by Jean Meslier
And according to what our Christ-cultists themselves say, for example, about the punishment for the first sin of Adam and Eve, the punishment of the Bethsamites who looked at the Ark, and the punishment of the census that King David organized for his people, and other such examples; according, I say, to what our Christ-cultists say about these things, God would mete out severe punishments for the minor faults of some people, while He would not punish at all, or would only hand out trifling punishments for the immense crimes of others. For, 1) as for the supposed sin of Adam, which he would have committed by eating, in a garden, fruit that was forbidden to him, this could only have been a very slight failing by comparison, for example, with the sin that was later committed by Cain, of wickedly killing his brother Abel. However, according to the words of our Christ-cultists, God would have punished Adam’s sin with great severity, even though it was only a slight fault, and He would not, or at least He would only slightly have punished the sin of Cain, which was a deplorable crime. With respect to the Bethsamites[628], what sin or wrong might they have done, by simply looking at an Ark or chest, which was set in a chariot, drawn by cows at random through the fields? However, this supposed mistake, which was in no way resembled a sin, would have been punished with the utmost rigor on these poor Bethsamites, while an infinity of rotten crimes went unpunished. It was not a crime for Uzzah to touch the ark with a good intention, to keep it from falling. However, according to our Christ-cultists, this deed was punished even more harshly than the sacrilege of the wicked. And, with respect to the census made by King David of his people, this could not be a very slight failing, if that: it was, at worst, sheer vainglory, and vainglory that wasn’t harmful to anyone; this failing was not comparable to the one which this same King committed when he had Uriel killed to gain his wife, and yet, according to our Christ-cultists, God punished the first failing, which was nothing, far more harshly than He punished the second, which was a severe crime.
These examples, and many others that might be produced, along with all those that are still seen every day in the world, of the troublesome accidents which always happen to good people, and which leave an infinity of wicked people alone, who deserve to be punished severely, clearly show that God would often repay the slightest failings of some with the utmost rigor, while He would overlook or only deliver slaps on the wrist to those who commit immense crimes, and that He would equally punish the good like the wicked, and the innocent like the guilty, the just and the unjust; which, being manifestly contrary to the supreme kindness, the supreme wisdom, and the supreme justice of a being who is supposed to be infinitely perfect, there is no chance that the pains and evils of this temporal life are really God's punishments. They are only the natural effects of the way things are constituted, which are corruptible and mortal. Besides, is it really credible that a God, who is supposed to be infinitely good and infinitely wise, and is supposed to have created men to lavish blessings on them and make them happy and content forever in a terrestrial Paradise, would have suddenly decided, straight after creating them like this, to exclude them completely from His grace and friendship, and reduce all of them to this miserable necessity, of suffering all the pains and all the miseries of this life, and this due to the fault of a single man, and for such a minor fault as to have indiscreetly eaten, in a garden, a fruit he was told not to touch? This is not credible! So, a God infinitely good, infinitely wise, would have wanted to depend on the happiness or unhappiness temporal and eternal of all men, a vain and slightly obedience or disobedience of one man, weak and fragile, he would have known the weakness and fragility, and even though he would have expected would fall into this sin? This is not credible. What! For such a misdeed, and for such disobedience, which was only a trifle, which was of no significance in itself, which caused no harm or offense to God, or anyone else, and which would even have been committed without any bad intention, and which would nowadays deserve only a single whipping, a God, I say, who is infinitely good, infinitely wise, wished, for such supposed misconduct, to waste all of humanity, to deprive all of them of grace, condemning all of them to death, to suffer punishment for such misdeeds, all the penalties and miseries of this life, and with that also condemn them to an eternal reprobation and curse, on such a pretext? This is in no way credible. It is an insult to the sovereign goodness and the sovereign wisdom of a God, to even think such things.
If a prince, for example, got the idea of wanting to take all the people in a province, for a minor act of disobedience by one of his favorite subjects, or if a father who was rich and powerful, and had many children, wanted to keep any of them from inheriting his goods, and make them all miserable in unhappy, their whole lives, for the disobedience, even a slight one, of only one of his children, wouldn’t it be right to say that this prince and this father were madmen, were fools? It would be right to say this, for indeed, one would have to have lost their reason and fallen into an excess of bestiality and rage to go so far as that. How is it then, that a God and a being who would be infinitely wise, could have fallen into such a furious and cruel insanity as to want to lose them and make his children and his peoples miserable forever? How, I ask, can He have fallen into such insanity as to want to bring them all to ruin, and make them all eternally miserable, by the fault of a single man, who had done nothing but indiscreetly eat an apple, for example, or a prune, which he was forbidden to eat? This, I say, is not credible; it is even ridiculous to think such a thing: hence, it’s clearly a mistake for our Christ-cultists to say, as they do, that God punishes the crimes and sins of men with the temporal penalties of this life, which are certainly, as I said, only the natural consequences of the natural constitution of things.
But this error becomes all the more evident from the way say that God doesn’t only punish for the sins of men with the temporal penalties of this life, but that He punishes them all the more strictly in the other life, by the eternal torments of Hell, and by the fearsome punishments that one can imagine of Hell, and by the most fearsome imaginable punishments of a Hell which is always, they say, full of fire and flames and full of all sorts of horrors and curses; for it’s to push the vengeance of God to such an excess of cruelty and barbarity and inhumanity, that there is no man, among the cruelest of all tyrants who ever existed, who have ever had the heart to take things that far; but it’s also to press, in this respect, extravagance to the utmost. So--all the evils, all the miseries, all the afflictions of this life aren’t enough for a God to avenge Himself on men for a supposed crime of slight disobedience? They aren’t enough to take revenge for the supposed crime of having unwisely eaten some apple or plum in a garden? Nor are they enough to avenge the crime of having only slightly transgressed some law of fasting or abstinence, as ordained by the Church? They aren’t enough to avenge the crime of a bout of excessive drinking or eating at a party, among friends? They aren’t enough to avenge young men or young girls or women for the crime of a sweet kiss or an embrace, or even to avenge the crime of only having thought of doing so, or of having looked at each other eagerly? But He also requires eternal castigation to punish them, and the most terrible and frightful ones imaginable: eternal fires and flames, and all the most horrific things one can imagine? He would need, I say, these sorts of punishments to satisfy His vengeance, and for the pleasure of tormenting them forever? This would surpass all the bounds of cruelty and inhumanity. And to maintain such a thing is to press, as I’ve said, extravagance past all bounds. Do not you say, dear Christ-cultists, that God is full of kindness and mercy?[629] That He is a merciful Father, and the God of all consolations? Pater misericordiarum et Deus totius consolationis? Don’t you say that He loves forgiveness, that He is generous in pardons, and loves the salvation of men, Deus veniae largitor, et humanae salutis amator? And don’t you say that the multitude of His mercies surpasses the malice of our sins, multae misericordiae ejus et prestabilis super malicia? You say all these things. Then how can you say that He would punish such slight failings so severely, so
cruelly, and so ruthlessly? That is completely self-refuting. Si flagellat occidat semel, said good Job[630], et non de poenis nocentum vel innocentum rideat.
Imagine, even a little, the fearsome misery endured by so many of these miserable reprobates, for the crime of merely enjoying some sweet natural pleasure; or others who may have been to indulgent among their friends, others whose only crime was wanting or desiring to get revenge on some rotten enemy of theirs; others who maybe missed a few Masses, or failed at fasting, or didn’t believe strongly enough in some article of faith or other. Think of them, these poor wretches, think of them, then, irredeemably condemned to suffer the cruel and fearsome torments of Hell forever, and to burn eternally in flames, without hope of ever being liberated! Their pain! Their screams! Their groans! The horrific howls that these poor wretches will have to emit continually and forever! Would a God who is supposed to be, as they say, infinitely gentle, infinitely good, and infinitely merciful, never be moved, or never tire of seeing such fearsome torments? Or of hearing the shrieks and groans of these poor miserable wretches? Would He never be touched by compassion for those who are less guilty, any more than for those who were most wicked of all? If a God were capable of that, and He truly did such a thing (which is, nevertheless, completely impossible and incredible) I’d dare to say that such a God deserves to be hated, detested, and cursed, and even to be cursed forever, since He would be crueler than all the cruelest Tyrants who ever existed or ever will. See if that can be said of a God, i.e., of a being who is supposed to be infinitely perfect, infinitely good, and infinitely wise. But, as it is morally ridiculous and absurd to say that a being which is infinitely good, infinitely wise, would deserve instead to be hated, detested, and cursed, so it is ridiculous to say that an infinitely good and infinitely wise God would want to mete out eternal punishment in Hell, not only for sins coming from malice and wickedness, but also for sins originating in weakness and infirmity, like those which I have just mentioned, and others like them. This in itself is contrary to what is expressly stated in one of their so-called Holy Prophets, where this Prophet, speaking of the greatest crimes ever committed in the city of Jerusalem and the strict punishment which, he said, God assigned to it, this is what he said about it, and how he has his God speak, on this occasion, to the people of this city: “Be comforted, be comforted, my people, says your God, be comforted; tell Jerusalem that the time of His malice is complete, that its iniquity is forgiven, and that it has received from the hand of God a double portion of the punishment it deserved for all its sins[631]: Consolamini, consolamini, popule meus, dicit Dominus vester, loquimini ad cor Jerusalem et advocate eam quoniam completa est malicia ejus, dimissa est iniquitas illius, suscepit de manu Domini duplicia pro omnibus peccatis suis. If the temporal punishments, which the Prophet said that God then inflicted on them for the greatest and worst of all sins that the people of this city could have ever committed, were, according to what he said, and even what his God said, were even double what they deserved for their sins, or if they were doubly punished for their sins, by the temporal castigations that God would have inflicted on all of them, and that for this reason their sins were completely forgiven, this wouldn’t have been for Him to want to also ruthlessly punish them eternally, by the fearsome torments of a Hell, as our Christ-cultists depict. Their so-called holy and divine books explain that God repented of having punished men so harshly for their wickedness, when He killed them all with the flood waters, which supposedly flooded the whole Earth, in the time of Noah[632]; they say God then promised that He would no longer curse the Earth because of men’s sins, and that He would never flood the Earth again, because they are naturally inclined to evil. He even tells them that He would place his bow in the clouds, as a sure sign of His covenant with men and with all living creatures, that He would never send them a flood again[633]. And He would have created and formed an awful Hell to have them tormented and cruelly and eternally burned in flames? Can such a thing even be said? Can such a thing even be thought of a Being, who would be infinitely good and infinitely wise? Certainly not, that can’t and should never be said or thought.
Our so-called Christ said, referring to one of his disciples who would betray him, that it would have been better for him never to have been born, etc. But if what I’ve just explained about the doctrine of our Christ-cultists were true, then it could certainly be said that it would have been better for God never to have created any people, than to have created them and left them, as He would have done, in such a weak and fragile condition. Our Christ-cultists can’t deny this conclusion: for, since they themselves say, and that it’s a maxim of their morality, that it would be better to let all creatures perish than to commit even one venial sin, such as telling a single white lie, or a single idle and frivolous word, which would only be venial sins, according to their doctrine, it is evident that it would also therefore be far better for no humans ever to exist, and for the world never to have existed, than for these things to have existed and for these things to present so many and such wicked vices and so many and so contemptible crimes; it would be better for no people ever to have existed, than for an eternal duration of so many, so miserable and so unhappy reprobates. In brief, it would have been far better for God to have created nothing, than to have allowed or let the least evil be committed, i.e., the least sin, or the least disobedience to His commandments. Judge for yourself whether a Being who is infinitely perfect Being, infinitely good, and infinitely wise would ever have wanted, done, or ever have wished to allow that which should never have been done, or ever have been allowed to happen. It is ridiculous and absurd to say that He would ever have wanted to do or allow something that would have been better left unallowed, something that should never have been allowed or done. It is ridiculous and absurd to say that he would have never wanted to do or allow something that should never have been allowed, since He would then be acting against the nature of His infinite kindness and HIs infinite wisdom. All those arguments clearly show that our Christ-cultists are mistaken again when they say that God punishes crimes and sins with eternal punishments.
But let us consider yet another error in their doctrine, quite contrary and opposed to the one I’ve just refuted; since, after having represented their God as a monster who is terrible in fury and indignation against sinful men, ruthlessly punishing their least mortal sins by the fearsome and eternal punishments of a Hell, and to punish the least venial sins severely for many years with the burning flames of a purgatory, they represent Him as an amazing wonder of kindness, gentleness, clemency, and mercy, readily forgiving the worst and most detestable crimes. Witness what is pronounced in nearly all the so-called holy and sacred books, where the mercy of God is exalted above all His works[634], and especially in the books of the Prophets, where it says that God is gentle and benign, merciful, patient, that His mercies are great, and that His kindness surpasses the malice of sinners. And in another place[635], where it says that God does not want the death, i.e., the loss of sinners, but that He wants them to live and be converted. And still elsewhere, where it is said[636] that even if the crimes of the repentant were red as scarlet, He would make them as white as snow, and if their sins were as red as crimson, that he would make them as white as wool, by such expressions meaning that if their sins were very grievous and enormous, He would not fail to favor them and have mercy on them, and that He would wash them from all the filth of their sins.
This is also why the Christian religion teaches and enjoins belief, on pain of damnation and eternal malediction, that God, having, through an abundance of kindness and mercy, taken pity on and been felt compassion about the loss of all humanity, caused by the sin of Adam, and that, wanting to redeem them from all their sins, He was so kindly disposed to them that he became a man himself and died shamefully on the cross[637], to die in order to satisfy His divine justice, which had been offended by the sins of humanity, and thereby redeem them from eternal damnation and simultaneously provide an eternally blessed li
fe in Heaven. If that’s the case, as the Christian religion claims, this is clear proof of the greatest kindness and the greatest mercy that He could offer to sinners, who would have so grievously offended Him by their sins. But it is easy to show the absurdity of this doctrine.
For firstly, how can a single God be said to have such an excess of kindness and such a great excess of love for men, with so little concern as He must have had, to preserve them in their innocence, when they were there, and with such a great weakness and fragility, as that in which He would willingly have left them, to fall as easily and as soon as they did, into sin? For He alone surely could have given them enough strength, enough courage, enough intelligence, enough wisdom, and enough virtue, to resist the temptations of sin and to always remain firm in their innocence, without ever falling into sin; and for this He would only have to intend, and in that case men should never have fallen into sin, and consequently, according to the doctrine of our Christ-cultist, there would never have been any evil, nor consequently any unhappy creature, which would have been the greatest happiness on Earth. But since God, according to the same doctrine of our Christ-cultists, didn’t dispose things this way, how can they harmonize that with such a great kindness and such a great love, as what they say He feels for men? That doesn’t fit. How, again, can one harmonize, in a single God, such a great kindness and such a great mercy for sinners, and such a great love, with the utter harshness and severity with which He will punish their least misdeeds? How can we harmonize, in the same God, such a great kindness and such a great love for sinful humanity, with such a great anger, with such great ire and indignation, which He would feel for these sinners, and even with such a cruel vengeance, as what He would inflict on them? Such contrary and polar opposites can’t coexist in the same being, being mutually destructive. It is, therefore, ridiculous and absurd to attribute them to a single God.
