Chapter XIV
Original French
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.
Musean translation
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/.
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.
Plain English translation
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/.
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.
About this section
Chapter XIV is part of Treatise on Tolerance by Voltaire. This page sets the French original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is chapter 14 of 26 in the work, which is kept in the European tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the European tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.