A Philosophe Argues for Religious Toleration

VOLTAIRE, A Treatise on Toleration (1763)

François-Marie Arouet (1694–1778), who used the pen name Voltaire, was arguably the greatest of the Enlightenment philosophes. He was an astonishingly prolific author whose output amounted to hundreds of books and pamphlets. In some respects he was unrepresentative of the general currents of Enlightenment thought, being skeptical of both human rationality and human progress. Like virtually all the philosophes, however, he was an unceasing critic of religious dogma and intolerance. The following excerpts from Voltaire’s Treatise on Toleration (1763) present the essential components of his argument in favor of religious toleration. As you read, consider what core assumptions form the foundation of his position. How did Voltaire’s beliefs about the fundamental equality of human beings and the limits of human knowledge shape his views on religion?

Chapter XXI. Universal Toleration

It does not require any great art or studied eloquence, to prove, that Christians should tolerate each other. I shall go further, and say, that we should regard all men as our brethren. What! a Turk my brother? a Chinese my brother? a Jew? a Siamese? my brother? Yes, without doubt; for are we not all children of the same father, and creatures of the same God?

But these people despise us and treat us as idolaters! It may be so; but I shall only tell them, they are to blame. It seems to me, I should stagger the haughty obstinacy of an Iman,1 or a Talapoin,2 if I spoke to them in the following manner:

This little globe, which is but a point, rolls in universal space, in the same manner as other globes, and we are lost in the immensity. Man, a being about five feet in height, is assuredly a thing of no great importance in the creation. One of those beings, called men, and who are hardly perceptible, says to some of his neighbors in Arabia or in the country of the Cafres:3 “Attend to what I say, for the God of all these worlds has enlightened me. There are about nine hundred millions of little ants, such as we are, on this earth, but my ant-hill alone is [in] the care of God, all the rest have been hateful to him from [i.e., for] all eternity; we only shall be happy; all others will be eternally wretched.”

They would stop me, and ask, who is this madman, who utters such folly? I should be obliged to answer each of them, It is you. I might then take occasion to meliorate their dispositions into something like humanity; but that I should find difficult.

I will now address myself to Christians; and venture to say to a Dominican,4 who is an inquisitor, “My brother, you know, that every province of Italy has its jargon; that they do not speak at Venice and Bergamo as they do at Florence. The Academy de la Crusca5 has fixed the general disposition and construction of the language; its dictionary is a rule from which no deviations are allowed; and the grammar of Buon mattei’s6 is an infallible guide, which must be followed. But do you think that the consul, president of the Academy, or in his absence, Buon mattei, could have the conscience, to order the tongues of all the Venetians and Bergamese to be cut out, who should persist in their provincial dialects?”

The inquisitor would answer me: “The cases are very different. The question here is the salvation of your soul; it is for your good, that the court of inquisition ordains, that you should be seized, on the deposition of a single person, though he be infamous, and in the hands of justice; that you have no advocate7 to plead for you; that the very name of your accuser should be unknown to you; that the inquisitor should promise you mercy, and afterwards condemn you; that he apply five different kinds of torture to you, and that afterwards you should be whipt [i.e., whipped] or sent to the galleys, or burnt [at the stake] as a spectacle in a religious ceremony.8 Father Ivonet, [and] Doctor[s] Cuchalon, Zarchinus, Campegius, Royas, Telinus, Gomarus, Diabarus, and Gemelinus9 lay down these things as laws, and this pious practice must not be disputed. “I would take the liberty to answer, “My brother, perhaps you are right; I am convinced of the good you wish to do me; but, without all this, is it not possible to be saved?”

It is true that these absurd horrors do not always deform the face of the earth; but they have been very frequent; and we might collect materials to compose a volume on these practices, much larger than the gospels which condemn them. It is not only cruel to persecute in this short life those who do not think as we do, but it is audacious to pronounce their eternal damnation. It seems to me, that it little becomes the atoms of a moment [i.e., such insignificant, ephemeral creatures], such as we are, thus to anticipate the decrees of the Creator. I am very far from opposing that opinion, “that out of [i.e., outside] the church there is no salvation.” I respect it, as well as everything taught by the church: but, in truth, are we acquainted with all the ways of God, and the whole extent of his mercy? Is it not permitted that we should hope in him, as well as fear him? Is it not sufficient that we are faithful to the church? Is it necessary that every individual should usurp the power of the Deity, and decide, before him, the eternal lot of all mankind?

When we wear mourning for a king of Sweden, Denmark, England, or Prussia, do we say that we mourn for a reprobate who will burn eternally in hell? There are in Europe forty millions of inhabitants, who are not [members] of the Church of Rome; shall we say to each of them, “Sir, as you are to be infallibly damned, I would neither eat, deal, or converse with you.”

Is it to be supposed, that an ambassador of France, presented to the Grand Seignior,10 would say to himself, His highness will be burnt to all eternity, because he has submitted to circumcision? If he really thought that the Grand Seignior was a mortal enemy to God, and the object of his vengeance, could he have spoken to him? Should he have been sent to him? With whom could we have dealings in trade? What duty of civil life could we ever fulfill, if we were in fact possessed with the idea, that we were conversing with persons eternally reprobated?

O ye followers of a merciful God! if you have cruel hearts. If, in adoring him, whose whole law consists in these words, “Love God and your neighbor,” you have encumbered that pure and holy law with sophisms, and incomprehensible disputes! If you have lighted the fires of discord, sometimes for a new word, sometimes for a letter of the alphabet! If you have annexed eternal torments to the omission of some words, or some ceremonies, which other people cannot be [i.e., are not] acquainted with — I must say, while shedding tears for mankind: “Transport yourselves with me to that day, in which all men will be judged, and when God will render to every one according to his works.”

“I see all the dead, of past and present ages, appearing in his presence. Are you very sure that our Creator and Father will say to the wise and virtuous Confucius, to the legislator Solon, to Pythagoras, Zaleucus, Socrates, Plato, the divine Antonini, the good Trajan, to Titus the delight of mankind, to Epictetus,11 and to many others who have been the models of human nature: Go, monsters! Let your punishments be as eternal as my being! — and you, my well-beloved, Jean Châtel, Ravaillac, Damiens, Cartouche,12 &c. who have died according to the forms which are enjoined, sit at my right hand and partake of my dominion, and of my felicity!”

You shrink with horror at these words; and after they have escaped me, I have nothing more to say to you.

Chapter XXII. Prayer to God

I no longer then look up to men; it is to thee, the God of all beings, of all worlds, and of all ages, I address myself — If weak creatures, lost in immensity and imperceptible to the rest of the universe, may dare to ask any thing of thee, who hast given [us] all things, and whose decrees are immutable and eternal! Deign to regard with pity the errors inseparable from our nature; let not these errors prove our calamities! Thou hast not given us hearts to hate, and hands to destroy each other; dispose us to mutual assistance, in supporting the burden of a painful and transitory life! Let the little differences in the garments which cover our frail bodies; in all our imperfect languages, in our ridiculous customs, our imperfect laws, our idle opinions, in our ranks and conditions, so unequal in our eyes, and so equal in thine: let all those little shades which distinguish the atoms called men, be no more signals of hatred and persecution! Let those who light tapers [i.e., candles] at noon-day, to glorify thee — bear with those who content themselves with the light of thy sun! Let not those who throw over their garments a white surplice, while they say it is the duty of men to love thee, hate those who say the same thing in a black woolen cloak! Let it be equal, to adore thee in a jargon formed from an ancient, or from a modern language! May those whose vestments are dipped in scarlet, or in purple who domineer over a small parcel of the small heap of the dirt and mud of this world; and those who possess a few round fragments of a certain metal, enjoy without pride, what they call grandeur and riches; and may others regard them without envy: for thou knowest, there is nothing in these things to inspire envy or pride!

May all men remember that they are brethren! May they regard in horror tyranny, the tyranny exercised over the mind, as they do rapine, which carries away by force the fruits of peaceable labor and industry! If the scourges of war be inevitable, let us not hate and destroy each other in the bosom of peace; let us employ the instant of our existence to praise, in a thousand different languages, from Siam to California, thy goodness which hath granted us that instant!

From Voltaire, A Treatise on Toleration; The Ignorant Philosopher; and A Commentary on the Marquis of Becaria’s [sic] Treatise on Crimes and Punishments, trans. David Williams (London: Fielding and Walker, 1779), pp. 118–123.