The ministers of religion in their daily conduct, often belie the rigorous principles which they teach to others, so that the unbelievers in their turn think they have a right to accuse them of bad faith.  If some unbelievers contradict, in sight of death or during sickness, the opinions which they entertained in health, do not the priests in health belie opinions of the religion which they hold?  Do we see a great multitude of humble, generous prelates devoid of ambition, enemies of pomp and grandeur, the friends of poverty?  In short, do we see the conduct of many Christian priests corresponding with the austere morality of Christ, their God and their model?

CXCIII.—­IT IS NOT TRUE THAT ATHEISM SUNDERS ALL THE TIES OF SOCIETY.

Atheism, we are told, breaks all social ties.  Without belief in God, what becomes of the sacredness of the oath?  How can we bind an atheist who can not seriously attest the Deity?  But does the oath place us under stronger obligations to the engagements which we make?  Whoever dares to lie, will he not dare to perjure himself?  He who is base enough to violate his word, or unjust enough to break his promises in contempt of the esteem of men, will not be more faithful for having taken all the Gods as witnesses to his oaths.  Those who rank themselves above the judgments of men, will soon put themselves above the judgments of God.  Are not princes, of all mortals, the most prompt in taking oaths, and the most prompt in violating them?

CXCIV.—­REFUTATION OF THE ASSERTION THAT RELIGION IS NECESSARY FOR THE MASSES.

Religion, they tell us, is necessary for the masses; that though enlightened persons may not need restraint upon their opinions, it is necessary at least for the common people, in whom education has not developed reason.  Is it true, then, that religion is a restraint for the people?  Do we see that this religion prevents them from intemperance, drunkenness, brutality, violence, frauds, and all kinds of excesses?

Could a people who had no idea of the Deity, conduct itself in a more detestable manner than many believing people in whom we see dissolute habits, and the vices most unworthy of rational beings?  Do we not see the artisan or the man of the people go from his church and plunge headlong into his usual excesses, persuading himself all the while that his periodical homage to God gives him the right to follow without remorse his vicious practices and habitual inclinations?  If the people are gross and ignorant, is not their stupidity due to the negligence of the princes who do not attend to the public education, or who oppose the instruction of their subjects?  Finally, is not the irrationality of the people plainly the work of the priests, who, instead of interesting them in a rational morality, do nothing but entertain them with fables, phantoms, intrigues, observances, idle fancies, and false virtues, upon which they claim that everything depends?