A Memoir- the Testament

by Jean Meslier

  73. EXISTENCE OR MATTER, WHICH ARE THE SAME THING, CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN SET IN MOTION BY ITSELF.

  But let us carry our thoughts forward, taking care to say nothing that isn’t supported by solid arguments. It’s hard to know the principle of motion, and how matter is moved or can move itself. The God-cultists maintain that it can’t move by itself at all. As one famous God-cultist says[733],

  It’s obvious that all bodies, large or small, don’t have the power to move by themselves. For example, a mountain, a house, a stone, a grain of sand, even the smallest or largest conceivable body has no power of self-movement. We have only two sorts of ideas, the idea of mind and the idea of body, and, as we should only speak about what we can conceive of, we should only reason according to these two ideas. Thus, since the idea we have of all bodies informs us that they cannot move themselves, we must therefore conclude minds are what move them. But when we examine our idea of all the finite and limited minds, we find no necessary connection between their will and the movement of any body. We find, on the contrary, that there is none, and that there can’t be any such thing, and the necessary conclusion, if we are consistent with the lights of Reason, is that there is no created mind which can move any body anywhere, just as it’s said that no body can move by itself. But when we think of the idea of God[734], that is, a being who is infinitely perfect, and consequently omnipotent, we know that there is such a connection between its will and the movements of all bodies, that it’s impossible to conceive that it would have a body moved and for this body also wouldn’t be[735]. Should we not then conclude that nothing other than its will can move bodies, and thus, the motive force of bodies is not inherent in the bodies that move, since this motive force is nothing but the will of God.

  But not only can the bodies not be the true causes of anything, the spirits, even the most noble of all, are in a like state of powerlessness, they can know nothing unless God enlightens them[736], they can feel nothing unless God modifies them, and they are not capable of willing anything, except because God agitates them towards Him. ...They can indeed determine the impression that God give them for Him, towards something else than Him, but I don’t know whether that can be called power. If men had of themselves the power to love what is good, they might be said to have a certain power; but men can only love because God would have them love, and because His will is efficacious… It’s true that we move our arm when we want; but we are not the true causes of this motion. For how can we move our arm? To move them requires animal spirits, to be sent via certain nerves to certain muscles to inflate them, and cause them to shrink or expand: for this is how the attached arm is moved, or, in the opinion of others, it’s still not known how it happens, and we see that men who don’t even know if they have spirits, nerves, and muscles, move their arms and legs with more skill and ease than those who know anatomy better than anyone. Thus[737], then, men wish to move their arms or their legs and only God knows how and is able to move them.

  According to this view, it wouldn’t only be inanimate bodies that have the force of moving themselves, but all bodies and even the most animated of all would be in the same condition of impotence, since there is no evidence that there is or can be a necessary connection between our idea of bodies and their movement. Nobody sees, they say, how a body, large or small, might be capable of moving by itself. That’s the entire proof that the author quoted above offers and can offer in support of his view on the movement of bodies. It speaks volumes that neither he nor anyone else has any better proof to offer for what they say, and yet they fail to find any repugnance or absurdity in saying that a body can move by itself. For if any of our God-cultists had been able to notice anything repugnant or absurd in this, they surely wouldn’t have failed to point it out. And thus, their inability to find anything is a rather clear proof that there truly isn’t any: let us see whether things will be different with what this author says: but first, it is right to show how advantageous is the view that I claim to defend here. Even though we find no necessary connection between the idea of bodies and their movement, and we can’t clearly see how they might move by themselves, still, there is nothing repugnant in the idea, nor is there any ensuing absurdity in saying that they can move by themselves. If there is nothing repugnant in that, and nothing absurd is entailed by saying that they can move by themselves, then it is not impossible that they can move by themselves, for if it were impossible for them to move by themselves, there would be something repugnant and there would be something absurd in saying that they can move by themselves: this is why, since there is no repugnance or absurdity to fear on this point, it can be safely said that it is not impossible that bodies can be moved by themselves. If there are no drawbacks in saying that bodies can move by themselves, there is certainly no drawback either in saying that they indeed do move by themselves, and if it’s claimed that there was some repugnance or drawback in that, or that some absurdity is entailed by it, then these repugnant things, these drawbacks, and these absurdities must be produced; I defy all the God-cultists to do this, and it is obvious that bodies can move by themselves, and that we must look for no other causes of their movement but the very matter of which all bodies are composed.

  It would serve no purpose, as I’ve already pointed out, to say that there is no necessary connection between the idea we have of bodies and their movements, since even if there truly were no such connection between the two, it wouldn’t follow that there is any repugnance or absurdity in saying that bodies can move of themselves. And besides, we shouldn’t even be shocked if we see no necessary connection between the two, given that there effectively shouldn’t be one, since motion isn’t of the essence of bodies, but is only a property of their nature. If motion were essential to matter or of the essence of bodies, it’s credible that there would have been a necessary connection between our idea of body and motion. But since this motion is not of their essence, since a body can be without movement, there should be no necessary connection between the two, and it’s vain to strive to find one. It’s for this same reason that nobody either sees or can see what it is that makes matter move in this or that fashion, i.e., with this or that speed, or what causes it to move from right to left or from left to right, from top to bottom, or from bottom to top, or finally, what makes it move in straight line, a circular line, or an oblique line, although it moves in all these different ways with an infinity of various modifications; it’s that none of these sorts of movements are essential to matter and this is why it’s impossible to clearly see the precise principle and determination of all these different motions, unless it’s with respect to the circular motion that it can be said that matter would tend of itself to move always in a straight line, as the simplest and most natural motion, but that it can nevertheless always move thus, because, since all of extension is full of matter, the latter cannot always move in a straight line without running into other matter which keeps it from continuing its motion, and since it doesn’t always have a way to move in a straight line, it finds itself forced to move in a curved or circular line; which necessarily means that many particular portions of matter or many particular volumes of matter will turn around and thus create many vortices of matter. And there is no doubt that this is the cause of the roundness of the Earth, the roundness of the Sun, the roundness of the Moon, and the roundness of all the other stars and planets, as our Cartesians have pointed out; and thus, although we can’t clearly see exactly what the principle of motion of matter is, we see neither see nor can we even see that there is any repugnance, any problem, or any absurdity in saying that all these different motions and all their various modifications come from matter itself, which is enough to guarantee that they come effectively from matter itself, and not any other cause.

  But let’s show the repugnance aspects and the absurdities which would invariably be entailed by the opposite opinion. If matter didn’t have an inherent power of motion, it could only have received this power from a being which wasn’t material;
for if this being were also matter itself, then it would be true to say that matter had an inherent motive force; so, if it does not have this force inherently, it must have received it from a being that is not material. But, it is not possible that matter received the motive force from an immaterial being: therefore, it has an inherent power to move and set itself in motion.

  I'll prove the second proposition of this argument. Nothing can move or set matter in motion if it had no motion, except that which is capable of pushing and shaking it: for it is clear and evident that that which would not be capable of pushing or shaking it, could never move it. That which would be incapable, for example, of pushing a stone or a bit of wood, surely couldn’t move it. The same goes for all other kinds of matter which wouldn’t presently be in motion; nothing would be capable of moving it, if it were incapable of pushing or shaking it; but nothing is able to push nor to shake matter except matter itself; consequently, we must affirm that it has the principle of motion inherently.

  That nothing can push and shake matter other than matter itself, here is the proof. Nothing can push and shake matter except something that has, in itself, some strength and impenetrability just like matter does; for it is also evident that whatever has no solidity or impenetrability can’t push matter at all, or make it change its place, since it can make no effort, or any impression on it, and not even by leaning or applying itself in any way against it, because it would immediately go right through it without offering, or being able to offer, any resistance, such that it would even be as if it was touching nothing, the one being unable, and not even having the ability to make any impression or effort on the other: but only matter has a certain inherent solidity or impenetrability, since it’s agreed that the supposed spiritual and immaterial beings have none; therefore only matter can push matter, and make an effort and impression on it, and can move it, and consequently, that which is not matter cannot move matter. Tangere enim et tangi, says the proverb, nisi corpus nulla potest res, thus, once more, a being which is not material cannot have created matter: for, how could it have created it, since it wouldn’t have had even the power to move it; from which it clearly follows that matter was not created and that it has its being and its motion inherently[738], and that it is even uncreatable, along with time, place, space, and extension: for, ultimately, it is impossible to conceive that there is no being, and it is also impossible that there is no being; it is impossible to conceive that there is no time, and it is also impossible that there is no time; it is impossible to conceive that there is no extension, and it is impossible that there is also extension; it is impossible to conceive that there is no number, and it is impossible that there is no number; and finally, it is even impossible that these things are not per se infinite, each in its own genera and species. Our natural Reason clearly shows this to us, if we pay even a little attention to it, and it requires no greater attention to clearly see that these things cannot have been created, as has just been shown, it clearly follows that nothing was created, and consequently that there is no creator.

  I know well what out God-worshipers claim, that their God, the creator of all things, made everything by His will alone: He has but to exercise his will, they say, and all things are made, as it’s set out in their so-called Holy Scriptures[739]: Ipse dixit et facta sunt omnia, ipse mandavit et creata sunt. That is rapidly and easily said, be I also know full well they don’t know what they’re talking about, since they have no real idea about the knowledge, the power, and the will of this being; but they don’t even have any real idea about His nature and being: for, even according to their principle, all they attribute to Him by way of life, knowledge, will, force, and power are not meant and can’t be meant in the ordinary and natural sense of the terms, but only in a dubious sense, i.e., in a sense that is wholly unsuited to our way of living, thinking, willing, or acting. And, as we can’t form any other idea of life, but with respect to what we ourselves know and feel in our own lives, which necessarily consists in a vital motion of body and soul, and that this idea that we have of our own life is wholly unsuited to the supposed life of an incorporeal and immaterial God; it follows that when our God-cultists say that their God is living and that He has life, they do not know what they’re saying, because they can’t form any real idea of a life which would be suitable and apt for Him. Equally, we cannot form any other idea of thought than with respect to the acts of thought and will and with respect to the acts of knowledge that we have, that we form, and that we feel internally, when we think and when we desire; but the acts of thought, of knowledge, and of will do not occur in their God and they still can’t form any other idea of knowledge or will by relation to these acts of knowing and willing; thus, when they say that their God knows and wills, i.e., that He has knowledge and will, they don’t know what they’re saying, and they’re saying something they don’t understand, and about which they have no real conception. To go further, we can only form an idea of force and power or action in connection to what we know and feel, and which we do by ourselves; and, since our idea of this force and power are in no way suitable to their God, it follows, again, that when they say that He is omnipotent and that He acts with a sovereign omnipotence, they don't know what they’re saying. Finally, we can only form an idea of being and substance in connection to what we know about the beings and substances that we see and know; and, as this idea will again be unsuitable for God and as the very words being and substance are only said of God and other beings and spiritual substances in a dubious sense, i.e., in two different senses, one of which matches the beings and substances that we know, and the other, which would be applicable to God alone, and as our God-cultists themselves are unable to come up with a real idea of what they claim to signify in their God by these words being and substance, it follows that they have no real knowledge of what they attribute to Him, when they say that He is a being and a substance. “We say,” says Montaigne[740], “that God takes fright, that He is enraged, that God loves, etc. immortalia mortali sermone notantes. All such,” he says, “are agitations and emotions that cannot reside in God, according to our form; nor can we imagine things according to His. When we say,” he also says[741], “that the infinity of the centuries, both past and future, are but an instant for God, that His kindness, wisdom, and power are the same as His essence, our words say so,” he says, “but our intelligence does not grasp it.” And therefore, when our God-cultists speak of their God and attribute life, force, power, and knowledge to Him, or when they say that He is a being and a power, they don’t know what they’re saying, since they can’t conceive of it, and they have no real idea of what they claim to mean by this, when they talk this way, they definitely do not deserve a hearing; for those who speak without knowing what they say, don't deserve a hearing, and if they don't deserve to a hearing, they deserve even less to be believed.