{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_50534/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_50534","id":"gutenberg_50534","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50534","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","De tribus impostoribus","Rationalism","Spinoza, Benedictus de, 1632-1677"],"text":"THE\n                            THREE IMPOSTORS.\n\n\n\n                               TRANSLATED\n                    (WITH NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS,)\n                  FROM THE FRENCH EDITION OF THE WORK,\n                     PUBLISHED AT AMSTERDAM, 1776.\n\n\n\n                            RE-PUBLISHED BY\n              G. VALE, \"BEACON\" OFFICE, 3 FRANKLIN-SQUARE,\n                               NEW-YORK:\n                                 1846.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTE BY THE AMERICAN PUBLISHER.\n\n\nWe publish this valuable work, for the reasons contained in the\nfollowing Note, of which we approve:--\n\n\n\nNOTE BY THE BRITISH PUBLISHER.\n\nThe following little book I present to the reader without any\nremarks on the different opinions relative to its antiquity; as the\nsubject is amply discussed in the body of the work, and constitutes\none of its most interesting and attractive features. The Edition\nfrom which the present is translated was brought me from Paris by\na distinguished defender of Civil and Religious Liberty: and as my\nfriend had an anxiety from a thorough conviction of its interest and\nvalue, to see it published in the English Language, I have from like\nfeelings brought it before the public; and I am convinced that it is\nan excellent antidote to Superstition and Intolerance, and eminently\ncalculated to promote the cause of Freedom, Justice, and Morality.\n\n\nJ. MYLES.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE BY THE TRANSLATOR.\n\n\nThe Translator of the following little treatise deems it necessary to\nsay a few words as to the object of its publication. It is given to\nthe world, neither with a view to advocate Scepticism, nor to spread\ninfidelity, but simply to vindicate the right of private judgment. No\nhuman being is in a position to look into the heart, or to decide\ncorrectly as to the creed or conduct of his fellow mortals; and the\nattributes of the Deity are so far beyond the grasp of limited reason,\nthat man must become a God himself before he can comprehend them. Such\nbeing the case, surely all harsh censure of each other's opinions and\nactions ought to be abandoned; and every one should so train himself\nas to be enabled to declare with the humane and manly philosopher\n\n\n    \"Homo sum, nihil humania me alienum puto.\"\n\n\n                                                 Dundee, September 1844.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF THE PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION.\n\n\nDISQUISITIONS on the book entitled \"The Three Impostors.\"\n\nANSWER to the dissertation of M. de la Monnoye on the work entitled\n\"The Three Impostors.\"\n\nCOPY of Part 2d, Vol. 1., Article ix. of \"Literary Memoirs,\" published\nat the Hague by Henry du Sauzet, 1716.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                             DISQUISITIONS\n                          ON THE BOOK ENTITLED\n                          THE THREE IMPOSTORS.\n\n\nIt has long been a disputed point if there was at anytime a book\nprinted and bearing the title of \"The Three Impostors.\"\n\nM. de la Monnoye, having been informed that a learned German [1]\nintended to publish a dissertation the object of which was to prove\nthat this work had really been printed, wrote a letter, in refutation,\nto one of his friends; this letter was given by M. Bayle to M. Basnage\nde Bauval, who in February 1694, gave an extract from it in his\n\"History of the works of celebrated and learned men.\" At a later\nperiod M. de la Monnoye entered more fully into the subject, in a\nletter dated at Paris 16th of June, 1712, and addressed to President\nBouhier, in which letter, he says, will be found an abridged but\ncomplete account of this remarkable book.\n\nHe condemns at once the opinion of those who attribute the work\nto the Emperor Frederick. The false charge, he says, took its rise\nfrom a passage in the appendix to a discourse concerning Antichrist,\nand published by Grotius, wherein he speaks as follows [2]: \"Far\nbe it from me to attribute the book called 'The Three Impostors,'\neither to the Pope, or to the opponents of the Pope; long ago the\nenemies of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa set abroad the report\nof such a book, as having been written by his command; but from that\nperiod nobody has seen it; for which reason I consider it apocryphal.\"\n\nColomiez quotes this, page 28 of his \"Historical Miscellanies;\"\nbut he adds that there are some blunders--that it was not Frederick\nI. (Barbarossa,) on whom they intended to fix the authorship,\nbut Frederick II. his grandson. This he says, is apparent from the\nletters of Pierre des Vignes, the secretary and chancellor of the\nsecond Frederick, and from Matthew Paris; inasmuch as they record,\nthat this monarch was blamed for having said that the world had been\nled aside by \"Three Impostors;\" but by no means that he had written a\nbook having such a title. The Emperor denied in the strongest terms,\nthat he ever made use of any expression to that effect. He detested\nthe blasphemy with which they charged him, and declared that it was\nan atrocious calumny; more shame to Lipsius and other writers who\nhave condemned him without sufficiently looking into the evidences.\n\nAverroes, nearly a century previous, had jeered at the three religions,\nsaying [3]; that \"the Jewish religion was a law for children; the\nChristian religion a law which it was impossible to follow; and the\nMahometan religion a law in favor of swine.\" [4]\n\nSince then, many people have written with great freedom on this\nsame subject.\n\nWe read in the works of Thomas de Catimpre, that M. Simon de Tournay\nhad said that \"Three Seducers\"--Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mahomet,\nhad \"mystified mankind with their doctrines.\" This is evidently\nthe M. Simon de Churnay, of whom Matthew Paris relates some other\nimproprieties, and the same individual whom Polydore Virgil styles\nde Turwai, the orthography in both instances having been mismanaged.\n\nAmongst the manuscripts of the Abbe Colbert's library, obtained\npossession of by our sovereign in 1732, there is one numbered 2071,\nwritten by Alvaro Pelagius, a Spaniard of the Cordelian order,\nbishop of Salves and Algarve, and well known on account of his work,\n\"The Lamentation of the Church.\" He states that an individual named\nScotus, of the same order as himself and a Jacobin, was at that time a\nprisoner at Lisbon on a charge of blasphemy. Scotus, it would appear,\nhad said that he considered Moses, Jesus Christ and Mahomet as \"Three\nImpostors;\" for that, the first had deceived the Jews; the second\nthe Christians; and the third the Saracens. [5]\n\nGabriel Barlette, in his sermon upon St. Andrew, alludes to Porphyry\nin this way; \"and therefore the notion of Porphyry is absurd, when\nhe says that there had existed three individuals who had turned\nover the world to their own opinions; the first being Moses amongst\nthe Jewish people--the second Mahomet, and the third Christ.\" [6]\nA strange chronologist to stamp the era of Christ and Porphyry after\nthat of Mahomet!\n\nThe Manuscripts of the Vatican, quoted by Odomir Rainoldo in the\nnineteenth volume of his Ecclesiastical Annals, mention one Jeannin\nde Solcia, a canon at Bergame, a doctor of civil and canon law,\nknown from a decree of Pope Pius II., as Javinus de Solcia. He\nwas condemned on the 14th November 1459 for having maintained this\nimpiety--that Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mahomet had ruled the world\nat their pleasure. \"Mundum pro suarem libito voluntatum rexisse.\"\n\nJohn Louis Vivaldo de Mondovi, who wrote in 1506, and amongst whose\nworks there is a treatise on \"The Twelve persecutions of the Church\nof God,\" says, in his chapter upon the sixth persecution, that there\nwere people who dared to dispute, which of the three law-givers had\nbeen most followed, Jesus Christ, Moses, or Mahomet. [7]\n\nHerman Ristwyk, a Dutchman, burned at the Hague in 1512, sneered at\nthe Jewish and Christian religions. He does not speak of the Mahometan\ncreed; but a man who could regard Moses and Jesus Christ as impostors,\ncould entertain no better opinion of Mahomet.\n\nNow we must turn to an author, name unknown, but accused of\nblasphemy against Jesus Christ. The charge was founded upon some\npapers discovered at Geneva in 1547, amongst the documents belonging\nto M. Gruet. An Italian, named Fausto da Longiano, had begun a work\nwhich he entitled \"The Temple of Truth,\" in which he undertakes\nno less than to overturn all religions. \"I have,\" he says, \"begun\nanother work entitled 'The Temple of Truth.' It is probable that I may\ndivide it into thirty books. In this work will be found the extinction\nof all sects--Jews, Christian, Mahometan, and other superstitions;\nand matters will be brought back to their first principles.\"\n\nNow, amongst the letters of Aretino addressed to Fausto, there is\nnot one to be met with which alludes in any way whatever to this\nwork. Perhaps it had never been written, and although it had been\npublished, it must have been a very different book from the one in\nquestion; of which, they pretend that there are some copies in the\nlibraries in Germany, printed in folio, and written in High Dutch.\n\nClaude Beauregard, better known under his Latin appellation\nBerigardus, a professor of philosophy, first at Paris, next at Pisa,\nand latterly at Padua, quotes or forges a passage from the work,\n\"The Three Impostors,\" in which the miracles which Moses performed in\nEgypt are attributed to the superiority of his demon [8] over that\nof the Magicians of Pharoah. Giordano Bruno who was burned at Rome,\n17th Feb. 1600, was accused of having advanced something much to the\nsame effect. But although Beauregard and Bruno have indulged in such\nreveries, and have thought proper to assert that they quoted from\nthe work in question, is this a certain proof that they had read\nthe book? If so they would doubtless have stated whether it was in\nmanuscript, or in print, and referred to the size and the place where\nthey found it.\n\nTentzelius, trusting to one of his friends, a pretended ocular witness,\ngives a description of the book, and specifies the number of leaves\nand sheets; and attempting to prove in chap. III. of his work that\nthe ambition of legislators is the only source of all religions,\nhe gives as examples Moses, Jesus Christ, and Mahomet. Struvius,\nafter Tentzelius, enters into the same subject, but finding nothing\nbut what a clever fabulist might invent, he seems much inclined to\ndisbelieve in the existence of the book.\n\nA journalist at Leipsic, in his \"acta eruditarum,\" dated Jan. 1709,\npp. 36 and 37, gives the following extract from a letter addressed to\nhim: \"Having occasion to be in Saxony I saw, in the Library of M...,\na book entitled \"The Three Impostors.\" It is an 8vo volume, in Latin,\nwithout the name of the printer or the date of its publication;\nbut to judge from the letter it appears to have been published in\nGermany. It was to no purpose that I tried to obtain permission to\nread the whole work. The proprietor of the book, a man of sensitive\npiety, would not consent to it. I have since learned that a celebrated\nprofessor at Stuttgard had offered a great sum of money for the\nvolume. Shortly afterwards I went to Nuremberg, and in talking of\nthis work to M. Andre Mylhdorf, a man respectable alike for his\nage, and from his learning, he assured me he had read it, and that\nM. Wolfer a clergyman had lent it to him. From the manner in which\nhe spoke, I thought it might be a copy of the one alluded to above,\nand I concluded that it was unquestionably the book referred to;\nbut not that it was in octavo, nor of so old a date, nor perhaps so\naccurate.\" The writer of the foregoing was able to throw more light\nupon the subject and ought to have done so; for it is not enough to\nsay that he had seen the book--he must produce evidence that he had\nseen it, otherwise he ought to be classed with those who promulgate\nopinions founded on mere report; in which category we must include\nall the authors to whom reference is made in this disquisition.\n\nThe first who makes mention of the book as it existed in 1543,\nis William Postel, in his treatise on the agreement of the Alcoran\nwith the doctrines of the Lutherans or the Evangelists. He calls\nthe work \"Anevangelistes,\" and attempts in it to bring the Lutheran\ndoctrines into utter disrepute by proving that they lead straightway\nto Atheism. To support his argument he instances three or four\nproductions written, as he says, by Atheists, whom he declares to have\nbeen the first disciples of this new Gospel. He adds, \"my opinion\ncan be vindicated by reference to an infamous pamphlet written by\nVillanovanus relative to three works respectively entitled 'The Cymbal\nof the World,' 'Pantagruel,' and the 'New Islands;' the authors of\nwhich works were the standard-bearers of the Atheistical party.\"\n\nThis Villanovanus, whom Postel asserts to be the author of the book\n\"The Three Impostors,\" was Michel Servetus the son of a notary,\nborn in 1509, at Villanueva in Aragon, who assumed the name of\nVillanovanus, in a preface to a Bible which was printed for him\nat Lyons, 1542, by Hugues de la Porte. In France his designation\nwas Villeneuve, under which title he was impeached, after he had\npublished at Vienna, in Dauphiny, 1553, (the year before his death)\nthe work entitled \"Christianity restored;\" a book extremely rare,\non account of the trouble which they took at Geneva to find out the\ncopies of the work and get them burned. In the authentic list of the\nwritings of Servetus, however, we do not find mention made of \"The\nThree Impostors.\" Neither Calvin nor Beza, nor Alexander Morus, nor\nany other defender of the Huguenot party who wrote against Servetus,\nand whose interest it was to justify his punishment, and to convict\nhim of having written this work, has laid it to his charge. Postel,\nan ex-Jesuit, was the first to do so, without grounds.\n\nFlorimond de Remond, a councillor in the Senate at Bordeaux, writes\ndecidedly that he had seen this book in print. His words are;\n\"James Curio, in his Chronology 1556, asserts that the Palatinate\nwas filled with scoffers at religion, the Lievanistes, viz. a sect\nwho considered the Sacred Writings as fabulous, and more especially\nthose of Moses, the great Lawgiver of God. Is there not a book, 'The\nThree Impostors,' defaming the three religions which alone acknowledge\nthe true God--the Jewish, the Christian, and the Mahometan?--a book\ncomposed in Germany, but printed elsewhere at the exact moment when\nthese heretics are employing this individual to spread abroad their\ndoctrines? The very title shows the character of the age which has\ndared to publish so impious a treatise. I would have referred to\nit unless Osius and Genebrard had spoken to me on the subject. I\nrecollect that in my earlier days I saw a copy of this work at the\nCollege of Presle. It belonged to Ramus, a man distinguished for his\nextraordinary learning, and who was then employed in deep researches\ninto the mysteries connected with religious belief; which subject he\nintended to treat in a philosophical manner. At this time they were\ncirculating this iniquitous work amongst the learned, who were very\ndesirous to see it.\" A curious inquirer into secrets!\n\nEverybody knows Florimond de Remond as an insignificant\nscribbler. There are three remarkable sayings in currency against him;\nthat \"he built without money, that he was a judge without principle,\nand an author without knowledge. [9]\" We know also that he always lent\nhis name to P. Richeaume, a Jesuite much hated by the Protestants,\nwho cloaked his own name by assuming that of the councillor of\nBordeaux. Now, if Osius and Genebrard had spoken as decidedly as\nFlorimond de Remond, there might have been somewhat to rest upon;\nbut see what Genebrard says in the thirty-ninth page of his answer\nto Lambert Danan, printed (octavo) at Paris 1581. [10] \"They (his\nown party) have not driven Blandratus, nor Alciatus, nor Ochinus\ninto Mahometanism; nor have they induced Valleus to profess himself\nan Atheist; neither have they enticed any one whatever to circulate\nthe work called \"The Three Impostors,\" wherein Christ the Lord is\nalluded to as the second, the other two being Moses and Mahomet.\"\n\nIs that the way to identify this impious book? and Genebrard, forsooth\nhad seen it! And can it be, that in the present day people will\nattempt to get up regular proof to show that such a work exists? It\nis a well known fact that, in all ages, many lies have been palmed\noff in reference to books which could never be discovered, although\nindividuals declare that they had seen them and even went so far as\nto mention the places where they had been favoured with their perusal.\n\nIt has been said that this work was in the library of M. Salvius, the\nSwedish ambassador, at Munster, and that Queen Christina, unwilling\nto ask it of him while he lived, immediately sent M. Bourdelet,\nher chief physician, to entreat his widow to satisfy her curiosity,\nwhen he was informed that M. Salvius, having been seized with remorse\nof conscience on the night of his death, made them burn the work in\nhis presence. A short time afterwards Christiana enquired eagerly\nafter the \"Colloquium Heptaplomers\" by Bodin, a manuscript, at that\nperiod extremely rare; after a long search it was found, but whatever\ndesire the Queen had to see the work in question, and although it was\nsought after in all the libraries of Europe, she died without having\ndiscovered it. Ought we not therefore to conclude that it was never\nin existence? Without doubt the pains taken by Christina would have\nled to the discovery of that book which Postel declares was printed\nin 1543, and which Florimond de Remond says appeared in 1556. Since\nthen different individuals have assigned to it other dates.\n\nIn 1654, Jean Baptiste Morin, a celebrated doctor and mathematician,\nwrote a letter under the name of Vincent Panurge, which he addressed\nto himself in this way, \"An epistle to that most eminent physician,\nJohn Baptist Morin, concerning the 'Three Impostors'. [11]\" The\nthree impostors to whom he refers were Gassendi, Neure, and Bernier,\nwhom he wished to satirize under this title. Christian Kortholt in\n1680 employed the same terms in his work against Hebert, Hobbes,\nand Spinoza. Such has been the use which the learned have made of\nthis work when they wrote against their opponents, and in this way\nhave they drawn upon the credulity of comparatively ignorant people,\nwho, caring little to examine the evidences, have been deceived at\nonce. Is it possible, that if such a work had really existed, it would\nnot have been refuted; just as they refuted the work concerning the\nPre-Adamites, [12] written by M. de la Peyrere,--the discourses of\nSpinoza, and the publications of Bodin? The \"Colloquium Heptaplomeres,\"\nalthough in manuscript, has been answered; would \"The Three Impostors\"\nhave met with more favour? How comes it that it has not been condemned,\nand placed in the Index Expurgatorius, and how has it escaped cremation\nby the hands of the common hangman? Books against morality have been\nsometimes tolerated, but those which strongly attack Religion do not\nescape with impunity. Florimond de Remond, who says that he had seen\nthe book, asserts that he was at that time a youth, old enough perhaps\nto write fairy tales; he quotes Ramus who had been dead for thirty\nyears, and could not convict him of falsehood; he quotes Osius and\nGenebrard, but in in vague terms, and without pointing out the passage\nin their works. He says that they were circulating this work--a work\nwhich if it existed, would unquestionably have been put under lock\nand key. Our opponents may produce a passage from Sir Thomas Browne,\nwho, in the 19th sec. part I. of his work styled \"Religio Medici,\"\ntranslated from English into Latin by a distinguished scholar, uses\nthe following words; \"this impious man, the author of this blasphemous\nwork, 'The Three Impostors,' although a stranger to every religion,\ninasmuch as he was neither a Jew, a Mahometan, nor a Christian, was\nnevertheless evidently not an Atheist. [13]\" From this they would\ninfer that he must have seen the book, when he speaks in such terms\nof its author. Now, Sir Thomas only says that Bernard Ochinus, who\nin his opinion was the author of the work, (as he hints in a foot\nnote,) was more of a Deist than an Atheist, and that any Deist of\nordinary average intellect and information, was capable of planning\nand executing such a design. Molikius, in a note upon the passage,\ndenies and justly, that this work was written by Ochinus, for they\nassert that it was written in Latin, and we know that Ochinus never\nwrote but in Italian; moreover if he had been suspected of having\nany connection with this work, his enemies, who made so much clamour\nagainst his dialogues concerning the Trinity and Polygamy, would not\nhave spared him. But how can we reconcile Browne and Genebrard who\nconsider Ochinus as a Mahometan, and at the same time declare that he\nwas neither a disciple of Moses, nor of Jesus Christ, nor of Mahomet!\n\nNaude, by a strange mistake attributes the work to Villeneuve,\na comparatively ignorant writer, and Ernstius declares that at\nRome he had learned from Campannelle, that Muret, a polished and\naccomplished author, had written the work more than two centuries after\nVillaneuve. Ernstius is mistaken. Campannelle also refutes himself,\nfor in the preface to his work, \"Atheism overthrown,\" and still more\nexplicitly in his discourse, \"Paganism indefensible,\" he affirms\nthat this work came from Germany, but that it was the composition of\nMuret; a statement entirely opposite to that of Florimond de Remond\nalluded to before, which holds that the work was written in Germany\nbut published elsewhere. Muret has therefore been falsely accused,\nand stands in need of no apology. They have judged of his religion\nfrom his life. The Huguenot party, vexed that after embracing their\ndoctrines he had abandoned them forever, did not spare him on this\noccasion, and Beza, in his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" reproaches\nhim with two crimes, the second being Atheism. Julius Scaliger,\nnettled by a jeu d'esprit of Muret's against him, has been led to do\nhim injustice [14]. \"Muret,\" he says maliciously, \"would have been\na better Christian if he had believed in God; I am aware that he\ntried to persuade others to do so.\" In this way have originated false\nimpressions against Muret. Instead of respecting his exemplary piety,\nof which he gave striking evidence in the last years of his existence,\nthey set themselves half a century after his death, to blacken his\ncharacter by accusing him of crimes which were unknown to his most\navowed enemies, and with which, in his life-time, we are certain that\nhe never was charged. Some ignorant writers who possess no critical\nacumen, have impeached without any reason whatever the first individual\nwho occurred to their memory. Stephen Dolet of Orleans, Frances Pucci\nof Florence, John Milton of London, and Merula, a renegade Mahometan,\nhave done so; they have accused Peter Aretin, merely because he was\na fearless and licentious writer, without reflecting that he was an\nuncultivated man, of no learning and scarcely master of his native\ntongue. For similar reasons they have blamed Poggio and others, and\nhave even gone so far back as Boccaccio, most likely on account of\nthe third tale in his Decameron, where he recounts the fable of three\nsimilar rings, of which he makes a dangerous application to the Jewish,\nChristian, and Mahometan religions, as if insinuating that they might\nbe embraced indifferently, since it was impossible to decide which\nof them ought to have the preference. Neither have these writers\nforgot Machiavel; and Decker impeaches Rabelais. The Dutchman also\nwho translates into French the \"Religio Medici\" of Sir Thomas Browne,\nin the notes to his 20th chap. accuses Erasmus as well as Machiavel.\n\nWith more apparent reason they attack both Pompanacius and Cardan. The\nformer, in his treatise on the immortality of the soul, where he\nreasons as a philosopher and speaks abstractly of the Catholic\nfaith--in which (at the end of his work) he solemnly professes\nhimself a believer--is bold enough to add that the doctrine of the\nimmortality of the soul had been propounded by the originators of\nevery religious creed in order to keep their followers in thrall, and\nthat therefore the majority of the human race had been duped. \"If\nthe Jewish, Christian, and Mahometan religions,\" he continues,\n\"are all three of them impostures, it follows that the half of\nmankind are mistaken.\" This absurd reasoning, in spite of the\nprecautions of Pompanacius, reached Jacques Carpentier, and induced\nhim to exclaim, \"Can any thing be conceived of more truly pernicious\nthan this scepticism, coming as it does from a Christian school of\ntheology. [15]\"\n\nCardan goes still farther wrong in the eleventh of his discourses\n\"On Sophistry,\" where, after minutely comparing Paganism, Judaism,\nChristianity, and Mahometanism, and setting the one to contradict\nthe other, without expressing belief in any of them, he finishes\nrashly in this way; \"his igitur arbitrio victori\u00e6 relictes,\" that is,\nhe leaves it to chance to decide the victory; an expression however\nwhich he himself corrected in the second edition of his work.--This\nretraction did not save him from being most bitterly attacked three\nyears afterward by Joseph Scaliger, on account of the fearful import\nof the language he had made use of, and of the indifference it showed\non the part of Cardan as to which of the four parties might gain\nthe victory, and as to whether that victory were gained by argument\nor arms.\n\nIn the last article of the work \"Naudiana,\" which is a rhapsodical\ncompound of blunders and falsehood, there are some confused references\nto \"The Three Impostors.\" The author asserts that Ramus had attributed\nit to Postel; nothing whatever can be found in the writings of Ramus\nto establish this. Postel was a singular visionary. Henry Stephanus\nrelates that he had been heard to say, that out of the three religions,\nthe Jewish, the Christian, and the Mahometan, a good one might be\nmade. However, in no part of his work does he call in question the\nmission of Moses, or the divinity of Christ; neither does he venture\nto maintain in exact terms that the devout Venetian Hospitaller,\nwhom he calls \"his mother Jeanne,\" would be the Redeemer of women,\nas Christ had been the Redeemer of men. After explaining that in\nmen there is a masculine part, the animus, and a feminine part, the\nanima, he has the absurdity to add that both parts were corrupted\nby sin and that \"his mother Jeanne\" might restore the feminine as\nChrist had restored the masculine. The book in which he utters this\nabsurdity was printed at Paris in 1553, and is by no means so rare but\nthat copies may easily be found. From it we can gather that he would\nhave published the other works also, if it had been true that he had\nreached this pitch of blasphemy. So far from this being the case,\nhe writes (1543) that the book was written by Michael Servetus;\nand long afterwards he does not scruple to avenge himself on his\nHuguenot calumniators, by accusing them, in a letter addressed to\nMasius, (1563) of having themselves printed the work at Caen: \"this\ninfamous commentary or discourse against Moses, Christ, and Mahomet,\nwas lately printed at C\u00e6n, by those who profess themselves the keenest\nsupporters of the Calvinistic doctrines. [16]\" In the same chapter of\n\"Naudiana,\" mention is made of one Barnaud, but in terms so perplexed\nthat little can be drawn from them except that he had seen an octavo\nwork of 98 pages, printed in 1613, entitled \"The Geneva Booby.\" It\ndid not bear where it had been printed, neither was the author's\nname given. Perhaps it might have been written by Henri de Sponde,\nafterwards Bishop of Pamier; who says, that at that period there lived\na physician named Barnaud an Arian, who had composed this treatise. Now\nthis would make it of a comparatively recent date. The only sensible\narticle in \"Naudiana\" is towards its conclusion, where Naude, a man\nof vast experience as a bibliologist, is made to declare that he had\nnever seen the work alluded to, that he did not believe such a work\nhad ever been printed, and that he considered every thing which had\nbeen said on this subject as mere invention and fable.\n\nTo this list may be added that notable atheist Julius C\u00e6sar Vanini,\nburned at Toulouse under the name of Lucilius Vaninus, who was accused\nof having circulated this vile work in France some years before he\nwas put to death.\n\nIf there are writers so credulous and devoid of common sense as to\nbelieve in these incoherencies, asserting that the book was publicly\nsold in many quarters of Europe, they ought to set the matter at rest\nby producing a single copy; for it cannot be in the case supposed, that\nthe work is so rarely to be met with. But no person has seen a copy,\nneither of the edition said to have been published by Christian Wechel\nat Paris, about the middle of the 16th century, nor of that which they\nattribute to Nachtegal, as printed at the Hague, 1614 or 1615. Father\nTheophylus Reynaud states that the former had sunk into extreme poverty\nfrom the visitations of heaven; and Muller relates of the latter that\nhe was banished from the Hague with infamy. Bayle in his dictionary\n(article Wechell) clearly refutes the calumny against this printer;\nand in regard to Nachtegal, Spizelius informs us that he was a native\nof Alkmaer, and banished, not for having published this suppositious\nwork, but for having given utterance to other blasphemies. Now, when\nwe look over with attention and patience what Vincent Placcius says in\nthe folio edition of his immense work concerning \"Anonymous writers,\nand authors who write under false names,\" and what Christian Kertholt\nsays in his work revised by his son Sebastian regarding \"The Three\nImpostors,\" and finally what Struvius advances in his treatise (1706)\non \"Learned Impostors,\" we can find nothing at all to prove that such\na work ever existed; and it is astonishing that Struvius, who in spite\nof the most specious evidence which Tentzelius had offered him to\nprove its existence, had always maintained the contrary, was at last\npersuaded to believe that there really was such a work; and that too,\nfor the most frivolous reason which it is possible to conceive.\n\nIn the preface of \"Atheism Overthrown,\" he discovers that the author\nof this work, in order to vindicate himself from the crime laid to\nhis charge, declares that \"The Three Impostors\" had been published\nthirty years before he was born. This is a strange discovery, but\nit appeared so satisfactory to Struvius that he ceased to doubt\nin the existence of such a book, because he knew the year in which\nCampannelle was born (1568.) and knew also that the book was printed\nthirty years before this, viz. in 1538. Afterwards in pushing their\nresearches farther, they resolved to consider Boccaccio as the author\nof the work, from a misinterpreted passage in Chap. 2, No. 6, in the\n\"Atheism Overthrown\" where the following words occur; \"Hence Boccaccio\nin his impious fables, contends that there is no distinction between\nthe law of Moses, of Christ and of Mahomet, because they are as like\neach other as the three similar rings. [17]\" But does Campannelle,\nin this passage intend to say that Boccaccio was the author of \"The\nThree Impostors?\" So far is this from being the case, that he answers\nelsewhere the objections of the Atheists against Boccaccio and the\nbook in question; and Struvius himself, in the 9th paragraph of his\ndissertation on \"Learned Impostors\" quotes a passage from Ernstius,\nwhich states that Campannelle had told him that the book was written by\nMuret; now Muret having been born in 1526, and the book been printed\nin 1538, he could only have been 12 years of age; at which time of\nlife we cannot suppose it possible that he was able to write a work of\nthis description. It follows therefore that this book, said to have\nbeen written in Latin and printed in Germany, never existed. At no\nperiod has there been a printed work, however rarely to be met with,\nin reference to which very authentic and circumstantial information\ncould not be found.\n\nAlthough the works of Michael Servetus may never be met with, it has\nalways been well known that they were printed, and moreover where they\nwere printed. Before the publication of the two modern editions of the\n\"Cymbalum Mundi,\" composed by Bonnaventure de Perrieres, writing under\nthe assumed name of Thomas du Clevier, who says that he had translated\nit from the Latin, and of which work only two ancient copies remain,\nthe one in the King's library and the other in that of M. Bigot at\nRouen;--before the publication of the the modern editions, it was an\nascertained fact that the work had been printed, and the date and\nname of the bookseller were known. The case is exactly the same as\nregards \"The Blessings of Christianity, or the Scourge of the Faith,\"\nthe author of which, Geoffrey Vallee a native of Orleans, was hanged\nand burned at Greve, on the 9th February 1573, after having adjured\nhis errors. It is a small octavo work of thirty pages, without date,\nor the name of the place where it was printed; a trifle, feebly\nreasoned, and now become so rare that perhaps the copy belonging to\nMonsieur the Abbe d'Estrees is the only one to be found. But although\nall these works had absolutely perished, no one could doubt their\nprevious existence, the facts on record concerning them being as true,\nas those concerning 'The Three Impostors' are apocryphal.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                 ANSWER\n   TO THE DISSERTATION OF MONSIEUR DE LA MONNOYE ON THE WORK ENTITLED\n                         \"THE THREE IMPOSTORS.\"\n\n\nAn attempt at discussion, which you will find at the end of the new\nedition of \"Menagiana,\" which has just been published in this country,\naffords me the opportunity of giving some information to the public on\na subject which appears to call into exercise the ingenuity of almost\nall the learned; and at the same time of vindicating the character\nof many eminent men, and men of distinguished merit, who have been\nattacked as the authors of the work which forms the subject of a\ndisquisition attributed to M. de la Monnoye. Without doubt this new\nbook is already in your possession; you will perceive that I allude\nto \"The Three Impostors.\" The author of the dissertation upholds the\nnon-existence of such a book, and attempts to establish his point by\nbringing forward conjectures, without advancing any evidence capable\nin the smallest degree of influencing the opinions of those who are\naccustomed to examine before they decide. I will not undertake to\nrefute seriatim the articles contained in a dissertation, the substance\nof which is to be found in a Latin discourse by M. Burkhard Gotthelf\nStruve, on \"Learned Impostors,\" printed for the second time at Geneva,\nby Muller in 1706, and which M. de la Monnoye must have seen, because\nhe quotes from it. He will acknowledge that I am quite prepared\nto overturn his arguments, when I inform him that I have read this\ncelebrated little work, and that I have it in my library. I will give\nyou and the public an account of the way in which I discovered it,\nand as it is in my possession, I will subjoin a short but faithful\ndescription of it.\n\nBeing at Frankfort on the Main in 1706, I called one day in company\nwith a Jew, and a friend named Frecht, at that time a student in\nTheology, on an eminent bookseller in whose establishment almost\nevery work was to be met with. We were examining his catalogue\nwhen there entered a German officer, who addressed himself to the\nproprietor in German, and asked him if he was ready to agree to his\nproposals, or if another merchant should be sought after. Frecht,\nwho formerly was acquainted with the officer, saluted him and was\nrecognised. This gave an opportunity to my friend of asking the\nofficer, whose name was Trawsendorff, what transaction he had with\nthe bookseller. Trawsendorff told him that he had two manuscripts and\na very old book in his possession, by the sale of which he expected\nto raise a sum of money against the approaching campaign, and that\nthe bookseller higgled on 50 Rix-dollars, being unwilling to advance\nmore than 450 for the three works, which he, (the officer), valued\nat 500. This great sum of money demanded for two manuscripts and a\nlittle book excited the curiosity of Frecht, who asked of his friend\nif he might see the productions which he wished to sell at so dear\na rate. Trawsendorff immediately drew from his pocket a parchment\nenvelope, tied with a silk thread, which he opened, and from which\nhe took the three books. We went into the parlour of the bookseller\nto examine them at our leisure, and the first which Frecht looked\nat had been printed, but had a title written in Italian instead of\nits real title, which had been defaced. It ran thus; \"Spaccio della\nBestia triumphante,\" and did not appear to be of an ancient date. It\nstruck me as being the same work which Toland translated into English,\nand printed some years ago, and the copies of which sell very high.\n\nThe second we looked at was an old Latin manuscript written in a\ncharacter very difficult to decypher, without any title; but at the top\nof the first page there were written these words, \"Fredric the Emperor\nwishes health to Otho, his most illustrious and dearest friend. [18]\"\n\nThe work opens with a letter, the first lines of which are as follows;\n\"I will send you as soon as possible a copy of the work on the three\nmost celebrated deceivers of mankind, a work written at my request\nby a very learned man, and transcribed by my order for my library;\nand along with it another work written in the same pure and polished\nstyle, for, &c.\" [19] The third was also a Latin manuscript without\na title, commencing with a quotation from Cicero.\n\nFrecht having glanced over the books in a hurried way, fixed his\nattention upon the second, of which he had often heard, and in respect\nto which he had read many conflicting histories; and without looking\ninto the other two, he took Trawsendorff aside and told him that he\nwould easily find purchasers of the three works. He spoke little of\nthe Italian work, and by reading a few passages he showed him that\nthe other was a demonstration of Atheism. As the bookseller still\nheld to his terms, and would not come up to the officer's demand,\nwe went all three to the lodgings of Frecht, who having an object in\nview called for wine, and while begging Trawsendorff to inform us how\nhe came by the works, he made him swallow so many bumpers that he\nsoon became half intoxicated, so that Frecht had little difficulty\nin persuading him to leave with him the manuscript of \"The Three\nmost celebrated Deceivers of Mankind;\" but he made him take a solemn\noath that he would not copy it. On this condition, the work was to be\nleft with us from Wednesday till Sunday night, when Trawsendorff was\nto call again and take his share of a few bottles of Frecht's wine,\nwhich seemed to be much to his taste.\n\nAs I had quite as much desire as Frecht to be acquainted with the\nbook, we sat down immediately to read it over, determining to sleep\nvery little until Sunday night. It was not very large--an octavo\nwork of ten sections, exclusive of the prefatory letter, but in so\nsmall a character, and so full of contractions, besides being without\npoints, that we had much difficulty in decyphering the first page\nin two hours. After this however we read it more easily, which made\nme suggest to my friend a plan (rather Jesuitical) whereby he might\nobtain a copy of this celebrated work without breaking his oath which\nhe had taken on compulsion;--that it was likely that Trawsendorff,\nwhen he insisted that it should not be copied, only meant that he\nshould not transcribe the words--in short that we were quite at liberty\nto translate it. To which Frecht consented after some scruples, and\nwe set to work immediately. On Sunday we were in possession of the\nwork a little before midnight. Trawsendorff afterwards got his 500\nrix-dollars for the work from a bookseller who had been commissioned\nby a Prince of the House of Saxe to purchase it. The Prince knew that\nit had been stolen from the Royal Library at Munich, when the Germans\nobtained possession of the city after the defeat of the French and\nBavarians at Hochstet, and Trawsendorff acknowledged to us that, being\nalone in the library of the Elector, the parchment envelope with its\nyellow silk thread attracted his attention, and that he could not\nresist the temptation to steal it: expecting that it contained some\nrare production, in which he was not disappointed.\n\nTo complete the history of this treatise, I will give you the\nconjectures which Frecht and I made as to its origin. We agreed at\nonce that the \"Illustrissimo Otho\" to whom it was sent, was \"Otho\nthe Illustrious,\" Duke of Bavaria, son of Louis I. and grandson of\n\"Otho the Great,\" Count of Schiven and Witelspach, to whom the Emperor\nFrederick Barbarossa had given Bavaria as a reward for his fidelity,\nafter he took it away from \"Henry the Lion,\" as a punishment for his\ningratitude. \"Otho the Illustrious\" succeeded his father Louis I.,\nin 1230, under the reign of Fredrick II., grandson of Frederick\nBarbarossa, who had at that time quarrelled with the Count of\nRome on his return from Jerusalem. This led us to think that the\nletters F. I. S. D. which followed the \"Amico meo carissimo,\" denoted\nFredericus Imperator Salutem Dicit, and that the treatise was written\nposterior to the year 1230, by the order of this Emperor, inflamed\nas he was against all Religions in consequence of the bad treatment\nhe had met with from the head of his own, viz. Pope Gregory IX. by\nwhom he had been excommunicated before he set out, and who persecuted\nhim even in Syria by intriguing to such an extent, that the Emperor's\narmy refused to obey his orders. This Prince on his return besieged\nthe Pope at Rome, after having ravaged the neighboring territory,\nand thereafter made a peace with him which was of no long duration,\nand which was followed by an animosity so bitter between him and\nthe Holy Pontiff, that it only ceased at the death of the latter,\nwho died heart-broken that Frederick triumphed in spite of his\nempty fulminations, and that he had unmasked the vices of the Papal\nChair in satirical verses which he circulated in every quarter,--in\nGermany, Italy, and France. But we could not discover who was the\n\"doctissimus vir,\" with whom Otho appears to have held converse on\nthe subject in the library, and apparently in the company of the\nEmperor; unless indeed it were the celebrated Pierre des Vignes, the\nsecretary, or as others maintain, the chancellor of Frederick II. His\ndiscourse \"On Sovereign Power,\" and his \"Letters,\" give proof of his\nlearning, and the zeal which he had for the interests of his master,\nand of his own hatred of Pope Gregory IX, and the Ecclesiastics and\nestablished Churches of his day. It is true, that in one letter\nhe attempts to exculpate his master from the charges against him\nas the author of this book: but this strengthens the supposition,\nand inclines us to think he only pleaded for Frederick, to cloak his\nown share in so scandalous a work. At all events we must believe that\nhe would have confessed the truth when Frederick, on suspicion that\nhe had conspired against his life, condemned him to lose his eyes,\nand handed him over to the inhabitants of Pisa, his cruel enemies;\nand where despair hurried on his death in an infamous dungeon where\nhe could hold intercourse with no one.\n\nIn this way we can repel the false charges brought against Averroes,\nBoccaccio, Dolet, Aretino, Servetus, Ochinus, Postel, Pompanacius,\nCampannelle, Poggio, Pulci, Muret, Vanini, Milton, and many others;\nthe book having been written by a learned man in high repute at the\ncourt of this Emperor, and by his order. As to the printing of the\nbook they can bring forward no proof whatever; and it is impossible\nto conceive that Frederick, surrounded as he was by enemies, would\nhave circulated a work which gave fair opportunity of proclaiming his\ninfidelity. It is probable therefore that there are only two copies,\nthe original one and that sent to Otho of Bavaria.\n\nThis will suffice as to the discovery of the book, and its date;\nwe come now to what it contains.\n\nIt is divided into six books or chapters, every one of which contains\nseveral paragraphs. The first Chapter has for its title \"Of God,\" and\ncontains six paragraphs in which the author, wishing to appear free\nfrom party or educational prejudices, shows that although mankind\nhave a real interest in ascertaining the truth, nevertheless they\nfound upon opinions and imaginations alone; and meeting with people\nwhose interest it is to keep them in this state, they are made to\nrest, contented in it, although they could easily shake off the yoke\nby making the slightest use of their reason. He passes next to the\nideas which men entertain of the Divinity, and prove that they are\ninjurious, inasmuch as they have led to the creation of the most\nfearful and imperfect being whom it is possible to conceive of; and\nhe then blames the ignorance of the people, or rather their foolish\ncredulity in putting faith in the visions of Prophets and Apostles,\nof whom he draws a portrait suited to the ideas which he entertains\nof them.\n\nThe second Chapter treats of the reasons which have led men to\nbelieve in a divinity. It is divided into eleven paragraphs, where\nhe proves that the ignorance of physical causes has given birth to\na fear natural enough at the sight of a thousand terrible accidents,\nand has led them to believe in the existence of some invisible Power;\na doubt, and a fear, of which subtle politicians have taken advantage,\nfor their own interest, and which have given rise to a belief in this\nExistence, which has been confirmed by others who have found it for\ntheir own benefit to maintain it; although it is merely grounded on\nthe folly of the common people, always admirers of the extraordinary,\nthe sublime, and the marvellous. He next inquires into the nature\nof the Divinity, and overturns the vulgar belief in final causes, as\ncontrary to sound philosophy. In fine, he makes it appear that such\nideas of the Divinity are only formed after having decided what is\nperfect, good, evil, virtue, vice, according to imagination, and often\nas false as possible. In his tenth paragraph the author explains his\nown opinion as to the Divinity, which is conformable to the system\nof the Pantheists, saying that the word God represents an infinite\nBeing, one of whose attributes is that he is of unlimited extension,\nand consequently that he is infinite and eternal. In the eleventh\nparagraph he treats with ridicule the popular opinion which is given\nto the Deity, a resemblance to the kings of the earth; and passing\nto the sacred books, he speaks of them in a very unfavourable manner.\n\nThe third Chapter has for its title \"The signification of the word\nTheology, and how, and for what purpose so many religions have been\nintroduced into the world.\"--This chapter contains twenty-three\nparagraphs. In the ninth he examines the origin of religions;\nand brings forward examples and reasonings which, so far from\nbeing divine, are altogether the work of politicians. In the tenth\nparagraph he undertakes to expose the imposture of Moses, showing\nwhat he was, and how he managed to establish the Jewish religion. In\nthe eleventh paragraph he inquires into the impostures of several\npoliticians such as Numa, and Alexander the Great. In the twelfth he\nexamines the birth of Jesus Christ; in the thirteenth and following\nhe considers his morality, which he does not think more pure than\nthat of a great number of ancient philosophers; in the nineteenth\nhe inquires whether his reputation after his death is sufficient to\nwarrant his believing in his divinity. Lastly, in the twenty-second\nand twenty-third paragraphs, he considers the imposture of Mahomet,\nof whom he does not say so much, because he has not to encounter so\nmany advocates of his doctrine as that of the two others.\n\nThe fourth Chapter treats of truth evident and obvious to the senses,\nand consists only of six paragraphs, where he demonstrates what really\nis the divinity, and what are his attributes: he rejects the belief\nin a life to come, and the existence of spirits.\n\nThe fifth Chapter treats \"Of the Soul.\" It consists of seven paragraphs\nin which, after having exposed the vulgar opinions, he gives those\nof the Philosophers of antiquity, and concludes by showing the nature\nof the Soul according to his own system.\n\nIn the sixth and last Chapter of seven paragraphs, he discourses on the\nSpirits called Demons, and shows the origin and falsity of the opinions\nas to their existence.--Such is the anatomy of this celebrated work. I\nmight have given it in a manner more extended and more minute; but\nbesides that this letter is already too long, I think that enough has\nbeen said to give insight into the nature of its contents. A thousand\nother reasons which you will well enough understand, have prevented\nme from entering upon it to so great a length as I could have done;\n\"Est modus in rebus. [20]\"\n\nNow although this book were ready to be printed with the preface\nin which I have given its history, and its discovery, with some\nconjectures as to its origin, and a few remarks which may be placed\nat its conclusion, yet I do not believe that it will live to see the\nday when men will be compelled all at once to quit their opinions and\ntheir imaginations, as they have quited their syllogisms, their canons,\nand their other antiquated modes. As for me I will not expose myself\nto the Theological stylus [21], which I fear as much as Fra-Poulo\nfeared the Roman stylus, to afford to a few learned men the pleasure of\nreading this little treatise; but neither will I be so superstitious,\non my death bed, as to make it be thrown into the flames, which we\nare informed was done by Salvius, the Swedish ambassador at the\npeace of Munster. Those who come after me may do what seems them\ngood--they cannot disturb me in the tomb. Before I descend to that,\nI remain with much respect, your most obedient servant,\n\n\nJ. L. R. L.\n\nLeyden, 1st January 1716.\n\n\n[This letter was written by M. Pierre Frederick Arpe, of Kiel in\nHolstein; the author of an apology for Vanini, printed in octavo at\nRotterdam, 1712]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCOPY OF THE SECOND PART, VOL. I, ARTICLE IX. OF, \"LITERARY\nMEMOIRS.\" PUBLISHED AT THE HAGUE BY HENRY DU SAUZET, 1716.\n\n\nIt is impossible in the present day to doubt the existence of \"The\nThree Impostors,\" since we find several manuscript copies of it. If\nM. de la Monnoye had observed the agreement of it with an extract\npublished at Leyden, 1st. Jan. 1716,--the same division into six\nchapters--the same titles, and the same subjects of which they treat,\nhe would have exclaimed against the forgery of this work, improperly\nattributed to Pierre des Vignes, the Secretary and Chancellor of\nFrederick II. This judicious critic long ago observed the difference\nbetween the Gothic style of Pierre des Vignes in his Epistles, and\nthat of the letter pretended to be addressed to the Duke of Bavaria,\n\"Otho the illustrious,\" when they sent him the work. A more important\npoint has not escaped the notice of the learned. This treatise is\nwritten and argued in the method and upon the principles of the New\nPhilosophy, which was not introduced until about the middle of the\nseventeenth century, after Descartes, Gassendi, Bernier, and some\nothers had explained its principles in a juster and clearer way than\ndid the ancient philosophers, who wished to preserve their secrets,\nas they affected a mysterious obscurity in favor of the initiated. The\nauthor himself, in the fifteen chapter of his work, names Descartes,\nand combats the arguments of this great man on the subject of the\nsoul. Neither Pierre des Vignes, nor any of those whom they have\nattempted to pass off as the author of this book, could have reasoned\naccording to the principles of the new Philosophy, which was not\nintroduced till after they had written. To whom then must the work\nbe attributed? We must conclude that it cannot be of the same date\nas the short letter printed at Leyden, 1717. But another difficulty\noccurs. Tentzelius, who wrote in 1689, also gives an extract from\nthis book upon the credit of a pretended ocular witness. But without\nattempting to fix the date of this book, which is said to have been\ncomposed in Latin and printed; the small French manuscript treatise,\nwhether it had ever been written in that language or whether it is\ntranslated from the Latin, (which is difficult to believe,) cannot\nbe of a very ancient date.\n\nThis is not the only book composed under this title and upon the same\nsubject. A man whose character and profession ought to have led him\nto engage in matters more decorous, composed a great work (in French)\nunder the same title. In his preface he says that it is long since he\nhad heard of \"The Three Impostors,\" but that he had never found any\npart of it, whether there had never existed such a work, or whether\nit be lost; therefore he attempts to restore it by writing on the\nsame subject. His work is very long, very wearisome, and very badly\nwritten; with little principles and less argument. It is a confused\njumble of all the invectives and calumnies circulated against the\nThree Legislators. The manuscript was in two volumes folio, thick,\nand legible enough, although in small characters--the book is divided\ninto a great many chapters. Another similar manuscript was found after\nthe death of a nobleman. This gave rise to an attempt to seize the\nauthor who having been informed of it took care that nothing should\nbe found among his papers to convict him. Afterwards he lived in a\nmonastery under penance. In 1733 he recovered his liberty and enjoyed\na revenue of 250 livres from the Abbey of St. Liquarie, in addition\nto a reserved one of 350 livres from his benefice. His name was\nGuillaume, Cure of Fresne-sur-Berny, and the brother of a labourer in\nthe Netherlands. He was at one time Regent of the College of Montaigu;\nin his youth he had been a dragoon, and then he became a Capuchin.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS OF TREATISE.\n\n\nCHAP. I. Of God. The false ideas which men have formed of the\nDivinity. Instead of consulting reason and common sense, they have\nhad the weakness to believe in the opinions, reveries, and visions\nof parties whose interest it was to deceive them, and to keep them\nin ignorance and superstition.\n\nCHAP. II. On the reasons which have led men to believe in a\nDivinity. From the ignorance as to physical causes, and the terror\nproduced by accidents, rational enough but extraordinary or fearful,\nhas arisen the belief in some invisible power; a belief, of which\nPoliticians and Impostors have not failed to take advantage. Enquiry\ninto the nature of God. Belief in final causes refuted as contrary\nto sound Natural Philosophy.\n\nCHAP. III. On the meaning of the word Theology. How, and for what\npurpose, so many Religions have been introduced into the world. All\nReligions the work of Politicians. Method which Moses took to establish\nthe Jewish Religion. Enquiry into the Nativity of Jesus Christ. His\nPolitics--his Morality--and his Reputation after his death. Artifices\nof Mahomet to established his Religion. Success of this impostor\ngreater than that of Christ.\n\nCHAP. IV. Truth evident and obvious to the senses. Idea of an\nuniversal Being. Attributes ascribed to him in all religious systems,\ngenerally incompatible with his essence, and unsuited to the nature\nof man. Notion of a life to come and of the existence of Spirits,\ncombated and rejected.\n\nCHAP. V. On the Soul. Different opinions of the Ancient Philosophers\non the nature of the Soul. Arguments of Descartes refuted. Author's\nexposition on the subject.\n\nCHAP. VI. On the Spirits named Demons. Origin and falsity of the\nopinions as to their existence.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                               A TREATISE\n                                   ON\n                          THE THREE IMPOSTORS.\n\n\nCHAP. I.--OF GOD.\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\nAlthough it is important that all men should know the truth, there\nare nevertheless few who enjoy this advantage; some are incapable of\nfinding it out unassisted, and others will not put themselves to the\ntrouble. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if the world is filled\nwith vain and absurd opinions; and nothing is more adapted to spread\nthem than ignorance, which is the sole originator of the false ideas\nwhich prevail as to the Divinity, the Soul, the existence of Spirits,\nand almost all the other subjects which go to make up Theology. Custom\nis powerful--men rest contented in the prejudices of their birth, and\nleave the care of the most essential matters to interested parties, who\nmake it a rule to uphold with bigotry the received opinions, and who\ndare not overturn them lest in so doing they should destroy themselves.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\nWhat renders the evil without remedy is this, that, after having\nestablished these false ideas of the Divinity, they neglect no plan\nto compel the people to believe in them, without permitting any one\nto examine for himself. On the contrary, they have excited a hatred\nagainst philosophers--the truly learned, lest the doctrines which they\nwould teach should lead to the exposure of those errors in which they\nhave plunged mankind. The advocates of these foolish notions have\nsucceeded so well, that it is dangerous to combat them. It is too\nmuch the interest of those impostors that the people be ignorant,\nto permit them to become enlightened. Thus the truth must either\nbe kept in abeyance, or its promoters be prepared to be sacrificed\nat the shrine of a false philosophy, and to suffer from the rage of\ngrovelling and interested minds.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\nIf the people could understand into what an abyss they are sunk by\nignorance, they would speedily shake off the yoke of their unworthy\nleaders, for it is impossible not to discover the truth when reason\nis left to its unrestrained exercise.\n\nThese deceivers are so well aware of this, that to prevent the good\neffects which Truth would infallibly produce, they have painted it\nas a monster incapable of giving rise to any virtuous sentiment;\nalthough, in general terms, they condemn unreasonable people, they\nwould nevertheless be much disconcerted if the truth were heard. Thus\nthese sworn enemies to common sense are perpetually falling into\ncontradictions, and it is difficult to discover at what they are\naiming. If it be true that reason is the only light which men ought\nto follow, and if the people are not so incapable of judging as they\nwish us to believe, it ought to be the object of those who instruct\nthem to endeavour to rectify the false reasonings, and to uproot their\nprejudices; then their eyes would be gradually opened and their minds\nconvinced that the Deity is by no means what is generally supposed.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\nTo attain this, there is no need for lofty speculations, nor for\npenetrating far into the mysteries of nature. It requires only a\nlittle common sense to perceive that the Deity is neither choleric\nnor jealous; that justice and mercy are alike falsely considered as\nhis attributes; and that, all that the Prophets and Apostles have\nsaid give us no information either as to his nature, or to his essence.\n\nIn short to speak plainly and to put the matter on its proper footing,\nit will be allowed that these teachers were neither more able nor\nbetter instructed than the rest of mankind; so far from that being\nthe case, what they advance regarding the Deity is so gross that\nthe people must be altogether ignorant to credit it. Although this\nis apparent enough we will attempt to explain it more at length, by\ninquiring, if there is any evidence that the Prophets and Apostles\nwere differently constituted from other men.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nIt is agreed, that as far as descent, and the common duties of life are\nimplicated, they possessed no quality to mark them out from the rest\nof mankind. They were begotten by men, they were born of women, and\nthey sustained themselves as we do in the present day. In reference\nto their minds, people would have us believe that God dealt with\nthese prophets in a way differing from that wherein he deals with\nordinary mortals, and that he disclosed himself to them in a manner\nquite exclusive. Many persons consider this matter as a proved and\nascertained fact, without reflecting that every man may meet his\ncounterpart, and that we have one common origin; endeavouring at the\nsame time to persuade us that these men were cast in no common mould\nand that they were selected by the Deity to proclaim his oracles. Now,\napart from the consideration that these inspired people were gifted\nwith only an average intellect, and with an understanding not much\nabove the common, what do we find in their writings to justify us\nin forming so exalted an opinion of them? The matter of which they\ntreat is for the most part so obscure that no one can comprehend\nit, and thrown together with so little order that it is easy to\nperceive they did not understand it themselves; the whole showing\nthat they were both knaves and fools. Their impudence in boasting\nthat whatever they announced to the people came immediately from God,\ngave rise to the respect which was paid to them. This assertion on\ntheir part was equally absurd and ridiculous, seeing that according\nto their own declaration God only spoke to them in dreams. There is\nnothing more natural than that a man should dream; but a man must\nbe very impudent, very vain, and very stupid, to say that God speaks\nto him in this manner, and a poor and credulous fool must he be who\nshould yield credence to such an assertion, and receive the dreams\nof such visionaries for heavenly oracles. Suppose for a moment that\nthe Deity were to hold intercourse with a man by dreams, or visions,\nor in any other way we can think of; nobody is obliged to believe\nthis on the mere assertion of a fellow-creature equally subject to\nerror with himself, and moreover, fallible in the way of lying and\nimposture. Accordingly we find that under the ancient law, the prophets\nwere held in far less repute than they are at the present day. When\npeople got wearied of their babble, which often only tended to spread\nrevolt and to turn aside subjects from obedience to their sovereigns,\nthey silenced them by punishment. Jesus Christ himself did not escape\nchastisement, for he had not, like Moses [22], an army at his back\nto defend his opinions. Add to this, that the prophets were so much\naccustomed to contradict each other, that out of four hundred of them\nnot one true or truth-speaking man could be found. [23] Moreover it\nis certain that the drift of their prophesies, like that of the laws\npromulgated by the most celebrated legislators, was to immortalize\ntheir memory by persuading people that they had conferences with the\nDivinity. The most subtle politicians have invariably played the same\ngame, although this ruse has not succeeded with every one as it did\nwith Moses.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\nThis being settled, let us examine for a little the idea which the\nProphets have formed of the Deity. According to their account, God is\na being purely corporeal. Michael saw him seated; Daniel beheld him\nclothed in white, and under the form of an Old Man; Ezekiel perceived\nhim as a Fire: so much for the Old Testament. With respect to the\nNew, the disciples of Jesus Christ imagined that they saw him in\nthe form of a Dove; the Apostles, like Tongues of Fire; and finally,\nSt. Paul beheld him as a Light, which dazzled and blinded him. Then\nas to their contradictory statements; in the Book of Genesis [24]\nwe are informed that man is the master of his own actions, and that\nit only depends upon himself to do what is right. St. Paul on the\nother hand asserts that man has no control over his evil propensities\nwithout the particular grace of God. Samuel [25] declares that the\nDeity repented of the evil which he had brought on men: and Jeremiah\n[26] affirms that he repented, or on certain conditions that he would\nrepent, of the good which he had done them. Such are the false and\ncontradictory ideas which those pretenders to inspiration give us of\nthe divinity; and which they wish us to adopt without reflecting that\nthey represent the Deity as a sensitive Being, material, and subject\nto like passions with ourselves. Next they inform us that God has\nnothing in common with matter, and that his nature is altogether\nincomprehensible by us. It would be important to learn how these\nmanifest and irrational contradictions can be reconciled; and whether\nwe ought to put much faith in the evidence of a people who, in spite\nof the sermons of Moses, were stupid enough to believe that a calf\nwas their God! Without dwelling on the reveries of a people cradled\nin bondage and brought up in absurdity, it is sufficient to remark,\nthat ignorance has produced a belief in all the impostures and errors\nwhich prevail amongst us at the present day.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. II.\n\nON THE REASONS WHICH HAVE LED MANKIND TO BELIEVE IN A DIVINITY.\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\nThose who are ignorant of physical causes have a natural fear\n[27], proceeding from a restlessness in their minds, as to whether\nthere exists a Being or an Agency invisible to them, who has the\npower to injure them or to do them good. Hence the tendency which\nthey have to feign unseen causes, which are only the phantoms\nof their imagination--whom they deprecate in adversity and thank\nin prosperity. They make Gods of them for this purpose; and this\nchimerical fear of invisible Powers is the source of those Religions\nwhich every one forms after his own fashion. Those whose interest it\nis that the people should rest contentedly fettered by such reveries,\nhave fostered their spread--have founded laws upon them--and finally\nreduced the people by the terrors of futurity to a blind obedience.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\nThe origin of the Gods being discovered, men next imagined that they\nresembled themselves, and that they invariably acted with a certain\nend in view. Thus they unanimously said and believed, that God only\nworks for man's behoof; and reciprocally, that man is only created\nfor God. This prejudice is general even in the present day, and when\nwe reflect on the influence which it must necessarily have on the\nmanners and opinions of men we may clearly perceive that from it\nhave arisen those false ideas which men have formed to themselves,\nof good and evil, of merit and demerit, of praise and blame, of\norder and confusion, of beauty and deformity, and a thousand other\nsimilar matters.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\nIt must be agreed that all men are in a state of profound ignorance\nat their birth, and that their only natural wish is to seek that\nwhich is pleasant and profitable to them.--Hence it follows, 1st,\nThat they believe it sufficient for them that they are free, and\nthat they feel within themselves the power of volition and desire,\nwithout troubling themselves as to the causes which effect this\nvolition and this desire; because they know them not. 2dly, As men\nonly aim at one object when they prefer it to all others, they sought\nto ascertain the final causes of their actions, imagining that after\nthese were discovered there would be little room for doubt; and as\nthey found within themselves and without themselves abundant means\nof arriving at the end proposed--the eye constructed for vision, the\near for hearing; a sun above them to give them light and heat; they\nconcluded that there was nothing in nature which was not made for them\nand which they could not enjoy and dispose of; but as they well knew\nthat they were not the creators of these things, they thought that\nthey were justified in imagining a Supreme Being, the author of all;\nin one word they conceived that everything in existence was the work of\none, or of more Divinities. On the other hand, the nature of the Gods\nwhom men acknowledged being unknown to them, they believed that they\nwere susceptible of like passions with themselves; and as the natural\ndispositions of men are different, every one rendered to his Divinity\na worship according to his fancy, with the view of drawing down his\nblessings, and making universal nature subservient to his own desires.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\nIn this manner prejudice was changed into superstition. It was rooted\nin such a way that the most ignorant people believed themselves\ncapable of explaining the doctrine of final causes, as if they had\nan entire knowledge of them.--Thus, instead of proving that Nature\ndid nothing in vain, they imagined that God and Nature thought after\nthe manner of men. Experience taught them that an infinite number\nof calamities disturbed the pleasures of life--storms, earthquakes,\nplagues, hunger, thirst, &c. They attributed all these evils to\ndivine wrath, and believed that the Deity was irritated against\nmankind for their offences; nor could the daily occurring examples\nwhich prove that good and evil happen alike to the just and unjust,\ndisabuse them of their prejudices. This error prevailed, because they\nfound it easier to remain in their natural ignorance, than to divest\nthemselves of notions established for so many ages; and to adopt\nsomething in their stead, having at least the appearance of truth.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nThis prejudice conducted them straightway to another, which was, that\nall the judgments of God were incomprehensible; and that consequently\nthey were beyond the cognizance of truth, and above the strength of\nhuman reason; a mistake which would have existed at the present day,\nif mathematical knowledge, natural philosophy, and other sciences\nhad not extinguished it.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\nThere is no necessity for a long dissertation to prove that nature\nnever aims at any definite end, and that all these final causes are\nonly human fictions. It is sufficient to show that this doctrine\ndeprives the Deity of all the perfections which have been attributed\nto him; and this we will endeavor to do.\n\nIf God acts for an end, either for himself or for any other being, he\ndesires that which he does not possess; and it must be granted from\nthese premises that, as there was a time when God had no object for\nwhich to act, he wished to have one; that is to say, that he stood in\nneed of something. But not to overlook anything which may strengthen\nthe arguments of those who maintain the opposite opinion, suppose,\nfor a moment, that a stone detached from a battlement fell upon an\nindividual and killed him; it proves, say our opponents, that this\nstone fell for the purpose of killing this person, because it could not\nso have happened unless God had wished it. If we reply that it was the\nwind which caused its fall at the time when the unfortunate individual\nwas passing, they demand at once, how it happened that he was passing\nexactly at the time when the wind brought down the stone. We answer,\nthat he was on his way to dine with a friend who had invited him;\nthey wish to know why his friend had invited him on that day rather\nthan on any other. They put in this manner an infinitude of absurd\nquestions to force you to confess that the will of God alone (which\nis the refuge of the ignorant) was the real cause of the fall of\nthis stone. When they examine the structure of the human body, they\nfall into ecstacies; but because they are ignorant of the causes of\nthose effects which appear to them so marvellous, they conclude that\nit must be a supernatural effect, when the causes which are known to\nus account for it. This is the reason why the man who wishes deeply\nto examine the works of creation, and like a true philosopher to\npenetrate into their natural causes, irrespective of those prejudices\nwhich ignorance has created, is branded as an infidel, or speedily\nclamoured down by the malice of those whom the vulgar acknowledge as\nthe interpreters of Nature and of the Gods. These mercenary spirits\nare well aware that the ignorance which holds the people in wonderment,\nis that which gives them bread, and upholds their credit.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7.\n\nMen being thus imbued with the ridiculous opinion that every thing\nwhich they behold is created for themselves, have made it a point\nof religion to engross every thing, and to judge of its value by the\nprofit which it brings. Accordingly they have invented notions which\ndo them service in explaining the nature of things, and enable them\nto judge of good and evil, order and disorder, heat and cold, beauty\nand ugliness, &c. which are by no means what they imagine. Because\nthey are able to frame their ideas in this way, they think that they\nare in a position to judge of praise and blame; of good and evil. They\ncall that good which respects their divine worship, and turns to their\nown profit; and that which does neither the one nor the other they\ndenominate evil; and because the ignorant are incapable of judging,\nand have no conception of any thing save through the medium of their\nimagination, which they mistake for judgment, they tell us that\nnothing can be learned from nature, and forthwith invent a particular\narrangement of the world. In short they think that matters are ill or\nwell constituted according to the facility or the difficulty which they\nhave in conceiving of them when presented to them through the medium\nof their senses. People are best pleased with what gives least fatigue\nto the brain. These individuals have wisely resolved to prefer order\nto confusion, as if order were any thing else than a pure fiction of\nthe imagination. Thus to say that the Deity has made every thing with\norder, is to pretend that it is in favour of the human imagination\nthat he has created the world in a manner the most easy for it to form\na conception of;--or, which is the same thing, that they know with\ncertainty all the relations and all the designs of whatever exists;\nan assertion too absurd to merit any serious refutation.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8.\n\nWith respect to their other opinions, they are purely the result of\nthis same imagination, having no basis in reality, and being only\ndifferent modifications of which that faculty is susceptible. Thus,\nwhen the impressions made upon the nervous system through the medium\nof the eyes are agreeable, they pronounce that the objects viewed\nare beautiful. Smells are good or bad; tastes are sweet or bitter,\nthings touched are hard or soft, according as the sensation produced\nis unpleasant or otherwise--as scents, and tastes, and contact, and\nsounds affect the system. Following up these ideas, men have believed\nthat the Deity is pleased with melody, while others have believed that\nall the movements of the celestial bodies were one harmonious concert;\na proof, that these men are persuaded that things are really such as\nthey conceive them to be, or that the world is entirely ideal.--It\nis not to be wondered at therefore, if we scarcely ever meet with\ntwo individuals of the same opinion: indeed some make it their boast\nto doubt of every thing; for, although all men have a similar bodily\nconformation, and resemble each other in many respects, there are still\nas many respects in which they differ. Accordingly it must follow,\nthat what pleases this party displeases that; and what appears good\nto one man appears evil to another.--We must conclude therefore,\nthat their various opinions must be attributed to their different\norganizations and the diversity of their co-existences--that reason\nhas little connection with them; and in short, that their conceptions\nof the material world are the decided results of imagination.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9.\n\nIt is therefore evident, that all the reasonings which the generality\nof mankind are accustomed to employ when they set themselves to\nexplain what nature is, are only their own modes of imagining that\nwhich is most uncalculated to make good their own position. They give\nnames to their ideas, as if they existed in any other quarter than in\ntheir own prejudiced brain; but instead of calling them mere chimeras,\nthey designate them Beings. There is extremely little difficulty in\nrefuting the arguments grounded on such opinions.\n\nIf it is true, as they advance, that the universe is nothing more\nthan an emanation from, or simply a necessary consequence to,\nthe Divine nature, whence spring those imperfections and defaults\nwhich we perceive in it? This objection is easily answered. It is\nimpossible for men to judge of the perfection or imperfection of any\nBeing, without a thorough knowledge of his nature and essence [28],\nand it is a strange abuse of terms to assert that any thing is more\nor less perfect according as it pleases or displeases, or as it is\nuseful or noxious to human nature. To terminate the argument with\nthose who demand why God has not created all men good and happy, it\nis sufficient to state that every thing is necessarily what it is;\nand that, in nature there is no imperfection, since all flows from\nthe necessity of things.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10.\n\nThis being established, if it is asked, \"What then is God?\" I answer\nthat the word imports that universal Being \"in whom,\" as St. Paul says,\n\"we live, and move, and have our being. [29]\" This opinion conveys\nno unworthy notions of the Divinity, for if all things are in God,\nall things must necessarily flow from his essence, and consequently be\nof such essence as he himself; for it is impossible to conceive that\nbeings entirely material should be maintained and comprehended in a\nBeing who is not so. This opinion is not new. Tertullian, one of the\nmost learned of the Christian fathers, maintained in his discourse\nagainst Appelles, that whatever is not corporeal is nothing; and in\nthat against Praxeas that every Existence is a body. He adds, \"who\nwill deny that God is a body, although God is a Spirit [30]?\" It is\nof importance to observe that this doctrine was not condemned in any\nof the four first OEcumenical or General Councils of the Christian\nChurch. [31]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11.\n\nThese ideas are clear and simple, and the only ones which an unbiased\nmind can form of God. However, there are few contented with this\nsimplicity. A gross people accustomed to the gratification of their\nsenses, have conceived that God resembles the kings of the earth. That\npomp and splendor which surround the latter have dazzled them so much,\nthat to uproot the idea that God has no resemblance whatever to earthly\nsovereigns, would be to deprive them of the hope of meeting celestial\ncourtiers, and of enjoying in their company, the same pleasures\nwhich they had tasted at regal courts; it would take from them the\nonly consolation which keeps them from despair amidst the miseries of\nthis life. They assert that God must be a just and avenging Being who\npunishes and recompenses--they represent him as susceptible of every\nhuman passion--they depict him with feet, with hands, with eyes and\nwith ears, and yet maintain that he is an immaterial Being. They quote\nScripture to prove that man is chief of God's works below, and formed\nin his own image; and deny that the copy has the slightest resemblance\nto the original. In short, the God of the people in the present day,\nas represented by themselves, is subject to more transformations than\nthe Pagan Jupiter. What is still more strange is this, that the more\nthese opinions contradict each other and outrage common sense, the more\nare they revered by the vulgar, who uphold with bigotry whatever their\nprophets have enounced, although these visionaries only held the same\nplace among the Hebrews, as did the augurs and soothsayers amongst the\npagans. They consult the Bible as if God and Nature had explained it to\nthem exclusively, although it is only a tissue of fragments gathered\ntogether at various periods, and by different persons, and published\nunder the censorship of the Rabbis. [32] These, at their pleasure,\ndecided as to what ought to be approved of, and what, rejected;\naccording as they found it agreeable or opposed to the law of Moses.\n\nSuch is the malice and the folly of mankind. They spend their lives\nin quibbles, and persist in reverencing a book which has scarcely\nmore arrangement than the Alcoran of Mahomet--a book which from its\nobscurity nobody understands, and which has only served to foment\ndivisions. The Jew and Christians love far better to consult this\nlegerdemain book, than to listen to that which God, that is to say\nNature (inasmuch as it is the origin of all things) has written on\ntheir hearts. All other laws are merely human figments--palpable\nillusions set abroad, not by demons or evil spirits, which are the\ncreations of the fancy, but by the policy of princes, and the craft of\npriests. The former have striven in this way to add weight to their\nauthority; and the latter have been contented to enrich themselves\nby the sale of an infinitude of chimerical notions, which they vend\nat a dear rate to their ignorant followers.\n\nNo other code of laws which has followed that of Moses, except the\nChristian, has been based upon that Bible the original of which\ncould never be discovered, which relates to things supernatural and\nimpossible, and which speaks of rewards and punishments for actions\ngood or bad, but wisely postpones them till an after life, lest the\nimposture should be detected; for no one has ever returned from the\ngrave. Thus the people, kept always fluctuating between hope and\nfear, are held in bondage by the belief that God has created mankind\nfor no other purpose than that of rendering them eternally happy or\neverlastingly miserable. This is the origin of the vast number of\nreligions which prevail in the world.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. III.\n\nON THE MEANING OF THE WORD RELIGION; HOW, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE,\nSO MANY RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE WORLD.\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\nBefore the term Religion was introduced into the world, mankind\nfollowed the law of Nature, that is, they lived conformably to\nReason. Instinct was the only bond by which men were united; and this\nbond, simple as it is, was so strong that divisions were rare. But\nafter terror led them to suspect that there were Gods and invisible\nPowers, they built altars to the imaginary beings, and shaking off\nthe yoke of reason and of Nature, they bended themselves by foolish\nceremonies, and by a superstitious worship of the idle phantoms which\nthemselves had imagined.\n\nSuch was the origin of the word Religion, which has made so much\nnoise in the world. After having admitted the existence of these\ninvisible Agencies, men worshipped them to depreciate their anger,\nand moreover they believed that nature was under the control of these\nPowers. Afterwards they came to regard themselves as inert matter,\nor as slaves who could only act under the commands of these imaginary\nbeings. This false idea having obtained possession of their minds,\nthey began to exhibit more contempt for nature, and more respect\nfor those whom they called their Gods. Hence sprung that ignorance\nin which so many nations were immersed--an ignorance from which,\nhowever profound, the true philosophers might have freed them,\nif they had not been always thwarted by those who led the blind,\nand throve by their own impostures.\n\nNow, although there were little appearance of success in our\nundertaking, we must not forsake the cause of truth. A generous\nmind will speak of things as they really are, out of regard to those\nwho exhibit symptoms of this malady. The truth, whatever its nature\nmay be, can never be injurious; whereas error, although at the time\napparently innocent and even useful, must finally terminate in the\nmost disastrous results.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\nTerror having thus created the Gods, men wished to ascertain their\nnature, and conceiving that they must be of the same substance as\nthe Soul, which they thought was like the appearances in a mirror,\nor the phantoms of sleep, they believed that their Gods were real\nsubstances, but so thin and subtle that to distinguish them from Bodies\nthey named them Spirits; although Bodies and Spirits are in truth one\nand the same thing, for it is impossible to imagine an incorporeal\nSpirit. Every spirit has its proper shape, which is inclosed in some\nbody; that is, it has its limits, and consequently it is a body,\nhowever subtle its nature. [33]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\nThe ignorant, that is the majority of mankind, having thus determined\nthe nature and substance of their Gods, endeavoured next to discover\nthe means by which these invisible agents acted; and unable to arrive\nat this because of their ignorance, they had recourse to their own\nconjectures, judging blindly of the future from the past. How is\nit possible to draw rational conclusions from any thing which has\nformerly happened in a certain way, as to what will happen hereafter,\nseeing that all the circumstances and all the causes which necessarily\ninfluence events and human actions, are so exceedingly different. They\npersisted however in contemplating the past, and they augured well\nor ill as to the future, according as any former similar undertaking\nhad been successful or otherwise. On this principle, because Phormis\nhad defeated the Lacedemonians at the battle of Naupactus, the\nAthenians, after his death appointed another commander of the same\nname. Hannibal having been conquered by Scipio Africanus, the Romans,\non account of his success, sent to the same province, Scipio C\u00e6sar,\nwho was unsuccessful both against the Greeks [34] and the native\nforces. Thus have many nations, after two or three experiments,\nonly attributed their bad or good fortune to places, to objects,\nand to names. Others employed certain words which they denominated\nspells, which they considered efficacious enough to make trees speak,\nto create a man or a God from a morsel of bread, and in short to\nmetamorphose whatever appeared before their eyes. [35]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\nThe empire of these invisible powers being now established, men at\nfirst did homage to them as their sovereigns, by marks of submission\nand respect; by gifts, prayers, &c. I say, at first, for nature\ndoes not enjoin bloody sacrifices for this purpose; these were only\ninstituted for the subsistence of priests, and others set apart for\nthe services of these imaginary Gods.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nThese originators of Religion, viz. Hope and Fear, aided by the\ndifferent opinions and passions of men, have given rise to a vast\nnumber of phantastical creeds, which have been the cause of so much\nmischief and of so many revolutions among the nations.\n\nThe honor and the revenues attached to the priesthood, or to the\nministers of the Gods, have encouraged the ambition and avarice of\ncunning men who knew how to profit by the stupidity of the vulgar,\nwhom they have got so much entangled in their snares that they have led\nthem insensibly into the habit of loving a lie and hating the truth.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\nA system of falsehood being established, ambitious men, intoxicated\nwith the pleasure of being elevated above their fellow mortals,\nattempted to add to their reputation by feigning that they were\nthe friends of those invisible Beings whom the common people so much\nfeared. The better to succeed in this every one represented them after\nhis fashion, and they all took the liberty of multiplying them to an\nextent almost incredible.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7.\n\nThe rude unformed matter of the world was called the God Chaos. In\nthe same way they deified the Heavens, the Earth, the Sea, Fire, the\nWinds and Planets. The same honor was conferred on men and women;\nbirds, reptiles, the crocodile, the calf, the dog, the lamb, the\nserpent and the swine, in fact, all sorts of plants and animals were\nworshipped. Every river, every fountain, bore the name of some deity;\nevery house had its lares and penates, and every man his genius--all\nwas filled above and below the earth with Gods, Spirits, Shadows, and\nDemons. Neither was it enough to feign divinities in every imaginable\nplace. They outrage in the same way, Time, the Day, the Night, Victory,\nStrife, Honor, Virtue, Health, and Sickness. They invented these\nDivinities that they might represent them as ready to take vengeance\non those who would not be brought up in temples and at altars. Lastly,\nthey took to worshipping their own Genii; some invoked theirs under\nthe name of the Muses, while others, under that of Fortune, worshipped\ntheir own ignorance. Some sanctioned their licentiousness under the\nname of Cupid, their wrath under that of the Furies, their natural\nparts under the name of Priapus; in one word there was nothing to\nwhich they did not give the name of a God or a Demon.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 8.\n\nThe founders of these Religions, knowing well that their impostures\nwere based upon the ignorance of the people, took care to keep them in\nit by the adoration of images in which they feigned that the Divinities\nresided. This rained gold into the coffers of the priesthood, and\ntheir benefices were considered as sacred things because they belonged\nto holy ministers; no one having the rashness or audacity to aspire\nto them. The better to deceive mankind, the priests pretended to be\ndivinely inspired Prophets, capable of penetrating the mysteries of\nfuturity, boasting that they had intercourse with the Gods; and, as the\ndesire is natural to learn one's destiny, they by no means failed to\ntake advantage of it. Some were established at Delos, others at Delphi,\nand in various places, where in ambiguous language they answered the\nquestions put to them. Even women took a part in these impostures,\nand the Romans in their greatest difficulties consulted the Sybilline\nbooks. These knaves were really considered inspired. Those who feigned\nthat they had familiar commerce with the dead were called Necromancers;\nothers pretended to ascertain the future from the flight of birds\nor the entrails of beasts; in short they could draw a good or bad\naugury from almost every thing, the eyes, the hands, the countenance,\nor any extraordinary object. So true it is that ignorance will receive\nany impression, when men know how to take advantage of it. [36]\n\n\n\n\u00a7 9.\n\nThe ambitious, who have always been great masters in the art of\ndeceiving, have followed this method in promulgating their laws;\nand to induce mankind to give a voluntary submission to them, they\nhave persuaded them that they received them from some God or Goddess.\n\nHowever great the multitude of Divinities, amongst those who\nworshipped them, and who were denominated Pagans, there was never\nany generally established system of religion. Every republic, every\nkingdom, every city, and every individual had their own proper rites,\nand conceived of the Divinity after their own phantasy. But afterwards\nthere arose legislatures more subtle than the former, and who employed\nmore skilful and sure plans in giving forth the laws, the worship,\nand the ceremonies calculated to nourish that fanaticism which it\nwas their object to establish.\n\nAmongst a great number, Asia has produced THREE, distinguished as\nmuch by their laws and the worship which they established, as by\nthe ideas which they have given of the Divinity, and the methods\nwhich they employed to confirm these ideas, and to render their laws\nsacred.--Moses was the most ancient. After him Jesus Christ appeared,\nwho wrought upon his plan and kept the fundamental portion of his laws,\nbut abolished the remainder. Mahomet, who appeared the last upon the\nscene, borrowed from each of the Religions in order to compose his\nown, and thereafter declared himself the sworn enemy of both.--We\nshall consider the character of the three legislators, and examine\ntheir conduct, that afterwards we may be enabled to decide whose\nopinions are best grounded--those who reverence them as inspired men,\nor those who regard them as impostors.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 10.\n\nMOSES.\n\nThe celebrated Moses, a grandson of a distinguished Magician, [37]\n(according to Justin Martyr) possessed every advantage calculated\nto render him that which he finally became. It is well known that\nthe Hebrews, of whom he became the chief, were a nation of shepherds\nwhom Pharaoh Osiris I. admitted into his kingdom in gratitude for the\nservices which one of them had rendered during a period of severe\nfamine. He assigned them a territory in the East of Egypt, rich in\npasturage, and admirably adapted for the rearing of cattle; where,\nduring two centuries, they very much increased in numbers, either,\nthat being regarded as strangers they were not liable to military\nservice, or on account of the other privileges which Osiris had\nconferred upon them. Many natives of the country joined themselves\nto them, among others, bands of Arabs who regarded them as brethren\nand of the same origin. However this may be, they multiplied so\nexceedingly, that the land of Goshen being unable to contain them,\nthey spread over all the land of Egypt; giving just occasion to Pharaoh\nto dread that they would undertake some dangerous enterprise if his\nkingdom were attacked by the Ethiopians, his inveterate enemies,\nas had frequently happened. Reasons of state, therefore, compelled\nthis monarch to take away their privileges, and to devise some means\nof weakening them and keeping them in subjection.\n\nPharaoh Orus, surnamed Busirus on account of his cruelty, succeeded\nMemnon, and followed up his plans with respect to the Hebrews;\nand wishing to eternalize his memory by building the Pyramids, and\nfortifying the walls of Thebes, condemned the Hebrews to the task of\nmaking bricks, for which purpose the earth of that country was well\nadapted. During their bondage the celebrated Moses was born, the same\nyear in which the king commanded that all the male Hebrew children\nshould be thrown into the Nile, as the surest method of ridding his\ncountry from this host of strangers. Moses was in this way exposed\nto perish in the waters, his mother having placed him in a wicker\nbasket among the willows on the banks of the stream. It happened that\nThesmutis, the daughter of the king, was walking by the river, when,\nhearing the cries of the infant, that compassion so natural to her sex,\ninspired her with a wish to save it. Orus being dead she succeeded him,\nand Moses having been presented to her she commanded that he should\nreceive the highest instruction which could be procured, as a son of\nthe Queen of a people at that time the most learned and civilized in\nthe world. \"He was learned in all the learning of the Egyptians.\" This\nimplies that he was the ablest Politician, the greatest philosopher,\nand the most distinguished Magician of his time; and besides, it is\nvery evident that he had been initiated into the Egyptian Priesthood,\nwhich resembled those of the Druids among the Gauls. Those who are\nignorant of the nature of the Egyptian government, must learn that\nthe whole territory was subject to one sole sovereign, but that it\nwas divided into many provinces of but limited extent. The governors\nof these provinces were designated Monarchs, and were generally of\nthe powerful order of the Priesthood, which in fact possessed almost\nthe third part of Egypt. The king nominated these Monarchs; and if\nwe compare what others have written concerning Moses, and what he has\nwritten himself, we must conclude that he was Monarch of the Province\nof Goshen, and that he owed his appointment to Thesmutis, to whom also\nhe owed his life. Such was the status of Moses amongst the Egyptians,\nwhere he had full time and every opportunity of studying their manners\nand those of his own nation, and of obtaining a knowledge of their\ndominant inclinations and passions; a knowledge, of which he failed\nnot to avail himself in that revolution of which he was the originator.\n\nAfter the death of Thesmutis, her successor renewed the persecution\nagainst the Hebrews, and Moses having fallen from the honor in which\nhe had been formerly held, was afraid that he would find it difficult\nto justify a homicide of which he had been guilty. He accordingly\nresolved on flight, and retired into Arabia Petrea. Chance led him to\nthe house of the chief of some native tribe, to whom he rendered so\nmany services, and by whom his talents were so highly appreciated that\nhe gave him one of his daughters in marriage. It must here be remarked\nthat Moses was so little of a Jew, and had so limited a conception of\nthe Deity whom he afterwards imagined, that he married an idolatress,\nand did not even think of circumcising his children.\n\nIt was in the Arabian deserts, when watching the flocks of his\nfather-in-law, that he formed the design of taking vengeance upon the\nKing of Egypt for the injuries he had met with. He flattered himself\nthat he would easily succeed in this, as well on account of his own\ntalents, as from the feeling which he knew was general amongst those\nof his own nation, irritated against the government on account of\nthe cruel treatment which they had experienced.\n\nIt appears from the history which he has left us of this revolution,\nor at all events, from the history which the author of the books\nattributed to Moses, has left us, that Jethro, his father-in-law, was\nin the plot, as were Aaron his brother, and sister Marion, who remained\nin Egypt, and with whom, no doubt, he maintained a correspondence.\n\nHowever that may be, we perceive from the result, that he had with\nthe utmost policy schemed out a great design; and that he knew how\nto bring to bear against the Egyptians that learning which he had\nacquired amongst them. I allude to magic, in the exhibition of which\nhe showed himself more subtle and expert than all those who attempted\nthe same tricks at the court of Pharaoh.\n\nIt was by these pretended prodigies that he gained over those of\nhis nation whom he wished to carry off, and to whom disaffected and\nrevolutionary Egyptians, Ethiopians and Arabs joined themselves. By\nboasting the power of his Divinity, and the frequent communions\nwhich he had with him; and by declaring that he had his sanction\nfor all the steps which he took with the leaders of the revolution,\nhe succeeded so well that there followed him 600,000 fighting men,\nbesides women and children, across the Arabian deserts, of which he\nwell knew the localities. After six days painful flight, he ordained\nto his followers that they should consecrate the seventh day to his\nGod by a general and public rest, for the purpose of persuading them\nthat the Deity favored him and approved of his authority; and to\ndeter any one from having the audacity to dispute his statements.\n\nThere never existed a more ignorant people than the Hebrews, nor\nconsequently more credulous. To be assured of this we have only to look\nto their condition in Egypt when Moses caused them to revolt. They\nwere detested by the Egyptians on account of their profession as\nshepherds, they were persecuted by the sovereign, and employed in the\nmost degrading toil. Amongst a people thus situated it could not be\nvery difficult for a man with the abilities of Moses to exercise a\nvast influence. He persuaded them that his God, (whom he sometimes\nmerely styles an angel), the God of their fathers, had appeared\nto him--that it was at his command that he had taken them under his\nguidance--and that they would be a people highly favored of the Deity,\nprovided they believed in him. The expert employment of deceit, and his\nknowledge of science, and of human nature, fortified his injunctions;\nand he strengthened his position by prodigies, which are always sure\nto make a deep impression on the minds of an imbecile populace.\n\nIt must here be attended to with especial care, that he thought he\nhad discovered a sure method of keeping the Hebrews in subjection to\nhimself, by persuading them that God himself was their conductor--that\nhe preceded them by night as a pillar of fire, and by day as a\ncloud. It can be proved that this is perhaps a more gross deceit on\nthe part of this leader than any he had ever practised. During his\nsojourn in Arabia, he had learned that, as the country was of vast\nextent and uninhabited, it was the custom of those who travelled in\ncaravans to take guides, who conducted them under night by means of a\nbrasier filled with burning wood, the flame of which they followed;\nand the smoke of which by day equally prevented the parties of the\ncaravan from straggling. Moses took advantage of this and proclaimed\nit miraculous, adducing it as an evidence of divine protection. No\nperson is called upon to regard this as cheat, on my authority;\nlet them believe Moses himself, who in the book of Numbers, chap,\nx, v. 31, is represented as beseeching his brother-in-law Habab to\njourney with the Israelites and show them the way, because he knew the\ncountry. [38] This is proof positive. If it were really God who went\nbefore the people of Israel by night and by day, as a pillar of cloud\nand of fire, could they have desired a better guide? Notwithstanding\nhere is this leader entreating his brother-in-law in the most urgent\nmanner to act as his guide; the pillar of cloud and fire, it would\nseem, being only a God for the people and not for Moses.\n\nThe unfortunate dupes being delighted to find themselves adopted by\nthe chief of the Gods on their escape from a cruel bondage, cheerfully\nput faith in Moses, and swore to obey him blindly. His authority being\nconfirmed, he wished to render it perpetual; and under the specious\npretext of establishing the worship of that God whose Viceregent he\nsaid he was, he appointed at once his brother and his sons to high\nauthority in the Royal Palace, that is the place whence he thought\nproper to give forth his oracles; this place being altogether out of\nthe view of the people. Lastly he practised that which is always done\nat the formation of new institutions; that is, he exhibited prodigies,\nmiracles, whereby some were dazzled, and others confounded, but which\nonly excited pity in those who could see through his impostures.\n\nHowever crafty Moses might have been, he would have had considerable\ndifficulty in securing obedience, without the aid of his armed\nfollowers. An impostor without physical force rarely succeeds.\n\nBut in spite of the great number of dupes who submitted themselves\nblindly to the will of this clever legislator, there were found people\nbold enough to reproach him for bad faith; declaring that, under false\nappearances of justice and equality, he had engrossed the whole--that\nthe sovereign authority was confined to his own family, who had no\nmore right to it than any other individuals--and that he was less the\nfather than the tyrant of his people. But on these occasions Moses,\nwith profound policy, put to death those daring spirits and spared\nno one who disputed his authority.\n\nIt was by similar precautions, and by always declaring that his\npunishments were instances of divine vengeance, that he reigned an\nabsolute despot; and to end as he had begun--that is to say, as a knave\nand an impostor--he was in the habit of retiring to a cave, which he\nhad caused to be dug in the centre of a waste, under the pretext of\nhaving conferences with the Divinity, that he might secure in this\nway the respect and submission of his followers. His end was like that\nof other similar impostors. He cast himself from a precipice which he\nknew of in the remote wilderness, to the end that his body might not\nbe discovered, and that it might be thought the Deity had carried him\noff. He was not ignorant that the memory of the patriarchs which had\npreceded him was held in great veneration, although they knew their\nsepulchres; but this was not enough for an ambition like his--it was\nnecessary that he should be revered as a god, over whom death had no\ncontrol. This is the explanation of what he said at the commencement\nof his reign, when he said that God had declared that he was to be\na God unto his brother. [39] Elijah in like manner, and Romulus,\n[40] and Zamolxis, and all those who have had the foolish vanity to\nwish to eternalize their names, have concealed the time and manner\nof their death, in order that they might be thought immortal.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 11.\n\nBut to return to the legislators. There have never been any who\ndid not assert that their laws did not emanate from some divinities\n[41], and who have not attempted to persuade their followers that they\nthemselves were more than mortal. Numa Pompilius, after having tasted\nthe sweets of retirement, was with difficulty persuaded to leave them,\nalthough it was to fill the throne of Romulus; but compelled by the\nacclamations of the people, he profited by the devotedness of the\nRomans, and insinuated to them that if they really wished him to\nbe their king, they must be prepared to obey him without enquiry,\nand to observe religiously the laws and divine institutions which\nhad been communicated to him by the goddess Egeria. [42]\n\nAlexander the Great had? no less vanity. Not content with seeing\nhimself master of the world, he wished to persuade mankind that he\nwas the son of Jupiter. Perseus pretended also to have derived his\norigin from the same god and the virgin Danae. Plato also insisted\non a virgin nativity, regarding Apollo as his father. There have been\nmany other personages who have been guilty of the same absurdity. No\ndoubt all these great men believed in the opinion of the Egyptians,\nwho maintained that the Spirit of God was capable of having intercourse\nwith the female sex, and rendering them pregnant.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 12.\n\nJESUS CHRIST.\n\nJesus Christ, who was acquainted with the maxims and the science of\nthe Egyptians, gave currency to the belief alluded to above, because\nhe thought it suitable to his purposes. Reflecting how Moses had become\nrenowned by his command of an ignorant people, he undertook to build on\nthis foundation, and got some few imbecile people to follow him, whom\nhe persuaded that the Holy Ghost was his father, and that his mother\nwas a virgin. These simple folks, accustomed to give themselves over\nto dreams and reveries, adopted his opinions, and believed whatever he\nwished: indeed, something considerably beyond this miraculous birth\nwould by no means have been too miraculous for them. A beautiful\ndove overshadowed a virgin: there is nothing surprising in that. It\nhappened frequently in Lydia; and the swan of Leda is the counterpart\nof the dove of Mary. [43] That a man should be born of a virgin, by the\noperation of the Holy Spirit, is neither more extraordinary nor more\nmiraculous that that Genghis Khan should be born of a virgin, as the\nTartars assert; or that Foh, according to the Chinese belief, derived\nhis origin from a virgin rendered pregnant by the rays of the sun.\n\nThis prodigy appeared at a time when the Jews, wearied with their\nGod as they had formerly been with their Judges, [44] were desirous\nto have some visible ruler among them, as was the case with other\nnations. As the number of fools is infinite, Jesus Christ in a short\ntime had many followers; but as his extreme poverty was an invincible\nobstacle to his elevation, the Pharisees--at one time his admirers,\nand at another time startled at his boldness--forwarded or thwarted\nhis interests, according to the inconstant humour of the populace. The\nreport of his divine origin was spread about; but without forces,\nas he was, it was impossible that he could succeed, although some\ncures which he performed, and some resurrections from the dead to\nwhich he pretended, brought him somewhat into repute. Without money\nor arms he could not fail to perish: if he had been in possession of\nthese, he would have been no less successful than Moses or Mahomet,\nand all those who, with like advantages, have elevated themselves\nabove their fellow-men. If he had been more unfortunate, he would\nnot have been less adroit; and several traits in his history prove\nthat the principal defect in his policy was his carelessness in not\nsufficiently providing for his own security. Otherwise, I do not find\nthat his plans were less skilfully devised than those of the other\ntwo: at all events his law has become the rule of faith to people\nwho flatter themselves that they are the wisest in the world.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 13.\n\nON THE POLITICS OF JESUS CHRIST.\n\nCan anything be more subtle than the answer of Jesus concerning\nthe woman taken in adultery? The Jews having demanded of him if\nthey should stone her, instead of answering the question directly--a\nnegative answer being directly contrary to the law, and an affirmative\nconvicting him of severity and cruelty, which would have alienated\ntheir minds from him--instead, therefore, of replying as an ordinary\nindividual would have done on the occasion--\"Let him,\" said he,\n\"who is without sin amongst you cast the first stone at her.\" [45]\nA shrewd reply, and one evincing great presence of mind. On another\noccasion, being shown a piece of money with the emperor's image and\nsuperscription upon it, and asked if it were lawful to pay tribute\nmoney unto C\u00e6sar, he eluded the difficulty of answering: \"Render\nunto C\u00e6sar the things which are C\u00e6sar's.\" [46] The false position\nin which they wished to place him was this: that if he denied that\nit was lawful, he was guilty of high treason; and if he said that\nit was, he went directly against the law of Moses, which he always\nprotested that he never intended to do--knowing no doubt that he was\ntoo helpless to do so with impunity at that time. Afterwards, when he\nbecame more celebrated, he endeavoured to abrogate it almost totally:\nacting in this way not unlike those princes, who, until their power\nis thoroughly established, always promise to confirm the privileges\nof their subjects, but who, after that has been secured, care little\nfor their promises.\n\nWhen the Pharisees asked him by what authority he taught the people\nand preached to them, he penetrated their intention--which was to\nconvict him of falsehood; whether he answered that it was by human\nauthority--he not being of the order of the priesthood, who alone were\ncharged with the instruction of the people; or whether he preached\nby the express orders of God--his own doctrine being opposed to the\nlaw of Moses; he avoided their snare, and embarrassed themselves,\nby asking them in what name John baptised. [47]\n\nThe Pharisees, who from political motives, rejected the baptism of\nJohn, would have condemned themselves if they had said that it was in\nthe name of God; and if they had not said so, they would have exposed\nthemselves to the rage of the populace, who maintained the opposite\nopinion. To get out of this dilemma, they answered that they could\nnot tell: on which Jesus Christ replied, that neither was he obliged\nto tell them by what name or authority he taught the people.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 14.\n\nSuch was the character of the destroyer of the ancient law, and the\nfounder of the new religion that was built upon its ruins; in which\nreligion a disinterested mind can perceive nothing more divine than\nin any of those which preceded it. Its founder, who was not altogether\nignorant, having witnessed extreme corruption in the Jewish republic,\njudged that its end was near, and thought it a favorable opportunity\nfor forwarding his own designs.\n\nThe fear of being anticipated by men more able than himself, made\nhim hasten to secure his ground by means entirely opposite to those\nadopted by Moses. The former began by rendering himself terrible to\nother nations. Jesus Christ, on the contrary, attracted mankind to\nhimself by the hope of blessings in a life beyond the grave, which he\nsaid they would obtain by believing in him. Whilst Moses only promised\ntemporal benefits to the observers of his law, Jesus Christ led his\nfollowers to hope for those which would never end. The laws of the one\nonly regarded exterior observances; those of the other looked into\nthe heart, influenced the thoughts, and stood on opposite grounds\nto the law of Moses. Whence it follows, that Jesus Christ believed\nwith Aristotle, that it is the same with religion and nations as with\nindividuals who are born and who die; and as there is nothing which\nis not subject to dissolution, there is no law which must not in turn\ngive place to another. [48] But as there is difficulty in passing from\none law to another, and as the greater part of men are stubborn in\nreligious matters, Jesus Christ, in imitation of other innovators,\nhad recourse to miracles, which have at all times confounded the\nignorant, and advanced the projects of ambitious and designing men.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 15.\n\nChristianity having been founded in this way, Jesus Christ wisely\nimagined that he could profit by the errors in the politics of Moses,\nand render his new law eternal--an undertaking in which he finally\nsucceeded a little perhaps beyond his expectation. The Hebrew prophets\nintended to do honour to Moses, by predicting a successor who should\nresemble him--a Messiah great in virtues, powerful in wealth, and\nterrible to his enemies. These prophecies, however, produced altogether\na different effect from what they expected; a number of ambitious\ndemagogues having embraced the opportunity of palming themselves off\nfor the coming Messiah, which led to those insurrections and civil\nconvulsions which lasted until the entire destruction of the ancient\nrepublic of the Hebrews. Jesus Christ, more subtle than the prophets\nwho succeeded Moses, predicted that a man of this description would\nappear--the great enemy of God--the favorite of the demons--the\naggregation of all the vices and the cause of all the desolation in\nthe world. After such a splendid eulogy, one would think that nobody\ncould resist the temptation of calling himself Antichrist; and I do\nnot believe that it is possible to discover a secret equal to it for\neternalizing a law, although there can be nothing more fabulous than\nwhat we read of concerning this pretended Antichrist. St. Paul says\nthat he was a ready born; whence it follows that he must have been\non the watch for the coming of Jesus Christ: nevertheless, more than\nsixteen years rolled on after the prediction of the nativity of this\nformidable personage, without any one having heard of his appearance. I\nacknowledge that some have applied the terms to Ebion and Cerinthus,\ntwo great adversaries of Jesus Christ, whose pretended divinity they\ndisputed. But if this interpretation be the meaning of the Apostle,\nwhich is far from being credible, the words referred to must point\nout a host of Antichrists in all ages--it being impossible that truly\nlearned men should think of injuring the cause of truth, by declaring\nthat the history of Jesus Christ was a contemptible fable, [49] and\nthat his law was nothing but a series of dreams and reveries, which\nignorance had brought in repute, which self-interest had encouraged,\nand which tyranny had taken under its especial protection.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 16.\n\nThey pretend, nevertheless, that a religion built upon so weak\nfoundations is divine and supernatural, as if it were not an\nascertained fact that there is no class of people more fitted to give\ncurrency to the most absurd opinions than women and lunatics. It is\nnot to be wondered at that Jesus Christ reckoned none of the learned\namongst his followers. He well knew that his law was inconsistent with\ncommon sense; and therefore he always declaimed against the sages,\nexcluding them from that kingdom into which he admitted the poor\nin spirit, the simple and the imbecile. Rational minds ought to be\nthankful that they have nothing to do with such insanities.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 17.\n\nON THE MORALITY OF JESUS CHRIST.\n\nWe find nothing more divine in the morality of Jesus Christ than what\ncan be drawn from the works of ancient authors; for this reason,\nperhaps every text in his code of morals is either borrowed from\ntheir's or is an imitation of it. St. Augustine [50] acknowledges that\nin one of the so-called heathen writers, he discovered the whole of\nthe commencement of the gospel according to St. John. We must remark\nalso, that this apostle was so much accustomed to plunder others,\nthat he has not scrupled to pillage from the prophets their enigmas\nand visions, for the purpose of composing his Apocalypse. Again,\nwhence arises that agreement between the doctrines of the Old and\nNew Testament and those of Plato, unless the Rabbis and others who\ncomposed the Jewish Scriptures had stolen from that distinguished\nman. The account of the creation of the world given in his Timaeus,\nis much more satisfactory than that recorded in the book of Genesis;\nand it will not do to say that Plato, in his tour through Egypt, had\nread the books of the Jews, since, by the confession of St. Augustine,\nking Ptolemy had not ordered them to be translated till long after\nthe philosopher had left the country.\n\nThe landscape which Socrates describes to Simias (Ph\u00e6ton,) possesses\ninfinitely more beauty than the Paradise of Eden: and the fable of\nthe Hermaphrodites [51] is beyond comparison a better invention than\nthat which we read of in Genesis, where we are told that one of Adam's\nribs was taken from him for the purpose of creating a female out of it.\n\nCan any more plausible account of the overthrow of Sodom and\nGomorrah be given, than that it was caused by Phaeton? Is there no\nresemblance between the fall of Lucifer and that of Vulcan, or of\nthe giants struck down by the thunderbolts of Jove. How close the\nresemblance between Sampson and Hercules; Elijah and Phaeton; Joseph\nand Hypolitus; Nebuchadnezzar and Lycaon; Tantalus and the rich man\nin torment; [52] the manna in the wilderness and the ambrosia of the\ngods! St. Augustine, [53] St. Cyril, and Theophilactus, compare Jonah\nwith Hercules, called Trinoctius, because he had been three days and\nthree nights in the belly of a whale.\n\nThe river which Daniel speaks of in chap. vii, v. 10, of his\nProphecies, is palpably drawn from that Pyriphlegethon to which\nPlato alludes in his dialogue on the immortality of the soul. The\nidea of \"Original Sin\" is taken from the account of Pandora's box;\nand the interrupted sacrifices of Isaac and of Jephtha's daughter are\nborrowed from that Iphigenia, in whose room a hind was offered up. What\nwe read of concerning Lot and his wife, is nearly the same as that\nwhich fabulous history informs us occurred to Bancis and Philemon. The\nhistories of Perseus and of Bellerophon are the foundation of Michael\nand the demon whom he vanquished. In short, it is abundantly manifest\nthat the authors of the Scriptures have copied the works of Hesiod,\nHomer, and some other ancient writers, almost word for word.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 18.\n\nWith respect to Jesus Christ himself, Celsus, by appealing to his\nopponent Origen, shows that he had taken some of his most approved\napothegms from Plato--Such as this: \"It is easier for a camel to go\nthrough the eye of a needle, than a rich man to enter into the kingdom\nof God.\" [54] It was owing to the sect of the Pharisees, to which he\nbelonged, that his followers believed in the immortality of the soul,\nthe resurrection, and the torments of hell; and also in the greater\npart of his morality, [55] the whole of which I find in Epictetus,\nEpicures, and a few others. This last mentioned philosopher was\nreferred to by St. Jerome, as a man whose virtues ought to put the\nbest Christians to the blush; and whose mode of life was so temperate\nthat a morsel of cheese, with bread and water constituted his highest\nrepast. Leading a life so frugal, this philosopher, heathen as he\nwas, declared that it was far better to be unfortunate and gifted\nwith reason, than to be rich and opulent without it; adding, that\nwealth and wisdom were rarely found united in the same individual,\nand that it was impossible to enjoy happiness or contentment unless\nour conduct were guided by prudence, justice and honesty, which are\nthe qualities whence flow all true and lasting enjoyments.\n\nAs to Epictetus, I do not believe that there ever existed a man,\nnot even excepting Jesus Christ, more firm, more self-denying,\nmore equable, or who at any time gave forth to the world a more\nsublime system of morality. Were it not that I should exceed the\nlimits which I have prescribed to myself in this treatise, I could\nrecount many beautiful traits in his character; but the reader must be\ncontented with one example. When a slave to Epaphroditus, a captain of\nNero's guards, his master took the brutal fancy to writhe his limbs,\nEpictetus, perceiving that it gave the monster satisfaction, said with\na smile, that he saw clearly that the joke would not end until he had\nbroken one of them, which happened accordingly. The philosopher with\nthe same equanimity and the same smile, merely said, \"Did I not tell\nyou that you would certainly break the limb?\" Where is there on record\nanother instance of like firmness? How would Jesus Christ have acted\nin the circumstances?--he who wept and trembled at the least alarm,\nand who in his last moments exhibited a pusillanimity altogether\ncontemptible, and which was never shown by the martyrs for his faith.\n\nIf the work which Arian wrote concerning the life and death of our\nphilosopher had been preserved, I have no doubt that we would have\nbeen in possession of many more examples of his equanimity than we\nhave at present. I know that the priests will speak of the example\nwhich I have instanced, as they speak of the virtues of philosophic\nminds in general, and assert that it is based on vanity, and that\nit is by no means what it appears to be; but I know also, that those\npeople are accustomed to speak ex cathedra whatever suits their purpose\nand to think they sufficiently earn the money which is given them for\ninstructing the people, by declaiming against every man who knows what\nsober reason and real virtue are. Nothing in the world can be less in\ncongruity with the actions of these superstitious men who decry them,\nthan the manner of the truly learned. The former, having studied for\nno other end than to obtain a place to give them bread, become vain,\nand congratulate themselves when they have obtained it, as if they had\narrived at the state of perfection; whereas it is nothing else to them\nthan a state of idleness, pride, voluptuousness, and licentiousness,--a\ncondition in which the great majority of them hold in no respect\nwhatever the maxims of that religion which they profess. But we will\nleave these men, who have not the remotest conception of real virtue,\nand examine the evidences for the divinity of their master.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 19.\n\nHaving considered the politics and the morality of Jesus Christ,\nwherein we find nothing so useful or so sublime as we find in the\nwritings of the ancients, let us now consider if the reputation which\nhe acquired after his death be a proof of his divinity.\n\nThe generality of mankind are so much accustomed to what is irrational,\nthat it is astonishing to find people endeavouring to draw a rational\ninference from their conduct. Experience teaches us that they are\nalways running after shadows, and that they neither do nor say anything\nbetokening common sense. These fanatical notions on which they found\ntheir belief will always be in vogue, in spite of the efforts of the\nlearned who have invariably set themselves against them. So rooted are\ntheir follies that they had rather be crammed with them to repletion\nthan make any effort to be rid of them.\n\nIt was to no purpose that Moses boasted that he was the interpreter\nof God, and attempted to prove his mission and his authority by\nextraordinary signs. If he absented himself for a short time (as he\ndid occasionally, to hold conference with the Divinity, by his account,\nand as in like manner did Numa Pompilius and many other legislators),\nit was only to find on his return strong traces of the worship of the\ngods whom the Hebrew people had seen in Egypt. It was in vain that\nhe had led them for forty years through the desert, that they might\nlose recollection of the divinities which they had left behind. They\nhad not forgot them, and they always wished for some visible symbol\nto precede them, which, if they had got, they would have worshipped\nobstinately, at the risk of being exposed to extreme cruelty.\n\nThe pride-inspired contempt alone which led them to the hatred of\nother nations, made them insensibly forget the gods of Egypt, and\nattach themselves to that of Moses. They worshipped him for some time\nwith all the outward observance of the law; but with that inconstancy\nwhich leads the vulgar to run after novelty, they deserted him at\nlast to follow the God of Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 20.\n\nThe most ignorant alone of the Hebrews followed Moses--such also\nwere they who ran after Jesus Christ; and their name being legion,\nand as they mutually supported each other, it is not to be wondered\nat if this new system of error was widely circulated. The teaching of\nthese novelties was not without danger to those who undertook the task,\nbut the enthusiasm which they excited extinguished every fear. Thus,\nthe disciples of Christ, miserable as they were in his train, and\neven dying of hunger--(as we learn from the necessity under which they\nwere, together with their leader, of plucking the ears of corn in the\nfields to sustain their lives)--these disciples never despaired till\nthey saw their master in the hands of his executioners, and totally\nincapable of gifting them with that wealth, and power, and grandeur,\nwhich he had led them to expect.\n\nAfter his death, his disciples being frustrated in their fondest hopes,\nmade a virtue of necessity. Banished as they were from every place,\nand persecuted by the Jews, who were eager to treat them as they had\ntreated their master, they wandered into the neighboring countries; in\nwhich, on the evidence of some women, they set forth the resurrection\nof Christ, his divinity, and the other fables wherewith the gospels\nare filled.\n\nIt was their want of success among the Jewish people which led to\nthe resolution of seeking their fortune among the Gentiles; but as\na little more knowledge than they possessed was necessary for the\naccomplishment of their design--the Gentiles being philosophically\ntrained, and consequently too much the friends of truth and reason\nto be duped by trifles--the sectaries of Jesus gained over to their\ncause a young man [56] of ardent temperament and active habits,\nsomewhat better instructed than the illiterate fishermen of Galilee,\nand more capable of drawing audiences to listen to his talk. He being\nwarned from heaven (miraculously of course), leagued himself with\nthem, and drew over some partizans by the threat of \"fabled hell,\"\n(a plagiarism from the ancient poets), and by the hope of the joys of\nparadise, into which blessed abode he was impudent enough to assert\nthat he had at one time been introduced.\n\nThese disciples then, by strength of delusion and lying, procured\nfor their master the honor of passing for a god--an honor at which,\nin his life-time, Jesus could never have arrived. His destiny was\nno better than that of Homer, nor even so good; inasmuch as seven\ncities which had despised and starved the latter in his lifetime,\nstruggled and fought with each other, in order to ascertain to which\nwas due the merit of having given him birth.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 21.\n\nIt may be judged now, from what has been advanced, that Christianity,\nlike every other religion, is only a complicated imposture--the success\nand progress of which would astonish the inventors themselves, could\nthey revisit this world. Without bewildering ourselves, however, in\na labyrinth of error and contradiction, such as we have alluded to,\nwe go to Mahomet, who founded his law on maxims entirely opposite to\nthose of Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 22.\n\nMAHOMET.\n\nScarcely had the disciples of Jesus Christ torn down the Mosaic fabric\nfor the purpose of establishing Christianity, when men, led by force\nof circumstances, and influenced by their usual inconstancy, followed\nthe new legislator, who had elevated himself by means similar, as far\nas possible, to those which Moses employed. Like the Jewish lawgiver,\nChrist usurped the title of prophet, and ambassador of God; like him\nhe pretended to perform miracles, and took advantage of the passions of\nthe multitude. He soon found himself escorted by an ignorant populace,\nto whom he explained the new oracles of heaven. These miserably misled\npeople, from the promises and fables of this new impostor, spread\nhis renown far and wide, as having eclipsed all his predecessors.\n\nMahomet, on the contrary, was a man who did not appear at all competent\nto lay the foundation of an empire. He was distinguished neither as\na politician nor a philosopher: he could neither read nor write. [57]\nAt first he exhibited so little firmness, that he was frequently upon\nthe point of abandoning his enterprise; and he would have done so, had\nit not been for the address of one his followers. When he was rising\ninto celebrity, Corais, a powerful Arab chief, being irritated that\na man of yesterday should have the boldness to mislead the people,\ndeclared himself his enemy, and attempted to thwart his designs;\nbut the people, believing that Mahomet had continued intercourse\nwith God and his angels, supported him till he had an opportunity of\nbeing avenged upon his adversary. The tribe of Corais was worsted;\nand Mahomet seeing himself surrounded by a host of fanatics, thought\nthat he stood in no need of a coadjutor. However, lest Corais should\nexpose his impostures, he took the initiative; and to make sure, he\nloaded him with promises, and swore that he only wished to become\ngreat in order to share with him that power, to the establishment\nof which he might so much contribute. \"We can agree,\" said he,\n\"when we reach our proper elevation; we can depend, in the meantime,\non that great multitude whom we have gained over, and it only remains\nthat we make sure of them by the employment of that artifice which\nyou have so happily invented.\" At the same time he persuaded him to\ndescend into the Cave of Oracles.\n\nThis was a dried-up sunk well, from the bottom of which Corais spoke,\nin order that the people might believe that it was the voice of God\ndeclaring himself in favour of Mahomet who was in the midst of his\nproselytes. Deceived by the blandishments of the leader, his associate\nregularly descended into the well, to counterfeit the oracle. Whilst\nMahomet was passing one day at the head of an infatuated multitude,\nthey heard a voice, which said--\"I am your God, and I declare that\nMahomet is the prophet whom I have appointed for all nations; he will\ninstruct you in my law of truth, which the Jews and Christians have\naltered.\" For a long time the accomplice played this game; but at last\nhe met with the blackest ingratitude. The voice being heard, as usual,\nproclaiming him an inspired personage, Mahomet turned to the people,\nand commanded them, in the name of that God who had recognised him\nas his prophet, to fill up the well with stones, that it might be an\nenduring witness in his favour, like that pillar which Jacob set up\nto mark the place where God had appeared to him. [58] Thus perished,\nmiserably, the chief who had most contributed to the elevation of\nMahomet. It was upon this heap of stones that the last of the three\nmost celebrated impostors established his religion, and so solid\nand stable is its foundation, that after the lapse of twelve hundred\nyears there is little appearance at present of its being overthrown.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 23.\n\nIn this way was the power of Mahomet established; and he was more\nfortunate than Jesus, inasmuch as he lived to see the wide diffusion\nof his doctrines, which Christ on account of his want of resources,\nwas unable to do. He was even more fortunate in this respect than\nMoses, who from excess of ambition brought himself to a premature\nend.--Mahomet died in peace, and loaded with blessings. He had,\nmoreover, a well-grounded hope that his religion would last, because\nit was accommodated to the nature of a people born and brought up\nin ignorance; an adaptation in which men more learned than himself,\nbut less accustomed to associate with the lower orders, might have\nentirely failed.\n\nThe reader is now in possession of the most remarkable facts concerning\nthe three most celebrated legislators, whose religions have brought\ninto subjection a great part of the human race. They were such as\nwe have represented them; and it is for you to consider if they\nare worthy of your respect, and if you are justified in allowing\nyourselves to be led by those whom ambition alone conducted to power,\nand whose dreams have been perpetuated by ignorance. The following\nobservations, if read with a free and unprejudiced mind, may lead to\nthe discovery of truth, by clearing away those mists wherewith you\nhave been blinded and beguiled.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTRUTHS EVIDENT AND OBVIOUS TO THE SENSES.\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\nMoses, Jesus Christ, and Mahomet, being such as we have represented\nthem, it is evident that it would be useless to search in their\nwritings for a new idea of the Divinity. The conferences of Moses\nand Mahomet with the Deity, and the miraculous conception of Jesus\nChrist, are the greatest impostures that have ever met the face of day,\nand you must shun their contemplation as you love the truth.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\nGod, as we have seen, being only Nature, or in other words the\ncombination of all beings, all properties, and all energies, is\nnecessarily the cause from which emanates every thing, and of course\nnot distinct or different from its effects. He cannot be termed good,\nnor evil, nor just, nor merciful nor jealous: these attributes belong\nonly to mankind. The Deity therefore can neither punish nor reward. The\nopposite idea may lead aside the ignorant, who, conceiving the Divinity\nto be an uncompounded essence, represent him to themselves under\nimages altogether unsuited to his nature. Those alone who exercise\ntheir judgment without confounding its operations with those of their\nimaginative faculty, and who have sufficient strength of mind to\ncast away the prejudices of infancy, can form a clear and distinct\nconception of the subject. They regard him as the author of every\nbeing, producing them without distinction, and giving no preference\nto one over another, and whose power is such that he created man with\nas much ease as he did the meanest worm, or the humblest plant.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\nWe must therefore believe that this universal Being whom we generally\nname God, takes no greater care of a man than of an ant, nor pays more\nattention to a lion than to a stone; neither regards the beauty or\ndeformity, good or evil, perfection or imperfection. He cares not to\nbe praised, beseeched, sought alter, or flattered; he is not affected\nby what men say or do; he is not susceptible of love or hatred:\n[59] in one word he is not more occupied with man than he is with the\nrest of the other creatures, whatever may be their nature. All these\ndistinctions are merely the inventions of a limited understanding:\nthey originate in ignorance, and self-interest keeps them up.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\nThus, therefore, no rational man can believe in God, nor in hell,\nnor in spirits, nor in devils, in the sense in which the terms\nare generally understood. These big words have only been coined to\nintimidate and blind the vulgar. Those who wish to convince themselves\nof this truth would do well to devote particular attention to what\nfollows, and accustom themselves to suspend their judgment until\nafter mature reflection.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nThe infinity of stars which we see above us has not escaped the\nfictions of presumptive credulity. Amongst the glittering hosts, there\nis one said to have been set apart for the celestial court, where God\nholds regal state in the midst of his courtiers. This place is the\nresidence of the blessed, wither the souls of the virtuous are conveyed\nafter leaving the body. We need not dwell upon an opinion so frivolous\nand so contradictory to common sense. It is well enough ascertained\nthat what we denominate the heavens is merely a continuation of the\nair which surrounds us--a fluid through which the other planets move,\nlike the earth which we inhabit, unsustained and unconnected with\nany solid mass whatever.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\nThe priests having, like the pagans with their Gods and goddesses,\ninvented a heaven, where God and the blessed might dwell; after the\nsame example next they contrived a hell, or subterranean place,\nto which, they assure us, the spirits of wicked men go down for\nthe purpose of being everlastingly tormented. Now, the word hell,\nin its original sense, imports no more than a place dark and deep;\nand the poets invented it as the opposite to the residence of the\nblessed, which they represented as high and bright. This is the exact\nsignification of the Latin terms inferus and inferi, and the Greek\nhades; any dark place such as a sepulchre, or whatever was fearful\nfrom its depth and obscurity. The whole sprung from the imagination\nof the poet and the knavery of the priests--the former knowing how to\nmake an impression in this way, on weak, timid, and melancholy minds;\nand the latter having rather more substantial reasons for continuing\nthe delusion.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAP. V.--ON THE SOUL.\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\nThis is rather a more delicate subject to handle than the last which we\nhad occasion to treat of, viz: Heaven and Hell. For the reader's sake,\ntherefore, it must be treated at greater length; but before defining\nit, an exposition of the opinions of the most celebrated philosophers\nis necessary, which will be given in a few words, in order that the\nreader may be the better enabled to carry it along with him.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\nTheir opinions are exceedingly varied. Some have pretended that the\nsoul is a spirit or immaterial essence; others have maintained that\nit is a part of the Divinity; others assert that it is the concord of\nall parts of the body; and some uphold that it is the most subtle\npart of the blood, separated into the brain, and thence distributed\nthrough the nervous system. If this is established, the soul must\ntake its origin from the heart which creates it; and the place where\nit exercises its noblest functions must be the brain, as that organ\nis the most purified from the grosser parts of the blood.\n\nSuch are a few of the different opinions which have been given to\nthe world in regard to the soul. The better to develop them, we shall\ndivide them into two classes. In the one will be found the statements\nof those philosophers who considered the soul as material; and in\nthe other those of the opposite party, who maintained the doctrine\nof its immateriality.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\nPythagoras and Plato have both maintained the doctrine that the\nsoul was immaterial in its nature; that is, a being existing without\naid from the body, and capable of action uncontrolled by any thing\ncorporeal. They hold that all the individual spirits of animals were\nemanations from the universal Soul of the World, and that these\noff-givings were incorporeal, immortal, and of the same nature as\nthe pervading Essence itself. They illustrated their doctrine well,\nby the analogy of a thousand little lights which are all of the same\nnature as the great flame at which they were kindled.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\nThese philosophers believed that the universe was animated by an\nimmaterial Essence, immortal and invisible, knowing everything,\nand acting always; and which is the cause of every movement, and the\norigin of all spirits, these being merely emanations from it. Then, as\nspirits are very subtle, they cannot unite (they observe) unless they\ncan find a body subtle as the light, or as that expanded air which the\nvulgar take for heaven. They therefore assume a body less subtle, then\nanother somewhat gross; and thus by degrees they come to be enabled to\nunite themselves to the bodies of animals, into which they descend as\ninto dungeons or sepulchres. The death of the body, according to them,\nis the life of the soul, which was in a manner buried, and could only\nin a feeble way exercise its noblest functions. At the death of the\nbody, the soul shakes off materiality, comes forth of its prison-house,\nand unites itself to the Soul of the World from which it emanated.\n\nAccording to this opinion then, all the spirits of animals are of the\nsame nature; and the diversity of their functions and faculties arises\nsolely from the difference of the bodies into which they descend.\n\nAristotle supposes an universal intelligence, acting on particular\nintelligences, as light acts upon the eye; and that as light renders\nobjects visible, so does this universal intelligence render the\nothers intelligent.\n\nThis philosopher defines the soul as that whereby we live, feel,\nthink, and move; but he is unsatisfactory as to the nature of that\nBeing which is the source of its noblest functions. It is needless,\ntherefore, to search in his writings for a solution of the difficulties\nwhich exist upon this subject.\n\nDicearchus, Asclepiades, and Galienus, have also, to a certain extent,\nbelieved that the soul was immaterial, but in a different way from\nthat already alluded to. They suppose that the soul is nothing else\nthan the harmony of all the parts of the body: that is, the result\nof an exact blending of its elements and disposition of its parts,\nits humours, and its essences. Thus, they say, as health is not a part\nof that which is healthy, although it is connected with it, so neither\nis the soul a part of the animal, although it be within it, but simply\nthe harmony of all those parts which go to form the containing body.\n\nOn these opinions we must, remark, that their defenders believe\nin the immateriality of the soul on self-contradictory principles;\nfor to maintain that, the soul is not a body, but merely something\ninseparably attached to a body, is to say that it is corporeal. We\nnot only term that corporeal which is a body, but everything which\nhas form and accident, and which cannot be separated from matter.\n\nSuch are the opinions of those philosophers who maintain that the\nsoul is incorporeal or immaterial. We see that they are discordant and\ncontradictory to each other, and consequently little to be heeded as\npoints of faith. We now come to the opposite party, who have upheld\nthe doctrine of its materiality.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nDiogenes believed that the soul was composed of air, whence he deduces\nthe necessity of respiration. He defines it as an air which passes\nthrough the mouth into the pulmonary vessels, whence it becomes warm,\nand whence it is distributed to every part of the system.\n\nLeucippus and Democritus assert that it is fire, and that, like fire,\nit is composed of atoms which readily penetrate all parts of the body,\nand communicate motion to it.\n\nHippocrates said that it was composed of water and of fire. Empedocles\nthought that it was compounded of the four elements. Epicurus believed\nwith Democritus that the soul is composed of fire, but he adds that\nthere enter into its composition, air, a vapour, and an indescribable\nsubstance, which is the principle of thought. Out of these four\ndifferent substances he makes to himself a very subtle spirit,\npervading all the body, and which, he says, we ought to term the soul.\n\nDescartes reasons also, but in a very wretched manner, that the\nsoul is not material. I say in a very wretched manner, for never\ndid philosopher reason so badly on this subject as did this great\nman. Here is his argument. He sets outs by saying that he must doubt\nin the existence of his own body, believing that there exists no such\nthing as a body at all, and then he reasons in this fashion: \"There\nexists no body; I exist nevertheless: I am therefore not a body,\nand consequently I can only be a substance which thinks.\" Although\nthis fine reasoning destroys itself sufficiently, I will yet take\nthe liberty of giving my opinion of it in two words.\n\n1. The doubt which M. Descartes assumes is indefensible; for although\none may sometimes think that he does not think that he has a body,\nit is true nevertheless that he has a body, since he thinks of it.\n\n2. Whoever believes that there exists no body, ought to be well\nassured that he is not one himself; for no one can doubt in his own\nexistence. If he is assured in this matter, his doubt is useless.\n\n3. When he says that the soul is a substance which thinks, he tells\nus nothing new. Every person agrees in this; but the difficulty is\nto ascertain the nature of that substance which thinks, and in this\nrespect M. Descartes is no wiser than his predecessors.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\nThat we may not go crooked as he has done, and that we may form the\nsoundest conception possible of the soul of all animals, without\nexcepting man, who is of the same nature, and who only exercises\ndifferent functions from the difference in his organization, it is\nimportant to attend to the following remarks.\n\nIt is certain that there exists in the universe a very subtle fluid,\na substance extremely attenuated, whose source is the sun, and which\npervades all other bodies, less or more, according to their nature\nand their consistence. Such is the soul of the world, which governs\nand vivifies it, and of which some portion is distributed to all the\ncreatures in the universe. [60]\n\nThis soul is the purest fire. It burns not of itself, but by different\nmovements, which it communicates to the particles of other bodies\ninto which it enters, it burns and makest its warmth be felt. Our\nvisible fire contains more of this matter than air; air, more than\nwater; and earth, considerably less than any of them. Plants have\nmore of it than minerals, and animals more than either. In fine,\nthis fire pervading the body renders it capable of thought, and is\nthat properly termed the soul, although it sometimes receives the\nappellation of animal spirits, which permeate the whole body. It is\ncertain therefore that this soul being of the same nature as that\nof animals, is annihilated at the death of man, as it is at that of\nthe other creatures. It follows that whatever poets and divines have\ntold us of a future state, is only the chimerical offspring of their\nown brain, begotten and nourished by them for purposes which is by\nno means difficult to fathom.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nON THE SPIRITS CALLED DEMONS\n\n\n\u00a7 1.\n\nWe have explained in another place how the notion of spirits came to\nbe introduced among men, and proved that they were merely phantoms\nwhich existed only in their disordered imagination.\n\nThe first instructors of mankind were not very explicit in their\n\"lessons to the million\" as to the nature of these phantoms, but they\ncould not help saying what they thought of them. One class, reflecting\nthat these shadows melted into thin air and had no consistence,\ndescribed them as immaterial or incorporeal, having shapes without\nmatter, but coloured and defined. At the same time however, they denied\nthat they were corporeal existences, or that they were coloured or\nfigured; adding that they could clothe themselves with air as with\na garment, when they wished to become visible to the eye of men. A\nsecond class assert that they were animated bodies, but that they were\ncomposed of air, or some still more subtle matter, which they could\nthicken at their pleasure, when they chose to make their appearance.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 2.\n\nIf the two sorts of philosophers were opposed to each other in their\nopinion as to those shadows, they agreed as to their name, viz.,\nDemons; in which respect they were as those who, when dreaming, believe\nthat they see the souls of people departed, and that it is their own\nsoul which they behold when they look into a mirror--or, in short,\nthose who can believe that the reflections of the stars which they see\nin the water are the souls of the stars themselves. Out of this truly\nridiculous belief they wandered into an era no less absurd; believing\nthat these phantoms possessed unlimited power--an idea sufficiently\ndevoid of reason, but current among the ignorant, who suppose that\nthese beings, whom they know not, can exert a fearful influence.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 3.\n\nThis most absurd creed was invented and promulgated by legislators,\nin order to support their own authority. They established this\nbelief in spirits under the name of religion, hoping that the dread\nof these invisible powers which the people would entertain, might\nkeep them to their duty. To give the more weight to their dogma, they\nclassified those spirits or demons as good and bad; the one species\nbeing intended to stimulate men to the observance of their laws,\nand the other to act as a check and prevent their breaking them.\n\nTo ascertain what these demons really were, it is only necessary to\nread the works of the Greek poets and historians, and above all, the\nTheogany of Hesiod, where he dwells at great length on the origin of\nthe gods.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 4.\n\nThe Greeks invented them. From that people they passed by means of\ntheir colonies into Asia, Egypt, and Italy. In this way the Jews,\nwho were dispersed in Alexandria and elsewhere became acquainted with\nthem. They made the same happy use of them as other nations did--with\nthis difference, that, unlike the Greeks, they did not call them\ndemons, or regard them as good and bad spirits indifferently. They\nconsidered them all as bad with one single exception, to whom they gave\nthe name of the Spirit, or God; and they termed those men prophets who\nsaid that they were inspired by the good Spirit. Farther, they viewed\nas the operations of this divine Spirit whatever they considered as\na great blessing; and on the other hand, they looked upon whatever\nthey thought to be a great evil, as proceeding from some cacodemon\nor evil spirit.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 5.\n\nThis distinction between good and evil led them to the use of\nthe appellation demoniacs, which they applied to lunatics, madmen,\nfurious persons, and epileptics, as also to those who made use of \"the\nunknown tongues.\" A man deformed and somewhat deranged, was said to be\npossessed of an unclean spirit; and a dumb man by a dumb spirit. These\nwords, spirit and demon, became so familiar to them that they used\nthem on every occasion. It follows that the Jews believed with the\nGreeks, that these phantoms were neither chimerical nor visionary,\nbut real and substantial agents.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 6.\n\nHence it is that the Bible is filled with tales of spirits, and demons,\nand demoniacs; but in no place of that book is it said how and when\nthey were created--an omission scarcely pardonable on the part of\nMoses, who undertakes to give an account of the creation both of the\nheavens and of the earth. Christ who speaks very frequently of angels\nand spirits, good and bad, does not inform us whether they are material\nor immaterial. This makes it evident that both of them were ignorant\nof the fact that the Greeks had instructed their ancestors in this\nstrange belief. Were the case otherwise, Jesus Christ would be no less\nculpable for his silence on the subject, than he is for his refusal\nto grant to the majority of the human race, that grace, that faith,\nand that piety, which he assures them it is in his power to bestow.\n\nBut to return to the subject of Spirits. It is certain these words\nDemons, Satan, Devil, are only proper names intended to apply to any\nobnoxious individual of our own species; and that, at no period did\nany but the most ignorant believe in their existence, either amongst\nthe Greeks who invented, or the Jews who adopted the terms. After\nthe latter became infected with such notions, they applied these\nwords which signify enemy, accuser, and destroyer, at one time to\ninvisible Powers, and at another, to those which are visible. Thus,\nthey declared of the Gentiles, that their dwelling was in the kingdom\nof Satan; there being none other than themselves (by their own account\nof the matter) who dwelt in the kingdom of God.\n\n\n\n\u00a7 7.\n\nJesus Christ being a Jew, and consequently imbued with these opinions,\nwe need not be surprised when we meet in the gospels and the writing\nof his disciples the words Devil, Satan, and Hell, as if they were\nanything real or substantive. We have showed before that there can be\nnothing more chimerical; but although what was said might suffice to\nsatisfy rational men, we are not the less necessitated to add a few\nwords, in an attempt to convince the bigotted.\n\nAll Christians agree that God is the source of everything; that\nhe created all things--that he sustains them, and that without his\nsupport they would drop into annihilation.--From these principles,\nit is certain that he created that being whom they call the Devil, or\nSatan. Whether he were created good or evil is nothing to the argument;\nhe is incontestibly the work of the great Head, and if he continue\nto exist, all wicked as they represent him to be, it must only be at\nthe good pleasure of God. Now, how is it possible to conceive that God\nwould preserve one of his creatures, who not only hates him mortally,\nand blasphemes him without end, but who sets himself to seduce the\nfriends of the Almighty for the sole purpose of mortifying him. How\nis it possible, I repeat, that God can permit this Devil to exist,\nwho turns aside from his worship the favored and the elect, and who\nwould dethrone him were it in his power?\n\nThis is what we wish to say in speaking of God, or rather in\nspeaking of the Devil and Hell. If God is almighty, and if nothing\ncan happen without his permission, how comes it that the devil hates\nhim, blasphemes him, and seduces his worshippers? The Deity either\nconsents to this or he does not. If he consents to it, the Devil\nin blaspheming him is only doing his duty, since he can do nothing\nbut what God wishes, and consequently it is not the Devil, but God\nhimself who blasphemes himself,--a fearfully absurd supposition. If\nhe does not consent to it he cannot be omnipotent, and there must\nbe two principles, the one of good, and the other of evil--the one\naiming at one thing, and the other at its direct opposite.\n\nTo what then leads our reasoning? To this; that neither God,\nnor the Devil, nor Paradise, nor Hell, nor the Soul, are such as\nreligion has represented them to be, and as most reverend divines\nhave maintained. These latter sell their fables for truths, being\npeople of bad faith who abuse the credulity of the ignorant by making\nthem believe whatever they please; as if the vulgar were absolutely\nunfitted to hear the truth and could be nourished by nothing but\nthose absurdities, in which a rational mind can only discover a vast\nof nothing, and a waste of folly.\n\nThe world has been long infected with these most absurd opinions,\nyet in every age men have been found--truth-loving men--who have\nstriven against the absurdities of their day. This little treatise has\nbeen written from like motives, and in it the lovers of truth will\ndoubtless meet with some things satisfactory. It is to them that I\nappeal, caring little for the opinion of those who substitute their\nown prejudices in place of infallible oracles.\n\n\n    Happy the man, who, studying Nature's laws,\n    Through known effects can trace the secret cause;\n    His mind possessing in a quiet state,\n    Fearless of Fortune, and resigned to Fate.\n\n              Dryden's Translation of Virgil, Georgics, Book II. l. 700.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] Daniel George Morof, who died suddenly on the 30th of June 1691.\n\n[2] Librum de tribus impostoribus absit ut Pap\u00e6 tribuam, aut Pap\u00e6\noppugnatoribus; jam olim inimici Frederici Barbaross\u00e6 Imperatoris\nfamam sparserant libri talis, quasi jussu ipsius scripti, sed ab eo\ntempore, nemo est qui viderit; quare fabulam esse arbitror.\n\n[3] Apud Nevizanum 1. Sylvae nupt. 2. n. 121.\n\n[4] Doubtless Averroes here alludes to that law of Mahomet\nwhich wisely prohibits the use of pork in a hot and pestilential\nclimate.--Translator's Note.\n\n[5] Disseminavit iste impius haereticus in Hispania, [such is the\nlanguage made use of by Alvaro Pelagius], quod tres deceptores fuerunt\nin mundo, scilicet, Moises, qui decepterat Judaeos, et Christus,\nqui decepterat Christianos, et Mahometus, qui decepit Sarrazenos.\n\n[6] Et sic falsa est Porphirii sententia, qui dixit tres fuisse\ngarrulatores qui totum mundum ad se converterunt; primus fuit Moises\nin populo Judaico, secundus Mahometus, tertius Christus.\n\n[7] Qui in qu\u00e6stionem vertere presumunt, dicentes; quis in hec mundo\nmajorem gentium aut populorum sequelam habuit, an Christus, an Moises,\nan Mahometus?\n\n[8] Every classical scholar must have heard of the demon\nof Socrates. The belief in the existence of such agencies was\nsufficiently prevalent in the East 2000 years ago, and the Jews were\nin this respect, as credulous as their neighbors. We read in Acts,\nc. iv. v. 7, that the leaders of the Sanhedrim enquired of the Apostle\nPeter, \"By what power or by what name, have ye done this;\" evidently\nacknowledging their belief that it was possible to work miracles by\nthe invocation of some mysterious power. The Apostle, himself a Jew,\nseems to understand their creed; but he answers them in a way for\nwhich they were not altogether prepared.--Translator's Note.\n\n[9] \u00c6deficabat sine pecunia, judicabat sine conscientia, scribebat\nsine scientia.\n\n[10] Non Blandratum, non Alciatum, non Ochinum ad Mahotnetismum\nimpulerunt; non Valleum ad atheismi professionem induxerunt; non alium\nquemdam ad spargendum libellum de tribus impostoribus, quorum secundus\nesset Christus Dominus, duo alii Moises et Mahometes, pellexerunt.\n\n[11] Vincentii Panurgii epistola tribus impostoribus, ad clarissimum\nvirum Joannem--Baptistam Morinum Medicum.\n\n[12] Isaac de Peyrere published his Pre-Adamite doctrine in 1655. This\nset of fanatics, who were persuaded by their lenders that the general\nrace of mankind had lost nothing of their innocence by the fall of\nAdam, made their appearance, (both men and women) in the streets of\nMunster, and elsewhere, in the same robeless condition as our first\nparents were, when they wandered in the bowers of Paradise before\nthe eating of that forbidden fruit, which\n\n\n    \"Brought death into the world and all our woe.\"\n\n\nThe magistrates of the city attempted to put them down but failed;\nand the military had some difficulty in extinguishing this\nabsurdity.--Translator's Note.\n\n[13] Monstrum illud hominis, diis inferis a secretis scelus, nefarii\nillius tractatus de tribus impostoribus author quantumvis ab omni\nReligione alienus, adeo ut nec Judaeus, nec Turca, nec Christianus\nfuerit, plane tamen athoeus non erat.\n\n[14] Consult Bayle's Dictionary on this subject, article, \"Trabea.\"\n\n[15] Quid vel hac sola dubitatione in Christiana schola cogitara\npotest perniciosius?\n\n[16] Nefarium tillud rium impostorum commentum sen liber contra\nChristum, Moisem et Mahometan Capomi nuper ab illis qui Evangelo\nCalvini so adductissimos profitentur typis excussus est.\n\n[17] Hinc Boccaccius in fabellis probare contendit non posse discerni\ninter legem Christi, Moisis et Mahometis, quia eadem signa habent\nuti tres annuli consimiles.\n\n[18] F. I. S. D. namely, Fredericus Imperator Salutem Dicit Othoni\nillustrissimo amico meo carrissimo.\n\n[19] Quod de tribus famosissimis nationum deceptoribus in ordinem\njussu meo digessit doctissimus ille vir quorum sermonem de illa re in\nmuseo meo habusti\u00e6 exscribi curavi; atque Codicem illum stylo aeque\nvero ac puro scriptum ad te quam primum mitto; etenum, &c.\n\n[20] There is a measure in every thing.\n\n[21] This phrase is frequently employed to express ecclesiastical\ncriticism. Its first application however had a more pungent\nmeaning.--The individual here alluded to having boldly assailed the\nerrors of the Church was attacked one evening by an assassin.\nFortunately the blow did not prove fatal; but the weapon (a stylus,\nor dagger, which is also the Latin name for a pen) having been left\nin the wound--on his recovery he wore it in his girdle labelled,\n\"The Theological Stylus,\" or Pen of the Church. The trenchant powers\nof this instrument have more frequently been employed to repress truth,\nthan to refute argument.\n\n[22] Moses put to death in one day 24,000 men, because they resisted\nhis laws.\n\n[23] We read in the Book of Kings, chap. xxii, v. 6, that Ahab,\nthe King of Israel consulted 400 prophets who were all false, as the\nresult of their vaticinations showed.\n\n[24] Genesis, chap. iv, v. 7.\n\n[25] I. Samuel chap. xv, v. 11.\n\n[26] Jeremiah, chap. xviii, v. 10.\n\n[27]    C\u00e6tera, qu\u00e6 fieri in terris, Coeloque tuentur\n        Mortales pavidis cum pendent mentibus s\u00e6pe\n        Efficiunt animos humiles formidine Divum,\n        Depressosque premunt ad terram, propterea quod\n        Ignorantia causarum conferre Deorum\n        Cogit ad imperium res, et concedere regnum: et\n        Quorum operum causas nulla ratione videre\n        Possunt h\u00e6c fieri Divino numine rentur.\n\n                             Lucret. de Rer. Nat. Lib. VI. v. 49 et seq.\n\n[28] \"What appears to our limited conceptions to be evil or apparently\nunjust, is entirely owing to our having no commensurate ideas either\nof the goodness or the justice of the Deity.\"--Bolingbroke's Works,\nVol. iv, p. 117.--Translator's Note.\n\n[29] Acts, chap. xvii, v. 28.\n\n[30] \"Qui autem negabit Deum esse corpus, etsi Deus Spiritus?\" Tertul\nadv. Prax. cap. vii.\n\n[31] These four Councils were, First, that of Nice, (325) under\nConstantine and Pope Sylvester: Second, that of Constantinople, 381,\nunder Gratian, Valentinian, Theodosius, and Pope Damasus: Third, that\nof Ephesus, 431, under Theodosius II, Valentinian, and Pope Celestin:\nand Fourth, that of Chalcedon, 451, under Valentinian, Marcianus,\nand Pope Leo I.\n\n[32] The Talmud informs us that the Rabbis deliberated whether they\nought not to strike from the list of Canonical writings the books\nof Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and that they only spared them because\nthey made favourable mention of Moses and his law. The prophecies of\nEzekiel (which the Jews were not permitted to read until they were\nthirty years of age) would to a certainty have been expunged from the\nsacred Catalogue, if a learned Rabbi had not undertaken to reconcile\nthem with the same Law.\n\n[33] Consult Hobbes' Leviathan \"De Homine,\" chap. xli, pages 56,\n57 and 58.\n\n[34] Philip of Macedon had sent auxiliaries and money to Hannibal in\nAfrica. \"Infensos Philippo, ob auxilia cum pecunia nuper in Africam\nmissu Annibale.\" Levy, Book xxxi. chap. 1.--Translator's Note.\n\n[35] Hobbe's Leviathan, \"De Homine,\" chap. xii, pp. 56 and 57.\n\n[36] Hobbes, ubi supra \"De Homine,\" chap. xii. pages 58 and 59.\n\n[37] This word must not be taken in its usual acceptation. What\nrational men understand by the term is a dexterous man, an able\ncheat, and a master of jugglery, which requires great readiness and\naddress; and not by any means a person in compact with the Devil as\nthe vulgar suppose.\n\n[38] \"And he said, Leave us not, I pray thee; for as much as thou\nknowest how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and thou mayest be\nto us instead of eyes.\"--Num. chap. x, v. 31.\n\n[39] Exodus iv. 16.\n\n[40] When Romulus was reviewing his forces in the plain of Caprae, here\nsuddenly arose a thunder-storm, during which he was enveloped in so\nthick a cloud that he was lost to the view of his army; nor thereafter\non this earth was Romulus seen.--Liv. 1. I. c. 16.--Translator's note.\n\n[41] Hobbes' Leviathan; de homine, chap. xii. pp. 59 and 60.\n\n[42] It is recorded by Livy, that \"there is a grove, through which\nflowed a perennial stream, taking its origin in a dark cave, in which\nNuma was accustomed to meet the goddess, and receive instructions as\nto his political and religions institutions.\"--Liv. 1. I. c. 21.\n\n[43]    Qu'un beau Pigeon a tire d'aile\n        Vienne obom brer une Purcelle,\n        Rien n'est sur prenant en cela;\n        L'on en vit autant en Lydie.\n        Et le beau Cygne de Leda\n        Vaut bien le Pigeon de Marie.\n\n[44] I. Samuel, chap. viii. vs. 5 and 6.\n\n[45] The Gospel according to John, chap. viii. v. 7.\n\n[46] Matthew's Gospel, chap. xxii. v. 21.\n\n[47] Matthew's Gospel, chap. xxi. v. 27.\n\n[48] Saint Paul, Hebrews, chap. viii. v. 13 speaks in these terms:\n\"In that he saith a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that\nwhich decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.\"--Translator's\nnote.\n\n[49] This was the opinion of Pope Leo X. as appears from an expression\nof his, which, considering that it was made use of at a time when\nthe philosophical spirit of inquiry had made little progress, was\nremarkably bold. \"It has been well known in all ages,\" he observed\nto Cardinal Beinbo, \"how much this fable of Jesus Christ has been\nprofitable to us and ours.\" Quantum nobis nostrisque sa de Christo\nfabula profuerit, satis est omnibus saeculis notum.\n\n[50] Confessions, 1. VII. c. ix. v. 28.\n\n[51] See the discourse of Aristophanes, in the \"Banquet of Plato.\"\n\n[52] Luke's Gospel, chap. xvi. v. 24.\n\n[53] \"The City of God,\" book I. chap. xiv.\n\n[54] Orig. adv. Cels. 1. VIII. chap. iv. Compare with, Matthew,\nchap. xix. v. 24.\n\n[55] Op. adv. Jorin. 1. II. chap. viii.--\"In indication of their\nrefusal to take an oath, the Society of Friends quote the words\nof Christ, \"Swear not at all;\" unaware, or overlooking, that this\nexpression is descriptive of a state of social perfection, when the\nword of a man will be as good as his oath. Many others of Christ's\nprecepts besides this are unobserved by Christians, such as 'Lay not\nup for yourselves treasures on earth,' 'Give to every one that asketh,\nand from him that would borrow of you turn not thou away.' The morality\nof Christ is a beau ideal so far from being realized, that there is\nnot even a similitude of it in the Christian world. The Quakers who\nvauntingly obey this precept regarding oaths, has no hesitation in\nbreaking the other precepts respecting the hoarding of money, and\nrefusing to give it away.\"--Translator's Note.\n\n[56] St. Paul.\n\n[57] \"I can believe,\" observes the Count de Boulainvilliers,\n\"that Mahomet was ignorant of the common elements of education. But\nassuredly he was not ignorant in respect to that vast knowledge which\na far travelled man of great natural powers may acquire. He was not\nignorant of his native tongue, although he could not read it, being\nmaster of all its subtleness and all its beauties. He was thoroughly\nqualified to render hateful whatever was truly blameworthy, and to\npaint truth in colours so simple and vivid, that it was impossible\nto misunderstand it. All that he has said is true, as regards the\nessential dogmas of Religion; but he has not said all that is true,\nand in this respect alone does our religion differ from his.\" Farther\non he adds, that \"Mahomet was neither ignorant nor a barbarian; he\nconducted his enterprise with all the skill, delicacy, perseverance,\nand intrepidity, which was necessary to ensure its success. His views\nwere as lofty as any which Alexander the Great, or Julius C\u00e6sar,\nwere capable of entertaining, had they been in his position.\"--Life\nof Mahomet by Count de Boulainvilliers, book II. pp. 266-8. Amsterdam\nedit. 1731.\n\n[58] Genesis chap. xxviii. v. 18.\n\n[59]    Omnis enim per se divum natura necesse est\n        Immortali aevo summa cum pace fruatur,\n        Semota ab nostris rebus, sejunctaque longe;\n        Nam privata dolore omni, privata periclis\n        Ipsa suis pollens opibus: nihil indiga nostri,\n        Nec bene promeritis capitur, nec tangitur ira.\n\n                   Lucretius de Rerum Nat. Book I. v. 57, and following.\n\n[60] If a work be translated, it always receives a colouring, which\nis more or less faint or vivid according to the opinions and ability\nof the Translator.--Volney's Lectures on History.","title":"The Three Impostors","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":28681}