by Jean Meslier
2. Is it credible that an infinitely good God, who is so kindly disposed towards men, would have wanted to reprove, destroy, and condemn all of humanity, not only to all the penalties and miseries of this life, but also to burn forever in the frightful flames of a Hell, for such a slight failing as that which Adam committed by eating a little forbidden fruit in a garden? And for a mistake which wouldn’t be worth a whipping. It is unworthy even to think such a thing of a God who is supposed to be supremely good and supremely wise.
3. If such a fault could irritate and offend His Divine Majesty to such a degree that He resolved, for such a petty matter, to reprove, ruin, and make all humans miserable, is it credible that an infinitely good, infinitely wise, and omnipotent God wouldn’t have wanted to prevent or recuperate this fault, rather than allow it, and thereby endure such dire and unpleasant consequences for an entire world? He could easily, by His Wisdom, His Providence, and His Omnipotence, have prevented this supposed fault, if He had wished to do so, and even without any difficulty at all, or any trouble; and, since He didn’t do so, it’s because He either didn’t want to prevent it, or it didn’t even come to mind: neither of the two can be said of a God who would be omnipotent, infinitely good, and infinitely wise; for it would be entirely against the nature of a sovereign goodness and a sovereign wisdom to not want to prevent or re-route the source and cause of such a great evil, or rather the source and the cause of such great and deplorable ills!
4. Is it credible that an infinitely good, infinitely wise God, could be so grievously offended for such a slight mistake, for a mistake that He, allowed, and that He didn’t want to prevent? Is it credible that, after having allowed and not prevented it, He would have wanted to expiate and punish it in Himself, or in His own person, and his supposedly divine, eternal, co-substantial Son, as our Christ-cultists say? Is it credible that this Son who was supposedly divine, eternal, co-substantial with the Father, would have wanted to become a man himself and suffer a cruel and shameful death, to compensate for an injury and offense which was only imaginary and metaphorical? I say imaginary and metaphorical, because all the crimes and sins of men are, with as far as God is concerned, as I’ve said, only imaginary injuries and insults? Is it credible that God, the Eternal Father, would want to hand His own Son over to men, to put him so shamefully[638] to death as a malefactor, beside thieves, to compensate for and erase, by his death, the insult and injury caused by a man who only ate an apple or a plum contrary to His commands? Is it credible that God would have seen this cruel and shameful death of His divine Son as a worthy satisfaction and a worthy compensation for the injury, caused by such a supposed sin?[639] Nothing could be more vain, stupid, extravagant, or even more ridiculous than all that: it’s like saying that an infinitely wise God wanted, from an abundance of kindness and mercy, would make up for or efface an insult and an imaginary and metaphorical offense by the greatest, gravest, and most insulting of all offenses imaginable. It’s like saying that an infinitely wise God would be grievously offended by men and that He would be severely wrathful against them over nothing, for a trifle, and that He would be mercifully appeased and reconciled with them, by the greatest of all crimes and a horrible deicide, which men themselves would have committed against His divine Son, by attaching and shamefully and cruelly killing him on a cross.
Was it necessary for an omnipotent God to have himself flogged and hung, to offer grace and mercy to sinners? And was it necessary, to save them from the power of an imaginary enemy, for Him to lose His life? What madness to even have such a thought! But it’s on this supposedly beautiful and worshipful mystery of a God-man, of a flogged God, of a God who was hung up and a God who died ignominiously on a cross, that the entire Christian Religion is based. Is anything more ridiculous, more absurd, and more extravagant than this? What? A God who is infinitely good and infinitely wise, who, for an apple, was so grievously offended by men that He wanted to condemn, lose, and make them all miserable forever, for a fault which wasn’t even worthy of a flogging, as I’ve said, and then He would be appeased and reconciled with them through a horrible deicide, which was supposed to have been committed by having his divine Son shamefully and cruelly killed? Do you wonder, heaven and earth, a strange doctrine[640] --- obstupescite coeli super hoc! This one offense, which men would have committed, would lose them forever, and it would shamefully have saved them all! What madness! What folly, again, to say, or even think such a thing! You would have to be wonderfully blind and stubborn to refuse to recognize and condemn such gross and manifest, such ridiculous and absurd errors as these. Be sure of this, there were never such things in Paganism[641]. And yet, this is what the Christian religion teaches, and what it absolutely obliges one to believe, and thus it clearly contains errors in its doctrine. I will not linger here to refute all the errors it teaches, its so-called sacraments, the indulgences, the relics of the saints and its pilgrimages, or even its vain blessings and its vain, superstitious, and ridiculous celebrations of Mass and such things: for all that will be sufficiently refuted, both by what I just said, and by what I will say further on. I turn, therefore, to the errors of morality that it contains.
41. THE THREE MAIN ERRORS IN CHRISTIAN MORALITY.
I note three of these in particular. The first is that it makes the perfection of virtue and the greatest good and advantage of man to consist in the love of and the pursuit of pain and suffering, according to these maxims of Jesus Christ, their divine head, who said, “Blessed are the poor, blessed are those who weep, blessed are those who hunger and thirst, blessed are those who suffer persecution for the sake of righteousness…” And according to these other sayings of the same Jesus, who said that one must bear one’s cross, that one must renounce oneself and all that one owns, and that, to be perfect, one must sell all that one owns and give it to the poor. And, on the other hand, who also pronounces misery and curses on the rich and on those who have their pleasures and contentment in this world. The second error of its morality consists in that it condemns as vices and crimes worthy of eternal punishment, not only the works, but also the thoughts, desires, and affections of the flesh, which are the most natural and the most suitable and necessary for the preservation and the multiplication of the human species: for it condemns them absolutely and sees them as vices and crimes, worthy of eternal punishment, for all those who are not legitimately joined according to its laws and ordinances; by which it means not only the fleshly and effective union of male and female, but also all other lustful deeds and sensual touching, and even all the desires, thoughts, affections, and all the glances which would voluntarily tend to this end, all which affections it sees, I say, as crimes worthy of eternal punishment, according to this statement of their Christ, who said that whoever[642] looks at a woman with the plan or desire to have enjoyment of her, has already committed adultery in his heart, he is already guilty of this crime --jam moechatus est eam in corde suo. So, following this maxim, the Christian religion, which I believe is the most pure and holy, regards as moral sins, deserving of the eternal punishments of Hell, not only all the lustful actions and sensual touching, but also all the desires, thoughts, glances, and all the words, which voluntarily tend to this end in those who are not properly, as I said, committed in marriage, according to its laws and ordinances. The third error of its morality is that it approves and recommends the practice and observance of certain maxims, and almost of certain precepts, which manifestly tend to overturn natural justice and equity, and which manifestly tend also to favor the wicked and to oppress the good and weak: for it approves and recommends the practice and observance of these precepts and maxims of Christ, who said and commanded his disciples to love their enemies and to do well to those who do them evil; who recommended non-resistance to the wicked, but that they should peacefully suffer their insults and mistreatment, not only without revenging the actions, but also without being bothered by them, without murmuring or even complaint. This is why he also told them that if someone should slap them
on one cheek, that they should present the other one[643], and that if someone should take away their cloak, they should also give them their robe, etc.[644] And also, in conformity with these fine statements, one of our famous Christ-cultists[645] has had good reason to say that the motto of carnal man was to conquer to keep from suffering, but that the motto of the Christian man was to suffer in order to conquer, to be trampled on, to keep from falling, and to die in order to live; although we don't see many of them who actually follow these fine maxims. Apparently, they don't put much stock in them either, and they know that would be unlikely to benefit from them. Indeed...
It’s an error to say that the perfection of virtue consists in love and seeking out pain and suffering: for this is like saying that the greatest perfection of virtue consists in a love for feeling miserable and unhappy; it is as if one should say that the greatest perfection consisted in loving and seeking that which would be against nature and which would even tend to self-destruction: for you cannot deny that pain and suffering, hunger and thirst, that injuries and persecutions are contrary to nature, and that all those things only tend to the destruction of nature.
But, it’s is clearly an error, indeed, it is madness to say that the perfection of virtue consists in loving and seeking that which is against nature, and that which even tends to its destruction; and it is clearly also a mistake and madness to say that the greatest good and the greatest happiness of man consists in weeping and moaning, in being poor and unhappy and hungry, thirsty, etc. Consequently, it is an error to say that the perfection of virtue and the greatest good of man consists in the love of suffering. It is true that this is not precisely and formally in the pains and sufferings themselves that our Christ-cultists have the perfection of virtue and the greatest good for man consist, since it is always bad to suffer pain, and those who suffer the most are not always made by it into the most virtuous of people; but they claim only to say that the perfection of virtue does consists in constantly suffering for a good end, and that the greatest good of man consists in the possession and enjoyment of the great blessings and great rewards, which they say they will enjoy in Heaven, and those who have had endured pains and suffering and did so patiently and virtuously. This is also why Christ said: “Blessed are they who mourn, for they will be comforted", and “Blessed are those who suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”... But that doesn’t mean that this maxim of the morality of our Christ-cultists, of loving and seeking out suffering and pain, isn’t utterly false, since it is always an error, and even insanity, to love and seek pain and suffering, on pretext of thereby acquiring eternal goods and rewards which are only imaginary. For, this supposed Kingdom of Heaven, which our Christ-cultists seem to be so concerned about, is, as I’ve already shown, only an imaginary Kingdom, and it is an abuse of the simplicity and credulity of the people to persuade them to love the pursuit of real pain and suffering, on the pretext of gaining such rewards thereby, which are only imaginary. Besides, this maxim, of loving and seeking after crosses and suffering, of renouncing oneself and all that one may possess, is based only on nothing but the words of a miserable fanatic, as I have already shown, and thus, it is an error and madness for men to want to trust in, and to want to follow such a maxim, which is so contrary to the good of nature and to right reason.
Equally, it is an error of Christian morality to condemn, as it does, all the natural pleasures of the flesh, and not only the actions and the natural works of the flesh, but also all the desires and all the voluntary thoughts of enjoying these, when not contained within what they call a legitimate marriage, made according to their laws and ordinances. It is, I say, an error in this morality to consider all these things, as actions or thoughts that are both criminal and worthy of eternal punishment: for, since there is nothing more natural and legitimate than this inclination, which naturally gives everyone this urge, it’s essentially to condemn nature, along with its author, if it had any other than its very self, to condemn as vicious and criminal, in men and women, an inclination that is so natural to them, and which also comes to them from the most intimate springs of their nature. Really? Would an infinitely good God, wish, for example, to make young people burn in Hell’s flames eternally, for having taken a few moments of pleasure together, for having followed the gentle inclination of their nature, for letting themselves follow an inclination that God Himself imprinted so deeply in their nature, or for having only consented, or indulged their thoughts, desires, or carnal movements, which God Himself would have formed and stirred up in them? That is completely ridiculous and absurd, and it is ridiculous to have only such thoughts of a God and a Being who would be infinitely good and perfect; the very thought of such cruelty and unworthiness is horrifying: meminisse horret animus[646]. And it is, therefore, a manifest flaw in Christian morality to condemn, as it does, the thoughts, desires, and inclinations of men, which are so natural and legitimate to them, and so necessary for the preservation and multiplication of the human species; and it is an error to see them as vicious inclinations or as vices worthy of punishment or eternal reprobation.
Still, nothing I have said here is meant to approve or to favor, in any way, the libertinage of those who indiscreetly or excessively abandon themselves to this animal drive. I criticize and condemn such excesses and riot, just like any other excess or riot, and do not mean to excuse anyone who indiscreetly exposes themselves to the loss of their honor, or to risk thereby any troublesome disgrace for taking such pleasures, or even to excuse those who, by suspicious behavior, will give room or subject for evil speaking or evil thinking of themselves, since, here as in many other things, it is necessary to follow the customary laws and the ways of the country where one resides. Among us, marriage between near relatives is absolutely forbidden. It would be a double crime to eternally unite with a near relative, at least if done without permission and legitimate permission, and elsewhere it would be commonly allowed, and this would be even a duty of piety and justice, which should perfect marriage by this double link of love that must come from the blood relation and the conjugal union, according to what a poet said of some nation or other where it is commonly done:
Gentes esse feruntur
in quibus et nato genitrix et nata parenti
jungitur et pietas geminato crescit amore.
Ovid. Metamorphoses. 3. 31.
Thus, the best in this for everyone is to wisely follow the laws and customs of the land, avoiding scandal, following this other maxim of our Christ-cultists, who say: “When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and if you live elsewhere, live as they do elsewhere”;
Si fueris Romae Romano vivito more,
si fueris alibi vivito sicut ibi.
But to say that these kinds of acts, desires, thoughts, and indulgence are crimes, worthy of the punishments and eternal torments of Hell, as the Christian religion and morality teach, is an error that is in no way credible, and is an unworthy thought, that a sovereign goodness would so strictly punish men on account of such vain and slight matters. Wise, however, are those who can control themselves and do not follow this sweet and violent inclination of nature blindly or indiscreetly. And wise was he who once said that didn’t buy repentance at such a price — non emo tanti poenitere[647]. But, in my opinion, they are also fools who, due to bigotry and superstition, never dare to taste it, at least once in a while. Many other thoughts could be shared on this point, but what I’ve said is sufficient to clearly show the error of Christian morality in this matter.
Here is yet another error of this same Christian morality: it teaches that it is necessary to love one’s enemies, and not to avenge insults, including not resisting the wicked; but that it is better to bless those who curse us, to do good to those who do us evil, to let ourselves be robbed, when someone wants what we have, and to suffer, always peacefully, whatever injury and mistreatment might come our way. It is, I say, an error, or rather it is erroneous to teach such things and to encourage others to follow
and practice such maxims of morality, which are so contrary to one’s natural rights, so contrary to right reason, so contrary to justice and natural equity, and even so contrary to the good and legitimate government of men.