerance a matter of divine law in Judaism, and was it always put into practice?*

I believe we call the commands God himself has given *divine law*. He wanted the Jews to eat a cooked lamb with lettuce, standing with a staff in their hands to commemorate the *Passover*. He ordered that the high priest be consecrated by putting blood on his right ear, right hand, and right foot. These customs seem strange to us, but they did not to the ancient world. He wanted the goat *Hazazel* to carry the people's sins. Deutér. Chap. 14. He forbade them to eat fish without scales, pigs, hares, hedgehogs, owls, griffons, ixions, and so on.

He established the festivals and ceremonies. To other nations, all these things seemed arbitrary, a matter of human law and custom. But because God himself commanded them, they became divine law for the Jews, just as everything Jesus Christ, son of *Mary* and son of God, commanded us is divine law for us.

Let us not ask here why God replaced the law he had given *Moses* with a new one, or why he required more of *Moses* than of the patriarch *Abraham*, and more of *Abraham* than of *Noah*.[23] He seems willing to adapt his demands to the times and to the size of the human population. These are the gradual steps of a father. But these depths are too great for our weak sight. Let us stay within our subject and first see what intolerance was like among the Jews.

It is true that in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, Amos, Chap. 5, v. 26.

Jérém. Chap. 7, v. 22.

Actes des Ap. Ch. 7, v. 42. there are very harsh laws about worship, and still harsher punishments. Many commentators find it hard to reconcile *Moses'* accounts with passages in *Jeremiah* and *Amos*, and with the famous speech of *St. Stephen* recorded in Acts of the Apostles. *Amos* says the Jews always worshiped *Moloch*, *Remphan*, and *Kium* in the wilderness. *Jeremiah* expressly says that God asked their fathers for no sacrifices when they left Egypt. In his speech to the Jews, *St. Stephen* puts it this way: "They worshiped the army of heaven. They offered neither sacrifices nor sacrificial victims in the wilderness for forty years. They carried the tabernacle of the god *Moloch* and the star of their god *Rempham*."

Other critics infer from the worship of so many foreign gods that *Moses* tolerated these gods. As proof they quote these words from Deuteronomy: Deutér. Chap. 12, v. 8. *When you are in the land of Canaan, you will not do as we do today, when everyone does what seems right to him*.[24]

They support their view by pointing out that no religious act by the people in the wilderness is mentioned. No Passover was celebrated, no Pentecost. There is no mention of a celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles, and no public prayer was established. Finally, circumcision, the seal of God's covenant with *Abraham*, was not practiced.

They also rely on the story of *Joshua*. Josué, Ch. 14. v. 15 & suiv. This conqueror tells the Jews: "You have a choice. Choose whichever course you please: to worship the gods you served in the land of the Amorites, or those you acknowledged in Mesopotamia." The people answer: "That will not be our course. We will serve *Adonai*." *Joshua* replied: "You have made your own choice. Now remove the foreign gods from among you." So under *Moses* they had unquestionably had other gods besides *Adonai*.

There is no point here in refuting the critics who think *Moses* did not write the Pentateuch. Everything on that subject was said long ago. Even if some small part of the books of *Moses* had been written in the time of the judges, kings, or high priests, those books would be no less inspired and no less divine.

It seems enough to me that Holy Scripture proves that, despite the extraordinary punishment the Jews brought on themselves by worshiping *Apis*, they retained complete freedom for a long time. Perhaps even the slaughter of twenty-three thousand men that *Moses* carried out over the calf his brother had set up taught him that severity achieved nothing, and forced him to overlook the people's passion for foreign gods.

He himself, Nomb. Chap. 21, v. 9. seems soon to break the law he has given. He has forbidden every image, yet he sets up a bronze serpent. The same exception to the law appears later in *Solomon's* temple. This prince has twelve oxen carved to support the temple's great basin. Cherubim are placed in the Ark; they have an eagle's head and a calf's head. Apparently it was this badly made calf's head, found in the temple by Roman soldiers, that led people to believe for so long that the Jews worshiped a donkey.

The ban on worshiping foreign gods achieves nothing: *Solomon* practices idolatry undisturbed. *Jeroboam*, to whom God gave ten shares of the kingdom, has two golden calves set up and reigns for twenty-two years, combining the offices of monarch and high priest. Under *Rehoboam*, the little kingdom of Judah sets up foreign altars and statues. The holy king *Asa* does not destroy the high places. The high priest *Uriah*, Liv. IV. des Rois, Chap. 16. sets up an altar belonging to the king of Syria in the temple, replacing the altar of burnt offerings. In short, there is no sign of religious coercion. I know that most of the Jewish kings destroyed and murdered one another. But they always did so for their own interests, not for their beliefs.

It is true that among the prophets, Liv. III. des Rois, Chap. 18, v. 38 & 40.

Liv. IV. des Rois, Chap. 2, v. 24. some brought heaven into their acts of revenge. *Elijah* brought fire down from heaven to consume the priest of *Baal*. *Elisha* brought bears to eat forty-two small children who had called him *baldhead*. But these are rare miracles, and acts it would be rather cruel to try to imitate.

Another objection is raised, Nomb. Chap. 31. that the Jewish people were very ignorant and very barbarous. We are told that in their war against the Midianites,[25] *Moses* ordered them to kill all the male children and all the mothers, and divide the spoils. In the camp the victors found 675,000 sheep, 72,000 oxen, 61,000 donkeys, and 32,000 girls. They divided these up and killed all the rest. Several commentators even maintain that thirty-two girls were sacrificed to the Lord: *thirty-two souls fell to the Lord's share*.

In fact, the Jews sacrificed human beings to God. The sacrifice of *Jephthah*[26] is evidence of this, as is King *Agag*,[27] cut to pieces by the priest *Samuel*. To encourage them, even *Ezekiel*, Ezéch. Chap. 39, v. 18. promises that they will eat human flesh. "*You will eat*," he says, "*the horse and the rider; you will drink the blood of princes*." In this people's whole history there is not one act of generosity, greatness of spirit, or kindness. Yet rays of universal tolerance keep breaking through the cloud of this long and dreadful barbarism.

*Jephthah*, Juges, Chap. 11, v. 24. who was inspired by God and sacrificed his daughter to him, says to the Ammonites: "*Does what your god Chemosh has given you not belong to you by right? Then let us take the land our God has promised us.*" This declaration is explicit. It can have far-reaching implications. At the very least, it is clear proof that God tolerated *Chemosh*. For Holy Scripture does not say: "You think you have a right to the lands you say the god *Chemosh* gave you." It says outright: "You have a right to them"—*They are owed to you by right*. This is the true meaning of the Hebrew words *Otho thirasch*.

The story of *Micah* and the Levite, told in chapters 17 and 18 of the Book of Judges, is another undeniable proof that the Jews allowed tolerance and the greatest freedom. *Micah's* mother, a very rich woman from Ephraim, had lost eleven hundred pieces of silver. Her son returned them. She dedicated this money to the Lord and had idols made from it. She built a small chapel. A Levite served it for ten pieces of silver, a tunic, and a cloak a year, together with his food. *Micah* exclaimed: Chap. 17 v. dernier. "*Now God will do me good, since I have a priest of the line of Levi in my house.*"

Meanwhile, six hundred men of the tribe of *Dan* were looking to take some village in the country and settle there. They had no Levite priest with them, but needed one to secure God's favor for their undertaking. So they went to *Micah's* house and took his ephod, idols, and Levite, despite the priest's objections and the cries of *Micah* and his mother. Then they confidently attacked the village called *Laish*, putting everything to fire and sword, as was their custom. They renamed *Laish* *Dan* to commemorate their victory, and placed *Micah's* idol on an altar. More remarkably still, *Jonathan*, the grandson of *Moses*, was the high priest of this temple, where they worshiped both the God of Israel and *Micah's* idol.

After *Gideon's* death, the Hebrews worshiped *Baal-berith* for nearly twenty years and gave up worshiping *Adonai*. No leader, judge, or priest called for vengeance. Their crime was great, I admit. But if even this idolatry was tolerated, how much more must differences within true worship have been tolerated?

Some offer the following as proof of intolerance. The Lord himself allowed the Philistines to capture his Ark in battle. He punished them only by striking them with a disease of the private parts resembling hemorrhoids, knocking down the statue of *Dagon*, and sending a mass of rats into their fields. But to calm his anger, the Philistines sent the Ark back, drawn by two cows nursing their calves, and offered God five golden rats and five golden anuses. The Lord then killed seventy elders of Israel and fifty thousand of the people for looking at the Ark. The answer is that the Lord's punishment did not fall on a belief, a difference in worship, or any form of idolatry.

If the Lord had wanted to punish idolatry, he would have killed all the Philistines who dared to capture his Ark and who worshiped *Dagon*. Instead, he killed fifty thousand and seventy of his own people simply because they had looked at his Ark when they were not supposed to. So different are the laws and customs of that time, and the whole Jewish order, from everything we know. So far above our ways are God's unfathomable ways. "*The severity shown*," says the sensible Dom Calmet, "*toward this great number of men will seem excessive only to those who have not understood how much God wanted his people to fear and respect him, and who judge God's intentions and plans only by the weak light of their own reason*."

God therefore does not punish a foreign form of worship, but the desecration of his own: improper curiosity, disobedience, perhaps even a rebellious spirit. It is clear that in the Jewish theocracy, such punishments belong to God alone. We cannot repeat too often that those times and customs have nothing in common with ours.

Finally, in later centuries, when *Naaman* the idolater asked *Elisha*, Liv. IV. des Rois, Chap. 20, v. 25. whether he was allowed to accompany his king into the temple of Remnon and *worship there with him*, did not this same *Elisha*, who had had children eaten by bears, answer him: "*Go in peace*"?

There is much more. The Lord orders *Jeremiah* to put ropes, collars,[28] and yokes around his neck and to send them to the petty kings, or Melchim, of Moab, Ammon, Edom, Tyre, and Sidon. *Jeremiah* gives them this message from the Lord: Jérém. Chap. 27, v. 6. "*I have given all your lands to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, my servant.*" Here is an idolatrous king declared God's servant and favorite.

The same *Jeremiah*, whom *Zedekiah*, the Jewish Melk, or petty king, had thrown into a dungeon, obtained *Zedekiah's* pardon and advised him on God's behalf, Jérém. Chap. 18, v. 19. to surrender to the king of Babylon. "*If you go and surrender to his officers*," he says, "*your soul will live*." So God finally takes the side of an idolatrous king. He hands over to him the Ark, the mere sight of which had cost fifty thousand and seventy Jews their lives. He hands over the Holy of Holies and the rest of the temple, whose construction had cost one hundred eight thousand talents of gold, one million seventeen thousand talents of silver, and ten thousand gold drachmas, left by *David* and his officers to build the house of the Lord. Without counting the money *Solomon* spent, this comes to about nineteen billion sixty-two million at today's rate. Never was idolatry better rewarded. I know this account is exaggerated and that there is probably a copying error. But reduce the sum by half, to a quarter, even to an eighth, and it will still astonish you. We are scarcely less surprised by the riches *Herodotus* says he saw in the temple at Ephesus. In the end, treasures are nothing in God's eyes. The name of his servant, given to *Nebuchadnezzar*, is the true priceless treasure.

God, Isaïe, Chap. 44 & 45. shows no less favor to *Kir*, or *Koresh*, or *Kosroes*, whom we call *Cyrus*. He calls him *his Christ*, *his Anointed*, although he was not anointed in the usual sense of that word and followed the religion of *Zoroaster*. He calls him his *Shepherd*, although in human eyes he was a usurper. There is no greater sign of special favor anywhere in Holy Scripture.

You read in *Malachi* that *from east to west God's name is great among the nations, and pure offerings are made to him everywhere*. God takes care of the idolatrous Ninevites as he does of the Jews. He threatens them and forgives them. *Melchizedek*, who was not Jewish, was a priest of God. *Balaam*, an idolater, was a prophet. Scripture therefore teaches us that God not only tolerated all other peoples but cared for them as a father. And we dare to be intolerant!

[23] Since we intend to add a few useful notes to this work, we will point out here that God is said to have made a covenant with *Noah* and with all the animals. Yet he allows *Noah* to *eat everything that lives and moves*. He excludes only blood, which he does not allow people to consume. God adds that *he will take vengeance on every animal that has shed human blood*.

From these passages and several others we can infer what the whole ancient world believed, what has been believed down to our own day, and what all sensible people think: animals have some understanding. God does not make a covenant with trees and stones, which have no feeling. He makes one with animals, to which he has chosen to give feeling often more keen than ours, and some ideas necessarily linked to that feeling. That is why he does not want us to be so barbarous as to feed on their blood. Blood really is the source of life, and therefore of feeling. Drain an animal of all its blood, and every organ stops working. Scripture is therefore quite right to say in a hundred places that the soul—that is, what was called the sensitive soul—is in the blood. This very natural idea has been shared by all peoples.

This idea is the basis of the compassion we owe animals. Of the seven precepts of the *Noahides* accepted among the Jews, one forbids eating a limb from a living animal. This precept proves that people had been cruel enough to mutilate animals to eat their severed limbs, leaving the animals alive so they could feed on their bodies piece by piece. This custom did in fact survive among some barbarous peoples, as we see from the sacrifices on the island of Chios to *Bacchus Omadios*, the eater of raw flesh. So, while allowing us to use animals for food, God recommends that we treat them with some humanity. We must admit that it is barbarous to make them suffer. Certainly only habit can lessen our natural horror at cutting the throat of an animal we have fed with our own hands. There have always been peoples who felt very strong objections to this. Those objections still endure on the Indian peninsula. The whole school of *Pythagoras*, in Italy and Greece, consistently abstained from eating flesh. In his book on abstinence, *Porphyry* reproaches his disciple for leaving his school only to indulge his barbarous appetite.

It seems to me that anyone who dares to claim that animals are only machines must have abandoned the natural light of reason. It is an obvious contradiction to admit that God has given animals all the organs of feeling and then maintain that he has given them no feeling.

It also seems to me that anyone who cannot distinguish their different cries of need, pain, joy, fear, love, anger, and all their emotions can never have observed animals. It would be very strange if they expressed so well things they did not feel.

This observation can give thoughtful minds much to consider about the power and goodness of the Creator. He chooses to grant life, feeling, ideas, and memory to the beings his own almighty hand has made. We do not know how these organs were formed, how they develop, how life is received, or by what laws feelings, ideas, memory, and will are linked to that life. In this deep and permanent ignorance, which is part of our nature, we argue endlessly and persecute one another like bulls fighting with their horns, without knowing why or how they have horns.

[24] Several writers rashly conclude from this passage that the chapter about the golden calf—which is simply the god *Apis*—was added to the books of *Moses*, along with several other chapters.

*Ibn Ezra* was the first to believe he could prove that the Pentateuch was compiled in the time of the kings. *Wollaston*, *Collins*, *Tindal*, *Shaftesbury*, *Bolingbroke*, and many others have argued that carving thoughts into polished stone, brick, lead, or wood was the only way of writing. They say that in *Moses'* time the Chaldeans and Egyptians wrote in no other way. At that time, they say, people could carve only a very abbreviated account, in hieroglyphs, of the main facts they wanted to pass on to later generations, not detailed histories. It would have been impossible to carve large books in a wilderness where people moved so often, where no one could supply or cut clothing, or even mend sandals, and where God had to perform a forty-year miracle to preserve his people's clothes and shoes. They say it is unlikely that there were so many engravers of written characters when the most necessary crafts were lacking and people could not even make bread. If they are told that the tabernacle's pillars were bronze and their capitals solid silver, they reply that the order may have been given in the wilderness, but it was only carried out in happier times.

They cannot understand how this poor people could have asked for a solid gold calf to worship at the very foot of the mountain where God was speaking to *Moses*, amid the thunder and lightning they could see, and with the sound of the heavenly trumpet they could hear. They are astonished that on the very day before *Moses* came down the mountain, this whole people turned to *Moses'* brother to ask for a solid gold calf. How did *Aaron* cast it in a single day? How did *Moses* then reduce it to powder? They say that no craftsman could make a gold statue in less than three months, and that even the most advanced chemistry could not reduce it to a powder people could swallow. So *Aaron's* wrongdoing and *Moses'* operation would both have been miracles.

Their humanity and kindness of heart mislead them and keep them from believing that *Moses* had twenty-three thousand people slaughtered to atone for this sin. They cannot imagine twenty-three thousand men letting Levites massacre them in this way without a third miracle. Finally, they find it strange that *Aaron*, the guiltiest of all, should have been rewarded for the crime for which the others were so horribly punished. He was made high priest while the bloody corpses of twenty-three thousand of his brothers lay piled at the foot of the altar where he was about to sacrifice.

They raise the same objections about the twenty-four thousand Israelites massacred on *Moses'* orders to atone for the offense of a single man caught with a Moabite girl. So many Jewish kings, especially *Solomon*, married foreign women without punishment that these critics cannot accept that a union with a Moabite woman was such a great crime. *Ruth* was a Moabite, although her family originally came from Bethlehem. Holy Scripture always calls her *Ruth the Moabite*. Yet on her mother's advice she went and lay down in *Boaz's* bed, received six bushels of barley from him, later married him, and became an ancestor of *David*. *Rahab* was not only a foreigner but a prostitute. The Vulgate gives her no other title than *prostitute*. She married *Solomon*, prince of Judah, and *David* was also descended from this *Solomon*. *Rahab* is even regarded as a prefiguration of the Christian Church. Several Fathers take this view, especially *Origen* in his seventh homily on *Joshua*.

*Bathsheba*, the wife of *Uriah*, by whom *David* had *Solomon*, was a Hittite. Going further back, the patriarch *Judah* married a Canaanite woman. His children married *Tamar*, of the line of *Aram*. This woman, with whom *Judah* unknowingly committed incest, was not of the line of *Israel*.

Thus our Lord Jesus Christ chose to become flesh among the Jews in a family descended from five foreigners, to show that foreign nations would share in his inheritance.

As already stated, Rabbi *Ibn Ezra* was the first who dared to claim that the Pentateuch was compiled long after *Moses*. He bases his claim on several passages: "The Canaanites were then in this country. Mount Moriah, called the mountain of God. The bed of *Og*, king of Bashan, can still be seen in *Rabbah*. And he called all this land of Bashan the villages of Jair, to this day. There has never been a prophet in Israel like *Moses*. These are the kings who reigned in Edom before any king reigned over Israel." He maintains that these passages, which discuss things that happened after *Moses*, cannot be by *Moses*. The reply to these objections is that these passages are notes added much later by copyists.

*Newton*, whose name should otherwise only be spoken with respect, but who could make mistakes because he was human, attributes the books of *Moses*, *Joshua*, and *Judges* to much later sacred authors in the introduction to his commentaries on *Daniel* and *St. John*. He bases his argument on chapter 36 of Genesis; four chapters of Judges, 17, 18, 19, and 21; *Samuel*, chapter 8; Chronicles, chapter 2; and the Book of *Ruth*, chapter 4. Indeed, if chapter 36 of Genesis speaks of kings, if they are mentioned in the books of Judges, and if the Book of *Ruth* speaks of *David*, all these books seem to have been compiled in the time of the kings. Some theologians, led by the famous *Le Clerc*, also take this view. But this opinion has only a few followers whose curiosity probes these depths. Such curiosity is certainly not among human duties. When the learned and the ignorant, princes and shepherds, appear after this short life before the Master of eternity, each of us will then wish to have been just, humane, compassionate, and generous. No one will boast of knowing exactly what year the Pentateuch was written or of having separated the text from the notes used by the scribes. God will not ask whether we sided with the Masoretes against the Talmud, or whether we ever mistook a *kaph* for a *beth*, a *yod* for a *vau*, or a *daleth* for a *resh*. He will certainly judge us by our actions, not by our understanding of Hebrew. We firmly accept the Church's decision, as a believer reasonably should.

Let us end this note with an important passage from Leviticus, Levit. Chap. 17. a book composed after the worship of the golden calf. It orders the Jews to stop worshiping the hairy ones, *the goats with which they have even committed infamous abominations*. We do not know whether this strange worship came from Egypt, the home of superstition and sorcery. But it is believed that the custom of our supposed witches of going to the Sabbath, worshiping a goat there, and giving themselves over with it to unimaginable obscenities, horrible even to think of, came from the ancient Jews. Indeed, it was they who taught witchcraft in part of Europe. What a people! Such strange infamy seemed to deserve a punishment like the one the golden calf brought on them. Yet the lawgiver is content simply to forbid it. This fact is reported here only to make the Jewish nation known. Bestiality must have been common among them, Lévit. Chap. 18 v. 23. since theirs is the only known nation whose laws had to forbid a crime that no lawgiver elsewhere had even suspected.

We may suppose that, during the hardships and shortages the Jews endured in the wildernesses of Paran, Horeb, and Kadesh-barnea, the female sex, weaker than the other, had died off. The Jews must indeed have lacked girls, since whenever they take a town or village, whether to the left or right of the Asphaltic Lake, they are always ordered to kill everyone except girls of marriageable age.

The Arabs who still inhabit part of these wildernesses always stipulate in their agreements with caravans that they be given girls of marriageable age. It is likely that in these dreadful lands young men carried the corruption of human nature so far as to mate with goats, as some shepherds in Calabria are said to do.

It remains to be seen whether these matings produced monsters, and whether there is any basis for the old stories of satyrs, fauns, centaurs, and minotaurs. History says there is. Natural science has not yet enlightened us on this monstrous question.

[25] Midian was not included in the Promised Land. It is a small district of Idumea in Arabia Petraea. It begins toward the north at the stream of Arnon and ends at the stream of Zared, among the rocks on the eastern shore of the Asphaltic Lake. A small band of Arabs inhabits this country today. It may be about eight leagues long and a little less wide.

[26] The text makes it certain that *Jephthah* sacrificed his daughter. "*God did not approve these vows*," says *Dom Calmet* in his dissertation on the vow of *Jephthah*: "*but once they have been made, he wants them carried out, if only to punish those who made them, or to curb the carelessness with which people would make them if they did not fear having to fulfill them*." *St. Augustine* and almost all the Fathers condemn *Jephthah's* action. It is true that Scripture says *he was filled with the spirit of God*, and that *St. Paul*, in chapter 11 of his Epistle to the Hebrews, praises *Jephthah*, placing him with *Samuel* and *David*.

In his letter to *Julian*, *St. Jerome* says: "*Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to the Lord, and that is why the Apostle counts him among the saints*." Here are judgments on both sides on which we are not allowed to pass our own judgment. We should be afraid even to have an opinion.

[27] The death of King *Agag* can be regarded as a true sacrifice. *Saul* had taken this king of the Amalekites prisoner in war and accepted his surrender on terms. But the priest *Samuel* had ordered him to spare nothing. His exact words were: Liv. I. des Rois, Chapitre 15. "*Kill everyone, from men to women, down to small children and those still nursing.*"

*Samuel cut King Agag to pieces before the Lord at Gilgal.*

"The zeal that inspired this prophet," says *Dom Calmet*, "put the sword in his hand on this occasion to avenge the Lord's glory and to humble *Saul*."

In this fatal episode we see a dedication to God, a priest, and a victim. It was therefore a sacrifice.

Every people whose history we have has sacrificed human beings to God, except the Chinese. *Plutarch* reports that even the Romans sacrificed them during the Republic.

We see in *Caesar's* Commentaries that the Germans were about to sacrifice the hostages he had given them when his victory freed those hostages.

I have pointed out elsewhere that this violation of the law of nations against *Caesar's* hostages, and these human victims sacrificed, to complete the horror, by women's hands, rather contradict *Tacitus'* praise of the Germans in his treatise *De moribus Germanorum*. In that work, *Tacitus* seems more concerned with satirizing the Romans than praising the Germans, whom he did not know.

Let us mention in passing that *Tacitus* preferred satire even to truth. He wants to make everything hateful, even actions that are neither good nor bad. His malice pleases us almost as much as his style, because we like slander and wit.

Let us return to human victims. Our ancestors sacrificed them just as the Germans did. This is the lowest point of stupidity our nature reaches when left to itself, and one result of our weak judgment. We said: "We must offer God what we have that is most precious and most beautiful. Nothing is more precious to us than our children. So we must choose the most beautiful and youngest to sacrifice to God."

*Philo* says that people sometimes sacrificed their children in the land of Canaan before God ordered *Abraham* to sacrifice his only son *Isaac* to test his faith.

*Sanchuniathon*, quoted by *Eusebius*, reports that in times of great danger the Phoenicians sacrificed their dearest child, and that *Ilus* sacrificed his son *Jehud* at about the time God tested *Abraham's* faith. It is difficult to penetrate the darkness of this ancient past. But it is all too true that these horrible sacrifices were practiced almost everywhere. Peoples abandoned them only as they became more civilized. Civilized manners bring humanity.

[28] People who know little about ancient customs and judge only by what they see around them may be surprised by these odd practices. But we must remember that in those days, in Egypt and much of Asia, most things were expressed through images, hieroglyphs, signs, and symbols.

The prophets, called *seers* among the Egyptians and Jews, not only spoke in allegories but acted out the events they foretold through signs. Thus *Isaiah*, Isaïe, Chapitre 8. the first of the four great Jewish prophets, takes a scroll and writes on it: *Shas bas, plunder, quickly*. Then he approaches the prophetess. She conceives and gives birth to a son, whom he calls *Maher-shalal-hash-baz*. This symbolizes the harm the peoples of Egypt and Assyria will do to the Jews.

This prophet says: "*Before the child is old enough to eat butter and honey, and knows how to reject evil and choose good, the land you hate will be freed from the two kings. The Lord will whistle for the flies of Egypt and the bees of Assyria. The Lord will take a hired razor and shave off the whole beard and the hair of the feet of the king of Assyria.*"

This prophecy about bees, a beard, and shaved hair of the feet can only be understood by people who know certain customs. People called swarms together with the sound of a small flute or another rustic instrument. Cutting off a man's beard was the greatest insult one could offer him. Pubic hair was called the hair of the feet, and it was only shaved in cases of foul diseases such as leprosy. All these images, so foreign to our way of writing, mean only that in a few years the Lord will free his people from oppression.

The same *Isaiah*, Isaïe, Chapitre 20 walks completely naked to show that the king of Assyria will take a crowd of captives from Egypt and Ethiopia who will have nothing to cover their nakedness.

*Ezekiel* eats the parchment scroll, Ezéch. Chap. 4 & suiv. presented to him. Then he covers his bread with excrement and lies on his left side for three hundred ninety days, and on his right side for forty days. This shows that the Jews will lack bread and represents the years their captivity is to last. He puts on chains, representing those of the people. He cuts off his hair and beard and divides them into three parts. The first third stands for those who are to die in the city; the second, those who will be killed around its walls; the third, those who are to be taken to Babylon.

The prophet *Hosea*, Ozée, Chap. 3. unites with an adulterous woman, whom he buys for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer and a half of barley. "*You will wait for me*," he tells her, "*for many days, and during that time no man will approach you. This represents the state in which the children of Israel will remain for a long time, without kings, princes, sacrifices, an altar, or an ephod.*" In short, the Nabi, the seers, the prophets, almost never make a prediction without representing what they predict by a sign.

So *Jeremiah* is only following custom when he binds himself with ropes and puts collars and yokes on his back to signify the slavery of the people to whom he sends these symbols. If we pay attention, those times are like an old world that differs in every way from the new one. Civil life, laws, ways of making war, religious ceremonies: everything is completely different. We need only open *Homer* and the first book of *Herodotus* to be convinced that we have no resemblance to the peoples of remote antiquity, and that we should distrust our judgment when we try to compare their customs with ours.

Nature itself was not what it is today. Magicians had a power over it that they no longer have. They charmed snakes, called up the dead, and so on. God sent dreams, and people interpreted them. The gift of prophecy was common. There were transformations such as *Nebuchadnezzar's* into an ox, *Lot's* wife's into a pillar of salt, and five cities into a lake of bitumen.

There were kinds of human beings that no longer exist. The races of giants, the *Rephaim*, *Emim*, *Nephilim*, and *Anakim*, have disappeared. In *la Cité de Dieu*, Livre V, *St. Augustine* says he saw an ancient giant's tooth as large as a hundred of our molars. *Ezekiel* speaks of the *Gammadim* pygmies, a cubit tall, who fought at the siege of Tyre. On almost all these points, sacred authors agree with secular ones. Diseases and remedies were not the same as they are today. The possessed were cured with a root called *Barad*, set in a ring that was held under their noses.

In the end, that entire ancient world was so different from ours that we cannot draw any rule of conduct from it today. And if, in that remote past, people persecuted and oppressed one another in turn over their worship, we should not imitate that cruelty under the law of grace.

### Chapter XIII

*The Jews' extreme tolerance.*

So under *Moses*, the judges, and the kings, we keep seeing examples of tolerance. There is much more. *Moses* says several times, Exode, Chap. 20, v. 5. *that God punishes fathers through their children down to the fourth generation*. This threat was necessary for a people to whom God had revealed neither the soul's immortality nor punishments and rewards in another life. These truths were not announced to them in the Ten Commandments or in any law in Leviticus or Deuteronomy. They were beliefs of the Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Cretans, but they formed no part of the Jewish religion. *Moses* does not say: "*Honor your father and mother if you want to go to heaven.*" He says: "*Honor your father and mother so that you may live long on earth.*" Deutér. Chap. 28. He threatens them only with bodily evils: dry scabies, festering scabies, malignant ulcers on their knees and calves, their wives' unfaithfulness, having to borrow at interest from foreigners and being unable to lend at interest, dying of famine, and being forced to eat their children. Nowhere does he tell them that their immortal souls will suffer torment or enjoy happiness after death. God, who led his people himself, punished or rewarded them immediately after their good or bad actions. Everything concerned this life. This is the proof the learned Bishop *Warburton* offers to demonstrate that Jewish law was divine.[29] Since God himself was their king and administered justice immediately after disobedience or obedience, he had no need to reveal a teaching he was reserving for the time when he would no longer govern his people. Those who ignorantly claim that *Moses* taught the immortality of the soul take away one of the New Testament's greatest advantages over the Old. It is certain that the law of *Moses* announced only punishments in this life, down to the fourth generation. Yet despite the precise wording of this law, despite God's explicit declaration that he would punish down to the fourth generation, *Ezekiel* announces, Ezéch. Chap. 18, v. 20.

Ezéch. Chap. 20, v. 25. the exact opposite to the Jews. He tells them that the son will not bear his father's wrongdoing. He even goes so far as to make God say that he had given them *precepts that were not good*.[30]

The Book of *Ezekiel* was still included in the canon of authors inspired by God. It is true that the synagogue did not allow it to be read before the age of thirty, as *St. Jerome* tells us. But this was for fear that young people would misuse the all too frank descriptions in chapters 16 and 23 of the sexual misconduct of the two sisters, *Oholah* and *Oholibah*. In short, his book was always accepted, despite its direct contradiction of *Moses*.

Finally,[31] when the immortality of the soul became an accepted belief—a process that probably began as early as the Babylonian captivity—the sect of the Sadducees continued to believe that there were neither punishments nor rewards after death. They believed that the ability to feel and think perished with us, just like the energy to act and the ability to walk and digest. They denied the existence of angels. They differed much more from other Jews than Protestants differ from Catholics. Yet they remained in communion with their brothers. There were even high priests from their sect.

The Pharisees believed in fate[32] and the transmigration of souls.[33] The Essenes thought that the souls of the just went to the Fortunate Isles,[34] and those of the wicked to a kind of Tartarus. They made no sacrifices. They met among themselves in a separate synagogue. In short, anyone who closely examines Judaism will be astonished to find the greatest tolerance amid the most barbarous horrors. It is a contradiction, certainly. Almost all peoples have governed themselves through contradictions. Happy is the contradiction that brings gentle customs to a people with bloody laws!

[29] There is only one passage in the laws of *Moses* from which we might conclude that he knew the belief prevalent among the Egyptians that the soul does not die with the body. This passage is very important. It is in chapter 18 of Deuteronomy: "*Do not consult diviners who predict the future by examining clouds, who charm snakes, who consult the spirit of Python, seers, or those with special knowledge who question the dead and ask them for the truth.*"

From this passage it seems that if people called up the souls of the dead, this supposed sorcery assumed that souls continued to exist. It is also possible that the magicians *Moses* speaks of, who were only crude deceivers, had no clear idea of the sorcery they believed they were performing. They made people believe that they forced the dead to speak, that their magic restored these bodies to the state they had been in while alive. They did not even examine whether the immortality of the soul could be inferred from their ridiculous performances. Sorcerers have never been philosophers. They have always been stupid tricksters performing for fools.

We may also note how strange it is that the word *Python* appears in Deuteronomy, long before this Greek word could have been known to the Hebrews. In fact, the term *Python* is not in the Hebrew, of which we have no accurate translation.

This language presents insurmountable difficulties. It is a mixture of Phoenician, Egyptian, Syrian, and Arabic, and this ancient mixture is now greatly altered. Hebrew never had more than two verb forms, the present and the future. The other forms have to be guessed from the meaning. Different vowels were often expressed by the same characters—or rather, the vowels were not expressed at all. The inventors of vowel points only increased the difficulty. Each adverb has twenty different meanings. The same word is used in opposite senses. Add to this confusion the language's dryness and poverty. Without the arts, the Jews could not express what they did not know. In short, Hebrew is to Greek what a peasant's language is to that of a member of the Academy.

[30] *Ezekiel's* view finally prevailed in the synagogue. But there were always Jews who believed in eternal punishments and also believed that God punished children for their fathers' wrongdoing. Today they are punished beyond the fiftieth generation, and still have eternal punishments to fear. People ask how the descendants of the Jews who were not accomplices in the death of Jesus Christ—those in Jerusalem who took no part in it, and those scattered across the rest of the earth—can be punished in this life through their children, who are as innocent as their fathers. This punishment in this life—or rather, this way of living differently from other peoples, carrying on trade without a homeland—may not be regarded as a punishment compared with the eternal torments they bring on themselves through their unbelief, and which they can avoid through sincere conversion.

[31] Those who have tried to find the teaching of hell and paradise as we understand them in the Pentateuch have been strangely mistaken. Their error rests only on an empty argument over words. The Vulgate translated the Hebrew word *Sheol*, the pit, as *Infernum*. The Latin word *Infernum* was translated into French as *Enfer*. This ambiguity was used to make people believe that the ancient Hebrews had the idea of the Greeks' *Hades* and *Tartarus*, which other nations had known earlier under other names.

Chapter 16 of Numbers reports that the earth opened its mouth beneath the tents of *Korah*, *Dathan*, and *Abiram*. It swallowed them, their tents, and their possessions, and they were thrown alive into the grave, underground. This passage certainly says nothing about the souls of these three Hebrews, the torments of hell, or eternal punishment.

It is strange that the *Dictionnaire Encyclopédique* says under *Enfer* that the ancient Hebrews *acknowledged its reality*. If that were true, it would create an impossible contradiction in the Pentateuch. How could *Moses* have spoken of punishments after death in one single, isolated passage, but not have mentioned them in his laws? Chapter 32 of Deuteronomy is quoted, but cut short. Here is the whole passage: "*They have provoked me with what was not God, and angered me with their vanity. And I will provoke them with what is not a people, and anger them with a foolish nation. A fire has been kindled in my fury, and it will burn to the depths of the earth. It will devour the earth down to its seed and burn the foundations of the mountains. I will heap evils on them and fill them with my arrows. They will be consumed by hunger; birds will devour them with bitter bites. I will unleash on them the teeth of beasts that crawl furiously over the earth, and of snakes.*"

Is there the slightest connection between these expressions and the idea of punishments in hell as we understand them? Rather, these words seem to have been quoted only to show clearly that the ancient Jews knew nothing of our hell.

The author of this article also quotes the passage in chapter 24 of *Job*: "*The adulterer's eye watches for darkness, saying: No eye will see me; and he will cover his face. He breaks into houses in the darkness, as he had said during the day, and they have not known the light. If dawn suddenly appears, they think it the shadow of death, and so they walk in darkness as in light. He is light on the surface of the water. Let his share be cursed on earth; let him not walk along the vineyard's path; let him pass from snow waters to excessive heat. And they have sinned the grave*"; or else, "*the grave has scattered those who sin*"; or else, according to the Septuagint, "*their sin has been called to mind*."

I quote the passages in full and literally. Otherwise it is always impossible to form an accurate idea of them.

Tell me, is there the slightest word there from which we can conclude that *Moses* taught the Jews the clear and simple doctrine of punishments and rewards after death?

The Book of *Job* has nothing to do with the laws of *Moses*. Besides, it is very likely that *Job* was not Jewish. This is *St. Jerome's* opinion in his Hebrew Questions on Genesis. The word *Satan*, which appears in *Job*, was not known to the Jews, and you never find it in the Pentateuch. The Jews learned this name only in Chaldea, along with the names *Gabriel* and *Raphael*, which were unknown before their enslavement in Babylon. So *Job* is quoted here very inappropriately.

The last chapter of *Isaiah* is also quoted: "*From month to month and Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh will come to worship me, says the Lord. They will go out and see at the dumping ground the corpses of those who have done wrong. Their worm will not die, their fire will not go out, and they will be exposed to the eyes of all flesh until everyone has seen enough.*"

Certainly, if they are thrown on the dumping ground, exposed to the view of passersby until everyone has seen enough, and eaten by worms, this does not mean that *Moses* taught the Jews the immortality of the soul. And the words *the fire will not go out* do not mean that corpses exposed to public view suffer the eternal punishments of hell.

How can anyone quote a passage from *Isaiah* to prove that the Jews in *Moses'* time had received the teaching of the soul's immortality? According to the Hebrew reckoning, *Isaiah* prophesied in the year of the world 3380. *Moses* lived around the year of the world 2500. Eight centuries passed between them. To misuse the right to quote in this way is an insult to common sense, or simply a joke: it claims to prove that one author held an opinion by a passage from an author who came eight hundred years later and did not discuss that opinion. There is no doubt that the immortality of the soul, and punishments and rewards after death, are announced, acknowledged, and established in the New Testament. There is no doubt that they appear nowhere in the Pentateuch.

When the Jews later came to believe in the soul's immortality, they gained no understanding of its spiritual nature. Like almost all other nations, they thought the soul was something thin and airy, a light substance that retained some likeness to the body it had given life to. These were what people called shades, the spirits of bodies. Several Fathers of the Church held this opinion. In *de l'Ame*, Chap. 22, *Tertullian* puts it this way: *We define the soul as born from the breath of God, immortal, bodily, having a shape, and simple in substance*; "We define the soul as born from the breath of God, immortal, bodily, having a shape, and simple in substance."

*St. Irenaeus* says in Livre II, Chap. 34: *Souls are immaterial compared with mortal bodies.* "Souls are immaterial compared with mortal bodies." He adds that "Jesus Christ taught that souls retain the images of the body": *the form of the bodies in which they are received, and so on*. We do not find that Jesus Christ ever taught this doctrine, and it is difficult to guess *St. Irenaeus'* meaning.

*St. Hilary* is more explicit and definite in his commentary on *St. Matthew*. He plainly attributes a bodily substance to the soul: *By their nature they receive a bodily substance*.

*St. Ambrose*, on *Abraham*, Liv. II, Chap. 8, maintains that nothing is free of matter except the substance of the Holy Trinity.

We might reproach these respected men for their bad philosophy. But we may suppose that their theology was fundamentally very sound. Although they did not know the soul's incomprehensible nature, they affirmed its immortality and wanted it to be Christian.

We know that the soul is spiritual, but we do not know at all what spirit is. Our knowledge of matter is very incomplete, and it is impossible for us to have a clear idea of what is not matter. Knowing very little about what touches our senses, we can know nothing on our own about what lies beyond them. We carry a few words from our everyday language into the depths of metaphysics and theology, to give ourselves some faint idea of things we can neither understand nor express. We try to lean on these words to support our weak understanding, if possible, in these unknown regions.

Thus we use the word *spirit*, which corresponds to *breath* and *wind*, to express something that is not matter. But this word—*breath*, *wind*, *spirit*—brings us back against our will to the idea of a thin, light substance. We strip away still more of that idea, as far as we can, to try to conceive of a purely spiritual nature. But we never reach a clear notion. We do not even know what we are saying when we pronounce the word *substance*. Literally it means what is underneath. That very meaning warns us that it is incomprehensible, for what, in fact, is this thing underneath? Knowledge of God's secrets is not given to us in this life. Plunged here into deep darkness, we fight one another and strike at random in this night, without knowing exactly why we are fighting.

If we take the trouble to think carefully about all this, no reasonable person can fail to conclude that we must be forgiving of other people's opinions, and deserve forgiveness ourselves.

These remarks are not outside the heart of the question, which is whether people should tolerate one another. For if they prove how much people on all sides have been mistaken in every age, they prove that in every age people should have treated one another with tolerance.

[32] The belief in fate is ancient and universal. You find it throughout *Homer*. *Jupiter* would like to save his son *Sarpedon's* life, but Destiny has condemned him to death, and *Jupiter* can only obey. Among philosophers, Destiny meant either the necessary chain of causes and effects necessarily produced by nature, or that same chain ordered by Providence, which is much more reasonable. The whole system of fate is contained in this line by *Annaeus Seneca: "Fate leads the willing and drags the unwilling"*. People have always agreed that God governs the universe through eternal, universal, unchanging laws. This truth was the source of all those unintelligible arguments about freedom, because no one ever defined freedom until the wise *Locke* came along. He proved that freedom is the power to act. God gives this power, and man, acting freely according to God's eternal commands, is one of the wheels in the great machine of the world. The whole ancient world argued about freedom, but no one persecuted anyone over it until our own time. What an absurd horror that a *Pomponne d'Andilly*, an *Arnauld*, a *Sacy*, a *Nicole*, and so many others who were the light of France should have been imprisoned and exiled over this argument!

[33] The theological fantasy of the transmigration of souls comes from India, from which we have received far more fables than is generally thought. This belief is explained in the admirable twelfth book of *Ovid's* Metamorphoses. It has been accepted almost everywhere on earth and has always been challenged. But we find no sign that any priest in the ancient world ever had a royal order for imprisonment issued against a disciple of *Pythagoras*.

[34] Neither the ancient Jews, nor the Egyptians and Greeks of their time, believed that a person's soul went to heaven after death. The Jews thought the moon and sun were a few leagues above us in the same circle, and that the firmament was a thick, solid vault supporting the weight of the waters, which escaped through a few openings. Among the ancient Greeks, the gods' palace stood on Mount Olympus. In *Homer's* time the home of heroes after death was on an island beyond the Ocean. The Essenes held this opinion too.

After *Homer*, planets were assigned to the gods. But people had no more reason to put a god on the moon than the moon's inhabitants would have to put a god on the planet Earth. *Juno* and *Iris* had no palace but the clouds: there was nowhere there to rest a foot. Among the Sabaeans, each god had his star. But since a star is a sun, there is no way to live there unless one is made of fire. So asking what the ancients thought about heaven is a very pointless question. The best answer is that they did not think.

### Chapter XIV

*Did* Jesus Christ *teach intolerance?*

Let us now see whether Jesus Christ established bloody laws, whether he ordered intolerance, whether he had the Inquisition's dungeons built, whether he set up the executioners of the *autos-da-fé*.

Unless I am mistaken, there are only a few passages in the Gospels from which a persecuting mind could infer that intolerance and coercion are legitimate. One is the parable in which the kingdom of heaven is compared to a king inviting guests to his son's wedding. This monarch sends his servants to tell them: St. Math. Chap. 22. "*I have killed my oxen and poultry; everything is ready; come to the wedding.*" Some ignore the invitation and go to their country houses, others to their business. Others abuse the king's servants and kill them. The king sends his armies against these murderers and destroys their city. He sends people out onto the highways to invite everyone they find to the feast. One guest sits down without putting on a wedding garment. He is put in chains and thrown into the outer darkness.

Clearly, since this allegory concerns only the kingdom of heaven, no one should take it as a right to tie up or imprison a neighbor who comes to supper without suitable wedding clothes. I know of no prince in history who had a courtier hanged for such a reason. Nor need we fear that when the emperor sends pages to invite princes of the Empire to supper, these princes will kill the pages. The invitation to the feast means the preaching of salvation. The murder of the prince's messengers represents the persecution of those who preach wisdom and virtue.

The other parable is about a private citizen who invites his friends to a large supper. St. Luc, Chap. 14. When he is ready to sit down, he sends his servant to notify them. One excuses himself because he has bought a piece of land and is going to inspect it. This excuse hardly seems valid: people do not inspect land at night. Another says he has bought five pairs of oxen and must try them out. He is as much at fault as the first: people do not test oxen at suppertime. A third replies that he has just married, and certainly his excuse is very acceptable. Angry, the master of the house has blind and lame people brought to his feast. Seeing that there are still empty places, he tells his servant: "*Go out onto the highways and along the hedges, and force people to come in.*"

It is true that we are not expressly told that this parable represents the kingdom of heaven. The words "*Force them to come in*" have been abused all too much. But plainly one servant cannot physically force everyone he meets to come and eat at his master's house. Besides, guests forced to come in this way would not make the meal very pleasant. According to the most respected commentators, "*Force them to come in*" means only: ask, plead, press, persuade. What connection, tell me, do this request and this supper have with persecution?

If we take things literally, must we be blind, lame, and brought in by force to belong to the Church? Jesus says in the same parable: "*Do not invite your friends or your rich relatives to dinner.*" Has anyone ever inferred from this that we really must not dine with relatives and friends as soon as they have a little money?

After the parable of the feast, Jesus Christ says: St. Luc, Chap. 14, v. 26 & suiv. "*If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father, his mother, his brothers, his sisters, and even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple, and so on. For which of you, wanting to build a tower, does not first calculate the cost?*" Is anyone in the world so unnatural as to conclude that we must hate our father and mother? Is it not easy to understand that these words mean: "Do not hesitate between me and your dearest affections"?

People quote the passage from *St. Matthew: "Whoever does not listen to the Church should be like a pagan and a customs collector."* St. Math. Chap. 8, v. 17. This certainly does not say we should persecute pagans or the contractors who collect the king's taxes. They are cursed, it is true, but they are not handed over to the secular authorities for punishment. Far from taking any citizen's right away from these contractors, we have given them the greatest privileges. Theirs is the only profession condemned in Scripture, and the one most favored by governments. Why, then, should we not show our mistaken brothers as much tolerance as we lavish respect on our brothers the tax contractors?

Another passage that has been grossly abused is the one in *St. Matthew* and *St. Mark* which says that Jesus, hungry in the morning, approached a fig tree and found only leaves, because it was not the season for figs. He cursed the fig tree, and it immediately withered.

There are several different explanations of this miracle. But is there a single one that could authorize persecution? A fig tree could not produce figs around the beginning of March, and it was made to wither. Is that a reason to make our brothers wither with grief at every time of year? Let us respect everything in Scripture that may raise difficulties in our curious and vain minds, but not abuse it to become harsh and unforgiving.

The persecuting spirit, which abuses everything, also seeks justification in the expulsion of the merchants driven from the temple, and in the legion of demons sent from the body of a possessed man into the bodies of two thousand unclean animals. But who cannot see that these two examples are simply God choosing to administer justice himself for a breach of the law? Turning the forecourt of the Lord's house into a merchants' shop showed disrespect for it. The Sanhedrin and priests might allow this trade to make sacrifices easier, but that was no defense. The God to whom the sacrifices were made could certainly end this desecration, though he was hidden in human form. In the same way, he could punish those who brought entire herds of forbidden animals into the country, under a law that he himself had chosen to observe. These examples have not the slightest connection with persecution over religious beliefs. The spirit of intolerance must rest on very bad reasons, since it searches everywhere for the emptiest excuses.

Almost all the rest of Jesus Christ's words and actions teach gentleness, patience, and tolerance. There is the father who welcomes the prodigal son; the worker who comes at the last hour and is paid like the others; the charitable Samaritan. Jesus himself defends his disciples for not fasting. He forgives the sinful woman. He simply recommends faithfulness to the woman taken in adultery. He even chooses to share in the innocent joy of the guests at Cana, who are already warmed by wine and ask for more. He is willing to perform a miracle for them and changes water into wine.

He does not even lash out at *Judas*, who is to betray him. He orders *Peter* never to use the sword. He rebukes the sons of *Zebedee*, who wanted to follow *Elijah's* example and bring fire down from heaven on a town that had refused to lodge him.

Finally, he dies a victim of envy. If we dare compare the sacred with the secular, and a God with a man, his death, humanly speaking, has much in common with that of *Socrates*. The Greek philosopher died because of the hatred of the Sophists, priests, and leading citizens. The lawgiver of the Christians fell under the hatred of the scribes, Pharisees, and priests. *Socrates* could have avoided death and chose not to. Jesus Christ offered himself voluntarily. The Greek philosopher not only forgave his slanderers and unjust judges, but asked them one day to treat his children as they had treated him, if his children were fortunate enough to deserve their hatred as he had. The infinitely superior lawgiver of the Christians asked his Father to forgive his enemies.

If Jesus Christ seemed afraid of death, if his anguish was so extreme that his sweat was mixed with blood—the most violent and rarest symptom—it was because he chose to lower himself to all the weakness of the human body he had taken on. His body trembled, but his soul was unshakable. He was teaching us that true strength and greatness consist in enduring suffering under which our nature gives way. It takes extraordinary courage to go toward death while fearing it.

*Socrates* had called the Sophists ignorant and exposed their dishonesty. Jesus, using his divine rights, called the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, St. Math. Chap. 23. fools, blind men, wicked men, snakes, and a brood of vipers.

*Socrates* was not accused of wanting to found a new sect. Jesus Christ was not accused of wanting to introduce one either. St. Math. Chap. 26. We are told that the chief priests and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus so they could put him to death.

Now, if they sought false testimony, they were not accusing him of having publicly preached against the law. In fact, he obeyed the law of *Moses* from childhood until death. He was circumcised on the eighth day like all other children. If he was later baptized in the Jordan, that was an established ceremony among the Jews, as among all the peoples of the East. Every form of legal impurity was washed away by baptism. This was how priests were consecrated. People immersed themselves in water at the solemn Feast of Atonement, and converts were baptized.

Jesus observed every point of the law. He kept every Sabbath, abstained from forbidden foods, and celebrated all the festivals. He had even celebrated Passover before his death. He was accused neither of holding any new opinion nor of observing any foreign rite. Born an Israelite, he consistently lived as an Israelite.

Two witnesses came forward and accused him of saying *that he could destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days*. St. Math. chap. 26, v. 61. Such a statement was incomprehensible to the worldly-minded Jews, but it was not an accusation of wanting to found a new sect.

The high priest questioned him, saying: "*I command you by the living* God *to tell us whether you are the* Christ, *the Son of* God." We are not told what the high priest meant by *Son of* God. This expression was sometimes used to mean a just man,[35] just as the words *son of Belial* were used to mean a wicked man. The uneducated Jews had no idea of the sacred mystery of a Son of God, himself God, coming to earth.

Jesus answered him: "*You have said it. But I tell you that you will soon see the son of man sitting at the right hand of the power of* God, *coming on the clouds of heaven.*"

The angry Sanhedrin considered this answer blasphemy. The Sanhedrin no longer had the power to execute people. They brought Jesus before the Roman governor of the province and falsely accused him of disturbing the public peace. They claimed that he said people should not pay tribute to *Caesar* and also called himself king of the Jews. So it is entirely clear that he was accused of a crime against the state.

On learning that he was a Galilean, the governor *Pilate* first sent him to *Herod*, tetrarch of Galilee. *Herod* thought it impossible that Jesus could aspire to lead a faction or claim kingship. He treated him with contempt and sent him back to *Pilate*. *Pilate* showed the shameful weakness of condemning him to calm the uproar directed against himself, all the more so because he had already faced a Jewish revolt, as *Josephus* tells us. *Pilate* did not show the generosity that the governor *Festus* later showed.

Now I ask: is tolerance or intolerance a matter of divine law? If you want to resemble Jesus Christ, be martyrs, not executioners.

[35] It was indeed very difficult for the Jews, not to say impossible, to understand without a special revelation this inexpressible mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God, himself God. Genesis (chap. 6.) calls the sons of powerful men *sons of God*, just as the great cedars in the Psalms are called the cedars of God. *Samuel* says that a terror of God fell on the people, meaning a great terror. A great wind is a wind of God; *Saul's* illness, a melancholy of God. Yet it seems that the Jews understood literally that Jesus called himself Son of God in the proper sense. But if they regarded these words as blasphemy, that may be further proof that they knew nothing of the mystery of the Incarnation, and of God, Son of God, sent to earth to save humankind.

### Chapter XV

*Statements against Intolerance.*

It is an offense against God to take away people's freedom in matters of religion and prevent them from choosing a god. No person, no god, would want forced service. (*Apologétique, ch. 24.*)

If violence were used to defend the faith, the bishops would oppose it. (*St. Hilaire, Liv. I.*)

Forced religion is no longer religion. People must be persuaded, not compelled. Religion cannot be ordered. (*Lactance, Liv. 3.*)

It is a hateful heresy to try to drag people over by force, beatings, and imprisonment when you have failed to convince them by reason. (*St. Athanase, Liv. I.*)

Nothing is more opposed to religion than compulsion. (*St. Justin, Martyr, Liv. 5.*)

"Should we persecute people whom God tolerates?" *said St. Augustine, before his quarrel with the Donatists made him too harsh.*

Let no violence be done to the Jews. (*4me. Concile de Tolede, 56me. canon.*)

Advise people; do not force them. (*Lettres de saint Bernard.*)

We do not claim to destroy errors through violence. (*Discours du Clergé de France à Louis XIII.*)

We have always disapproved of harsh measures. (*Assemblée du Clergé, 11me. Aoust 1560.*)

We know that faith comes through persuasion, not commands. (*Fléchier, Evêque de Nîmes, Lettre 19.*)

We should not even use insulting words. (*L'Evêque du Belley dans une Instr. pastorale.*)

Remember that illnesses of the soul cannot be cured by force and violence. (*Le Cardinal le Camus, Instruction pastorale de 1688.*)

Give everyone civil toleration. (*Fénelon, Archevêque de Cambrai, au Duc de Bourgogne.*)

Enforcing a religion is clear proof that the spirit directing it is an enemy of truth. (*Dirois, Docteur de Sorbonne, Liv. 6, chap. 4.*)

Violence can make hypocrites. You do not persuade people by making threats ring out everywhere. (*Tillemont, Hist. Eccl. tom. 6.*)

We thought it consistent with fairness and sound reason to follow the example of the early Church, which did not use violence to establish and spread religion. (*Remontr. du Parlement de Paris à Henri II.*)

Experience teaches us that violence is more likely to aggravate than to cure an evil rooted in the mind, etc. (*De Thou, Epître dédicatoire à Henri IV.*.)

Faith cannot be driven into people with sword blows. (*Cérisier, sur les regnes de Henri IV & de Louis XIII.*)

The zeal that claims to plant religion in people's hearts is barbaric, as though persuasion could result from force. (*Boulainvilliers, Etat de la France.*)

Religion is like love: commands have no power over it, and force has even less. Nothing is less subject to outside control than loving and believing. (*Amelot de la Houssaye, sur les Lettres du Cardinal d'Ossat.*)

If Heaven has loved you enough to let you see the truth, it has given you a great blessing. But should those who have their Father's inheritance hate those who do not? (*Esprit des Loix, Liv. 25.*)

We could make an enormous book out of passages like these alone. Today our histories, speeches, sermons, works on morals, and catechisms all express and teach this sacred duty of leniency. What fatal influence, what inconsistency could make our practice contradict a principle we proclaim every day? When our actions contradict our moral teaching, it is because we think we stand to gain by doing the opposite of what we teach. But we certainly gain nothing by persecuting people who disagree with us and making them hate us. Once again, then, intolerance is absurd. But, someone will say, the people who have an interest in restricting consciences are not absurd. The next short chapter is addressed to them.

### Chapter XVI

*Dialogue between a Dying Man and a Healthy Man.*

A citizen lay dying in a provincial town. A healthy man came to abuse him in his last moments and said:

"You wretch! Think as I do this instant. Sign this document. Admit that five propositions are in a book that neither you nor I have ever read. Agree this instant with *Lanfranc* against *Berengar*, with *St. Thomas* against *St. Bonaventure*. Accept the second Council of Nicaea against the Council of Frankfurt. Explain to me at once how these words, *My Father is greater than I*, expressly mean, *I am as great as he is*.

"Tell me how the Father communicates everything to the Son except fatherhood, or I will have your body thrown on the rubbish heap. Your children will not inherit, your wife will lose her dowry, and your family will beg for bread that people like me will not give them."

*The Dying Man.*

"I can barely understand what you are saying. Your threats reach my ears in a blur. They trouble my soul and make my death terrible. In God's name, have pity on me!"

*The Brute.*

"Pity! I can have none unless you agree with me about everything."

*The Dying Man.*

"Oh! You can see that in these last moments all my senses are failing. Every doorway to my understanding is shut. My ideas are slipping away; my thought is going out. Am I in any condition to argue?"

*The Brute.*

"Well, if you cannot believe what I want you to, say you believe it. That is enough for me."

*The Dying Man.*

"How can I swear falsely to please you? In a moment I will appear before the God who punishes false oaths."

*The Brute.*

"Never mind. You will have the pleasure of being buried in a cemetery, and your wife and children will have enough to live on. Die a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is a good thing. As people say, it is the tribute vice pays to virtue. A little hypocrisy, my friend—what does it cost?"

*The Dying Man.*

"Oh! You despise God, or you do not acknowledge him, since you ask me to lie at the point of death. Yet you too must soon face his judgment, and you will answer for this lie."

*The Brute.*

"What, you insolent man! I do not acknowledge God?"

*The Dying Man.*

"Forgive me, my brother. I fear you know no God. The God I worship is now restoring my strength so that I can tell you, in a dying voice, that if you believe in God, you must treat me with charity. He gave me my wife and children. Do not let them die in poverty. As for my body, do what you like with it; I leave it to you. But believe in God, I beg you!"

*The Brute.*

"Do what I told you, without arguing. I want it; I order it."

*The Dying Man.*

"And what do you gain by tormenting me so much?"

*The Brute.*

"What! What do I gain? If I get your signature, it will earn me a good position as a canon."

*The Dying Man.*

"Ah, my brother! My last moment has come. I am dying. I will pray to God to move your heart and convert you."

*The Brute.*

"To hell with the impudent fellow who would not sign! I will sign for him and imitate his handwriting."

*The following letter supports the same moral lesson.*

### Chapter XVII

*Letter Written to the Jesuit* Le Tellier *by a Holder of a Benefice, May 6, 1714.*

My Reverend Father,

I am obeying Your Reverence's instructions to present the best ways of freeing Jesus and his Society from their enemies. I believe there are only five hundred thousand Huguenots left in the kingdom. Some say a million; others, a million and a half. Whatever their number, here is my opinion, which I most humbly submit to yours, as I should.

1. It is easy to catch all the Protestant preachers in a single day and hang them all at once in the same square, not only to instruct the public but also to make a beautiful spectacle.

2. I would have all the fathers and mothers murdered in their beds. Killing them in the streets might cause a disturbance. Several might even escape, which must be avoided above all. This execution necessarily follows from our principles. For if we must kill one heretic, as so many great theologians prove, we obviously must kill them all.

3. The next day I would marry all the girls to good Catholics, since we must not reduce the state's population too much after the last war. As for boys of fourteen and fifteen, already full of bad principles that we cannot hope to remove, my opinion is that they must all be castrated, so that this breed never reproduces. The younger boys will be brought up in your colleges and whipped until they know the works of *Sanchez* and *Molina* by heart.

4. Subject to correction, I think we must do the same to all the Lutherans of Alsace. In 1704 I noticed two old women from that country laughing on the day of the battle of Höchstädt.

5. The question of the Jansenists may seem a little more troublesome. I believe there are at least six million of them. But a mind like yours should not be frightened by that. I count among the Jansenists all the parlements, which so unworthily defend the liberties of the Gallican Church. It is for Your Reverence, with your usual good judgment, to weigh the ways of bringing all these stubborn minds into submission. The Gunpowder Plot did not succeed as hoped, because one of the conspirators made the mistake of wanting to save his friend's life. But since you have no friends, there is no reason to fear the same problem. You will find it very easy to blow up all the kingdom's sovereign law courts with the invention of the monk *Schwarz*, called *gunpowder*. I calculate that, on average, each parlement needs thirty-six barrels of powder. Multiplying twelve parlements by thirty-six barrels gives only four hundred and thirty-two barrels. At a hundred crowns each, that makes a total of a hundred and twenty-nine thousand six hundred livres. That is a trifle for the Reverend Father General.

Once the parlements have been blown up, you will give their offices to the members of your congregation, who know the kingdom's laws perfectly.

6. It will be easy to poison Cardinal *de Noailles*, who is a simple man and suspects nothing.

Your Reverence will use the same methods of conversion on a few stubborn bishops. Their bishoprics will be handed over to the Jesuits under a papal brief. Then, with all the bishops on the side of the good cause and all the parish priests skillfully chosen by the bishops, here is what I advise, subject to Your Reverence's approval.

7. Since the Jansenists are said to take communion at least at Easter, it would not be a bad idea to sprinkle the communion wafers with the drug used to bring Emperor *Henry VII* to justice. Some critic may tell me that in this operation we would risk giving rat poison to Molinists too. That is a strong objection. But no project is without drawbacks, and no system is without some weak point that threatens to bring it down. If we let these little difficulties stop us, we would never get anything done. Besides, since our aim is to produce the greatest possible good, we should not be shocked if that great good brings with it a few bad consequences of no importance.

We have nothing to reproach ourselves with. It has been proved that all the so-called Reformed and all the Jansenists are destined for hell. We are therefore only bringing forward the moment when they take possession of their inheritance.

It is just as clear that paradise belongs by right to the Molinists. So, by killing them accidentally and without any bad intention, we bring their joy forward. In both cases we are the servants of Providence.

As for anyone a little alarmed by the number, Your Paternity can point out that from the Church's flourishing days down to 1707, that is, over about fourteen hundred years, theology has brought about the slaughter of more than fifty million people. I propose to strangle, cut the throats of, or poison only about six million five hundred thousand.

Someone may also object that my calculation is wrong and that I break the rule of three. They will say that if, in fourteen hundred years, only fifty million people have died over theological distinctions, dilemmas, and arguments with unstated premises, that makes only thirty-five thousand seven hundred and fourteen people a year, plus a fraction. So for the present year I am killing six million sixty-four thousand two hundred and eighty-five people too many, plus a fraction. But really, this quibbling is childish. We could even call it ungodly. For does my method not plainly save the lives of all Catholics until the end of the world? We would never finish if we tried to answer every criticism.

With profound respect, I remain, Your Paternity's

*Most humble, most devoted, and most gentle R…, a native of Angoulême, Prefect of the Congregation.*

This plan could not be carried out because it took a long time to make the proper arrangements, and Father *Le Tellier* was exiled the following year. But since we must examine both sides, it is worth asking in what cases we could legitimately follow part of Father *Le Tellier*'s correspondent's plans. It seems harsh to carry out every part of this project. Still, we must see on what occasions we should break on the wheel, hang, or send to the galleys people who disagree with us. That is the subject of the next chapter.

### Chapter XVIII

*The Only Cases in Which Human Law Allows Intolerance.*

For a government to have no right to punish people's errors, those errors must not be crimes. They are crimes only when they disturb society. They disturb society as soon as they inspire fanaticism. People must therefore stop being fanatics before they can deserve toleration.

Suppose some young Jesuits know that the Church abhors the damned, that a papal bull condemns the Jansenists, and that the Jansenists are therefore damned. If they then go and burn down a house of the Oratorian Fathers because *Quesnel* the Oratorian was a Jansenist, clearly we will have to punish these Jesuits.

Likewise, if they have spread criminal principles, if the rules of their order go against the kingdom's laws, we cannot avoid dissolving their Society and abolishing the Jesuits to make citizens of them. For them this is really an imaginary evil and a genuine good. What harm is there in wearing a short coat instead of a cassock and being free instead of enslaved? In peacetime, whole regiments are disbanded without complaint. Why do the Jesuits cry out so loudly when they are disbanded to bring about peace?

Suppose the Franciscans, carried away by holy zeal for the Virgin *Mary*, go and demolish the church of the Dominicans, who think that *Mary* was born in original sin. Then we will have to treat the Franciscans much as we treat the Jesuits.

The same applies to Lutherans and Calvinists. It will do them no good to say, "We follow the promptings of our conscience. It is better to obey God than men. We are the true flock; we must exterminate the wolves." Clearly, in that case, they are wolves themselves.

One of the most astonishing examples of fanaticism was a small sect in Denmark whose basic principle was the best in the world. These people wanted to secure eternal salvation for their brothers and sisters. But the consequences of that principle were strange. They knew that all little children who die without baptism are damned, and that those fortunate enough to die immediately after baptism enjoy eternal glory. They went around cutting the throats of any newly baptized boys and girls they could find. This was surely doing them the greatest possible good: it protected them at once from sin, the miseries of this life, and hell. It sent them to heaven without fail. But these charitable people did not consider that we are not allowed to do a small evil for a great good; that they had no right over these little children's lives; that most fathers and mothers are worldly enough to prefer having their sons and daughters with them to seeing their throats cut so they can go to paradise; and, in short, that the magistrate must punish murder even when it is committed with good intentions.

The Jews would seem to have more right than anyone to rob and kill us. Although the Old Testament has a hundred examples of toleration, it also has some examples of severity and some harsh laws. God sometimes ordered them to kill idolaters and spare only girls of marriageable age. They regard us as idolaters. Although we tolerate them today, if they were in charge they might well leave only our daughters alive in the world.

Above all, they would be absolutely obliged to murder all the Turks. There is no difficulty about that, since the Turks hold the country of the Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, Jerseneans, Hivites, Araceans, Cineans, Hamathites, and Samareans. All these peoples were condemned to destruction. Their country, which was more than twenty-five leagues long, was given to the Jews in several successive covenants. They must recover their property. The Muslims have been usurping it for more than a thousand years.

If the Jews reasoned this way today, clearly the only answer we could give them would be to impale them.

These are more or less the only cases in which intolerance seems reasonable.

### Chapter XIX

*Account of a Religious Dispute in China.*

In the first years of the great Emperor *Kangxi*'s reign, a mandarin in Canton heard a great noise coming from the house next door. He asked whether someone was being killed. He was told that the chaplain of the Danish Company, a chaplain from Batavia, and a Jesuit were arguing. He sent for them, had tea and preserves served, and asked why they were quarreling.

The Jesuit answered that it was very painful for him, who was always right, to deal with people who were always wrong. At first he had argued with the greatest restraint, but eventually he had lost patience.

As tactfully as possible, the mandarin made them see how necessary courtesy is in an argument. He told them that people never got angry in China and asked what the dispute was about.

The Jesuit answered, "My lord, I leave you to judge. These two gentlemen refuse to submit to the decisions of the Council of Trent."

"That surprises me," said the mandarin. Then, turning to the two dissenters, he said, "Gentlemen, it seems to me that you should respect the opinions of a large assembly. I do not know what the Council of Trent is, but several people always know more than one. No one should believe that he knows more than everyone else and that reason lives only in his own head. That is what our great *Confucius* teaches. If you take my advice, you will do very well to defer to the Council of Trent."

The Dane then spoke. "My lord speaks with the greatest wisdom. We respect large assemblies as we should. That is why we agree entirely with several assemblies held before the one at Trent."

"Oh! If that is so," said the mandarin, "I beg your pardon. You may well be right. So then, you and this Dutchman agree against this poor Jesuit?"

"Not at all," said the Dutchman. "This man's opinions are almost as outrageous as those of this Jesuit, who is acting so sweetly toward you here. It is unbearable."

"I do not understand you," said the mandarin. "Are you not all three Christians? Have you not all three come to teach Christianity in our empire? Should you not therefore have the same doctrines?"

"You see, my lord," said the Jesuit, "these two men are mortal enemies, and both argue against me. So clearly both of them are wrong, and I alone am right." "That is not so clear," said the mandarin. "It is just possible that all three of you are wrong. I would be interested to hear you one at a time."

The Jesuit then made a fairly long speech. During it the Dane and the Dutchman shrugged their shoulders, and the mandarin understood nothing. The Dane spoke next. His two opponents looked at him with pity, and the mandarin understood no more than before. The Dutchman met with the same response. Finally all three spoke at once and hurled insults at one another. The decent mandarin had great difficulty calling a halt. He told them, "If you want your teaching to be tolerated here, start by being neither intolerant nor intolerable."

On leaving the audience, the Jesuit met a Dominican missionary. He told him that he had won his case, assuring him that truth always triumphed. The Dominican said, "If I had been there, you would not have won. I would have proved you guilty of lying and idolatry." The quarrel grew heated. The Dominican and the Jesuit grabbed each other by the hair. Informed of the scandal, the mandarin sent them both to prison. A junior mandarin asked the judge, "How long does Your Excellency want them kept under arrest?" "Until they agree," said the judge. "Ah!" said the junior mandarin. "Then they will be in prison all their lives." "Well then," said the judge, "until they forgive each other." "They will never forgive each other," said the other. "I know them." "Well then," said the mandarin, "until they pretend to forgive each other."

### Chapter XX

*Is It Useful to Keep the People Superstitious?*

Human beings are so weak and so perverse that they are surely better off under the rule of every possible superstition, provided none is murderous, than living without religion. People have always needed restraint. Though it was ridiculous to sacrifice to fauns, woodland gods, and water nymphs, worshiping these imaginary pictures of the divine was far more reasonable and useful than giving way to atheism. An atheist who was argumentative, violent, and powerful would be as destructive a scourge as a bloodthirsty believer in superstition.

When people have no sound ideas about God, false ideas take their place, just as in bad times people trade with bad money when they have no good money. The pagan feared committing a crime because he feared punishment by false gods. The Malabari fears punishment by his idol. Wherever an established society exists, a religion is necessary. Laws watch over crimes that have been committed; religion watches over secret crimes.

But once people have come to accept a pure and holy religion, superstition becomes not only useless but very dangerous. We should not try to feed acorns to those whom God is pleased to feed bread.

Superstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy: the very foolish daughter of a very wise mother. These two daughters ruled the whole earth for a long time.

In our barbarous centuries, when scarcely two feudal lords had a New Testament at home, it may have been forgivable to offer fables to the common herd—that is, to those feudal lords, their foolish wives, and their brutish vassals. They were made to believe that *St. Christopher* had carried the child Jesus from one riverbank to the other. They were fed stories about sorcerers and people possessed by demons. They readily imagined that *St. Genou* cured gout and *St. Clare* cured bad eyes. The children believed in werewolves, and their fathers in *St. Francis*'s cord. The number of relics was beyond counting.

The rust left by so many superstitions remained among the people for some time, even after religion was finally purified. We know that when *de Noailles*, Bishop of Châlons, had the supposed relic of Jesus Christ's holy navel removed and thrown into the fire, the whole town of Châlons brought a lawsuit against him. But he had as much courage as devotion. He soon managed to persuade the people of Champagne that they could worship Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth without having his navel in a church.

Those called Jansenists did a great deal to remove, little by little, most of the false ideas that disgraced the Christian religion from the nation's mind. People stopped believing that merely reciting the thirty-day prayer to the Virgin *Mary* was enough to obtain anything they wanted and to sin without punishment.

At last, the middle class began to suspect that it was not *St. Geneviève* who brought or stopped the rain, but God himself who controlled the elements. The monks were astonished that their saints no longer worked miracles. If the writers of the life of *St. Francis Xavier* returned to the world, they would not dare to write that this saint raised nine dead people, that he was at sea and on land at the same time, and that when his crucifix fell into the sea, a crab brought it back to him.

The same has happened with excommunications. Our historians tell us that when King *Robert* was excommunicated by Pope *Gregory V* for marrying Princess *Bertha*, who was related to him through godparenthood, his servants threw the food served to the king out of the windows, and Queen *Bertha* gave birth to a goose as punishment for this incestuous marriage. Today we doubt that an excommunicated king of France's stewards would throw his dinner out the window, or that the queen would give birth to a gosling in such a case.

If a few people go into religious convulsions in some corner of a suburb, it is like an infestation of lice, affecting only the lowest rabble. Every day reason makes its way into French merchants' shops as well as noblemen's mansions. We must therefore cultivate the fruits of reason, all the more because we cannot stop them from developing. After France has been enlightened by the *Pascals*, the *Nicoles*, the *Arnaulds*, the *Bossuets*, the *Descartes*, the *Gassendis*, the *Bayles*, the *Fontenelles*, and others, we cannot govern it as it was governed in the days of the *Garasses* and the *Menots*.

Suppose the teachers of error—I mean the great teachers, so long paid and honored for making the human race stupid—ordered us today to believe that grain must rot before it can sprout; that the earth rests motionless on its foundations and does not move around the sun; that the tides are not a natural effect of gravity; that the rainbow is not formed by the refraction and reflection of light rays; and so on. Suppose they based these orders on misunderstood passages of Holy Scripture. How would all educated people regard them? Would *beasts* be too strong a word? And if these wise teachers used force and persecution to establish the rule of their arrogant ignorance, would *wild beasts* be out of place?

The more the monks' superstitions are despised, the more the bishops are respected and the parish priests valued. They do nothing but good, while the monastic superstitions coming from beyond the Alps would do great harm. But of all superstitions, is not the most dangerous the one that makes us hate our neighbor for his opinions? And is it not obvious that worshiping the holy navel, the holy foreskin, the Virgin *Mary*'s milk and dress would still be more reasonable than hating and persecuting our brother?

### Chapter XXI

*Virtue Is Better than Learning.*

Fewer dogmas mean fewer disputes, and fewer disputes mean fewer disasters. If that is not true, I am wrong.

Religion was established to make us happy in this life and the next. What do we need to be happy in the next life? To be just.

What do we need to be happy in this life, as far as our miserable human condition allows? To be tolerant.

Trying to make everyone think alike about metaphysics would be the height of madness. Conquering the whole world by force of arms would be much easier than conquering every mind in a single town.

*Euclid* easily managed to convince everyone of the truths of geometry. Why? Because every one of them follows obviously from this little axiom: *Two and two make four*. Things are not quite the same in the mixture of metaphysics and theology.

When Bishop *Alexander* and the priest *Arios*, or *Arius*, began arguing about how the *Word* emanated from the Father, Emperor *Constantine* first wrote them these words, reported by *Eusebius* and *Socrates*: "*You are great fools to argue about things you cannot understand.*"

If both sides had been wise enough to admit that the emperor was right, the Christian world would not have been drenched in blood for three hundred years.

For what could be more insane and more horrible than telling people, "My friends, it is not enough to be loyal subjects, obedient children, loving fathers, and fair neighbors; to practice every virtue, cultivate friendship, avoid ingratitude, and worship Jesus Christ in peace. You must also know how someone can be begotten from all eternity without being made from all eternity. And if you cannot distinguish *sameness of substance* in the divine person, we warn you that you will burn forever. Meanwhile, we will begin by cutting your throats"?

If such a ruling had been put before an *Archimedes*, a *Posidonius*, a *Varro*, a *Cato*, or a *Cicero*, what would they have answered?

*Constantine* did not stick to his decision to silence both sides. He could have summoned the leaders of this quibbling to his palace. He could have asked them by what authority they were disturbing the world: "Do you have the divine family's records? What does it matter to you whether the *Word* was made or begotten, provided people are faithful to him, preach sound morals, and practice them if they can? I have committed many faults in my life, and so have you. You are ambitious, and so am I. Gaining the empire cost me deceit and cruelty. I have murdered nearly all my relatives, and I regret it. I want to make up for my crimes by bringing peace to the Roman Empire. Do not stop me from doing the one good thing that might make people forget my past barbarities. Help me end my days in peace." Perhaps he would have gained nothing from the disputants. Perhaps he was flattered to preside over a council in a long red robe, with his head covered in jewels.

Yet this was what opened the door to all the scourges that came from Asia and flooded the West. From every disputed verse came a fury armed with a false argument and a dagger, making everyone mad and cruel. The Huns, Heruli, Goths, and Vandals who came afterward did infinitely less harm. The greatest harm they did was finally to join in these fatal disputes themselves.

### Chapter XXII

*Universal Tolerance.*

It takes no great skill or elaborate eloquence to prove that Christians should tolerate one another. I go further: I say we must regard all people as our brothers and sisters. What! The Turk my brother? The Chinese? The Jew? The Siamese? Yes, of course. Are we not all children of the same Father and creatures of the same God?

But these peoples despise us; they call us idolaters! Well, I will tell them they are very wrong. I think I could at least shake the proud stubbornness of an imam or a Buddhist monk if I spoke to them something like this.

This little globe, no more than a speck, moves through space like so many other globes. We are lost in this vastness. A human being, about five feet tall, is certainly a very small part of creation. One of these imperceptible beings says to a few neighbors in Arabia or Kaffraria, "Listen to me, for the God of all these worlds has enlightened me. There are nine hundred million little ants like us on earth. But only my anthill is dear to God. He has hated all the others from all eternity. Mine alone will be happy, and all the others will be unhappy forever."

They would stop me then and ask, "Who is the madman who said this nonsense?" I would have to answer, "You yourselves." I would then try to calm them down, but that would be very difficult.

I will now speak to Christians. I would dare to say, for example, to a Dominican inquisitor of the faith, "My brother, you know that every province of Italy has its own way of speaking, and that people do not speak in Venice and Bergamo as they do in Florence. The *Crusca* Academy has fixed the language. Its dictionary is a rule from which no one should depart, and *Buon Matei*'s grammar is an infallible guide that must be followed. But do you believe that the academy's consul, or *Buon Matei* in his absence, could in good conscience have had the tongues cut out of all the Venetians and people of Bergamo who persisted in speaking their dialects?"

The inquisitor answers, "There is a great difference. Here your soul's salvation is at stake. It is for your own good that the Directory of the Inquisition orders your arrest on the testimony of a single person, even one who is disgraced and has a criminal record; that you have no lawyer to defend you; that you are not even told your accuser's name; that the inquisitor promises you mercy and then condemns you; that he subjects you to five different tortures; and that you are then whipped, sent to the galleys, or burned in a ceremony.[36] Father *Ivonet*, Doctor *Chucalon*, *Zanchinus*, *Campegius*, *Royas*, *Felinus*, *Gomarus*, *Diabarus*, and *Gemelinus* are explicit on this, and this pious practice allows no objection."

I would take the liberty of answering, "My brother, perhaps you are right. I am convinced that you want to do me good. But could I not be saved without all that?"

It is true that these absurd horrors do not stain the earth every day. But they have been frequent, and we could easily make a book of them much larger than the Gospels that condemn them. Not only is it very cruel to persecute in this short life those who do not think as we do; I wonder whether it is not also very presumptuous to pronounce their eternal damnation. It seems to me that momentary atoms like us have little right to anticipate the Creator's judgments in this way. I am very far from challenging the statement *outside the Church there is no salvation*. I respect it, as I do everything the Church teaches. But in truth, do we know all God's ways and the full extent of his mercy? Are we not allowed to hope in him as much as we fear him? Is it not enough to be faithful to the Church? Must every individual seize God's rights and decide the eternal fate of all people before God does?

When we mourn a king of Sweden, Denmark, England, or Prussia, do we say we are mourning a damned soul burning forever in hell? Europe has forty million inhabitants who do not belong to the Church of Rome. Shall we say to each one, "Sir, since you are certainly damned, I will neither eat, make agreements, nor talk with you"?

What French ambassador, when admitted to an audience with the Ottoman sultan, would say in his heart, "His Highness will certainly burn for all eternity because he submitted to circumcision"? If he really believed the sultan was God's mortal enemy and the object of his vengeance, could he speak to him? Should he be sent to him? With whom could we do business? What duty of civil life could we ever fulfill if we were really convinced that we were dealing with damned souls?

Followers of a merciful God! If your hearts were cruel; if, while worshiping the one whose whole law was contained in these words, *Love God and your neighbor*, you had burdened that pure and holy law with false reasoning and incomprehensible disputes; if you had stirred up conflict, sometimes over a new word, sometimes over a single letter of the alphabet; if you had attached eternal punishments to the omission of certain words or ceremonies that other peoples could not have known, I would say to you, weeping for the human race, "Come with me to the day when all people will be judged and God will repay each according to their deeds.

"I see all the dead of past centuries and our own appearing before him. Are you quite sure that our Creator and Father will say to the wise and virtuous *Confucius*, to the lawgiver *Solon*, to *Pythagoras*, *Zaleucus*, *Socrates*, *Plato*, the divine *Antonines*, good *Trajan*, *Titus*, the delight of the human race, *Epictetus*, and so many other people who were models for humanity: 'Go, monsters! Go and suffer punishments infinite in intensity and duration. Let your torment be eternal like me. And you, my beloved *Jean Châtel*, *Ravaillac*, *Damiens*, *Cartouche*, *and the rest*, who died using the prescribed formulas, share my kingdom and happiness forever at my right hand'?"

You recoil in horror at these words. Now that they have escaped me, I have nothing more to say to you.

[36] *See* the excellent book entitled *Le Manuel de l'Inquisition*.

### Chapter XXIII

*Prayer to God.*

It is no longer to human beings that I speak, but to you, God of all beings, all worlds, and all times—if weak creatures, lost in immensity and invisible to the rest of the universe, may dare to ask anything of you, who have given everything, whose decrees are unchangeable and eternal. Please look with pity on the errors that belong to our nature! Do not let those errors become our disasters! You did not give us hearts to hate one another or hands to cut one another's throats. Help us support one another under the burden of a hard and passing life! May the small differences between the clothes covering our weak bodies, between all our inadequate languages, all our ridiculous customs, all our imperfect laws, all our senseless opinions, and all our social ranks, so unequal in our eyes and so equal before you—may all these slight differences between the atoms called human beings never be signals for hatred and persecution! May those who light candles at midday to honor you tolerate those content with the light of your sun! May those who cover their robes with white linen to say that we must love you never hate those who say the same under coats of black wool! May worshiping you in a jargon formed from an ancient language or in a newer jargon make no difference! May those whose clothes are dyed red or violet, who rule a small part of a small heap of this world's mud and own a few rounded pieces of a certain metal, enjoy without pride what they call greatness and wealth. May others look on them without envy! For you know that in these vanities there is nothing to envy or to be proud of.

May all people remember that they are brothers and sisters! May they abhor tyranny over souls, just as they hate the robbery that forcibly takes the fruits of peaceful work and industry! If the scourges of war are unavoidable, let us not hate or tear one another apart in peacetime. Let us use the moment of our existence, from Siam to California, to praise alike in a thousand different languages your goodness, which gave us that moment!

### Chapter XXIV

*Postscript.*

While this work was being written with the sole aim of making people more compassionate and gentle, another man was writing with exactly the opposite aim. Everyone has an opinion. This man was publishing a short code of persecution entitled *l'Accord de la Religion & de l'Humanité*. That is a printer's error: read *de l'Inhumanité*.

The author of this holy pamphlet relies on *St. Augustine*, who, after preaching gentleness, finally preached persecution, since he was then on the stronger side and often changed his mind. He also cites *Bossuet*, Bishop of Meaux, who persecuted the famous *Fénelon*, Archbishop of Cambrai, guilty of having published the idea that God is well worth loving for his own sake.

*Bossuet* was eloquent, I admit. The Bishop of Hippo, sometimes inconsistent, was more fluent than other Africans; I admit that too. But I would take the liberty of saying to them, with *Armande* in *Femmes savantes*:

When you choose someone as your guide,
You should copy their better side.

I would say to the Bishop of Hippo, "My lord, you changed your mind. Allow me to keep to your first opinion. In truth, I think it is the better one."

I would say to the Bishop of Meaux, "My lord, you are a great man. I find you at least as learned as *St. Augustine* and much more eloquent. But why torment your fellow bishop so much? He was as eloquent as you, in another style, and more lovable."

The author of the holy pamphlet on inhumanity is neither a *Bossuet* nor an *Augustine*. He seems perfectly suited to be an excellent inquisitor. I wish he were in Goa at the head of that fine tribunal. He is also a statesman and displays great political principles. "*If you have*," he says, "*many people of unorthodox beliefs among you, treat them gently and persuade them. If there are only a few, put the gallows and the galleys to use, and you will do very well out of it.*" That is what he advises on pages 89 and 90.

Thank God, I am a good Catholic. I have no reason to fear what the Huguenots call *martyrdom*. But if this man ever becomes prime minister, as his pamphlet suggests he hopes to do, I warn him that I will leave for England on the day he receives his letters patent.

Meanwhile I can only thank Providence for allowing people of his sort always to reason badly. He goes so far as to cite *Bayle* among the supporters of intolerance. How sensible and skillful! Because *Bayle* agrees that people stirring up rebellion and crooks must be punished, our man concludes that peaceful people acting in good faith must be persecuted with fire and sword, *page 98*.

Almost his whole book imitates the defense of the *St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre*. Either he is that apologist or he echoes him. In either case, we must hope that neither master nor pupil will govern the state.

But if they do become its masters, I submit this petition to them from a distance, concerning two lines on page 93 of the holy pamphlet:

"*Must the happiness of the whole nation be sacrificed to the happiness of one-twentieth of it?*"

Suppose there really are twenty Roman Catholics in France for every Huguenot. I am not suggesting that the Huguenot should eat the twenty Catholics. But why should those twenty Catholics eat the Huguenot? And why stop this Huguenot from marrying? Are there not bishops, abbots, and monks who own land in Dauphiné, in Gévaudan, near Agde, and near Carcassonne? Do these bishops, abbots, and monks not have tenant farmers unfortunate enough not to believe in transubstantiation? Is it not in the interest of the bishops, abbots, monks, and the public that these farmers have large families? Will only those who receive communion in one form be allowed to have children? Really, that is neither just nor decent.

"*The revocation of the Edict of Nantes did not produce as many harmful effects as people attribute to it*," says the author.

If people do attribute more to it than it produced, they are exaggerating. Exaggeration is the fault of almost all historians. But reducing the harm they are accused of to nothing is also the fault of all religious controversialists. Let us believe neither the doctors of Paris nor the Protestant preachers of Amsterdam.

Let us take as our judge the Count d'*Avaux*, ambassador to Holland from 1685 to 1688. He says, *page 181*, *tom. 5*, that one man alone had offered to uncover more than twenty million that the persecuted were taking out of France. *Louis XIV* answered d'*Avaux*: "*The reports I receive every day of countless conversions leave me in no doubt that the most stubborn will follow the example of the others.*"

This letter from *Louis XIV* shows that he sincerely believed in the extent of his power. Every morning he was told, "Sire, you are the greatest king in the universe. The whole universe will be proud to think as you do, as soon as you speak." *Pélisson*, who had grown rich as chief financial clerk; *Pélisson*, who had spent three years in the Bastille as *Fouquet*'s accomplice; *Pélisson*, who had gone from Calvinist to deacon and holder of a benefice, who published prayers for Mass and bouquets of verse for *Iris*, who had obtained the administration of vacant benefices and the post of converter—*Pélisson*, I say, brought in a long list of renunciations of Protestantism every three months, at seven or eight crowns each. He made his king believe that whenever he wished, he could convert all the Turks at the same price. They took turns deceiving him. Could he resist their persuasion?

Yet the same d'*Avaux* informed the king that a man named *Vincent* employed more than five hundred workers near Angoulême and that his departure would cause harm, *page 194*, *tom. 5*.

The same d'*Avaux* mentions two regiments that the Prince of Orange was already having recruited by refugee French officers. He mentions sailors who deserted three ships to serve aboard those of the Prince of Orange. Besides these two regiments, the Prince of Orange was also forming a company of refugee cadets commanded by two captains, *page 240*. On May 9, 1686, this ambassador also wrote to *de Seignelay* that *he could not hide his distress at seeing French industries establish themselves in Holland, which they would never leave*.

Add to all this testimony that of all the kingdom's intendants in 1698, and judge whether the revocation of the Edict of Nantes did not produce more harm than good, despite the opinion of the respectable author of *l'Accord de la Religion & de l'inhumanité*.

A marshal of France, known for his exceptional intelligence, said a few years ago, "*I do not know whether using dragoons to force conversions was necessary, but it is necessary never to do it again.*"

I admit that I thought I had gone a little too far in publishing the letter from Father *Le Tellier*'s correspondent, in which this member of the congregation proposes barrels of gunpowder. I said to myself, "People will not believe me. They will think this letter is a forgery." Fortunately, my doubts disappeared when I read these gentle words in *l'Accord de la Religion & de l'Inhumanité*, page 149:

"*The total extinction of Protestants in France would weaken France no more than bloodletting weakens a patient with a strong constitution.*"

So this compassionate Christian, who has just said that Protestants make up one-twentieth of the nation, wants the blood of that twentieth spilled. He sees this operation as no more than drawing a small bowl of blood! With him around, may God preserve us from the three twentieths!

If this decent man proposes killing one-twentieth of the nation, why should Father *Le Tellier*'s friend not have proposed blowing up, cutting the throats of, and poisoning a third? It is therefore very likely that the letter to Father *Le Tellier* really was written.

The holy author finally concludes that intolerance is an excellent thing "*because it was not*," he says, "*expressly condemned by* Jesus Christ." But Jesus Christ did not condemn people who would set fire to all four corners of Paris either. Is that a reason to canonize arsonists?

So, while nature speaks in its gentle and kindly voice on one side, fanaticism, nature's enemy, howls on the other. While peace presents itself to humanity, intolerance forges its weapons. You who decide the fate of nations, who have given peace to Europe, decide between the peaceful spirit and the murderous one.

### Chapter XXV

*Continuation and Conclusion.*

We learn that on March 7, 1763, the whole Council of State met at Versailles, with the ministers of state attending and the chancellor presiding. *De Crosne*, a master of requests, presented the *Calas* case with a judge's impartiality, the accuracy of someone thoroughly informed, and the simple, truthful eloquence of an orator and statesman—the only kind appropriate to such an assembly. An enormous crowd of people of every rank waited in the palace gallery for the Council's decision. The king was soon informed that every member, without a single exception, had voted to order the parlement of Toulouse to send the Council the trial documents and the grounds for its judgment, which had caused *Jean Calas* to die on the wheel. His Majesty approved the Council's decision.

So humanity and justice do exist among people, especially in the council of a king who is loved and deserves to be! The case of an unfortunate family of obscure citizens has occupied His Majesty, his ministers, the chancellor, and the entire Council. It has been discussed and examined as carefully as the greatest questions of war and peace could be. A love of fairness and concern for the human race guided all the judges. Thanks be to the God of mercy, who alone inspires fairness and every virtue!

We bear witness that we never knew the unfortunate *Calas*, whom the eight judges of Toulouse put to death on the weakest circumstantial evidence, against the ordinances of our kings and the laws of all nations. Nor did we know his son *Marc-Antoine*, whose strange death led these eight judges into error; the mother, as worthy of respect as she is unfortunate; or her innocent daughters, who traveled two hundred leagues with her to lay their disaster and their virtue at the foot of the throne.

God knows that we were moved only by a spirit of justice, truth, and peace when we wrote our thoughts on tolerance in connection with *Jean Calas*, whom the spirit of intolerance killed.

We did not think we were offending the eight judges of Toulouse by saying they were mistaken, as the whole Council has presumed. On the contrary, we opened a way for them to clear themselves before all Europe. That way is to admit that ambiguous evidence and the cries of a senseless crowd misled their judgment; to ask the widow's forgiveness; and to repair, as far as they can, the complete ruin of an innocent family, by joining those helping it in its distress. They unjustly killed the father. It is for them to take a father's place for the children, assuming these orphans are willing to accept from them a small sign of a very justified repentance. It would be noble of the judges to offer it and of the family to refuse it.

It is especially for *Mr. David*, a municipal magistrate of Toulouse, to set an example of remorse, if he was the first to persecute the innocent. He insulted a father dying on the scaffold. Such cruelty is unheard of. But since God forgives, people too must forgive anyone who repairs his injustices.

This letter, dated February 20, 1763, was sent to me from Languedoc.

…

…

*"Your work on tolerance seems to me full of humanity and truth. But I fear it may do the* Calas *family more harm than good. It may embitter the eight judges who voted for the wheel. They will ask the parlement to have your book burned. And the fanatics—for there are always fanatics—will answer the voice of reason with furious cries, etc."*

Here is my answer:

*"The eight judges of Toulouse can have my book burned if it is good. Nothing could be easier. They burned the* Provincial Letters, *which were certainly much better. Anyone can burn books and papers they dislike in their own home.*

*"My work can do neither good nor harm to the* Calas *family, whom I do not know. The king's Council, impartial and firm, judges according to the laws and fairness, on the documents and the proceedings—not on a piece of writing that is not a legal document and whose substance is entirely unrelated to the case it is judging.*

*"People could publish volumes in folio for or against the eight judges of Toulouse, and for or against tolerance. Neither the Council nor any court will regard those books as documents in the case.*

*"I agree that some fanatics will shout. But I maintain that many sensible readers will reason.*

*"I learn that the parlement of Toulouse and some other courts have a strange system of evidence. They admit quarters, thirds, and sixths of a proof. Thus, with six pieces of hearsay on one side, three on the other, and four quarters of a presumption, they produce three complete proofs. On the strength of this fine demonstration, they break a man on the wheel without mercy. A little knowledge of reasoning would be enough to make them adopt another method. What is called a half-proof can only be a suspicion. Strictly speaking, there is no half-proof. Either something is proved or it is not; there is no middle ground.*

*"A hundred thousand suspicions together can no more establish proof than a hundred thousand zeros can make a number.*

*"There are quarter tones in music, though they cannot be performed. But there is no quarter of a truth or quarter of an argument.*

*"Two witnesses who stand by their testimony are considered to establish proof. But that is not enough. Those two witnesses must be free from passion and prejudice. Above all, what they say must not contradict reason.*

*"Four people of the utmost respectability might say that they saw a feeble old man seize a strong young man by the collar and throw him forty paces through a window. Clearly, those four witnesses would have to be put in a madhouse.*

*"Yet the eight judges of Toulouse condemned* Jean Calas *on a much more unlikely accusation. There was no eyewitness who said he had seen a feeble old man of sixty-eight hang an extremely strong young man of twenty-eight all by himself.*

*"Some fanatics merely said that other fanatics had told them they had heard other fanatics say that* Jean Calas, *by supernatural strength, had hanged his son. So an absurd judgment was passed on absurd accusations.*

*"There is no remedy for such a system of justice except for those who buy the right to judge people to study better from now on."*

This work on tolerance is a petition that humanity most humbly presents to power and wisdom. I am planting a seed that may one day produce a harvest. Let us place all our hopes in time, the king's goodness, the wisdom of his ministers, and the spirit of reason that is beginning to spread its light everywhere.

Nature says to everyone, "I made you all weak and ignorant at birth, to vegetate for a few minutes on earth and fertilize it with your corpses. Since you are weak, help one another. Since you are ignorant, enlighten and tolerate one another. Even if you all held the same opinion—which certainly will never happen—and only one person held a different one, you should forgive him, for I am what makes him think as he does. I gave you arms to cultivate the earth and a little glimmer of reason to guide you. I placed a seed of compassion in your hearts so you could help one another bear life. Do not smother that seed or corrupt it. Know that it is divine. Do not replace nature's voice with the miserable fury of the schools.

"I alone still unite you, despite yourselves, through your mutual needs, even amid your cruel wars, undertaken so lightly: an endless theater of mistakes, accidents, and disasters. I alone hold back, within a nation, the disastrous consequences of the endless division between the nobility and the magistrates, between those two bodies and the clergy, and even between townspeople and farmers. None of them knows the limits of their rights. But in the long run, despite themselves, they all listen to my voice speaking to their hearts. I alone preserve fairness in the courts. Without me everything there would be left to uncertainty and whim, amid a confused heap of laws often made at random to meet a passing need, differing from province to province and town to town, and almost always contradicting one another in the same place. I alone can inspire justice when laws inspire only quibbling. Whoever listens to me always judges well. Whoever seeks only to reconcile contradictory opinions goes astray.

"There is an immense building whose foundation I laid with my own hands. It was solid and simple; everyone could enter it safely. People wanted to add the strangest, crudest, and most useless decorations. The building is falling apart on every side. People pick up its stones and throw them at one another's heads. I cry out to them: Stop! Clear away these deadly ruins that you have made, and live with me in peace in the unshakable building that is mine."

### Newly Added Article

An account of the final judgment in favor of the Calas family.

Two more years passed between March 7, 1763, and the final judgment. So easy is it for fanaticism to take an innocent life, and so hard for reason to secure justice for it. The unavoidable delays required by legal formalities had to be endured. The less those formalities had been followed in condemning Calas, the more rigorously the Council of State had to follow them. A whole year was not enough to force the parlement of Toulouse to send the Council the entire record of the proceedings, and then to examine that record and report on it. De Crosne was again given this difficult task. An assembly of nearly eighty judges overturned the Toulouse judgment and ordered a complete review of the trial.

Other important cases then occupied almost all the kingdom's courts. The Jesuits were being expelled and their Society abolished in France. They had been intolerant persecutors[37]; now they were persecuted in turn.

The absurd business of confession certificates, which they were thought to have secretly devised and which they publicly supported, had already revived the nation's hatred of them. The enormous bankruptcy of one of their missionaries[38], believed to be partly fraudulent, completed their downfall. The mere words *missionaries* and *bankrupts*, so ill suited to go together, pronounced their condemnation in everyone's mind. Finally, the ruins of Port-Royal[39] and the bones of so many famous men, whom they had insulted in their graves and had dug up at the beginning of the century under orders dictated by the Jesuits alone, all rose against their dying influence. The story of their expulsion can be read in the excellent book entitled *Sur la Destruction des jésuites en France*[40]. It is an impartial work because it is by a philosopher, written with Pascal's subtlety and eloquence, and above all with a superior understanding not clouded, as Pascal's was, by prejudices that have sometimes misled great men.

This great affair, in which some Jesuit supporters said religion was being insulted while the majority thought it was being avenged, caused the public to lose sight of the Calas trial for several months. But when the king assigned the final judgment to the court called *the Court of Requests of the Royal Household*, the same public, which likes moving from one scene to another, forgot the Jesuits, and the Calas family took all its attention.

The Court of Requests of the Royal Household is a sovereign law court made up of masters of requests. It judges lawsuits between officers of the royal court and cases the king refers to it. No court better informed about the case could have been chosen. These were precisely the same magistrates who had twice ruled on the preliminary stages of the review and who knew both the facts and the procedure perfectly. Jean Calas's widow, his son, and de Lavaisse returned to prison. The old Catholic servant was brought from deep in Languedoc. She had never left her master, her mistress, and their family for a moment during the time when, against all likelihood, they were supposed to have been strangling their son and brother. Finally, deliberations began on the same documents that had been used to condemn Jean Calas to the wheel and his son Pierre to exile.

It was then that a new legal brief appeared by the eloquent de Beaumont[41], along with another by young de Lavaisse, whom the judges of Toulouse had so unjustly implicated in these criminal proceedings and, in the ultimate contradiction, had not declared acquitted. This young man wrote a statement of his case himself, which everyone considered worthy to appear beside de Beaumont's. He had the double advantage of speaking for himself and for a family whose chains he had shared. He could have broken his own chains and left the prisons of Toulouse simply by saying that he had left the Calas family for a moment during the time when the father and mother were alleged to have murdered their son. He had been threatened with execution; torture and death had been held before his eyes. One word could have restored his freedom. He preferred to risk execution rather than speak that word, which would have been a lie. He set out all these details in his statement with such noble, simple honesty, so far from any showiness, that he moved everyone he had only meant to convince and won admiration without seeking a reputation.

His father, a famous lawyer, had no part in this work. He suddenly found himself equaled by his son, who had never practiced law.

Meanwhile, people of the highest standing flocked to Madame Calas's prison, where her daughters had shut themselves in with her. Visitors were moved to tears. Humanity and generosity showered help on them. What is called *charity* gave them none. Charity, which is also so often petty and insulting, belongs to the devout, and the devout still sided against the Calas family.

The day came—March 9, 1765—when innocence triumphed completely. After de Baquencourt had reported the entire proceedings and investigated the case down to the smallest details, all the judges unanimously declared the family innocent and wrongfully and abusively judged by the parlement of Toulouse. They cleared the father's name. They allowed the family to apply to the proper authority to bring a personal action against their judges and obtain the costs and damages that the Toulouse magistrates should have offered on their own.

There was universal joy in Paris. People gathered in public squares and walks. They hurried to see this family, so unfortunate and so fully vindicated. They applauded as the judges passed and showered blessings on them. What made the scene still more moving was that this day, March ninth, was the very day on which Calas had died under the cruelest torture three years earlier.

The masters of requests had given the Calas family complete justice, and in doing so had only done their duty. There is another duty, that of doing good, more rarely fulfilled by courts, which seem to think they exist only to be fair. The masters of requests decided to write as a body to His Majesty, begging him to repair the family's ruin with gifts. The letter was written. The king answered by having thirty-six thousand livres given to the mother and children. Of those thirty-six thousand livres, three thousand went to the virtuous servant who had constantly defended the truth by defending her employers.

By this kindness, as by so many other actions, the king deserved the name that the nation's love has given him[42]. May this example help inspire tolerance in people, without which fanaticism would devastate the earth or at least always make it miserable! We know that only one family is involved here, and that sectarian rage has destroyed thousands. But today, when a shadow of peace lets all Christian communities rest after centuries of slaughter, it is in this quiet time that the Calas family's misfortune must make a stronger impression, rather like a thunderbolt striking in the calm of a fine day. Such cases are rare, but they happen. They are the effect of that gloomy superstition that leads weak minds to accuse anyone who thinks differently from them of crimes.

[37] Voyez page 96.

[38] Le Père La Valette; voyez tome XVI, page 100.

[39] Voyez tome XV, page 39 et suiv.

[40] Par d’Alembert, 1765, in-12; 1767, in-12; et dans les Œuvres de cet auteur.

[41] *Mémoire à consulter et Consultation pour les enfants du défunt J. Calas, marchand à Toulouse.* Délibéré, à Paris, ce 22 janvier 1765. Signé: Lambon, Mallard, d’Outremont, Mariette, Gerbier, Legouvé, Loyseau de Mauléon, Élie de Beaumont.

[42] Voyez tome XXIII, page 268.