A Letter To Camille Jordan
[NOTE: This pamphlet has never been published fully in English. It was printed in Paris in the summer of 1797 with the title: “Lettre de Thomas Paine sur les Cultes. A Paris, Imprimerie- Librairie du Cercle-Social, rue du Theatre-Fran-caise No. 4. 1797.” The inner beading is: “A Jordan de Lyon, Membre du Conseil des Cinq Cents, sur les Cultes et sur les Cloches.” It begins, “Citoyen, Jordan.” The received English version presents so many serious divergencies from the original French Letter as to raise a doubt whether it might not be wiser to print here a translation of the whole. The first mention of it in English that I find is by Sherwin (“Life of Paine,” London, 1819, p. 181), who says, “I have only seen a mutilated copy of this production.” This was probably the fragment afterwards included in a small collection of Paine’s “Theological Works” (Baldwin, Chatham-st., New York, 1821,) with a note: “The following is taken from the Courier (an Evening Paper) of July 13, 1797, the editor of which observes, ‘as the commencement of this letter relates to Mr. Paine’s opinions on the Bible, we are under the necessity, for obvious reasons, of omitting it.”‘ The fragment begins with the words, “It is a want of feeling to talk of priests, etc.” As Jordan read his Report on June 17, Paine must have written his Letter (pp. 23 in French) at a heat to have a copy (MS.) in the hands of the London editor of The Courier so early as July 13. The manuscript was among the papers bequeathed by Paine to Madame Bonneville, whose return towards her former Catholic faith caused her to mutilate the manuscripts and suppress some altogether. In 1818 when she and Cobbett were preparing the outline of a memoir of Paine (published in the Appendix to my “Life of Paine”) this Letter to Jordan is refarred to and Cobbett added, “which will find a place in the Appendix,’ but this Madame Bonneville struck out. Though she afterwards sold the MS. of the Letter, which Appeared IIX an American edition of 1824, it was no doubt with many erasures, some of them irrecoverable. This is my conjecture as to the alterations referred to. But so many passages in the English version are clearly Paine’s own writing that I can not venture to discard it, and conclude to insert as footnotes translations of the more important sentences and clauses of the French omitted from the English version.
Camille Jordan (b. at Lyons, 1771, d. at Paris, 1821,) was a royalist who in 1793 took refuge in Switzerland, and in England. Returning to Lyons in 1796 he was elected for the Department of the Rhone to the Council of Five Hundred, and, on July 17, 1797, brought in his Report for restoration of certain Catholic privileges, especially the Church Bells, which was received with ridicule by the Convention, where he was called “jordan-Cloches.” Nevertheless, he succeeded in securing relief for the unsworn priests. Although at this time professing loyalty to the Directory he united with those who attempted its overthrow, and on the 18th Fructidor (4 September, 1797) fled from a prosecution, finding a refuge in Welmar. Recalled to France in 1800 he was for some time under ‘surveillance.’ He opposed the proposed Consular Government, and in 1814 was one of the deputation sent from Lyons to ask the Emperor of Austria to establish the Bourbons in France. Soon after he was sent to welcome Louis XVIII. in Paris, and received from him the award of nobility. — Editor. (Conway)]
As everything in your Report, relating to what you call worship, connects itself with the books called the Scriptures, I begin with a quotation therefrom. It may serve to give us some idea of the fanciful origin and fabrication of those books. 2 Chronicles xxxiv. 14, etc. “Hilkiah, the priest, found the book of the law of the Lord given by Moses. And Hilkiah, the priest, said to Shaphan, the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord, and Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. And Shaphan, the scribe, told the king, (Josiah,) saying, Hilkiah, the priest, hath given me a book.”
This pretended finding was about a thousand years after the time that Moses is said to have lived. Before this pretended finding, there was no such thing practised or known in the world as that which is called the law of Moses. This being the case, there is every apparent evidence that the books called the books of Moses (and which make the first part of what are called the Scriptures) are forgeries contrived between a priest and a limb of the law, [NOTE: It happens that Camille Jordan is a limb of the law. — Author. (Paine’s NOTE) (This note is not in the French pamphlet. — Editor. Conway.)] Hilkiah, and Shaphan the scribc, a thousand years after Moses is said to have been dead.
Thus much for the first part of the Bible. Every other part is marked with circumstances equally as suspicious. We ought therefore to be reverentially careful how we ascribe books as his word, of which there is no evidence, and against which there is abundant evidence to the contrary, and every cause to suspect imposition. [NOTE: The French pamphlet has, instead of last sixteen words “And when, on the contrary, we have the strongest reasons for regarding such assertions as one of the means of error and oppression invented by priests, kings, and attomeys.” — Editor. (Conway)]
In your report you speak continually of something by the name of worship, and you confine yourself to speak of one kind only, as if there were but one, and that one was unguestionably true.
The modes of worship are as various as the sects are numerous; and amidst all this variety and multiplicity there is but one article of belief in which every religion in the world agrees. That article has universal sanction. It is the belief of a God, or what the Greeks described by the word Theism, and the Latins by that of Deism. Upon this one article have been erected all the different superstructures of creeds and ceremonies continually warring with each other that now exist or ever existed. [NOTE: French : ” in the thousand and one religions of the four quarters of the world.” — Editor. (Conway)] But the men most and best informed upon the subject of theology rest themselves upon this universal article, and hold all the various superstructures erected thereon to be at least doubtful, if not altogether artificial.
The intellectual part of religion is a private affair between every man and his Maker, and in which no third party has any right to interfere. The practical part consists in our doing good to each other. But since religion has been made into a trade, [NOTE: French: “since the most scandalous hypocrisy has made of Religion a profession and the basest trade.” — Editor.] the practical part has been made to consist of ceremonies performed by men called priests; and the people have been amused with ceremonial shows, processions, and bells. By devices of this kind true religion has been banished; and such means have been found out to extract money even from the pockets of the poor, instead of contributing to their relief. [NOTE: French adds: “du superflu de la richesse.” (from their superfluous wealth). — Editor.]
No man ought to make a living by Religion. It is dishonest so to do. Religion is not an act that can be performed by proxy. One person cannot act religion for another. Every person must perform it for himself; and all that a priest can do is to take from him; he wants nothing but his money [NOTE: The ten preceding words are replaced in the French by: “to take from us not our vices but our money.” — Editor.] and then to riot in the spoil and laugh at his credulity.
The only people who, as a professional sect of Christians provide for the poor of their society, are people known by the name of Quakers. Those men have no priests. They assemble quietly in their places of meeting, and do not disturb their neighbours with shows and noise of bells. Religion does not unite itself to show and noise. True religion is without either. Where there is both there is no true religion. [NOTE: “A Religion uniting the two [noise and show] at the expense of the poor whose misery it should lessen, is a curious Religion; it is the Religion of kings and priests conspiring against suffering humanity.” — Editor.]
The first object for inquiry in all cases, more especially in matters of religious concern, is TRUTH. We ought to inquire into the truth of whatever we are taught to believe, and it is certain that the books called the Scriptures stand, in this respect, in more than a doubtful predicament. They have been held in existence, and in a sort of credit among the common class of people, by art, terror, and persecution. They have little or no credit among the enlightened part, but they have been made the means of encumbering the world with a numerous priesthood, who have fattened on the labour of the people, and consumed the sustenance that ought to be applied to the widows and the poor.
It is a want of feeling to talk of priests and bells whilst so many infants are perishing in the hospitals, and aged and infirm poor in the streets, from the want of necessaries. The abundance that France produces is sufficient for every want, if rightly applied; [NOTE: ” were the soil well cultivated and the cultivators not burdened with useless taxes.” — Editor.] but priests and bells, like articles of luxury, ought to be the least articles of consideration.
We talk of religion. Let us talk of truth; for that which is not truth, is not worthy of the name of religion.
We see different parts of the world overspread with different books, each of which, though contradictory to the other, is said by its partisans to be of divine origin, and is made a rule of faith and practice. [NOTE: under everlasting penalties.” — Editor.] In countries under despotic governments, where inquiry is always forbidden, the people are condemned to believe as they have been taught by their priests. [NOTE: imposed on them, with equal arrogance and ignorance, by the idlers nourished by their blood and tears.” — Editor.] This was for many centuries the case in France: but this link in the chain of slavery is happily broken by the revolution; and, that it may never be riveted again, [NOTE: and to prevent their Discovering some new way of returning to us their absurd sermons, processions, bells, which will also restore their tithes, benefices, abbeys, and the rest.” — Editor.] let us employ a part of the liberty we enjoy in scrutinizing into the truth. Let us leave behind us some monument, that we have made the cause and honour of our Creator [NOTE: “The Supreme Being” instead of “our Creator.” — Editor.] an object of our care. If we have been imposed upon by the terrors of government and the artifice of priests in matters of religion, let us do justice to our Creator by examining into the case. His name is too sacred to be affixed to any thing which is fabulous; and it is our duty to inquire whether we believe, or encourage the people to believe, in fables or in facts. [NOTE: ” to believe, under pain of damnation, fables that brutalise and impoverish them, or facts which increase their industry, general happiness, and the glory of their country.” — Editor.]
It would be a project worthy the situation we are in, to invite an inquiry of this kind. We Have committees for various objects; and, among others, a committee for bells. We have institutions, academies, and societies for various purposes; but we have none for inquiring into historical truth in matters of religious concern.
They shew us certain books which they call the Holy Scriptures, the word of God, and other names of that kind; but we ought to know what evidence there is for our believing them to be so, and at what time they originated and in what manner. We know that men could make books, and we know that artifice and superstition could give them a name, — could call them sacred. But we ought to be careful that the name of our Creator be not abused. Let then all the evidence with respect to those books be made a subject of inquiry. If there be evidence to warrant our belief of them, let us encourage the propagation of it; but if not, let us be careful not to promote the cause of delusion and falsehood.
I have already spoken of the Quakers — that they have no priests, no bells — and that they are remarkable for their care of the poor of their society. They are equally as remarkable for the education of their children. I am a descendant of a family of that profession; my father was a Quaker; and I presume I may be admitted an evidence of what I assert. The seeds of good principles, and the literary means of advanceinent in the world, are laid in early life. [NOTE: “Principles of humanity, of sociability, and sound instruction for advancement in society, are the first objects of studies among the Quakers.” — Editor.] Instead, therefore, of consuming the substance of the nation upon priests, whose life at best is a life of idleness, let us think of providing for the education of those who have not the means of doing it themselves. One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.
If we look back at what was the condition of France under the ancien regime, we cannot acquit the priests of corrupting the morals of the nation. Their pretended celibacy led them to carry debauchery and domestic infidelity into every family where they could gain admission; and their blasphemous pretensions to forgive sins encouraged the commission of them. Why has the Revolution of France been stained with crimes, which the Revolution of the United States of America was not? Men are physically the same in all countries; it is education that makes them different. Accustom a people to believe that priests or any other class of men can forgive sins, and you will have sins in abundance.
I come now to speak more particularly to the object of your report.
You claim a privilege incompatible with the constitution and with rights. The constitution protects equally, as it ought to do, every profession of religion; it gives no exclusive privilege to any. The churches are the common property of all the people; they are national goods, and cannot be given exclusively to any one profession, because the right does not exist of giving to any one that which appertains to all. [NOTE: Added: “that which is destined for needs of the state.” — Editor.] It would be consistent with right that the churches be sold, and the money arising therefrom be invested as a fund for the education of children of poor parents of every profession, and, if more than sufficient for this purpose, that the surplus be appropriated to the support of the aged poor. After this, every profession can erect its own place of worship, if it choose — support its own priests, if it choose to have any — or perform its worship without priests, as the Quakers do.
As to bells, they are a public nuisance. If one profession is to have bells, and another has the right to use the instruments of the same kind, or any other noisy instrument, some may choose to meet at the sound of cannon, another at the beat of drum, another at the sound of trumpets, and so on, until the whole becomes a scene of general confusion. But if we permit ourselves to think of the state of the sick, and the many sleepless nights and days they undergo, we shall feel the impropriety of increasing their distress by the noise of bells, or any other noisy instruments.
Quiet and private domestic devotion neither offends nor incommodes any body; and the Constitution has wisely guarded against the use of externals. Bells come under this description, and public processions still more so. Streets and highways are for the accommodation of persons following their several occupations, and no sectary has a right to incommode them. If any one has, every other has the same; and the meeting of various and contradictory processions would be tumultuous. Those who formed the Constitution had wisely reflected upon these cases; and, whilst they were careful to reserve the equal right of every one, they restrained every one from giving offence, or incommoding another. [NOTE: “All such parades of vindictive and jealous priests may kindle the beginings of intestine troubles; they bave been happily provided against.” — Editor.]
Men who, through a long and tumultuous scene, have lived in retirement as you have done, may think, when they arrive at power, that nothing is more easy than to put the world to rights in an instant; they form to themselves gay ideas at the success of their projects; but they forget to contemplate the difficulties that attend them, and the dangers with which they are pregnant. Alas! nothing is so easy as to deceive one’s self. Did all men think as you think, or as you say, your plan would need no advocate, because it would have no opposer; but there are millions who think differently to you, and who are determined to be neither the dupes nor the slaves of error or design.
It is your good fortune to arrive at power, when the sunshine of prosperity is breaking forth after along and stormy night. [NOTE: which seemed to bode for all Europe an eternal night.” — Editor.] The firmness of your colleagues, and of those you have succeeded — the unabated energy of the Directory, and the unsqualled bravery of the armies of the Republic, — have made the way smooth and easy to you. If you look back at the difficulties that existed when the Constitution commenced, you cannot but be confounded with admiration at the difference between that time and now. At that moment the Directory were placed like the forlorn hope of an army, [NOTE: the lost children of Liberty ” instead of ” the forlorn hope of an army.” — Editor.] but you were in safe retirement. They occupied the post of honourable danger, and they have merited well of their country.
You talk of justice and benevolence, but you begin at the wrong end. The defenders of your country, and the deplorable state of the poor, are objects of prior consideration to priests and bells and gaudy processions.
You talk of peace, but your manner of talking of it embarrasses the Directory in making it, and serves to prevent it. Had you been an actor in all the scenes of government from its commencement, you would have been too well informed to have brought forward projects that operate to encourage the enemy. When you arrived at a share in the government, you found every thing tending to a prosperous issue. A series of victories unequalled in the world, and in the obtaining of which you had no share, preceded your arrival. Every enemy but one was subdued; and that one, (the Hanoverian government of England,) deprived of every hope, and a bankrupt in all its resources, was sueing for peace. In such a state of things, no new question that might tend to agitate and anarchize the interior ought to have had place; and the project you propose tends directly to that end.
Whilst France was a monarchy, and under the government of those things called kings and priests, England could always defeat her; but since France has RISEN TO BE A REPUBLIC, the GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND crouches beneath her, so great is the difference between a government of kings and priests, and that which is founded on the system of representation. But, could the government of England find a way, under the sanction of your report, to inundate France with a flood of emigrant priests, she would find also the way to domineer as before; she would retrieve her shattered finances at your expence, and the ringing of bells would be the tocsin of your downfall. [NOTE: After tocsin, which would announce to Europe your ruin.” — Editar.]
Did peace consist in nothing but the cessation of war, it would not be difficult; but the terms are yet to be arranged and those terms will be better or worse, in proportion as France and her counsels be united or divided. That the government of England counts much upon your report, and upon others of a similar tendency, is what the writer of this letter, who knows that government well, has no doubt. You are but new on the theatre of government, and you ought to suspect yourself of misjudging; the experience of those who have gone before you, should be of some service to you. But if, in consequence of such measures as you propose, you put it out of the power of the Directory to make a good peace, and force them to accept of terms you would afterwards reprobate, it is yourself that must bear the censure.
You conclude your report by the following address to your colleagues: —
Is it possible, citizen representative, that you can be serious in this address? Were the lives of the priests under the ‘ancien regime’ such as to justify any thing you say of them? Were not all France convinced of their immorality? Were they not considered as the patrons of debauchery and domestic infidelity, and not as the patrons of morals? What was their pretended celibacy but perpetual adultery? What was their blasphemous pretention to forgive sins but an encouragement to the commission of them, and a love for their own? Do you want to lead again into France all the vices of which they have been the patrons, and to overspread the republic with English pensioners? [“pensioners of a hostile government which has already sought to plunge you into all the horrors of religious wars” instead of “English pensioners.” — Editor.] It is cheaper to corrupt than to conquer; and the English government, unable to conquer, will stoop to corrupt. Arrogance and meanness, though in appearance opposite, are vices of the same heart.
Instead of concluding in the manner you have done, you ought rather to have said:
“O my colleagues! we are arrived at a glorious period — a period that promises more than we could have expected, and [if not] all that we could have wished. Let us hasten to take into consideration the honours and rewards due to our brave defenders. Let us hasten to give encouragement to agriculture and manufactures, that commerce may reinstate itself, and our people have employment. Let us review the condition of the suffering poor, and wipe from our country the reproach of forgetting them. Let us devise means to establish schools of instruction, that we may banish the ignorance that the ancien regime of kings and priests had spread among the people. Let us propagate morality, unfettered by superstition. Let us cultivate justice and benevolence, that the God of our fathers may bless us. The helpless infant and the aged poor cry to us to remember them. Let not wretchedness be seen in our streets. Let [republican] France exhibit to the world the glorious example of expelling ignorance and misery together.
“Let these, my virtuous colleagues, be the subject of our care that, when we return among our fellow-citizens they may say, Worthy representatives! you have done well. You have done justice and honour to our brave defenders. You have encouraged agriculture, cherished our decayed manufactures, given new life to commerce, and employment to our people. You have removed from our country [republican government.] the reproach of forgetting the poor — You have caused the cry of the orphan to cease — You have wiped the tear from the eye of the suffering mother — You have given comfort to the aged and infirm — You have penetrated into the gloomy recesses of wretchedness, and have banished it. Welcome among us, ye brave and virtuous representatives, and may your example be followed by your successors!”
PARIS, 1797 [The French pamphlet is without date. — Editor.]