by Jean Meslier
This would be to lose time on credit, cutting the branches instead of the root; we must thus initiate the ruination of all the fabulous narrations and show that all that’s said about Magic and Demons cannot be proved either by Reason or by experience, and as far as there are ecstasies, conjurings, and other miracles by certain persons who are spoken of, we should not take the trouble to refute them because they negate themselves easily enough by their concomitant absurdities, and by Eunapius’s concerns that he’ll be taken for an impostor by sharing them with us. With respect to the false miracles, false possessions, and false resurrections which are performed among the Greek Schismatics, read the relation from the Missionaries of the Isle of Santerini, there are three successive chapters on this fine subject.
Meanwhile, Montaigne says[79]:
It’s a wonder how many vain beginnings and frivolous causes are normally born of as many famous impressions as those of the belief in miracles… Our sight so often represents strange images from afar, which vanish when you approach them. The closer all these miracles and strange events are to our day, the more hidden they are. More, before me I’ve seen the birth of many miracles in my day. Even when they are strangled at birth, we can still see the course they would have taken had they lived out their whole lives. For it’s only about finding the end of the thread, unwind it as much as you like. And there is a greater difference between nothing and the smallest thing in the world than there is between that and the biggest one. But the former, which are imbued with these strange beginnings, when they come spreading their story, feel, due to the opposition it meets, when they find it hard to persuade others, they caulk up these places with a few artificial bits. Besides that, we naturally make a conscience of restoring what has been lent to us, without some usury and accession of our own. The private error first makes the public error. Thus, this vast fabric goes forming and piling itself up from hand to hand, such that the furthest witness is a better witness and better informed than he who is closest; and the last one informed is more convinced than the first. This is a natural progression... There is nothing to which men more commonly tend than to give free rein to their opinions. Where the ordinary means are lacking, we add to them commandment, force, steel, and fire. It’s a misfortune to be in a situation where the touchstone of truth is the multitude of believers in a crowd, where the fools so far outnumber the wise… As for me, in a case when I wouldn’t believe one man, I certainly wouldn’t believe a hundred. And don’t judge opinions by years. Imposture is more easily hid under the veil of piety. Far more abuses are begotten in the world, or more boldly all the abuses of the world are only begotten by what we’re taught to fear, to profess our ignorance, and on which we’re supposed to accept all that we cannot refute.
All the examples and reasons I have adduced here, clearly show us that the supposed miracles can equally be done, as I have said, by wicked and by good men in favor of error and lies, as in favor of justice and truth, and, consequently, that they should not be seen as proofs or certain and sure testimonies of truth.
I will now prove this even more clearly from the testimony of what our Christ-cultists themselves call the word of God and from the selfsame testimony of he whom they revere as their God and Savior. For, the books that they say contain the word of God and the Christ himself, whom they revere as a God made Man, indicate and show us expressly that there are not only false prophets, that is, impostors, who falsely claim to be sent by God and who speak falsely in his name; but they also indicate expressly to us that they both do and will perform signs and such wondrous miracles that the just will nearly be deceived by them. “Be not misled, for many[80],” he told them, “will come in my name, saying: I am the Christ, and who will seduce many, and will work such great wonders that the very elect, if possible, would be seduced by them.” The famous Paul says in one of his epistles that God Himself would send a spirit of error which, through mighty imposture, would persuade, through lies, those who had not sought to receive the truth of his religion, and he says[81] that wicked seducers will come and perform all manner of deceptive wonders, signs, and miracles in order to win over, by all kinds of seductions, the sons of perdition to injustice. Here, then, are clear and evident testimonies; our Christ-cultists cannot dismiss them, since they are taken directly from the very words of their Christ, and from the word of one of his principal Apostles. They must necessarily recognize that these supposed miracles and wonders are equally liable to favor error and lies as justice and truth, and, consequently, they should recognize that they are not certain testimonies of the truth. And what is particularly worth mentioning on this occasion is that all these supposed miracle-workers want us to believe their supposed miracles, but not those performed by anyone who belongs to a party opposed to theirs. Equally, all the supposed prophets want us to take them at their word, and they want people to regard all the rest who are opposed to them as false prophets and impostors, and thus, it’s plain to see that they condemn and destroy each other mutually; and therefore, it’s sheer folly to accept any of them. One day, one of these supposed prophets, Zedekiah, finding himself contradicted by Micaiah, another supposed Prophet with different and opposing views, slapped him, saying these words as a sort of joke[82]: “by what path has the spirit of God passed out of me to go into you?” (Per quam viam transivit spiritus domini à me, ut loqueretur tibi?) The Prophets of Samaria, who were Prophets of the God Baal, didn’t agree with the Prophets of Judea and Jerusalem, who equally called themselves the Prophets of the Lord God; and if Jezebel had the Prophets of the Lord put to death, Elijah, in revenge, had 450 prophets of Baal killed. The Christ of the Christians wanted everyone to take him at his word and believe in his pretended miracles; but he did not want them to believe anyone else, or trust the miracles of those who opposed him. Moses, likewise, wanted his people to believe his word and his miracles, but he didn’t want anyone else’s to be believed, or for himself to be seduced by the miracles of the others: he commanded them to regard as false prophets and as seducers. However, Aaron and his sister Miriam did not claim that, and wanted it understood that God spoke to them as well as to Moses: num per solum Moisem locutus est Dominus? Nonne et nobis similiter est locutus? Here, then, are our so-called prophets and our so-called miracle-workers who contradict and openly condemn each other, and this is precisely why they confound and ruin each other, a sure and clear sign that their so-called miracles are neither sure proofs, nor sure testimonies of truth, and that, by consequence, we should not decide that a religion is true on such grounds.
But, how might these so-called miracles be sure proofs and testimonies of the truth of a Religion, since it’s not certain that they were actually performed, and there is no certainty in the relations that are given of them? For, to attach any certainty to these narrations, we must know 1). Whether those who are said or believed to be the first authors of these kinds of narrations are their true authors: for it is certain that, quite often, many things are falsely attributed to people, which they have neither said nor done, and quite often it’s bad writers sheltering under the name of some famous person to give credit to their lies and impostures. 2). We need to know whether those who are or who truly were the first authors of these sorts of narrations, were men of probity and trustworthy, whether they were wise and enlightened, and whether they were biased in favor of those of whom they speak so favorably. For it’s certain that, if they weren’t men of probity, there is no reason to place any faith in what they say. Equally, if they weren’t wise and enlightened men, they would be no more worthy of our trust, since, not having all the requisite intelligence or prudence to soundly judge matters, they might too easily be deceived: likewise, if they were biased in favor of those of whom they speak, we should also refuse to accept what they say, kept as they are from judging matters soundly, and also quite often led to say or do things, and to alter them from flattery and favor, into what they were not. We see this every day by experience, and this can be proved, if needed, with an infinity o
f examples. 3). We would need to know whether those who report these supposed miracles have properly examined all the circumstances surrounding the facts they relate, whether they truly were well acquainted with them, and whether they report all of them as they were: for it is certain that if, whether by error, the particular circumstances of a fact are changed, even slightly, if some minor circumstance is omitted or added, it’s made to appear very different than it was in itself. This is often what leads people to admire things which would immediately lose all admiration if the truth were known about them. “Miracles”, as Montaigne[83] says so judiciously, “appear to be so, according to our ignorance of nature, and not according to the essence of nature”. It is a marvel, he says, of how many vain and frivolous commencements ordinarily give birth to such famous impressions, as that of belief in miracles[84]. Our sight, he says, often represents to us at a distance as strange images, things which vanish when you approach them. 4). We should know whether the books or the ancient histories which relate all the great and prodigious miracles supposed to have been done in times past, have not been falsified and corrupted subsequently, like so many other books or histories which have doubtlessly been falsified and corrupted, and are still falsified every day in our own times.
Now, it is clearly far from certain that these supposed were actually performed, there is no certainty about the probity and sincerity of those who report them, or who say that they witnessed them; there is no certainty that they had been well known and well attested in all circumstances; there is no certainty that the histories that are seen, be truly of those to whom they are attributed; and finally there is no certainty that these histories had not been falsified and corrupted as is seen in so many others have been; there is, I say, no certainty on all these different points, for by knowing, for example, the name of Moses, this tells us nothing certain about whether he was a man of probity and hadn’t wished to write fables or lies instead of the truth. Timon the Prophet[85] called divine Plato a great forger of miracles since, he said, he was so bold as to adjoin divine operations and revelations wherever human ability was lacking. What certainty is there that the false Moses did not do the same thing, and that he was not as capable a forger of miracles as divine Plato ever was; there is surely no reason not to think so. Far from it; it seems, on the contrary, that there is far more reason to see him as a great brigand and a great impostor than as a true Prophet. Consider how a judicious author[86] speaks of him and his entire nation, i.e., the Jewish nation:
If we go all back go back to their origin and their famous departure from Egypt, of which their historians are so proud, telling so many fabulous miracles along with it, we will find that the Egyptian authors, and those of other nations, men of no less stature than Josephus or any other Jewish historian, have spoken of them scornfully and disadvantageously. Manetho, an Egyptian Priest, calls them a troop of dirty and leprous people, and says that they were chased from the country by Amenophis, who then reigned, and that they went to Syria under the guidance of Moses the Egyptian priest. Charemon, a famous Greek writer, says something similar. According to him, under the reign of Amenophis, 250,000 lepers were banished from Egypt, and in leaving under the leadership of Tisithen and of Peteseph, that is to say Moses and Aaron. And, although other writers differ on the name of the King who then reigned in Egypt, all of them say that the Israelites were a base sort of people, covered with infected sores and abscesses, and regarded as the froth and stench of the nation of Egypt. Tacitus, a Roman Historian of incontestable authority, adds that Moses, one of these leprous exiles, being a clever fellow with a good reputation among them, seeing the despondency and confusion of his brothers, told them to take courage and trust neither the Gods of the Egyptians nor the Egyptians themselves, but to confide only in him and obey his advice, that he was sent from heaven to be their leader, to deliver them from the calamity under which they groaned, and to protect them against all their enemies; the people, unsure what to do, submitted completely to his leadership. From then on, he was their captain and lawgiver; he made them pass through the deserts of Arabia, where they committed great thefts and brigandry, killed men, women, and children with the sword; burned cities, and spoiled every place they set their feet. What worse things could be said of a troop of robbers and bandits? Magic and Astrology were then, the only sciences in fashion among them. And, as Moses were perfectly well versed in all the mysteries and secrets of the wisdom of the Egyptians, it was not hard for him to inspire veneration and charm them personally, these children of Jacob, rustic and ignorant as they were, and to make them embrace, in the oppression they found themselves in, all his discipline.
What a different picture we have here from that which both the Jews and our Christ-cultists want us to believe. By what definite rule will we be able to know that we can trust in these more than other people? There is certainly no convincing reason to do so.
15. THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE SO-CALLED HOLY SCRIPTURES, WHICH ARE WHOLLY FALSIFIED AND CORRUPTED.
There is no more certainty or likelihood around the miracles of the New Testament, as the supposed miracles of the Old. What assurance, for example, and what certainty is there that these four Gospels which tell of the supposed miracles of Jesus Christ really were composed by the men they’re attributed to? And if they really were written by them, what certainty is there that they were men of probity and trustworthiness? By simply discovering their names: that the first was called Matthew, the second Mark, the third Luke, and the fourth John, does nothing to show that they were wise and enlightened men; it tells us nothing about whether they let themselves be misguided, whether they wanted to mislead others, and there’s reason to distrust their testimony altogether, since everyone agrees that they were common louts, ignorant men, on whom, consequently, it would have been easy to impose. And, finally, what certainty do we have that these four Gospels that appeared under their names were not corrupted and falsified, as we know so many other histories were, and still are every day; it’s nearly impossible to place any trust even in accounts about things that happened in our times, and nearly before our own eyes: if 20 people tell about something they witnessed, sometimes not even two of them will faithfully relate things as they actually happened. What certainty, then, is possible in the telling of things that are so ancient, and happened so many centuries, so many thousands of years ago, and which are only told to us by strangers, by people we don’t know, people without character and without authority, and who speak of things so extraordinary and so hard to believe, or rather so unbelievable? Certainly, there is no certainty, or even any probability in what they tell us, and thus, they do not deserve any credit. It is futile to say here, as people sometimes do, that the histories containing these sorts of facts have always been regarded as holy and sacred histories, and that, consequently, they have always been faithfully and inviolably preserved without any alteration of truths that are contained in them: it would be completely futile, I say, to use this argument for them, since this very reason, as well as many others, should make us suspect them all the more: they might have been all the more falsified and corrupted by those who claimed to find some advantage in them, or who feared that they might not be entirely favorable to them, usually the writers who transcribe or publish these sorts of histories want to add, change, or even take out of them according to their preferences. Look at what a judicious author of the past century shares his thoughts and views on this subject:
Man, who is born a liar cannot relish the plainness and simplicity of truth; he is altogether hankering after appearance and ornament. He has not made truth, for it comes from Heaven ready-made, as it were, in all its perfection, and man loves nothing but his own productions, Fable and Fiction. Observe the common people; they will invent a tale, add to it, and exaggerate it through coarseness or folly; ask even the most honest man if he always speaks the truth, if he does not sometimes discover that, either through vanity or levity, he has disguised the truth; and if to embellish a story he does not often
add some circumstance to set it off? An accident happened to-day, and almost, as it were, under our eyes; a hundred people have seen it, and all relate it in as many different ways; and yet another person may come, and if you will only listen to him, he shall tell it in a way in which it has not yet been told. How then can I believe facts which are so old and took place several centuries ago? What reliance can I place on the gravest historians, and what becomes of history itself. Was Cæsar ever murdered in the midst of the senate? and has there ever been such a person as Cæsar? “Why do you draw such an inference?” youʼll say; “why express such doubts and ask such questions?” You laugh, you do not think my question worthy of an answer, and I imagine you are quite right. But suppose the book which gives us an account of Cæsar was not a profane history, written by men who are liars, and had not been discovered by chance among certain manuscripts, some true, and others suspicious; but that, on the contrary, it had been inspired, and bore all the evidence of being holy and divine; that for nearly two thousand years it had been kept by a large society of men, who all this while would not allow the least alteration to be made in it, and held it as part of their creed to preserve it in all its purity; that these men, by their own principles, were indispensably compelled to believe religiously all the transactions related in this volume, whenever mention was made of Cæsar and his dictatorship; own it, Lucilius, would you then question whether there ever was such a man as Cæsar?[87]