{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_50715/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_50715","id":"gutenberg_50715","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50715","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","De tribus impostoribus -- Bibliography","Rationalism"],"text":"DE TRIBUS IMPOSTORIBUS,\n\n                              A. D. 1230.\n\n                          THE THREE IMPOSTORS\n\n\n\n                               TRANSLATED\n                       (with Notes and Comments)\n\n     FROM A FRENCH MANUSCRIPT OF THE WORK WRITTEN IN THE YEAR 1716,\n              WITH A DISSERTATION ON THE ORIGINAL TREATISE\n                                  AND\n                 A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE VARIOUS EDITIONS\n                                   BY\n\n                     ALCOFRIBAS NASIER, THE LATER.\n\n\n                           PRIVATELY PRINTED\n\n                          FOR THE SUBSCRIBERS.\n\n                                 1904.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n            AN INDEX EXPURGATORIUS.\n\n\n    The man who marks or leaves with pages bent\n    The volume that some trusting friend has lent,\n    Or keeps it over long, or scruples not\n    To let its due returning be forgot;\n    The man who guards his books with miser's care,\n    And does not joy to lend them, and to share;\n    The man whose shelves are dust begrimed and few,\n    Who reads when he has nothing else to do;\n    The man who raves of classic writers, but\n    Is found to keep them with their leaves uncut;\n    The man who looks on literature as news,\n    And gets his culture from the book reviews;\n    Who loves not fair, clean type, and margins wide--\n    Or loves these better than the thought inside;\n    Who buys his books to decorate the shelf,\n    Or gives a book he has not read himself;\n    Who reads from priggish motives, or for looks,\n    Or any reason save the love of books--\n    Great Lord, who judgest sins of all degrees,\n    Is there no little private hell for these?\n\n\n\n                          Edition 352 copies.\n\n                           12 on large paper.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nThis pamphlet in its present form is the result of an inquiry into the\ncharacters represented in a historical grade of the Ancient Accepted\nScottish Rite, and the probability of their having existed at the\ndate mentioned in the said grade. Few appeared to have any very clear\nnotion of the relation of the characters to the period--Frederick\nII. being confounded with his grand-father, Frederick Barbarossa--and\nthe date of the supposed foundation of the Order of Teutonic Knights,\n1190, being placed as the date of the papacy of Oronata, otherwise\nHonorius III. Inquiry being made of one in authority as to the facts\nin the case--he being supposed to know--elicited the reply that the\nmatter had been called to his attention some months previous by an\ninvestigator--now deceased--but the matter had been dropped. It was\nalso surmised by the same authority that an error might have been\nmade by one of the committee having ritualistic matter in charge--but\nhe, having also been gathered to his fathers, was not available\nfor evidence.\n\nIt is stated that the action took place when Frederick II. was Emperor\nof Germany, and Honorius III. presided over spiritual conditions; but\nthis Pope, according to Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, reigned 1216-1227,\nand the dissertation on the pamphlet names Gregory IX., successor\nto Honorius, (1227-1241) as the Pope against whom the treatise was\nwritten. The infamous book mentioned in the representation no one\nseemed to have any knowledge of. Inquiry made concerning the treatise\nat various libraries supposed to possess it, and of various individuals\nwho might know something of it, elicited but the information that it\nwas purely \"legendary,\" that, \"it had no existence except by title,\"\nand that \"it was an item of literature entirely lost.\"\n\nHaving been a book collector and a close reader of book catalogs for\nover twenty-five years, I had never noted any copy offered for sale,\nbut a friend with the same mania for books, had seen a copy mentioned\nin a German catalog, and being interested in \"de tribus Impostoribus\"\nfor reasons herein mentioned, had sent for and procured the same--an\nedition of a Latin version compiled from a Ms. 1598, with a foreword\nin German. The German was familiar to him, but the Latin was not\navailable.\n\nAbout the same time I found in a catalog of a correspondent of\nmine at London, a book entitled \"Les Trois Imposteurs. De Tribus\nImpostoribus et dissertation sur le livre des Trois Imposteurs,\nsm. 4to. Saec. XVIII.,\" and succeeded in purchasing it.\n\nThe manuscript is well written, and apparently by two different\nhands, which would be probable from the facts set forth in the\n\"Dissertation.\" A copy of the translation from the Latin is probably\ndeposited in the library of Duke Eugene de Subaudio as set forth in\nthe colophon at end of the manuscript.\n\nThe manuscript is written in the French of the period, and is dated in\nthe colophon as 1716. The discovery of the original Latin document is\nmentioned in the \"Dissertation\" as about 1706. It has been annotated\nby another hand, as shown by foot notes, and several inserted sheets\ncontaining notes in still another hand, were written evidently about\n1746, as one of the sheets is a portion of a letter postmarked 4e\nAout in latter year.\n\nI append a bibliography from Weller's Latin reprint of 1598 which will\nshow that the pamphlet has \"been done before\"; but it will be noted\nthat English versions are not so plenty as those in other tongues,\nand but one is known to have been printed in the United States.\n\nI must acknowledge my indebtedness to Doctissimus vir Harpocrates,\nCol. F. Montrose, and Maj. Otto Kay for valued assistance in languages\nwith which I am not thoroughly familiar, and also to Mr. David\nHutcheson, of the Library of Congress, for favors granted.\n\nAmple apologies will be found for the treatise in the several\nintroductions quoted from various editions, and those fond of literary\ncuriosities will certainly be gratified by its appearance in the\ntwentieth century.\n\n\n        A. N.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY.\n\n\nIn 1846, Emil Weller published \"De Tribus Impostoribus,\" and also\na later edition in 1876, at Heilbronn, from a Latin copy of one of\nthe only four known to be in existence and printed in 1598. The copy\nfrom which it was taken, consisting of title and forty-six leaves,\nquarto, is at the Royal Library at Dresden, and was purchased for\none hundred gulden.\n\nThe other three, according to Ebert in his \"Bibliographical Lexicon,\"\nare as follows: one in the Royal Library at Paris, one in the Crevanna\nLibrary and the other in the library of Renouard.\n\nAn edition was published at Rackau, in Germany, in 1598, and Thomas\nCampanella (1636), in his \"Atheismus Triumphatus,\" gives the year of\nits first publication as 1538.\n\nFlorimond Raimond (otherwise Louis Richeome,) claims to have seen a\ncopy owned by his teacher, Peter Ramus, who died in 1572.\n\nAll the talk of theological critics that the booklet was first printed\nin the seventeenth century, is made out of whole cloth.\n\nThere is nothing modern about the edition of 1598. It may be compared,\nfor example, with Martin Wittel's print of the last decade of the\nsixteenth century, by which it is claimed that it could not have\nbeen printed then, as the paper and printing of that period closely\nresembles that of the eighteenth century.\n\nWith the exception of the religious myths, few writings of the dark\nages have had as many hypotheses advanced in regard to origin as\nthere have been regarding this one.\n\nAccording to John Brand it had been printed at Krakau, according to\nothers, in Italy or Hungary as a translation of an Arabic original\nexisting somewhere in France.\n\nWilliam Postel mentions a tract \"de Tribus Prophetis,\" and gives\nMichael Servetus, a Spanish doctor, as the author.\n\nThe Capuchin Monk Joly, in Vol. III of his \"Conference of Mysteries,\"\nassures us that the Huguenot, Nic. Barnaud, in 1612, on account of\nan issue of \"de Tribus Impostoribus,\" was excommunicated as its author.\n\nJohann Mueller, in his \"Besiegten Atheismus,\" (Conquered Atheism),\nmentions a certain Nachtigal who published at Hague, in 1614,\n\"De Trib. Imp.,\" and was therefore exiled.\n\nMosheim and Rousset accuse Frederick II as the author with the\nassistance of his Chancellor, Petrus de Vineis. Vineis, however,\ndeclares himself opposed even to the fundamental principles of the\nbook, and in his \"Epist. Lib. 1, ch. 31, p. 211,\" says he never had\nany idea of it.\n\nOthers place the authorship with Averroes, Peter Arretin and Petrus\nPomponatius. Heinrich Ernst accuses the above mentioned Postel. Postel\nattributes it to Servetus, who, in turn, places it at the door of\nthe Huguenot Barnaud.\n\nThe instigator of the treatise, it is claimed, should have been\nJulius Cesar Vanini, who was burned at Toulouse in 1619, or Ryswick,\nwho suffered at the stake in Rome in 1612.\n\nOther persons accused of the authorship are Macchiavelli, Rabelais,\nErasmus, Milton (John, born 1608,) a Mahometan named Merula, Dolet,\nand Giordano Bruno.\n\nAccording to Campanella, to whom the authorship was attributed\noccasionally, Muret, or Joh. Franz. Poggio, were responsible. Browne\nsays it was Bernhard Ochini, and Maresius lays it to Johann Boccaccio.\n\nThe \"three cheats\" are Moses, Jesus and Mahomet, but the tracts of\neach of the latter alleged authors treat only of Moses, of whom they\nsay that his assertions in Genesis will not hold water, and cannot\nbe proved.\n\nWeller, in his edition of 1876, speaking of the copy of 1598, says\nthat this issue should never be compared with any of the foregoing.\n\nMany authors have written \"de Tribus Impostoribus\" because they had\nsome special object in view; for instance, John Bapt. Morinus, when\nhe edited, under the name of Vincentius Panurgius, in Paris, 1654,\nan argument against Gassendi, Neure, and Bernier.\n\nJoh. Evelyn with a \"Historia de tribus hujus seculi\nfamosis Impostoribus,\" Padre Ottomano, Mahomed Bei, otherwise\nJoh. Mich. Cigala, and Sabbatai Sevi (English 1680, German 1669,)\n[1] Christian Kortholt \"de Tribus Impostoribus Magnus,\" (Kiel 1680 and\nHamburg 1701,) against Herbert, Hobbes and Spinosa, Hadrian Beverland,\nPerini del Vago, Equitis de Malta, \"Epistolium ad Batavum in Brittania\nhospitem de tribus Impostoribus,\" (Latin and English 1709.)\n\nFinally, Michael Alberti, under the name of Andronicus, published\na \"Tractatus Medico-historicus de tribus Impostoribus,\" which\nhe named the three great Tempters of Humanity: 1. Tea and\nCoffee. 2. Laziness. 3. Home apothecaries.\n\nCosmopoli Bey (Peter Martin Roman), issued at Russworn in Rostock in\n1731, and a new edition of same treatise--De Trib. Imp.--1738 and 1756.\n\nFor a long time scholars confused the genuine Latin treatise with a\nlater one. De la Monnoye fabricated a long dissertation in which he\ndenied the existence of the original Latin edition, but received a\nwell merited refutation at the hands of P. F. Arpe.\n\nThe false book is French--\"La vie et l'esprit de Mr. Benoit\nSpinoza.\" [2] The author of the first part was Hofrath Vroes, in\nHague, and the second was written by Dr. Lucas. It made its first\nappearance at Hague 1719, and later in 1721, under the title \"de\nTribus Impostoribus,\" des Trois Imposteurs. Frankfort-on-the-Main at\nthe expense of the Translator (i. e. Rotterdam.)\n\nRichard la Selve prepared a third edition under the original title of\n\"The Life of Spinoza,\" by one of his Disciples. Hamburgh (really in\nHolland,) 1735.\n\nIn 1768 there was printed by M. M. Rey, at Amsterdam, a new edition\ncalled a \"Treatise of the Three Impostors;\" immediately after another\nedition appeared at Yverdoner 1768, another in Holland 1775, and a\nlater one in Germany 1777.\n\nThe contents of \"L'esprit de Spinoza\" (German) by Spinoza II, or\nSubiroth Sopim--Rome, by Widow Bona Spes 5770--(Vieweg in Berlin 1787,)\nare briefly Chap. I, Concerning God. Chap. II, Reasons why men have\ncreated an invisible Being which is commonly called God. Chap. III,\nWhat the word Religion signifies, and how and why so many of these\nReligions have crept into the world. Chap. IV, Evident truths. Chap. V,\nOf the Soul. Chap. VI, Of Ghosts, Demons, etc. Then follows fifteen\nchapters which are not in the treatise (? Edition 1598.)\n\nThe following became known by reason of peculiarities of their\ndiction: 1. Ridiculum et imposturae in omni hominum religione,\nscriptio paradoxa, quam ex autographo gallico Victoris Amadei\nVerimontii ob summam rei dignitatem in latinum sermonem transtulit \u2020\u2020\u2020\n1746. Which according to Masch consists of from five to six sheets and\nfollows the general contents, but not in the order of the original\nedition. 2. A second. Quaedam deficiunt, s. fragmentum de libro de\ntribus impostoribus. Fifty-one pages is a fragment. 3. One mentioned\nby Gottsched. De impostoris religionum breve. Compendium descriptum\nab exemplari MSto. quod in Bibliotheca Jo. Fried. Mayeri, Berolini\nAo. 1716, publice distracta deprehensum et a Principe Eugenio de\nSabaudio 80 Imperialibus redemptum fuit. (forty-three pages.) The\ngreater part of the real book in thirty-one paragraphs, the ending\nof which is Communes namque demonstrationes, quae publicantur,\nnec certae, nec evidentes, sunt, et res dubias per alias saepe\nmagias dubias probant, adeo ut exemplo eorum, qui circulum currunt,\nad terminum semper redeant, a quo currere inceperunt. Finis. [3] A\nGerman translation of this is said to be in existence. 4. According to\na newspaper report of 1716, there also should exist an edition which\nbegins: Quamvis omnium hominem intersit nosse veritatem, rari tamen\nboni illi qui eam norunt, etc., [4] and ends, Qui veritatis amantes\nsunt, multum solatii inde capient, et hi sunt, quibus placere gestimus,\nnil curantes mancipia, quae praejudicia oraculorum--infallibilium\nloco venerantur.\n\n5. Straube in Vienna made a reprint of the edition of 1598 in 1753.\n\n6. A new reprint is contained in a pamphlet edited by C. C. E. Schmid\nand almost entirely confiscated, entitled: Zwei seltene\nantisupernaturalistische manuscripte. Two rare anti-supernaturalistic\nmanuscripts. (Berlin, Krieger in Giessen, 1792.)\n\n7. There recently appeared through W. F. Genthe an edition, De\nimpostura religionum compendium s. liber de tribus impostoribus,\nLeipsic, 1833.\n\n8. Finally, through Gustav Brunet of Bordeaux an edition founded\nupon the text of the 1598 edition was produced with the title, de\nTribus Impostoribus, MDIIC. Latin text collated from the copy of the\nDuke de la Valliere, now in the Imperial Library; [5] enlarged with\ndifferent readings from several manuscripts, etc., and philologic and\nbibliographical notes by Philomneste Junior, Paris, 1861 (?1867). Only\n237 copies printed, and is out of print and rare.\n\n9. An Italian translation of the same appeared in 1864 by Daelli in\nMilan with title as above.\n\n10. A Spanish edition also exists taken from the same source and\nunder the same title. London (Burdeos) 1823.\n\nNote. All the preceding Bibliography is from the edition of Emil\nWeller, Heilbronn 1876.--A. N.\n\nThe only edition known to have been printed in the United States\nwas entitled \"The Three Impostors.\" Translated (with notes and\nillustrations) from the French edition of the work, published at\nAmsterdam, 1776. Republished by G. Vale, Beacon Office, 3 Franklin\nSquare, New York, 1846, 84pp. 12o. A copy is in the Congressional\nLibrary at Washington.\n\nFrom this I transcribe the following notes:\n\n\n\n\nNOTE BY THE AMERICAN PUBLISHER.\n\nWe publish this valuable work, for the reasons contained in the\nfollowing Note, of which we approve:\n\n\n\n\nNOTE BY THE BRITISH PUBLISHER.\n\nThe following little book I present to the reader without any remarks\non the different opinions relative to its antiquity; as the subject is\namply discussed in the body of the work, and constitutes one of its\nmost interesting and attractive features. The Edition from which the\npresent is translated was brought me from Paris by a distinguished\ndefender of Civil and Religious Liberty: and as my friend had an\nanxiety from a thorough conviction of its interest and value, to\nsee it published in the English Language, I have from like feelings\nbrought it before the public, and I am convinced that it is eminently\ncalculated to promote the cause of Freedom, Justice and Morality.\n\n\n    J. Myles.\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 humani me alienum puto.\"\n\n\nDundee, September 1844.\n\n\n\n\nThe Vale production is evidently translated from an edition derived\nfrom the Latin manuscript which is the basis of the translation\ngiven in this volume. The variations in the text of each not being\nimportant, but simply due to the different modes of expression of\nthe translators--the ideas conveyed being the same.\n\nThe Treatise in Vale's edition concludes with the following:\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 Virgil. Georgics Book II, l. 700.\n\n\n\nThere is also in the Library of Congress a volume entitled\n\"Trait\u00e9 des Trois Imposteurs.\" En Suisse de l'imprimerie\nphilosophique--1793. Boards 3 1/2 \u00d7 5 3/4 inches, containing the\nTreatise proper 112 pp. Sentimens sur le traite des trois imposteurs,\n(De la Monnaye) 32 pp. Response a la dissertation de M. de la Monnaye\n19 pp. signed J. L. R. L. and dated at Leyden 1 Jan., 1716, to which\nthis note is appended: \"This letter is from Sieur Pierre Frederic\nArpe, of Kiel, in Holstein, author of the apology of Vanini, printed\nat Rotterdam in 8o, 1712.\" The letter contains the account of the\ndiscovery of the original Latin manuscript at Frankfort-on-the-Main,\nin substance much the same as the translation given in this edition.\n\nIn the copy at the Congressional Library, I find the following\nmanuscript notes which may be rendered as follows: \"Voltaire doubted\nthe existence of this work, this was in 1767. See his letter to his\nHighness Monseigneur The Prince of ----. Letter V, Vol. 48 of his\nworks, p. 312.\"\n\nSee Barbier Dict. des ouv. anon. Nos. 18250, 19060, 21612.\n\nDe Tribus Impostoribus. Anon.\n\nL'esprit de Spinosa trad. du latin par Vroes.\n\nIn connection with this latter note, and observing the name written at\nend of the colophon of the manuscript from which the present edition\nis translated, it is probable that this same Vroese was the author\nof another translation.\n\nAnother remarkable copy is contained in the Library of Congress,\nthe title page of which is displayed as follows:\n\n\n\n                                TRAIT\u00c9\n                                  DES\n                            TROIS IMPOSTEURS\n                                  DES\n                          RELIGIONS DOMINANTES\n                              ET DU CULTE\n                d'apres l'analyse conforme \u00e0 l'histoire.\n\n                               CONTENANT\n\n   nombre d'observations morales, analogues \u00e0 celles mises \u00e0 l'ordre\n     du jour, pour l'affermissement de la R\u00e9publique, sa gloire, et\n              l'\u00e9dification des peuples de tous les pays.\n\n                        ORN\u00c9 DE TROIS GRAVURES.\n\n                             \u00c0 PHILADELPHIE\n                 sous l'auspices du g\u00e9n\u00e9ral WASHINGTHON\n                              ET SE TROUVE\n A PARIS chez le citoyen MERCIER, homme de lettres, rue du Cocq Honor\u00e9,\n                                No. 120,\n              LONDON, at M. Miller, libryre, Boon Street,\n                              PICCADELLY.\n\n                              M.DCC.XCVI.\n\n\nNote.--This edition has undoubtedly been translated from the original\nLatin manuscript.--A. N.\n\nTranslation. Treatise of the Three Impostors of the governing Religions\nand worship, after an examination conformable to history, containing\na number of moral observations, analogous to those placed in the\norder of the day for the support of the republic, its glory, and the\nedification of the people of all countries. Ornamented with three\nengravings. At Philadelphia under the auspices of General Washington,\nand may be found at Paris at the house of Citizen Mercier (Claude\nFrancois Xavier [6]), man of letters, 120 Cocq Honor\u00e9 street, and at\nLondon at Mr. Miller's, bookseller, Boon street, Piccadelly, 1796.\n\nOn the following page may be found the following:\n\n\n                               LE PEUPLE\n                                FRAN\u00c7AIS\n                               RECONNANT\n                             L'\u00caTRE SUPR\u00caME\n                         L'IMMORTALIT\u00c9 DE L'AME\n                        ET LA LIBERT\u00c9 DES CULTES\n                                 ---- [7]\n\n                                TRAIT\u00c9\n                                  DES\n                        Religions Dominantes [8]\n\n          Chapter      I.  Concerning God,    6   paragraphs.\n          Chapter     II.  Reasons, etc.,    11   paragraphs.\n          Chapter    III.  Religious,         9   paragraphs.\n\n           \"Les pr\u00eatres ne sont pas ce qu'un vain peuple pense\n            Notre cr\u00e9dulit\u00e9 fait toute leur science.\"\n\n            Priests are not what vain people think,\n            Our credulity makes all their science.\n\n          Chapter     IV.  Moses,             2   paragraphs.\n          Chapter      V.  Jesus Christ,     10   paragraphs.\n\n            Paragraph 2. Politics; paragraph 6. Morals.\n\n          Chapter     VI.  Mahomet,           2   paragraphs.\n          Chapter    VII.  Evident Truths,    6   paragraphs.\n          Chapter   VIII.  The Soul,          7   paragraphs.\n          Chapter     IX.  Demons,            7   paragraphs.\n\n\nFacing page twenty-seven is a medallion copper plate of Moses, around\nwhich are these words (translated): \"Moses saw God in the burning\nbush,\" and beneath the following from Voltaire's Pucelle (translated):\n\n\n    Alone on the summit of the mysterious mount\n    As he desired, he closed his fortieth year.\n    Then suddenly he appeared upon the plain\n    With buck's horns [9] shining on his forehead.\n    Which brilliant miracle in the mind of the philosopher\n    Created a prompt effect.\"\n\n\nIn a note to par. II. occur the following lines which translated read:\n\n\n    \"How many changes a revolution makes:\n    Heaven has brought us forth in happy time\n    To see the world----Here the weak Italian\n    Is frightened at the sight of a stole:\n    The proud Frenchman astonished at nothing\n    Boldly goes to defy the Pope at his capital\n    And the grand Turk in turban, like a good Christian,\n    Recites the prayers of his faith\n    And prays to God for the pagan Arab,\n    Having no thought of any kind of expedient\n    Nor means to destroy altars and idol worship.\n    The Supreme Being his only and sole support,\n    Does not exact for offering a single coin\n    From any sect, from Jew nor plebeian:\n    What need has He of Temple or archbishop?\n    The heart of the just and the general good\n    Shines like a brilliant sun on the halo of glory.\"\n\n\nThen follows a \"Bouquet for the Pope\":\n\n\n    \"Thou whom flatterers have invested with a vain title,\n    Shalt thou at this late day become the arbiter of Europe?\n    Charitable pontiff, and friend of humanity,\n    Having so many sovereigns as fathers of families,\n    The successors of Christ, in the midst of the sanctuary\n    Have they not placed unblushingly, incest and adultery?\n    Be this the last of imposture and thy last sigh.\n    Do thyself more honor, esteem and pleasure,\n    Than all the monuments erected to the glory\n    Of thy predecessors in the temple of memory.\n    Let them read on thy tomb 'he was worthy of love,\n    The father of the Church and oracle of the day.'\"\n\n\nOn the following page is a copper plate profile portrait of Pius\nVI. surrounded by the words \"Senatus Populus Que Romanus.\" At\nthe side Principis Ecclesiae dotes vis Cernere Magni. (Senate and\nPeople of Rome--Prince of the Church endowed with power and great\nwisdom.) Beneath:\n\n\n    \"The talents of the learned and the virtues of the wise,\n    A noble and beneficent manner with which all are charmed,\n    Depict much better than this image\n    The true portrait of Pius VI.\"\n\n\nFacing page fifty-one is a copper plate portrait of Mahomet, and\nbeneath this tribute:\n\n\n    \"Know you not yet, weak and superb man,\n    That the humble insect hidden beneath a leaf\n    And the imperious eagle who flies to heaven's dome,\n    Amount to nothing in the eyes of the Eternal.\n    All men are equal: not birth but virtue\n    Distinguishes them apart.\"\n\n\nThen there are inserted a number of verses, some of the titles reading:\n\n\n    \"Homage to the Supreme Being.\"\n    \"Voltaire Admitted to Heaven.\"\n    \"Homage to the Eternal Father.\"\n    \"Bouquet to the Archbishop of Paris.\"\n    \"Infinite Mercy--Consolation for Sinners.\"\n    \"Lots of Room in Heaven.\"\n    \"The Holy Spirit Absent from Heaven,\" etc.\n\n\nConcluding with \"A Picture of France at the Time of the Revolution.\"\n\n\n    \"Nobility without souls, a fanatical clergy.\n    Frightful tax gatherers gnawing a plucked people.\n    Faith and customs a prey to designing persons.\n    A price set upon the head of the Chancellor (Maupeou).\n    The skeleton of a perfidious Senate.\n    Not daring to punish a parricidal conspiracy.\n    O, my country! O, France! Thy miseries\n    Have even drawn tears from Rome. [10]\n    If you have no Republic, and no pure legislators\n    Like exist in America, to deliver you from the oppression\n    Of a tyrannous empire of knaves, brigands and robbers;\n    Like the British cabinet and the skillful Pitt, chief of\n                                                             flatterers,\n    Who with his magic lantern fascinates even the wise ones.\n    This clique will soon be seen to fall, if the French become the\n                                                              conquerors\n    Of this ancient slavery, and show themselves the proud protectors\n    Of their musical Carmagnole.\n    In the name of kings and emperors, how much iniquity and horror\n    Which are recorded in history, cause the reader to shudder with\n                                                                 fright.\n    The entrance of friends in Belgium, to the eyes of those who know,\n    Is it not an unique epoch?\n    And this most flattering tie, sustained by a heroic compact,\n    Will be the desire of all hearts.\"\n\n\n\u00c0 BOSTON\n\nunder the protection of Congress.\n\n\nBound in this volume is a pamphlet entitled \"La Fable de\nChrist devoil\u00e9e.\" Paris: Franklin Press. 75 Rue de Clery. 2nd\nyear of the Republic. Also, \"\u00c9loge non-fun\u00e8bre de Jesus et du\nChristianisme. Printed on the d\u00e9bris of the Bastille, and the funeral\npile of the Inquisition. 2nd year of Liberty, and of Christ 1791.\"\n\nAnother closes the volume: \"Lettres Philosophique sur St. Paul: sur sa\ndoctrine, politique, morale, & r\u00e9ligieuse, & sur plusieurs points de\nla r\u00e9ligion chr\u00e9tienne consider\u00e9es politiquement.\" (J. P. Brissot de\nWarville.) Translated from the English by the philosopher de Ferney\nand found in the portfolio of M. V. his ancient secretary. Neuchatel\nen Suisse 1783.\n\nNote translated from the edition \"En Suisse, de l'imprimerie\nphilosophique,\" 1793.\n\nIn a response to M. de la Monnoye, who laboriously endeavored to\nrefute the existence of the treatise entitled \"The Three Impostors,\"\nand which reply in addition to M. de la Monnoye's arguments appear in\nconnection with some of the translations of the treatise, occurs the\nfollowing introduction to the account of the discovery of the original\nmanuscript: \"I have by me a more certain means of overturning this\ndissertation of M. de la Monnoye, when I inform him that I have read\nthis celebrated little work and that I have it in my library. I will\ngive you and the public an account of the manner in which I discovered\nit, and as it is in my possession I will subjoin a short but faithful\ndescription of it.\"\n\nHere follows a summary of the contents and the Dissertation, in\nsubstance the same as our manuscript; the response concluding as\nfollows:\n\n\"Such is the anatomy of this celebrated work. I might have given it in\na manner more extended and more minute; but besides that this letter\nis already too long, I think that enough has been said to give insight\ninto the nature of its contents. A thousand other reasons which you\nwill well enough understand, have prevented me from entering upon it\nto so great length as I could have done; \"Est modus in rebus.\" [11]\n\n\"Now although this book were ready to be printed [12] 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 at\nits conclusion, yet I do not believe that it will live to see the day\nwhen men will be compelled all at once to quit their opinions and their\nimaginations, as they have quitted their syllogisms, their canons,\nand their other antiquated modes. As for me I will not expose myself\nto the Theological stylus [13]--which I fear as much as Fra-Poula\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 cause it to be thrown into the flames, which\nwe are informed was done by Salvius, the Swedish ambassador, at the\npeace of Munster. Those who come after me may do what seems to them\ngood--they can not disturb me in the tomb. Before I descend to that,\nI remain with much respect, your most obedient servant,\n\n\n    J. L. R. L.\n\n    \"Leyden, 1st January, 1716.\"\n\n\nThis letter was written by Mr. 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\n\nDISSERTATION ON THE BOOK OF THE THREE IMPOSTORS.\n\n\nMore than four hundred years have elapsed since this little treatise\nwas first mentioned, the title of which has always caused it to be\nqualified as impious, profane and worthy of the fire. I am convinced\nthat none of those who have mentioned it have read it, and after\nhaving examined it carefully, it can only be said that it is written\nwith as much discretion as the matter would allow to a man persuaded\nof the falsehood of the things which he attacked, and protected by\na powerful prince, under whose direction he wrote.\n\nThere have been but few scholars whose religious beliefs were dubious,\nwho have not been credited with the authorship of this treatise.\n\nAverroes, a famous Arabian commentator on Aristotle's works, and\ncelebrated for his learning, was the first to whom this production was\nattributed. He lived about the middle of the twelfth century when the\n\"three impostors\" were first spoken of. He was not a Christian, as he\ntreated their religion as \"the Impossible,\" nor a Jew, whose law he\ncalled \"a Religion for Children,\" nor a Mahometan, for he denominated\ntheir belief \"a Religion for Hogs.\" He finally died a Philosopher,\nthat is to say, without having subscribed to the opinions of the\nvulgar, and that was sufficient to publish him as the enemy of the\nlaw makers of the three Religions that he had scorned.\n\nJean Bocala, an Italian scholar of a happy disposition, and\nconsequently not much imbued with bigotry, flourished in the middle\nof the fourteenth century. A fable that he ventured in one of his\nworks, concerning \"Three Rings,\" has been regarded as evidence of this\nexecrable book whose author was looked for, and this was considered\nsufficient to attribute the authorship to him long after his death.\n\nMichael Servetus, burned at Geneva (1553) by the pitiless persecution\nof Mr. John Calvin, he not having subscribed to either the Trinity\nor the Redeemer, it became proper to attribute to him the production\nof this impious volume.\n\nEtienne Dolit, a printer at Paris, and who ranked among the learned,\nwas led to the stake--to which he had been condemned as a Calvinist\nin 1543--with a courage comparable to that of the first martyrs. He\ntherefore merited to be treated as an atheist, and was honored as\nthe author of the pamphlet against the \"Three Impostors.\"\n\nLucilio Vanini, a Neapolitan, and the most noted atheist of his\ntime, if his enemies may be believed, fairly proved before his\njudges--however he may have been convinced--the truth of a Providence,\nand consequently a God. It sufficed however for the persecution of his\nenemies, the Parliament of Toulouse, who condemned him to be burned\nas an atheist, and also to merit the distinction of having composed,\nor at least having revived, the book in question.\n\nI am not sure but what Ochini and Postel, Pomponiac and Poggio the\nFlorentine, and Campanella, all celebrated for some particular opinion\ncondemned by the Church of their time, were for that reason accused\nas atheists, and also adjudged without trouble, the authors of the\nlittle truth for whom a parent was sought.\n\nAll that famous critics have published from time to time of this\nbook has excited the curiosity of the great and wise to determine\nthe author, but without avail.\n\nI believe that several treatises printed with the title \"de Tribus\nImpostoribus,\" such as that of Kortholt against Spinosa, Hobbes and the\nBaron Cherbourg; that of the false Panurge against Messieurs Gastardi,\nde Neure and Bernier have furnished many opportunities for an infinity\nof half-scholars who only speak from hearsay, and who often judge\na book by the first line of the title. I have, like many others who\nhave examined this work, done so in a superficial manner. Though I\nam a delver in antiquities, and a decipherer of manuscript, chance\nhaving caused the pamphlet to fall into my hands at one time, I avow\nthat I gave neither thought to the production nor to its author.\n\nSome business affairs having taken me to Frankfort-on-the-Main about\nthe month of April, (1706), that is about fifteen days after the Fair,\nI called on a friend named Frecht, a Lutheran theological student, whom\nI had known in Paris. One day I went to his house to ask him to take\nme to a bookseller where he could serve me as interpreter. We called\non the way on a Jew who furnished me with money and who accompanied us.\n\nBeing engaged in looking over a catalog at the book store, a German\nofficer entered the shop, and said to the bookseller without any form\nof compliment, \"If among all the devils I could find one to agree with\nyou, I would still go and look for another dealer.\" The bookseller\nreplied that \"500 Rix dollars was an excessive price, and that he\nought to be satisfied with the 450 that he offered.\" The officer\ntold him to \"go to the Devil,\" as he would do nothing of the sort,\nand was about to leave. Frecht, who recognized him as a friend,\nstopped him and having renewed his acquaintance, was curious to\nknow what bargain he had concluded with the bookseller. The officer\ncarelessly drew from his pocket a packet of parchment tied by a cord\nof yellow silk. \"I wanted,\" said he, \"500 Rix dollars to satisfy me\nfor three manuscripts which are in this package, but Mr. Bookseller\ndoes not wish to give but 450.\" Frecht asked if he might see the\ncuriosities. The officer took them from his pocket, and the Jew\nand myself who had been merely spectators now became interested,\nand approached Frecht, who held the three books.\n\nThe first which Frecht opened was an Italian imprint of which the title\nwas missing, and was supplied by another written by hand which read\n\n\"Specchia della Bestia Triomphante.\" The book did not appear of\nancient date, and had on the title neither year nor name of printer.\n\nWe passed to the second, which was a manuscript without title,\nthe first page of which commenced \"OTHONI illustrissimo amico meo\ncharissimo. F. I. s. d.\" This embraced but two lines, after which\nfollowed a letter of which the commencement was \"Quod de tribus\nfamosissimis Nationum Deceptoribus in ordinem. Justu. meo digesti\nDoctissimus ille vir, que cum Sermonem de illa re in Museo meo\nhabuisti exscribi curavi atque codicem illum stilo aeque, vero ac\npuro scriptum ad te ut primum mitto, etenim ipsius per legendi te\naccipio cupidissimum.\"\n\nThe other manuscript was also Latin, and without title like the\nother. It commenced with these words--from Cicero if I am not mistaken:\n\"An. I. liber de Nat. Deor. Qui Deos esse dixerunt tantu sunt in\nVarietate et dissentione constituti ut eorum molestum sit dinumerare\nsententias. Altidum freri profecto potest ut eorum nulla, alterum\ncerti non potest ut plus unum vera fit. Summi quos in Republica\nobtinnerat honores orator ille Romanus, ea que quam servare famam\nStudiote curabat, in causa fuere quod in Concione Deos non ansus sit\nnegare quamquam in contesta Philosophorum, etc.\"\n\nWe paid but little attention to the Italian production, which only\ninterested our Jew, who assured us that it was an invective against\nReligion. We examined several phrases of the latter by which we\nmutually agreed that it was a system of Demonstrated Atheism. The\nsecond, which we have mentioned, attracted our entire attention, and\nFrecht having persuaded his friend, whose name was Tausendorff, not\nto take less than 500 Rix dollars, we left the bookseller's shop, and\nFrecht, who had his own ideas, took us to his inn, where he proposed\nto his friend to empty a bottle of good wine together. Never did a\nGerman decline a like proposition, so Frecht immediately ordered the\nwine, and asked Tausendorff to tell us how these manuscripts fell\ninto his possession.\n\nAfter enjoying his portion of six bottles of old Moselle, he told\nus that after the victory at Hochstadt [14] and the flight of the\nElector of Bavaria, he was one of those who entered Munich, and\nin the palace of His Highness, he went from room to room until he\nreached the library. Here his eyes fell by chance on the package of\nparchments with the silk cord, and believing them to be important\npapers or curiosities, he could not resist the temptation of putting\nthem in his pocket. He was not deceived when he opened the package and\nconvinced himself. This recital was accompanied by many soldier-like\ndigressions, as the wine had a little disarranged the judgment of\nTausendorff. Frecht, who, during the story, perused the manuscript,\ntook the chance of a refusal by asking his friend to allow him to\ntake the book until the next day. Tausendorff, whom the wine had\nmade generous, consented to the request of Frecht, but he exacted a\nterrible oath that he would neither copy it or cause it to be done,\npromising to come for it on Sunday and empty some more bottles of wine,\nwhich he found to his taste.\n\nThis obliging officer had no sooner left than we commenced to decipher\nit. The writing was so small, full of abbreviations, and without\npunctuation, that we were nearly two hours in reading the first\npage, but as soon as we were accustomed to the method we commenced\nto read it more easily. I found it so accurate and written with so\nmuch care, that I proposed to Frecht an equivocal method of making a\ncopy without violating the oath which he had taken: which method was\nto make a translation. The conscience of a theologian did not but\nfind difficulties in such proposal, but I removed them as I could,\nassuming the sin myself, and in the end he consented to work on the\ntranslation which was finished before the time fixed by Tausendorff.\n\nThis is the way in which this book came into our hands. Many would\nhave desired to possess the original but we were not rich enough to\nbuy it. The bookseller had a commission from a Prince of the House of\nSaxony, who knew that it had been taken from the library at Munich,\nand he was to spare no effort to secure it, if he found it, by paying\nthe 500 Rix dollars to Tausendorff who went away several days after,\nhaving regaled us in his turn.\n\nPassing to the origin of the book, and its author, one can hardly\ngive an account of either only by consulting the book itself in which\nbut little is found except for the base of conjecture. There is only\na letter at the beginning, and which is written in another character\nfrom the rest of the book, which gives any light. We find it addressed\nOTHONI, Illustrissimo. The place where the manuscript was found, and\nthe name OTHO put together warrants the belief that it was addressed\nto the Illustrious Otho, lord of Bavaria. This prince was grandson of\nOtho, the Great; Count of Schiren and Witelspach from whom the House\nof Bavaria and the Palatine had their origin. The Emperor Frederick\nBarbarossa [15] had given him Bavaria for his fidelity, after having\ntaken it from Henry the Lion to punish him for his inconsistency in\ntaking the part of his enemies. Louis I. succeeded his father, Otho\nthe Great, and left Bavaria--in the possession of which he had been\ndisturbed by Henry the Lion--to his son Otho, surnamed the Illustrious,\nwho assured his possession by wedding the daughter of Henry. This\nhappened about the year 1230, when Frederick II., Emperor of Germany,\nreturned from Jerusalem, where, at the solicitation of Pope Gregory\nIX., he had pursued the war against the Saracens, and from whence he\nreturned irritated to excess against the Holy Father who had incensed\nhis army against him, as well as the Templars and the Patriarch of\nJerusalem, until the Emperor refused to obey the Pope.\n\nOtho the Illustrious recognizing the obligations that his family were\nunder to the family of the Emperor, took his part and remained firmly\nattached to him, notwithstanding all the vicissitudes of fortune\nof Frederick.\n\nWhy these historical reminiscences? To sustain the conjecture that\nit was to this Otho the Illustrious that this copy of the pamphlet\nof the Three Impostors was addressed. By whom? This is why we are led\nto believe that the F. I. s. d. which follows L'amico meo carissimo,\nand which we interpret FREDERICUS. Imperator salutem Domino. Thus\nthis would be by The Emperor Frederick II., son of Henry IV. and\ngrandson of Frederick Barbarossa, who, succeeding to their Empire,\nhad at the same time inherited the hatred of the Roman Pontiffs. [16]\n\nThose who have read the history of the Church and that of the Empire,\nwill recall with what pride and arrogance the indolent Alexander\nIII. placed his foot on the neck of Frederick Barbarossa, who came to\nhim to sue for peace. Who does not know the evil that the Holy See\ndid to his son Henry VI., against whom his own wife took up arms at\nthe persuasion of the Pope? At last Frederick II. uniting in himself\nall the resolution which was wanting in his father and grandfather,\nsaw the purpose of Gregory IX., who seemed to have marshalled on\nhis side all the hatred of Alexander, Innocent and Honorius against\nhis Imperial Majesty. One brought the steel of persecution, and the\nother the lightning of excommunication, and furiously they vied with\neach other in circulating infamous libels. This, it seems to me, is\nwarrant sufficient to apply these happenings to the belief that this\nbook was by order of the Emperor, who was incensed against religion\nby the vices of its Chief, and written by the Doctissimus vir, who is\nmentioned in the letter as having composed this treatise, and which\nconsequently owes its existence not so much to a search for truth,\nas to a spirit of hatred and implacable animosity.\n\nThis conjecture may be further confirmed by remarking that this book\nwas never mentioned only since the r\u00e9gime of that Emperor, and even\nduring his reign it was attributed him, since Pierre des Vignes, his\nsecretary, endeavored to cast this false impression on the enemies\nof his master, saying that they circulated it to render him odious.\n\nNow to determine the Doctissimus vir who is the author of the book\nin question. First, it is certain that the epoch of the book was that\nwhich we have endeavored to prove. Second, that it was encouraged by\nthose accused of its authorship, possibly excepting Averroes, who\ndied before the birth of Frederick II. All the others lived a long\ntime, even entire centuries after the composition of this work. I\nadmit that it is difficult to determine the author only by marking\nthe period when the book first made its appearance, and in whatever\ndirection I turn, I find no one to whom it could more probably be\nattributed than Pierre des Vignes whom I have mentioned.\n\nIf we had not his tract \"De poteste Imperiali,\" his other epistles\nsuffice to show with what zeal he entered into the resentment of\nFrederick II. (whose Secretary he was) against the Holy See. Those\nwho have spoken of him, Ligonius, Trithemus and Rainaldi, furnish\nsuch an accurate description of him, his condition and his spirit,\nthat after considering this I cannot remark but that this evidence\nfavors my conjecture. Again, as I have remarked, he himself spoke of\nthis book in his epistles, and he endeavored to accuse the enemies\nof his master to lessen the clamor made to encourage the belief that\nthis Prince was the author. As he had taken the greater part, he\ndid not greatly exert himself to lessen the injurious noise, so that\nif the accusation was strengthened by passing for a long time from\nmouth to mouth it would not fall from the Master on his Secretary,\nwho was probably more capable of the production than a great Emperor,\nalways occupied with the clamors of war and always in fear of the\nthunders of the Vatican. In one word, the Emperor, however valiant\nand resolute, had no time to become a scholar like Pierre des Vignes,\nwho had given all the necessary attention to his studies, and who owed\nhis position and the affection of his Master entirely to his learning.\n\nI believe that we can conclude from all this, that this little book\nTribus famosissimus Nationum Deceptoribus, for that is its true title,\nwas composed after the year 1230 by command of the Emperor Frederick\nII. in hatred of the Court of Rome: and it is quite apparent that\nPierre des Vignes, Secretary to the Emperor, was the author. [17]\n\nThis is all that I deem proper for a preface to this little treatise,\nand as it contains many naughty allusions, to prevent that in the\nfuture, it may not be again attributed to those who perhaps never\nentertained such ideas.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n    Frederick Emperor\n        to the very Illustrious Otho\n            my very faithful Friend,\n                Greeting:\n\n\nI have taken the trouble to have copied the Treatise which was made\nconcerning the Three Famous Impostors, by the learned man by whom\nyou were entertained on this subject, in my study, and though you\nhave not requested it, I send you the manuscript entire, in which\nthe purity of style equals the truth of the matter, for I know with\nwhat interest you desired to read it, and also I am persuaded that\nnothing could please you more.\n\nIt is not the first time that I have overcome my cruel enemies, and\nplaced my foot on the neck of the Roman Hydra whose skin is not more\nred than the blood of the millions of men that its fury has sacrificed\nto its abominable arrogance.\n\nBe assured that I will neglect nothing to have you understand that I\nwill either triumph or perish in the attempt; for whatever reverses\nmay happen to me, I will not, like my predecessors, bend my knee\nbefore them.\n\nI hope that my sword, and the fidelity of the members of the Empire;\nyour advice and your assistance will contribute not a little. But\nnothing would add more if all Germany could be inspired with the\nsentiments of the Doctor--the author of this book. This is much to be\ndesired, but where are those capable of accomplishing such a project? I\nrecommend to you our common interests, live happy. I shall always be\nyour friend.\n\n\n        F. I.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTREATISE OF THE THREE IMPOSTORS. [18]\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nOf God.\n\n\nI.\n\nHowever important it may be for all men to know the Truth, very\nfew, nevertheless, are acquainted with it, because the majority are\nincapable of searching it themselves, or perhaps, do not wish the\ntrouble. Thus we must not be astonished if the world is filled with\nvain and ridiculous opinions, and nothing is more capable of making\nthem current than ignorance, which is the sole source of the false\nideas that exist regarding the Divinity, the soul, and the spirit,\nand all the errors depending thereon.\n\nThe custom of being satisfied with born prejudice has prevailed, and\nby following this custom, mankind agrees in all things with persons\ninterested in supporting stubbornly the opinions thus received,\nand who would speak otherwise did they not fear to destroy themselves.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nWhat renders the evil without remedy, is, that after having established\nthese silly ideas of God, they teach the people to receive them without\nexamination. They take great care to impress them with aversion for\nphilosophers, fearing that the Truth which they teach will alienate\nthem. The errors in which the partisans of these absurdities have been\nplunged, have thrived so well that it is dangerous to combat them. It\nis too important for these impostors that the people remain in this\ngross and culpable ignorance than to allow them to be disabused. Thus\nthey are constrained to disguise the truth, or to be sacrificed to\nthe rage of false prophets and selfish souls.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nIf the people could comprehend the abyss in which this ignorance\ncasts them, they would doubtless throw off the yoke of these venal\nminds, since it is impossible for Reason to act without immediately\ndiscovering the Truth. It is to prevent the good effects that would\ncertainly follow, that they depict it as a monster incapable of\ninspiring any good sentiment, and however we may censure in general\nthose who are not reasonable, we must nevertheless be persuaded that\nTruth is quite perverted. These enemies of Truth fall also into such\nperpetual contradictions that it is difficult to perceive what their\nreal pretensions are. In the meanwhile it is true that Common Sense\nis the only rule that men should follow, and the world should not be\nprevented from making use of it.\n\nWe may try to persuade, but those who are appointed to instruct,\nshould endeavor to rectify false reasoning and efface prejudices,\nthen will the people open their eyes gradually until they become\nsusceptible of Truth, and learn that God is not all that they imagine.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nTo accomplish this, wild speculation is not necessary, neither is it\nrequired to deeply penetrate the secrets of Nature. Only a little good\nsense is needed to see that God is neither passionate nor jealous,\nthat justice and mercy are false titles attributed to him, and that\nnothing of what the Prophets and Apostles have said constitutes his\nnature nor his essence. In effect, to speak without disguise and\nto state the case properly, it is certain that these doctors were\nneither more clever or better informed than the rest of mankind, but\nfar from that, what they say is so gross that it must be the people\nonly who would believe them.\n\nThe matter is self-evident, but to make it more clear, let us see if\nthey are differently constituted than other men.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nAs to their birth and the ordinary functions of life, it is agreed\nthat they possessed nothing above the human; that they were born\nof man and woman and lived the same as ourselves. But for mind, it\nmust be that God favored them more than other men, for they claimed\nan understanding more brilliant than others. We must admit that\nmankind has a leaning toward blindness, because it is said that God\nloved the prophets more than the rest of mankind, that he frequently\ncommunicated with them, and he believed them also of good faith. Now\nif this condition was sensible, and without considering that all men\nresembled each other, and that they each had a principle equal in all,\nit was pretended that these prophets were of extraordinary attainments\nand were created expressly to utter the oracles of God. But further,\nif they had more wit than common, and more perfect understanding, what\ndo we find in their writings to oblige us to have this opinion of them?\n\nThe greater part of their writings is so obscure that it is not\nunderstood, and put together in such a poor manner that we can hardly\nbelieve that they comprehended it themselves, and that they must have\nbeen very ignorant impostors. That which causes this belief of them\nis that they boasted of receiving directly from God all that they\nannounced to the people--an absurd and ridiculous belief--and avowing\nthat God only spoke to them in dreams. Dreams are quite natural, and\na person must be quite vain or senseless to boast that God speaks to\nhim at such a time, and when faith is added, he must be quite credulous\nsince there is no evidence that dreams are oracles. Suppose even that\nGod manifested himself by dreams, by visions, or in any other way,\nare we obliged to believe a man who may deceive himself, and which\nis worse, who is inclined to lie?\n\nNow we see that under the ancient law they had for prophets none more\nesteemed than at the present day. Then when the people were tired of\ntheir sophistry, which often tended to turn them from obedience to\ntheir legitimate Ruler, they restrained them by various punishments,\njust as Jesus was overwhelmed because he had not, like Moses,\n[19] an army at his back to sustain his opinions. Added to that,\nthe Prophets were so in the habit of contradicting each other that\namong four hundred not one reliable one was to be found. [20]\n\nIt is even certain that the aim of their prophecies, as well as\nthe laws of the celebrated legislators were to perpetuate their\nmemories by causing mankind to believe that they had private\nconference with God. Most political objects have been projected in\nsuch manner. However, such tricks have not always been successful\nfor those, who--with the exception of Moses--had not the means of\nproviding for their safety.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nThis being determined, let us examine the ideas which the Prophets had\nof God, and we will smile at their grossness and contradictions. To\nbelieve them, God is a purely corporeal being. Micah sees him\nseated. Daniel clothed in white and in the form of an old man,\nand Ezekiel like a fire. So much for the Old Testament, now for the\nNew. The disciples of J. C. imagined the Holy Spirit in the figure of\na dove; the apostles, in the form of tongues of fire, and St. Paul,\nas a light which dazzled the sight unto blindness.\n\nTo show their contradictory opinions, Samuel, (I. ch. 15, v. 29),\nbelieved that God never repented of his own resolution. Again,\nJeremiah, (ch. 18, v. 10), says that God repented of a resolve he had\ntaken. Joel, (ch. 2, v. 13), says that he only repents of the evil\nhe has done to mankind. Genesis, (ch. 4, v. 7), informs us that man\nis prone to evil, but that He has nothing for him but blessings. On\nthe contrary, St. Paul, (Romans, ch. 9, v. 10), says that men have no\ncommand of concupiscence except by the grace and particular calling\nof God. These are the noble sentiments that these good people have of\nGod, and what they would have us believe. Sentiments, however, entirely\nsensible, and quite material as we see, and yet they say that God has\nnothing in common with matter, is a sensible and material being, and\nthat he is something incomprehensible to our understanding. I should\nlike to be informed how these contradictions may be harmonized,\nand how, under such visible and palpable conditions it is proper\nto believe them. Again, how can we accept the testimony of a people\nso clownish that they, notwithstanding all the artifices of Moses,\nshould imagine a calf to be their God! But not considering the dreams\nof a race raised in servitude, and among the superstitious, we can\nagree that ignorance has produced credulity, and credulity falsehood,\nfrom whence arises all the errors which exist today.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nReasons which have caused mankind to Create for themselves an Invisible\nBeing which has been commonly Called God.\n\n\nI.\n\nThose who ignore physical causes have a natural fear born of\ndoubt. Where there exists a power which to them is dark or unseen, from\nthence comes a desire to pretend the existence of invisible Beings,\nthat is to say their own phantoms which they invoke in adversity, whom\nthey praise in prosperity, and of whom in the end they make Gods. And\nas the visions of men go to extremes, must we be astonished if there\nare created an innumerable quantity of Divinities? It is the same\nperceptible fear of invisible powers which has been the origin of\nReligions, that each forms to his fashion. Many individuals to whom\nit was important that mankind should possess such fancies, have not\nscrupled to encourage mankind in such beliefs, and they have made it\ntheir law until they have prevailed upon the people to blindly obey\nthem by the fear of the future.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nThe Gods having thus been invented, it is easy to imagine that they\nresembled man, and who, like them, created everything for some purpose,\nfor they unanimously agree that God has made nothing except for man,\nand reciprocally that man is made only for God. [21] This conclusion\nbeing general, we can see why man has so thoroughly accepted it, and\nknow for that reason that they have taken occasion to create false\nideas of good and evil, merit and sin, praise and blame, order and\nconfusion, beauty and deformity--and similar qualities.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nIt should be agreed that all men are born in profound ignorance, and\nthat the only thing natural to them is a desire to discover what may be\nuseful and proper, and evade what may be inexpedient to them. Thence\nit follows first, that we believe that to be free it suffices to\nfeel personally that one can wish and desire without being annoyed\nby the causes which dispose us to wish and desire, because we do not\nknow them. Second, it consequently occurs that men are contented\nto do nothing but for one object, that is to say, for that object\nwhich is preferable above all, and that is why they have a desire\nonly to know the final result of their action, imagining that after\ndiscovering this they have no reason to doubt anything. Now as they\nfind in and about themselves many means of procuring what they desire:\nhaving, for example, ears to hear, eyes to see, animals to nourish,\na sun to give light, they have formed this reasoning, that there is\nnothing in nature which was not made for them, and of which they may\ndispose and enjoy. Then reflecting that they did not make this world,\nthey believe it to be a well-founded proposition to imagine a Supreme\nBeing who has made it for them such as it is, for after satisfying\nthemselves that they could not have made it, they conclude that it\nwas the work of one or several Gods who intended it for the use and\npleasure of man alone. On the other hand, the nature of the Gods\nwhom man has admitted, being unknown, they have concluded in their\nown minds that these Gods susceptible of the same passions as men,\nhave made the earth only for them, and that man to them was extremely\nprecious. But as each one has different inclinations it became proper\nto adore God according to the humor of each, to attract his blessings\nand to cause Him to make all Nature subject to his desires.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nBy this method this precedent becomes Superstition, and it is implanted\nso that the grossest natures are believed capable of penetrating\nthe doctrine of final causes as if they had perfect knowledge. Thus\nin place of showing that nature has made nothing in vain, they show\nthat God and Nature dream as well as men, and that they may not be\naccused of doubting things, let us see how they have put forth their\nfalse reasoning on this subject.\n\nExperience causing them to see a myriad of inconveniences marring the\npleasure of life, such as storms, earthquakes, sickness, famine and\nthirst, they draw the conclusion that nature has not been made for\nthem alone. They attribute all these evils to the wrath of the Gods,\nwho are vexed by the offences of man, and they cannot be disabused\nof these ideas by the daily instances which should prove to them that\nblessings and evils have been always common to the wicked and the good,\nand they will not agree to a proposition so plain and perceptible.\n\nThe reason for that is, it is more easy to remain in ignorance than\nto abolish a belief established for many centuries and introduce\nsomething more probable.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nThis precedent has caused another, which is the belief that the\njudgments of God were incomprehensible, and that for this reason,\nthe knowledge of truth is beyond the human mind; and mankind would\nstill dwell in error were it not that mathematics and several other\nsciences had destroyed these prejudices.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nBy this it may be seen that Nature or God does not propose any end,\nand that all final causes are but human fictions. A long lecture is\nnot necessary since this doctrine takes away from God the perfection\nascribed to him, and this is how it may be proved. If God acted for\na result, either for himself or another, he desires what he has\nnot, and we must allow that there are times when God has not the\nwherewith to act; he has merely desired it and that only creates an\nimpotent God. To omit nothing that may be applied to this reasoning,\nlet us oppose it with those of a contrary nature. If, for example,\na stone falls on a person and kills him, it is well known they say,\nthat the stone fell with the design of killing the man, and that\ncould only happen by the will of God. If you reply that the wind\ncaused the stone to drop at the moment the man passed, they will\nask why the man should have passed precisely at the time when the\nwind moved the stone. If you say that the wind was so severe that\nthe sea was also troubled since the day before while there appeared\nto be no agitation in the air, and the man having been invited to\ndine with a friend, went to keep his appointment. Again they ask,\nfor the man never got there, why he should be the guest of his friend\nat this time more than another, adding questions after questions,\nfinally avowing that it was but the will of God, (which is a true\n\"asses bridge\") and the cause of this misfortune.\n\nAgain when they note the symmetry of the human body, they stand in\nadmiration and conclude how ignorant they are of the causes of a thing\nwhich to them appears so marvelous, that it is a supernatural work,\nin which the causes known to us could have no part.\n\nThence it comes that those who desire to know the real cause of\nsupposed miracles and penetrate like true scholars into their natural\ncauses without amusing themselves with the prejudice of the ignorant,\nit happens that the true scholar passes for impious and heretical\nby the malice of those whom the vulgar recognize as the expounders\nof Nature and of God. These mercenary individuals do not question\nthe ignorance which holds the people in astonishment, upon whom they\nsubsist and who preserve their credit.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nMankind being thus of the ridiculous opinion that all they see is\nmade for themselves, have made it a religious duty to apply it to\ntheir interest, and of judging the price of things by the profit they\ngain. Thence proceed the ideas they have formed of good, and evil, of\norder and confusion, of heat and cold, of beauty and ugliness, which\nserve to explain to them the nature of things, which in the end are not\nwhat they imagine. Because they pride themselves in having free will\nthey judge themselves capable of deciding between praise and blame, sin\nand merit, calling everything good which redounds to their profit and\nwhich concerns divine worship, and to the contrary denominate as evil\nthat which agrees with neither. Because the ignorant are not capable\nof judging what may be a little abstruse, and having no idea of things\nonly by the aid of imagination which they consider understanding,\nthese folk who know not what represents Order in the world believe\nall that they imagine. Man being inclined in such a manner that\nthey think things well or ill ordered as they have the facility or\ntrouble to conclude when good sense would teach differently. Some\nare more pleased to be weary of the means of investigation, being\nsatisfied to remain as they are, preferring order to confusion, as\nif order was another thing than a pure effect of the imagination of\nman, so that when it is said that God has made everything in order,\nit is recognizing that he has that faculty of imagination as well as\nman. If it was not so, perhaps to favor human imagination they pretend\nthat God created this world in the easiest manner imaginable, although\nthere are an hundred things far above the force of imagination, and\nan infinity which may be thrown into disorder by reason of weakness.\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\nFor other ideas, they are purely the effect of the same imagination,\nwhich have nothing real, and which are but the different modes\nof which this power is capable. For example, if the movement which\nobjects impress upon the nerves by the means of the eyes is agreeable\nto the senses, we say that these objects are beautiful, that odors\nare good or bad, that tastes are sweet or bitter, that which we\ntouch hard or soft, sounds, harsh or agreeable. According as odors,\ntastes or sounds strike and penetrate the senses, just so we find\na belief that God is capable of taking pleasure in melody, that the\ncelestial movements are a harmonious concert, proof evident that each\none believes that things are such as they are imagined, or that the\nworld is purely imaginary. That is why we should not be surprised if\nwe rarely found two men of the same opinion, and some who glorify\nthemselves in doubting everything. For while men have bodies which\nresemble each other in many particulars, they differ in some others,\nand it should not astonish us that what seems good to one appears bad\nto another: what pleases this one displeases the other, from which\nwe may infer that opinions only differ by fancy, that understanding\npasses for little, and to conclude, things which happen every day are\npurely the effects of imagination. If one should consult the lights\nof understanding of philosophers he would have faith that everybody\nwould agree to the truth, and that judgments would be more uniform\nand reasonable than they are.\n\n\n\n\nIX.\n\nIt is then evident that all the reasons of which men are accustomed\nto avail themselves when they endeavor to explain Nature, are only\nmethods of imagination which prove nothing less than they pretend,\nand because they have given to these reasons names so real that if\nthey existed otherwise than in imagination I would not call them\nreasonable beings, but purely chimerical, seeing nothing more easy\nthan to respond to arguments founded on these vulgar notions and\nwhich we oppose as follows.\n\nIf it was true that the universe was a chance happening, and a\nnecessary sequel of divine nature, whence come the imperfections and\nfaults which we remark? For example, corruption which fills the air\nwith bad odor, many disagreeable objects, so many disorders, so much\nevil, so many crimes and other like occurrences. Nothing is more easy\nthan to refute these objections, for one cannot judge of the perfection\nof ancient existence only by knowing its essence and nature, and we\ndeceive ourselves in thinking that a thing is more or less perfect,\nas it pleases or displeases, is useful or useless to human nature;\nand to close the mouths of those who ask why God has not created\nall men without exception that they might be guided by the light\nof reason, it is enough to say that it was because the material was\nnot sufficient to give each being the degree of perfection that was\nmost suitable for him, or to speak more proper, because the laws of\nnature were so ample and extensive that they could suffice for the\nproduction of all things of which an infinite understanding is capable.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nWhat God Is.\n\n\nI.\n\nUntil now we have fought the popular idea concerning the Divinity,\nbut we have not yet said what God is, and if we were asked, we should\nsay that the word represents to us an Infinite Being, of whom one\nof his attributes is to be a substance of extent and consequently\neternal and infinite. The extent or the quantity not being finite or\ndivisible, it may be imagined that the matter was everywhere the same,\nour understanding not distinguishing parts. For example, water, as\nmuch as water is imagined, is divisible, and its parts separable from\none another, though as much as a corporeal substance it is neither\nseparable nor divisible. [22] Thus neither matter or quantity have\nanything unworthy of God, for if all is God, and all comes surely\nfrom his essence, it follows quite absolutely that He is all that\nhe contains, since it is incomprehensible that Beings quite material\nshould be contained in a Being who is not. That we may not think that\nthis is a new opinion, Tertullian, one of the foremost men among\nthe Christians, has pronounced against Apelles, that, \"that which\nis not matter is nothing,\" and against Praxias, that \"all substance\nis matter,\" without having this doctrine condemned in the four first\nCouncils of the Christian Church, oecumenical and general. [23]\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nThese sentiments are plain and the only ones that good and sound\njudgment can form of God. However, there are but few who are satisfied\nwith such simplicity. Boorish people, who are accustomed to adulation\nof opinion, demand a God who resembles earthly kings. The pomp and\ncircumstance surrounding them so fascinates, that to take away all\nhope of going after death to increase the number of heavenly courtiers\nenjoying the same pleasure which attaches to the Court of Kings,\nis to take away the consolation and the only things which prevent\nthem from going to despair over the miseries of life. They want a\njust and avenging God, who rewards and punishes after the manner of\nkings, a God susceptible of all human passions and weaknesses. They\ngive him feet, hands, and ears, and yet they do not regard a God\nso constituted as material. They say that man is his masterpiece,\nand even his own image, but do not allow that the copy is like the\noriginal. In a word, the God of the people of today is subject to as\nmany forms as Jupiter of the Pagans, and what is still more strange,\nthese follies contradict each other and shock good sense. The vulgar\nreverence them because they firmly believe what the Prophets have\nsaid, although these visionaries among the Hebrews, were the same\nas the augurs and the diviners among the pagans. [24] They consult\nthe Bible as if God or nature was therein expounded to them in a\nspecial manner, however this book is only a rhapsody of fragments,\ngathered at various times, selected by several persons, and given\nto the people according to the fancy of the Rabbins, who did not\npublish them until after approving some, and rejecting others, and\nseeing if they were conformable or opposed to the Law of Moses. [25]\nYes, such is the malice and stupidity of men that they prefer to\npass their lives disputing with one another, and worshipping a book\nreceived from ignorant people; a book with little order or method,\nwhich everyone admits as confused and badly conceived, only serving\nto foment divisions.\n\nChristians would rather adore this phantom than listen to the law\nof Nature which God--that is to say, Nature, which is the active\nprinciple--has written in the heart of man. All other laws are but\nhuman fictions, and pure illusions forged, not by Demons or evil\nspirits, which are fanciful ideas, but by the skill of Princes and\nEcclesiastics to give the former more warrant for their authority,\nand to enrich the latter by the traffic in an infinity of chimeras\nwhich sell to the ignorant at a good price.\n\nAll other laws are not supported save on the authority of the Bible,\nin the original of which appear a thousand instances of extraordinary\nand impossible things, [26] and which speaks only of recompenses or\npunishments for good or bad actions, but which are wisely deferred\nfor a future life, relying that the trick will not be discovered in\nthis, no one having returned from the other to tell the news. Thus,\nmen kept ever wavering between hope and fear, are held to their duty\nby the belief they aver that God has created man only to render him\neternally happy or unhappy, and which has given rise to the infinity\nof religions which we are about to discuss.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nWhat the word Religion signifies, and how and why such a great number\nhave been introduced in the world.\n\n\nI.\n\nBefore the word Religion was introduced in the world mankind was only\nobliged to follow natural laws and to conform to common sense. This\ninstinct alone was the tie by which men were united, and so very simple\nwas this bond of unity, that nothing among them was more rare than\ndissensions. But when fear created a suspicion that there were Gods,\nand invisible powers, they raised altars to these imaginary beings,\nso that in putting off the yoke of Nature and Reason, which are the\nsources of true life, they subjected themselves by vain ceremonies\nand superstitious worship to frivolous phantoms of the imagination,\nand that is whence arose this word Religion which makes so much noise\nin the world.\n\nMen having admitted invisible forces which were all-powerful over\nthem, they worshipped them to appease them, and further imagined\nthat Nature was a being subordinate to this power, thence they had\nthe idea that it was a great mace that threatened, or a slave that\nacted only by the order that such power gave him. Since this false\nidea had broken their will they had only scorn for Nature, and respect\nonly for those pretended beings that they called their Gods. Thence\ncame the ignorance in which mankind was plunged, and from which the\nwell-informed, however deep the abyss, could have rescued them, if\ntheir zeal had not been extinguished by those who led them blindly,\nand who lived by imposture. But though there was but little appearance\nof success in the enterprise, it was not necessary to abandon the\nparty of truth, and only in consideration of those who were afflicted\nwith the symptoms of so great an evil, were generous souls available\nto represent matters as they were.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nFear which created Gods, made also Religion, and when men imbibed\nthe notion that there were invisible agencies which were the cause\nof their good and bad fortune, they lost their good sense and reason\nsubstituting for their chimeras so many Divinities who had care of\ntheir conduct.\n\nAfter having forged these Gods they were curious to know of what\nmatter they consisted, and finally imagined that they should be of\nthe same substance as the soul. Then being persuaded that the latter\nresembled the shadows which appear in a mirror, or during sleep, they\nbelieved that some Gods were real substances but so thin and subtile\nthat to distinguish them from bodies they called them Spirits. So\nthat bodies and spirits were in effect the same thing, and differed\nneither more nor less, and to be both corporeal and incorporeal is\na most incomprehensible thing. The reason given is that each spirit\nhas a proper form, and is included within some limit, that is to say\nthat it has some boundaries, and consequently must be a body however\nthin and subtile it might be. [27]\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nThe ignorant, that is, the greater part of mankind having settled in\nthis manner the substance of their Gods, tried also to determine by\nwhat methods these invisible powers produced their effects. Not being\nable to do this definitely by reason of their ignorance, they put\nfaith in their conjectures, blindly judging the future by the past,\nwhile seeing neither cohesion nor dependence.\n\nIn all that they undertook they saw but the past, and foretold\ngood or evil for the future according as the same enterprise had at\nanother time turned out either good or bad. Phormion having defeated\nthe Lacedaemonians at the battle of Naupacte, the Athenians, after\nhis death, chose another general of the same name: Hannibal having\nsuccumbed to the arms of Scipio Africanus, the Romans, remembering this\ngreat success, sent another Scipio to the same country against Cesar,\nwhich acts gained nothing for either the Athenians or the Romans. So\nafter two or three experiences, good or bad fortune is made synonymous\nwith certain names or places; others make use of certain words called\nenchantments, which they believe to be efficacious; some cause trees\nto speak, create man from a morsel of bread, and transform anything\nthat may appear before them. (Hobbes' Leviathan de homine. Cap. 12,\np. 56-57.)\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nInvisible powers being established in this way, straightway men\nrevere them only as they do their rulers, that is to say, by tokens\nof submission and respect, as witness offerings, prayers, and similar\nthings, I say at first, for nature has not yet learned to use on\nsuch occasions sacrifices of blood, which have only been instituted\nfor the benefit of the sacrificers and the ministers called to the\nservice of these beautiful Gods.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nThese causes of Religion, that is, Hope and Fear, leaving out the\npassions, judgments and various resolutions of mankind, have produced\nthe great number of extravagant beliefs which have caused so much evil,\nand the many revolutions which have convulsed the nations.\n\nThe honor and revenue which attaches to the priesthood, and which\nhas since been accorded to the ministry of the Gods, and those\nhaving ecclesiastical charges, inflame the ambition and the avarice\nof cunning individuals who profit by the stupidity of the people,\nwho readily submit in their weakness, and we know how insensibly is\ncaused the easy habit of encouraging falsehood and hating truth.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nThe empire of falsehood being established, and the ambitious ones\nencouraged by the advantage of being above their fellows, the\nlatter endeavor to gain repute by a pretense of being friendly with\nthe invisible Gods whom the vulgar fear. For better success, each\nschemes in his own way, and multiplies deities so that they are met\nat every turn.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nThe formless matter of the world they term the god Chaos, and the same\nhonor is accorded to heaven, earth, the sea, the wind, and the planets,\nand they are made both male and female. Further on we find birds,\nreptiles, the crocodile, the calf, the dog, the lamb, the serpent,\nthe hog, and in fact all kinds of animals and plants constitute\nthe better part. Each river and fountain bears the name of a God,\neach house had its own, each man his genius; in fact all space above\nand beneath the earth was occupied by spirits, shades and demons. It\nwas not sufficient to maintain a Divinity in all imaginable places,\nbut they feared to offend time, day, night, concord, love, peace,\nvictory, contention, mildew, honor, virtue, fever, and health, or to\ninsult these charming divinities whom they always imagined ready to\ndischarge lightning on the heads of men, provided temples and altars\nwere not erected to them.\n\nAs a sequel, man commenced to fear his own special genius, whom\nsome invoked under the name of Muses, and others under the name\nof Fortune adored their own ignorance. The latter sanctified their\ndebauches in the name of Cupid, their rage in the name of Furies,\nand their natural parts under the name of Priapus, in a word, there\nwas nothing which did not bear the name of a God or a Demon. (Hobbes'\nde homine, Chap. 12, p. 58.)\n\n\n\n\nVIII.\n\nThe founders of Religion having based their impostures on the\nignorance of the people, took great care to maintain them by the\nadoration of images which they pretended were inhabited by the Gods,\nand this caused a flood of gold and benefactions called holy things,\nto pour into the coffers of the priests. These gifts were regarded as\nsacred, and designed for the use of these holy ministers, and none\nwere so audacious as to pretend to their office, or even to touch\nthem. To allure the people more successfully, these priests made\nprophecies and pretended to penetrate the future by the commerce which\nthey boasted of having with the Gods. There is nothing so natural as\nto know destiny. These impostors were too well informed to omit any\ncircumstance so advantageous for their designs. Some were established\nat Delos, others at Delphos and elsewhere, where by ambiguous oracles\nthey replied to the demands made of them. Women even were engaged in\nthese impostures, and the Romans in their great Calamities had recourse\nto the Sybilline books; fools and lunatics passed for enthusiasts, and\nthose who pretended to converse with the dead were called necromancers.\n\nOthers read the future by the flight of birds, or by the entrails\nof beasts. Indeed the eyes, the hands, the face, or an extraordinary\nobject, all seemed to them to possess a good or bad omen, so it is true\nthat the ignorant will receive any desired impression when the secret\nof their wish is found. (Hobbes' de homine, Chap. 12, pp. 58-59.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nOf Moses.\n\n\nI.\n\nThe ambitious, who have always been grand masters of the art of\ntrickery, have always followed this method in expounding their laws,\nand to oblige the people to submit to them they have persuaded them\nthat they had received them either from a God or a Goddess.\n\nAlthough there was a multitude of Divinities, those who worshipped them\ncalled Pagans had no general system of Religion. Each republic, each\nstate and city, each particular place had its own rites and thought\nof the Divinity as fancy dictated. Following this came legislators\nmore cunning than these first tricksters, and who employed methods\nmore studied and more certain for the propagation and perpetuity of\ntheir laws, as well as the culture of such ceremonies and fanaticism\nas they deemed proper to establish.\n\nAmong the great number Arabia and its frontiers has given birth to\nthree who have been distinguished as much by the kind of laws and\nworship which they established, as by the idea they have given of a\nDivinity to their followers, and the means they have taken to cause\nthis idea to be received and their laws to be approved.\n\nMoses is the most ancient; Jesus coming after labored after his\nmanner in preserving the foundation of his laws while abolishing the\nremainder; and Mahomet appearing later on the scene has taken from\none and the other religion to compose his own, and therefore he is\ndeclared the enemy of all the Gods.\n\nLet us see the character of these three Legislators, examine their\nconduct, and then judge afterwards who are the best founded: those\nwho revered them as Holy men and Gods, or those who treated them as\nschemers and impostors.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nThe celebrated Moses, grandson of a great magician, [28] by the\naccount of Justin Martyr, had all the advantages proper for what\nhe afterwards became. It is well known that the Hebrews, of whom he\nbecame the Chief, were a nation of shepherds whom King Pharaoh Orus\nI. received in his country in consideration of services that he had\nreceived from one of them in the time of a great famine. He gave them\nsome lands in the east of Egypt in a country fertile in pasturage,\nand consequently adapted for their flocks.\n\nDuring 200 years they rapidly increased, because, being considered\nforeigners they were not required to serve in the armies of Pharaoh,\nand because of the natural advantages of the lands which Orus had\ngranted them. Some bands of Arabs came to join them as brothers,\nfor they were of a similar race, and they increased so astonishingly\nthat the land of Goshen not being able to contain them they spread all\nover Egypt, giving Pharaoh Memnon II. good reason to fear that they\nmight be capable of some dangerous attempt in case Egypt was attacked\n(as happened soon after) by their active enemies, the Ethiopians.\n\nThus a policy of state compelled this Prince to curtail their\nprivileges, and to seek means to weaken and enslave them. Pharaoh Orus\nII. surnamed Busiris because of his cruelty, and who succeeded Memnon,\nfollowed his plan regarding the Jews. Wishing to perpetuate his memory\nby the erection of the Pyramids and building the city of Thebes, he\ncondemned the Hebrews to labor at making bricks, the material in the\nearth of their country being adapted for this purpose. During this\nservitude the celebrated Moses was born, in the same year that the\nKing issued an edict to cast all the male Hebrew children into the\nNile, seeing that he had no surer means of exterminating this rabble\nof foreigners.\n\nMoses was exposed to perish in the waters in a basket covered with\npitch, which his mother placed in the rushes on the banks of the\nriver. It chanced that Thermitis, daughter of Orus, was walking near\nthe shore and hearing the cries of the child, the natural compassion\nof her sex inspired her to save it.\n\nOrus having died, Thermitis succeeded him, and Moses having\nbeen presented to her, she caused him to be educated in a manner\nbefitting the son of a Queen of the wisest and most polished nation\nof the universe. In a word he was tutored in all the science of the\nEgyptians, and it is admitted, and they have represented Moses to\nus as the greatest politician, the wisest philosopher and the most\nfamous magician of his time. It followed that he was admitted to the\norder of Priesthood, which was in Egypt what the Druids were in Gaul,\nthat is to say--everything.\n\nThose who are not familiar with what the government of Egypt was, will\nbe pleased to know that the famous dynasties having come to an end,\nthe entire country was dependent upon one Sovereign who divided it into\nseveral provinces of no great extent. The governors of these countries\nwere called monarchs, and they were ordinarily of the powerful order of\nPriests, who possessed nearly one-third of Egypt. The king named these\nmonarchs, and if we can believe the authors who have written of Moses\nand compare what they have said with what Moses himself has written,\nwe may conclude that he was monarch of the land of Goshen, and that\nhe owed his elevation to Thermitis, who had also saved his life.\n\nWe see what Moses was in Egypt, where he had both time and means to\nstudy the manners of the Egyptians, and those of his nation: their\ngoverning passions, their inclinations, and all that would be of\nservice to him in his effort to excite the revolution of which he\nwas the promoter.\n\nThermitis having died, her successor renewed the persecution against\nthe Hebrews, and Moses having lost his previous favor, and fearing\nthat he could not justify several homicides that he had committed,\ntook the precaution to flee.\n\nHe retired to Arabia Petrea, on the confines of Egypt, and chance\nbrought him to the home of a tribal chief of the country. His services,\nand the talents that his master remarked in him, merited his good\ngraces and one of his daughters in marriage. It is here to be noted\nthat Moses was such a bad Jew, and knew so little of the redoubtable\nGod whom he invented later, that he wedded an idolatress, and did\nnot even think of having his children circumcised.\n\nIt was in the Arabian deserts, while guarding the flocks of\nhis father-in-law and brother-in-law, he conceived the design of\navenging the injustice which had been done him by the King of Egypt,\nby bringing trouble and sedition in the court of his states; and he\nflattered himself that he could easily succeed in this by reason of\nhis talents, as by the disposition which he knew he would find in\nhis nation already incensed against the government by reason of the\nbad treatment that they had been caused to suffer.\n\nIt appears by the history which he has told of this revolution, or at\nleast by the author of the books attributed to Moses, that Jethro,\nhis brother-in-law, was in the conspiracy, as well as his brother\nAaron and his sister Mary, who had remained in Egypt, and with whom he\ncould arrange to hold correspondence. As may be seen by the sequel he\nhad formed a vast plan in good politics, and he could put in service\nagainst Egypt all the science he had learned there, and the pretended\nMagic in which he was more subtle and skillful than all those at the\nCourt of Pharaoh who possessed the same accomplishments. It was by\nthese pretended miracles that he gained the confidence of those of\nhis nation that he caused to rebel. He joined to them thousands of\nmutinous Egyptians, Ethiopians and Arabs. Boasting the power of his\nDivinity and the frequent interviews he held with Him, and causing\nHim to intervene in all the measures he took with the chiefs of\nthe revolt, he persuaded them so well that they followed him to the\nnumber of 600,000 combatants--besides the women and children--across\nthe deserts of Arabia, of which he knew all the windings.\n\nAfter a six days march on a laborious retreat, he commanded his\nfollowers to consecrate the seventh to his God by a public rest,\nto make them believe that this God favored him, that he approved his\nsway, and that no one could have the audacity to contradict him.\n\nThere were never any people more ignorant than the Hebrews, and\nconsequently none more credulous. To be convinced of this profound\nignorance, it is only necessary to recall the condition of these\npeople in Egypt when Moses made them revolt. They were hated by the\nEgyptians because of their pastoral life, persecuted by the Sovereign\nand employed in the vilest labor.\n\nAmong such a populace it was not very difficult for Moses to avail\nhimself of his talents. He made them believe that his God (whom he\nsometimes simply called an angel)--the God of their Fathers--appeared\nto him, that it was by his order that he took care to lead them, that\nhe had chosen him for Governor, and that they would be the favored\npeople of this God, provided they believed what he said on his part.\n\nHe added to his exhortations on the part of his God, the adroit use of\nhis prestige, and the knowledge that he had of nature. He confirmed\nwhat he said to them by what might be called miracles, always easy\nto perform, and which made a great impression on an imbecile populace.\n\nIt may be remarked above all, that he believed he had found a sure\nmethod for holding this people submissive to his orders, in making\naccessory of the statement that God himself was their leader: by night\na column of fire and a cloud by day. But it can be proved that this\nwas the grossest trick of this impostor, and that it might serve him\nfor a long time. He had learned during his travels that he had made\nin Arabia, a country vast and uninhabited, that it was the custom\nof those who traveled in companies to take guides who conducted\nthem in the night by means of a brazier, the flame of which they\nfollowed, and in the day time by the smoke of the same brazier which\nall the members of the caravan could see, and consequently not go\nastray. This custom prevailed among the Medes and Assyrians, and it\nis quite natural that Moses used it, and made it pass for a miracle,\nand a mark of the protection of his God. If I may not be believed\nwhen I say that this was a trick, let Moses himself be believed,\nwho in Numbers, Chap. x. v. 29-33, asks his brother-in-law, Hobab,\nto come with the Israelites, that he may show them the roads, because\nhe knew the country. This is demonstrative, for if it was God who\nmarched before Israel night and day in the cloud and the column of\nfire could they have a better guide? Meanwhile here is Moses exhorting\nhis brother-in-law by the most pressing motives of interest to serve\nhim as Guide. Then the cloud and the column of fire was God only for\nthe people, and not for Moses, who knew what it was.\n\nThese poor unfortunates thus seduced, charmed at being adopted by\nthe Master of God, as they were told, emerging from a hard and cruel\nbondage, applauded Moses and swore to obey him. His authority was\nthus confirmed. He sought to perpetuate it, and under pretext of\nestablishing divine worship, or of a supreme God of whom he said he\nwas the lieutenant, he made his brother and his children chiefs of\nthe Royal Palace, that is to say, of the place where miracles were\nperformed out of the sight and presence of the people.\n\nSo he continued these pretended miracles, at which the simple were\namazed and others stupefied, but which caused those who were wise and\nwho saw through these impostures to pity them. However skillful Moses\nwas, and how many clever tricks he knew how to do, he would have had\nmuch trouble to secure obedience if he had not a strong army. [29]\nDeceit without force has rarely succeeded.\n\nIt was in order to have assured means to maintain obedience against\nthe discerning that he continued to place in his own faction those\nof his tribe, giving them all the important charges and exempting\nthem from the greater part of the labors. He knew how to create\njealousies among the other tribes, some of whom took his part against\nthe others. Finally assuring adroitly to his interest those who\nappeared the most enlightened, by placing them in his confidence,\nhe secured them by giving them employment of distinction.\n\nAfter that he found some of these idiots had the courage to reproach\nhis bad faith; that under his false pretense of justice and equity he\nwas seizing everything. As the sovereign authority was vested in his\nblood in such manner that no one had a right to aspire to it, they\nconsidered finally that he was less their father than their tyrant.\n\nOn such occasions Moses by cunning policy confounded these\nfree-thinkers and spared none who censured his government.\n\nWith such precautions, and cloaking his punishments under the name of\nDivine vengeance, he continued absolute, and to finish in the same\nway he began, that is to say by deceit and imposture, he chose an\nextraordinary death. He cast himself in an abyss in a lonely place\nwhere he retired from time to time under pretext of conferring with\nGod, and which he had long designed for his tomb. His body never\nhaving been found, it was believed that his God had taken him, and\nthat he had become like Him.\n\nHe knew that the memories of the patriarchs who preceded him were\nheld in great veneration when their sepulchres were found, but that\nwas not sufficient for an ambition like his. He must be revered as\na God for whom death had no terrors, and to this end all his efforts\nwere directed since the beginning of his reign when he said that he\nwas established of God--to be the God of Pharaoh. Elijah [30] gave\nhis example, also Romulus [31], Empedocles [32] and all those who\nfrom a desire to immortalize their names, have concealed the time\nand place of their death so that they would be deemed immortal.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nOf Numa Pompilius.\n\n\nTo return to the law-givers, there were none who, having attributed\ntheir laws to Divinity, did not endeavor to encourage the belief that\nthey themselves were more than human.\n\nNuma, having tasted the delights of solitude, did not wish to leave\nit for the throne of Rome, but being forced by public acclamation,\nhe profited by the devotion of the Romans. He informed them that\nhe had talked with God, and if they desired him for King they must\nobserve the Divine laws and institutions which had been dictated to\nhim by the nymph Egeria. [33]\n\nAlexander wished to be considered a son of Jupiter. Perseus pretended\nto be a son of the same God and the virgin Danae; Plato, of Apollo,\nand a virgin, which, perhaps, is the cause of the belief among the\nEgyptians that the Spirit of God Lne [34] could get a woman with\nchild as the wind did the Iberian mares. [35]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nOf Jesus Christ.\n\n\nJesus Christ, who was not unacquainted with the maxims and science\nof the Egyptians, among whom he dwelt several years, availed\nhimself of this knowledge, deeming it proper for the design which he\nmeditated. Considering that Moses was renowned because he commanded an\nignorant people, he undertook to build on a similar foundation, and his\nfollowers were only some idiots whom he persuaded that the Holy Spirit\nwas his Father, and his Mother a Virgin. [36] These good people being\naccustomed to be satisfied with dreams and fancies, adopted this fable,\nbelieved all that he wished, and even more willingly that a birth out\nof the natural order was not so marvelous a circumstance for them to\nbelieve. To be born of a Virgin by the operation of the Holy Spirit\n[37] was, in their estimation, as wonderful as what the Romans said\nof their founder, Romulus, who owed his birth to a Vestal and a God.\n\nThis happened at a time when the Jews were tired of their God, as they\nhad been of their Judges, [38] and wished to have a visible God like\nother nations. As the number of fools is infinite, he found followers\neverywhere, but his extreme poverty was an invincible obstacle to\nhis elevation. The Pharisees, delighted with the boldness of a man of\ntheir sect, [39] while startled at his audacity, elevated or depressed\nhim according to the fickle humor of the populace, so that when it\nbecame noised about concerning his Divinity, it was impossible--he\nbeing possessed of no power--that his design could succeed. No matter\nhow many sick he cured, nor how many dead he raised, having no money\nand no army, he could not fail to perish, and with that outlook it\nappears that he had less chance of success than Moses, Mahomet, and\nall those who were ambitious to elevate themselves above others. If\nhe was more unfortunate, he was no less adroit, and several places in\nhis history give evidence that the greatest fault in his policy was\nnot to have sufficiently provided for his own safety. So it may be\nseen that he did not manage his affairs any better than those two\nother legislators, of whose memory exists but the remains of the\nbelief that they established among the different nations.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nOf the Policy of Jesus Christ.\n\n\nI.\n\nIs there anything, for example, more dextrous than the manner in which\nhe treated the subject of the woman taken in adultery? (St. John,\nc. viii.) The Jews having asked if they should stone this unfortunate,\ninstead of replying definitely, yes or no, by which he would fall in\nthe trap set by his enemies: the negative being directly against the\nlaw, and the affirmative proving him severe and cruel, which would have\nalienated the saints. Instead of replying as any ordinary person but\nhim would have done, he said, \"whoever is without sin, let him cast the\nfirst stone,\" a skillful response, which shows us his presence of mind.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nAnother time being asked if it was lawful to [40] pay tribute to\nCesar, and seeing the image of the Prince on the coin that they\nshowed him, he evades the difficulty by replying that they should\n\"render unto Cesar what belongs to Cesar, and unto God what belongs\nto God.\" The difficulty consisted in that he would be guilty of l\u00e8se\nmajest\u00e9 if he had said it was not permitted, and by saying that it\nwas, he would reverse the law of Moses which he always protested he\nwould not do, because he felt that he was either too weak, or that\nhe would be worsted in the endeavor. So he made himself more popular,\nby acting with impunity after the manner of Princes, who allowed the\nprivileges of their subjects to be confirmed while their power was\nnot well established, but who scorned their promises when they were\nwell enthroned.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nHe again skillfully avoided a trap that the Pharisees had set for\nhim. They asked him--having in their minds thoughts which would\nonly tend to convict him of lying--by what authority he pretended\nto instruct and catechise the people. Whether he replied that it was\nby human authority because he was not of the sacred body of Levites,\nor whether he boasted of preaching by the express command of God, his\ndoctrine was contrary to the Mosaic law. To relieve this embarrassment,\nhe availed himself of the questioners themselves by asking them in the\nname of whom they thought John baptized? The Pharisees, who for policy\nopposed the baptism by John, would be condemned themselves in avowing\nthat it was of God. If they had not admitted it they would have been\nexposed to the rage of the populace, who believed the contrary. To\nget out of this dilemma, they replied that they knew nothing of it,\nto which Jesus answered that he was neither obliged to tell them why,\nnor in the name of whom he preached.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nSuch were the skillful and witty evasions of the destroyer of the\nancient law and the founder of the new. Such were the origins of the\nnew religion which was built on the ruins of the old, or to speak\ndisinterestedly, there was nothing more divine in this than in the\nother sects which preceded it. Its founder, who was not quite ignorant,\nseeing the extreme corruption of the Jewish republic, judged it as\nnearing its end, and believed that another should be revived from its\nashes. The fear of being prevented by one more ambitious than himself,\nmade him haste to establish it by methods quite opposed to those of\nMoses. The latter commenced by making himself formidable to other\nnations. Jesus, on the contrary, attracted them to him by the hope\nof the advantages of another life, which he said could be obtained\nby believing in him, while Moses only promised temporal benefits as a\nrecompense for the observation of his law. Jesus Christ held out a hope\nwhich never was realized. The laws of one only regarded the exterior,\nwhile those of the other aimed at the inner man, influencing even\nthe thoughts, and entirely the reverse of the law of Moses. Whence it\nfollows that Jesus believed with Aristotle that it is with Religion\nand States, as with individuals who are begotten and die, and as\nnothing is made except subject to dissolution, there is no law which\ncan follow which is entirely opposed to it. Now as it is difficult to\ndecide to change from one law to another, and as the great majority\nis difficult to move in matters of Religion, Jesus, in imitation of\nthe other innovators had recourse to miracles, which have always been\nthe peril of the ignorant, and the sanctuary of the ambitious.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nChristianity was founded by this method, and Jesus profiting by the\nfaults of the Mosaic policy, never succeeded so happily anywhere, as\nin the measures which he took to render his law eternal. The Hebrew\nprophets thought to do honor to Moses by predicting a successor who\nresembled him. That is to say, a Messiah, grand in virtue, powerful in\nwealth, and terrible to his enemies; and while their prophecies have\nproduced the contrary effect, many ambitious ones have taken occasion\nto proclaim themselves the promised Messiah, which has caused revolts\nthat have endured until the entire destruction of their republic.\n\nJesus Christ, more adroit than the Mosaic prophets, to defeat\nthe purpose of those who rose up against him predicted (Matthew\nxxiv. 4-5-24-25-26. II. Thessalonians ii. 3-10. John ii. 11-18) that\nsuch a man would be a great enemy of God, the delight of the Devil, the\nsink of all iniquity and the desolation of the world. After these fine\ndeclarations there was, to my mind, no person who would dare to call\nhimself Anti-Christ, and I do not think he could have found a better\nway to perpetuate his law. There was nothing more fabulous than the\nrumors that were spread concerning this pretended Anti-Christ. St. Paul\nsaid (II. Thessalonians xi. 7) of his existence, that \"he was already\nborn,\" consequently was present on the eve of the coming of Jesus\nChrist while more than twelve hundred years have expired since the\nprediction of this prophet was uttered, and he has not yet appeared.\n\nI admit that these words have been credited to Cherintus and Ebion,\ntwo great enemies of Jesus Christ, because they denied his pretended\ndivinity, but it also may be said that if this interpretation conforms\nto the view of the apostle, which is not credible; these words for all\ntime designate an infinity of Anti-Christ, there being no reputable\nscholar who would offend by saying that the  [41]history of Jesus\nChrist is a fable, and that his law is but a tissue of idle fancies\nthat ignorance has put in vogue and that interest preserves.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nNevertheless it is pretended that a Religion which rests on such\nfrail foundations is quite divine and supernatural, as if we did not\nknow that there were never persons more convenient to give currency\nto the most absurd opinions than women and idiots.\n\nIt is not strange, then, that Jesus did not choose Philosophers and\nScholars for his Apostles. He knew that his law and good sense were\ndiametrically opposed. [42] That is the reason why he declaims in so\nmany places against the wise, and excludes them from his kingdom,\nwhere were to be admitted the poor in spirit, the silly and the\ncrazy. Again, rational individuals did not think it unfortunate to\nhave nothing in common with visionaries.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nOf the Morals of Jesus Christ.\n\n\nI.\n\nAs for his Morals, we see nothing more divine therein than in the\nwritings of the ancients, or rather we find only what are only extracts\nor imitations. St. Augustin (ch. 9 and v. 20 of the Confessions, Book\n7,) even admits that he has found in some of their works nearly all of\nthe beginning of the Gospel according to St. John. As far as may be\nseen, that Apostle is believed, in many places, to have stolen from\nother authors, and that it was not difficult to rob the Prophets of\ntheir enigmas and visions to make his Apocalypse. Whence comes the\nconformity which we find between the doctrine of the Old Testament\nand that of Plato? to say nothing of what the Rabbins have done, and\nthose who have fabricated the Holy Writings from a mass of fragments\nstolen from this Grand Philosopher.\n\nCertainly the birth of the world has a thousand times more probability\nin his Timaeus than in Genesis, and it cannot be said that that comes\nfrom what Plato had read in the books of the Jews during his travels\nin Egypt, for according to St. Augustin himself, (Confessions, Book 7,\nch. 9, v. 20,) Ptolemy had not yet translated them. The description\nof the country of which Socrates speaks to Simias in the Phaedon\n(?) has infinitely more grace than the Terrestrial Paradise (of Eden)\nand the Androgynus [43] is without comparison, better conceived than\nwhat Genesis says of the extraction of Eve from one of the sides of\nAdam. Is there anything that more resembles the two accidents of Sodom\nand Gomorrah than that which happened to Phaeton? Is there anything\nmore alike than the fall of Lucifer and that of Vulcan, or that of the\ngiants cast down by the lightnings of Jupiter? Anything more similar\nthan Samson and Hercules, Elijah and Phaeton, Joseph and Hippolitus,\nNebuchadnezzar and Lycaon, Tantalus and the tormented rich man\n(Luke xvi, 24), the manna of the Israelites and the ambrosia of the\nGods? St. Augustin--quoted from God, Book 6, chap. 14,--St. Cyrile\nand Theophylactus compare Jonah with Hercules, surnamed Trinsitium\n(?Trinoctius), because he had dwelt three days and three nights in\nthe belly of a whale. The river of Daniel, spoken of in the Prophets,\nch. vii, is a visible imitation of Periphlegeton, which is mentioned\nby Plato in the Dialogue on the \"Immortality of the Soul.\"\n\nOriginal sin has been taken from Pandora's box, the sacrifice of Isaac\nand Jephthah from the story of Iphigenia, although in the latter\na hind was substituted. What is said of Lot and his wife is quite\nlike the tale which is told of Baucis and Philemon. In short, it is\nunquestionable that the authors of the Scriptures have transcribed\nword for word the works of Hesiod and Homer.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nBut it seems that I have made quite a digression which, however,\nmay not be unprofitable. Let us return then to Jesus, or rather,\nto his Morals.\n\nCelsus proves, by the account of Origen (Book VI, against Celsus),\nthat he had taken from Plato his finest sentiments, such as that\nwhich says (Luke, c. xviii, v. 25), that a camel might sooner pass\nthrough the eye of a needle than a rich man should enter the Kingdom\nof God. It was the sect of Pharisees of which he was, and who believed\nin him, which gave birth to this. What is said of the Immortality of\nthe Soul, of the Resurrection, of Hell, and the greater part of his\nMorals, I see nothing more admirable than in the works of Epictetus,\nEpicurus and many others. In fact, the latter was cited by St. Jerome\n(Book VIII, against Jovian, ch. viii), as a man whose virtue puts\nto the blush better Christians, observing that all his works were\nfilled with but herbs, fruits and abstinence, and whose delights\nwere so temperate that his finest repasts were but a little cheese,\nbread and water. With a life so frugal, this Philosopher, pagan as he\nwas, said that it was better to be unlucky and rational, than rich\nand opulent without having good sense, adding, that it is rare that\nfortune and wisdom are found in the same individual, and that one\ncould have no knowledge of happiness nor live with pleasure unless\nfelicity was accompanied by prudence, justice and honesty, which are\nqualifications of a true and lasting delight.\n\nAs for Epictetus I do not believe that any man, not excepting Jesus\nhimself, was more austere, more firm, more equitable, or more moral. I\nsay nothing but what is easy to prove, and not to pass my prescribed\nlimit I will not mention all the exemplary acts of his life, but give\none single example of constancy which puts to shame the weakness and\ncowardice of Jesus in the sight of death. Being a slave to a freeman\nnamed Epaphroditus, captain of the guards of Nero, it took the fancy\nof this brute to twist the leg of Epictetus. Epictetus perceiving that\nit gave him pleasure said to him, smiling, that he was well convinced\nthat the game would not end until he had broken his leg; in fact, this\ncrisis happened. \"Well,\" said Epictetus with an even smiling face,\n\"did I not say that you would break my leg?\" Was there ever courage\nequal to that? and could it have been said of Jesus Christ had he been\nthe victim? He who wept and trembled with fear at the least alarm,\nand who evinced at his death a lack of spirit that never was witnessed\nin the majority of his martyrs.\n\nI doubt not but what it might be said of this action of Epictetus what\nthe ignorant remark of the virtues of the Philosophers, that vanity was\ntheir principle, and that they were not what they seemed. But I say\nalso that those who use such language are people who, in the pulpit,\nsay all that comes into their heads--either good or evil--and they\nwant the privilege of telling it all. I know also that when these\nbabblers, sellers of air, wind and smoke, have vented all their\nstrength against the champions of common sense they think they have\nwell earned the revenues of their livings: that they have not merited\na call to instruct the people unless they have declared against those\nwho know what common sense and true virtue is.\n\nSo it is true that nothing in the world approaches so little to the\nmanners of true scholars as the actions of the ignorant who decry them\nand who appear to have studied only to procure preferment which gives\nthem bread; and which preferment they worship and magnify when this\nheight is attained, as if they had reached a condition of perfection,\nwhich, to those who succeed, is a condition of self-love, ease, pride\nand pleasure, following nothing less than the maxims of the religion\nwhich they profess.\n\nBut let us leave these people who know not what virtue is, and examine\nthe divinity of their Master.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nOf the Divinity of Jesus Christ.\n\n\nI.\n\nAfter having examined his policy and morals we have seen nothing\nmore Divine than in the writings and conduct of the ancients. Let\nus see if the reputation which followed him after his death is an\nevidence that he was God. Mankind is so accustomed to false reasoning\nthat I am astonished that any one can reach a sane conclusion from\ntheir conduct. Experience shows that there is nothing they followed\nthat is in any wise true, and that nothing has been done or said by\nthem which gives any evidence of stability. In the meanwhile it is\ncertain that common opinions are continually surrounded with chimeras\nnotwithstanding the efforts of the learned, which have always opposed\nthem. Whatever care has been taken to extirpate follies the people have\nnever abandoned them only after having been surfeited with them. Moses\nwas proud to boast himself the Lieutenant of the Lord of Lords,\nand to prove his mission by extraordinary signs. If ever so little he\nabsented himself (which he did from time to time to confer, as he said,\nwith his God, as Numa and other lawgivers also did) he only found on\nhis return traces of the worship of the Gods which the Israelites had\nseen in Egypt. He successfully held them forty years in the wilderness\nthat they might lose the idea of those they had abandoned, and not\nbeing yet satisfied they obeyed him who led them, and bore firmly\nwhatever hardship they were caused to suffer in this regard.\n\nOnly the hatred which they had conceived for other nations, by an\narrogance of which most idiots are susceptible, made them insensibly\nforget the Gods of Egypt and attach themselves to those of Moses\nwhom they adored, and sometimes with all the circumstance marked in\nthe laws. But when they quitted these conditions little by little to\nfollow those of Jesus Christ, I cannot see what inconstancy caused\nthem to run after the novelty and change.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nThe most ignorant Hebrews having given the most vogue to the law\nof Moses were the first to run after Jesus, and as their number\nwas infinite and they encouraged each other, it is not marvellous\nthat these errors spread so easily. It is not that novelty does not\nalways beget suffering, but it is the glory that is expected that\none hopes will smooth the difficulties. Thus the Disciples of Jesus,\nmiserable as they were, reduced at times to nourish themselves with\ngrains of corn which they gathered from the fields (Luke vi., 1),\nand seeing themselves shamefully excluded from places where they\nthought to enter to ease their fatigue (Luke ix., 52-53) they began\nto be discouraged with living; their Master being without the pale\nof the law and unable to give them the benefits, glory and grandeur\nwhich he had promised them.\n\nAfter his death his disciples, in despair at seeing their hopes\nfrustrated, and pursued by the Jews who wished to treat them as they\nhad treated their Master, made a virtue of necessity and scattered\nover the country, where by the report of some women (John xx, 18)\nthey told of his resurrection, his divine affiliation and the rest\nof the fables with which the Gospels are filled. [44] The trouble\nwhich they had to make progress among the Jews made them resolve to\npass among the Gentiles, and try to serve themselves better among\nthem; but as it was necessary to have more learning for that than\nthey possessed--the Gentiles being philosophers and too much in\nlove with truth to resort to trifles--they gained over a young man\n(Saul or St. Paul) of an active and eager mind and a little better\ninformed than the simple fishermen or than the greater babblers who\nassociated with them. A stroke from Heaven made him blind, as is said\n(without this the trick would have been useless) and this incident\nfor a time attracted some weak souls. [45] By the fear of Hell, taken\nfrom some of the fables of the ancient poets, and by the hope of a\nglorious Resurrection and a Paradise which is hardly more supportable\nthan that of Mahomet; all these procured for their Master the honor\nof passing for a God, which he himself was unable to obtain while\nliving. In which this kind of Jesus was no better than Homer: six\ncities which had driven the latter out with contempt and scorn during\nhis life, disputed with each other after his death to determine with\nwhom remained the honor of having been his birth-place.\n\nBy this it may be seen that Christianity depends, like all other\nthings, on the caprice of men, in whose opinion all passes either\nfor good or bad, according as the notion strikes them. Further, if\nJesus was God, nothing could resist him, for St. Paul (Romans, v. 19),\nis witness that nothing could overcome his will. Yet this passage is\ndirectly opposed to another in Genesis (iv, 7), where it is said that\nas the desires and appetites of man belong to him, who is the Master,\nso it is agreed to accord free-will to the master of animals, that\nis to say, man, for whom it is said God has created the universe.\n\nBut without wandering in a maze of errors and positive contradictions,\nof which we have discoursed sufficiently, let us say something of\nMahomet, who founded a law upon maxims totally opposed to those of\nJesus Christ.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nOf Mahomet.\n\n\nI.\n\nHardly had the Disciples of Jesus abandoned the Mosaic law to introduce\nthe Christian, than mankind, with their usual caprice and ordinary\ninconstancy, suddenly changed their sentiments, and all the East was\nseen embracing the sentiments of the celebrated Arius, who had the\nboldness to oppose the fable of Jesus, and prove that he was no more\na God than any other man. Thus Christianity was almost abolished,\nand there appeared a new law-giver, who, in less than ten years time,\nformed a considerable sect. This was Mahomet. [46]\n\nTo be well acquainted with him, it must be known that the part of\nArabia where he was born, was commonly called \"the Happy,\" by reason\nof its fertility, and being inhabited by people who formed several\nRepublics, each Republic being a family called a \"tribe,\" and having\nfor its head the chief of the principal family, among those which\ncomposed the \"tribe.\"\n\nThat in which Mahomet was born was named the Tribe of Koreish, of which\nthe principal family was that of Hashem, of which the chief was then\na certain Abdul Motallab, [47] grandfather of Mahomet, whose father,\neldest son of Abdul Motallab, was named Abdallah. [47]\n\nThis tribe inhabited the shores of the Red sea, and Abdul Motallab\nwas High Priest of the Temple of Mecca where were worshipped the\nIdols of the country. As Chief of his Tribe he was Prince of this\ncountry in which quality he had sustained the war against the King\nof Persia and the Emperor of Ethiopia, which shows that Mahomet was\nnot of the riff-raff of the people.\n\nHis father dying before his grandfather, his tender years caused\nhim to lose the rights he had to the Sovereignty, which one of his\nuncles usurped. It was for this reason, not being able to succeed\nto the title of Prince, that he was reduced to the humble condition\nof shop-boy in the employ of a wealthy widow for whom he became\nafterwards factor. Having found him to her liking she married him and\nmade him one of the richest citizens of Mecca. He was then about 30\nyears of age, and seeing at hand the means to enforce his rights,\nhis ambitions awakened, and he meditated in what manner he could\nre-establish himself in the dignity of his grandfather.\n\nThe correspondence that he had had with Christians in Egypt and Jews\nin Judea, where he had traded a long time for his wife while he was\nonly her factor, gave him an opportunity of knowing who Moses was\nand also Jesus Christ. He also had remarked into how many different\nsects their Religion was divided, and which produced such diversity\nof opinions, and the zeal of each sect. By this he profited, and he\nbelieved he could better succeed in the interest of establishing a new\nReligion. The conditions of the time when he formed this design were\nvery favorable to him, for nearly all of the Arabs, disgusted with the\nworship of their Idols, were fallen into a species of Atheism. Thus\nMahomet began by leading a retired life, being exemplary, seeking\nsolitude, and passing the greater part of the day in prayers and\nmeditations. He caused himself to be admired for his modest demeanor,\nand commenced to speak of revelations and visions. By such action is\ngained the credence of the populace, and by such methods Moses and\nJesus commenced. He called himself a prophet and an envoy of God,\nand having as much skill as his predecessors in working miracles, he\nsoon gained attention, then admiration, and soon after the confidence\nof the people. A Jew and a Christian monk who were in his conspiracy\naided him in his dextrous moves, and he soon became powerful enough\nto resist a vigorous man named Corais, a learned Arab, who endeavored\nto expose his imposture.\n\nDuring this time his uncle, the governor of Mecca, died, and not\nbeing yet strong enough to assume the authority of sovereign, he was\nobliged to yield to one of his kinsmen who, penetrating his designs,\nobliged him to flee from Mecca and take refuge at Medina, where one\nparty in the city who were Arian Christians joined him.\n\nThen he ceased to support his authority by argument, and persuaded\nhis disciples to plant the Mussulman faith at the point of the\nsword. Having strengthened his party by alliances, marrying his\ndaughters to four of the principal citizens of Medina, he was in\ncondition to place armies in the field who subjugated the various\ntribes, one after the other, and with whom he finally seized\nMecca. He did not die until after he had accomplished his purpose\nby his hypocrisy and imposture, which elevated him to the dignity of\nsovereign, which he transmitted to his successors, and his faith so\nwell established that there has been no evidence of its failure for\nsix hundred years, and yet it may be upon the eve of its destruction.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nThus Mahomet was more fortunate than Jesus Christ. After having\nlabored during twenty-three years in the establishment of his Law\nand Religion, he saw its progress before his death, and having an\nassurance which Jesus Christ had not, that it would exist a long\ntime after his death, since he prudently accommodated the genius and\npassions of his followers.\n\nSuch was the last of these three impostors. Moses threw himself into\nan abyss by an excess of ambition to cause himself to be believed\nimmortal. Jesus Christ was ignominiously hung up between two thieves,\nbeing covered with shame as a recompense for his imposture, and lastly,\nMahomet died in reality in his own bed, and in the midst of grandeur,\nbut with his bowels consumed by poison given him by a young Jewess,\nto determine if he really was a prophet.\n\nThis is all that can be said of these four [48] celebrated\nimpostors. They were just as we have painted them after nature, and\nwithout giving any false shading to their portraits, that it may be\njudged if they merited any confidence, and if it is excusable to\nbe led by these guides, whom ambition and trickery have elevated,\nand whom ignorance has destroyed.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSENSIBLE AND OBVIOUS TRUTHS.\n\n\nI.\n\nIt is not sufficient to have discovered the disease if we do not apply\na remedy. It would be better to leave the sick man in ignorance. Error\ncan only be cured by Truth, and since Moses, Jesus and Mahomet were\nwhat we have represented them, we should not seek in their writings\nfor the veritable idea of the Divinity. The apparitions and the divine\nconformation of the former and the latter, and the divine filiation\nof the second, are sufficient to convince us that all is but imposture.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nGod is either a natural being or one of infinite extent who resembles\nwhat he contains, that is to say, that he is material without being,\nnevertheless, neither just nor merciful, nor jealous, nor a God in any\nway as may be imagined, and as a consequence is neither a punisher nor\na remunerator. This idea of punishment and recompense only exists in\nthe minds of the ignorant who only conceive that simple being called\nGod, under images which by no means represent him. Those who use\ntheir understanding without confounding its operations with those of\nthe imagination, and who are powerful enough to abandon the prejudice\nof a limited education, are the only ones who have sound, clear and\ndistinct ideas. They consider him as the source of all beings which\nare produced without distinction: one being no more than another in His\nregard, and man no more difficult to produce than a worm or a flower.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nThat is why it is not to be believed that this natural and infinite\nbeing which is commonly called God, esteems man more than an ant, or\na lion more than a stone, or any other being more than a phantasy,\nor who has any regard for beauty or ugliness, for good or bad, for\nthe perfect or imperfect. Or that he desires to be praised, prayed,\nsought for or caressed, or that he cares what men are, or say, whether\nsusceptible of love or hate, or in a word that he thinks more of man\nthan of any other creatures of whatever nature they be. All these\ndistinctions are only the invention of a narrow mind, that is to say,\nignorance has created them and interest keeps them alive.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nThus there is no good sensible man who can be convinced of hell,\na soul, spirits or devils, in the manner of which they are commonly\nspoken. All these great senseless words have only been contrived to\ndelude or intimidate the people. Let those then who wish to know the\ntruth read what follows, with a liberal spirit and an intention to\nonly give their judgment with deliberation.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nThe myriads of stars that we see above us are allowed to be so many\nsolid bodies which move, and among which there is not one designed\nas the Court Divine where God is like a King in the midst of his\ncourtiers; which is the abode of the blest, and where all good souls\nfly after leaving this body and world. But without burdening ourselves\nwith such a rude and ill-conceived opinion, and that it may not be\nentertained by any man of good sense, it is certain that what is\ncalled Heaven is nothing but the continuation of our atmosphere,\nmore subtile and more refined, where the stars move without being\nsustained by any solid mass more than the Earth on which we live,\nand which like the stars is suspended in the midst of space.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nAs may be imagined, a Heaven intended for the eternal abode of the\nhappy and of God, was the same among the Pagans. Gods and goddesses\nwere also represented in the same way, also a Hell or a subterranean\nplace where it was pretended that the wicked souls descended to\nbe tormented. But this word \"hell\" taken in its proper and natural\nsignification means nothing but a \"lower place,\" which poets have\ninvented to oppose the dwelling of the celestial inhabitants, who\nare said to be very sublime and exalted. That is what the Latin word\nInfernus or inferi signifies, and also the Greek word admc\"> [49],\nthat is to say, an obscure place like the sepulchre, or any other low\nand hidden place. All the rest of what has been said is only pure\nfiction and the invention of poets whose symbolical discourses are\ntaken literally by feeble, timid and melancholy minds, as well as by\nthose who are interested in sustaining this opinion.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOF THE SOUL.\n\n\nI.\n\nThe Soul is something more delicate and more difficult to treat of\nthan either Heaven or Hell. That is why it is proper to satisfy Your\nMajesty's curiosity, to speak of it a little more at length. Before\nsaying what I desire on this subject, I will recall in a few words\nwhat the most celebrated Philosophers have thought of it.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nSome have said that the Soul is a spirit or an immaterial substance;\nothers, a kind of divinity; some, a very subtile air, and others a\nharmony of all parts of the body. Again, others have remarked that it\nis the most subtile and fine part of the blood, which is separated\nfrom it in the brain and is distributed by the nerves: so that the\nsource of the Soul is the heart where it is produced, and the place\nwhere it performs its noblest function is the Brain, because there\nit is well purified from the grosser parts of the blood. These are\nthe principal opinions which have been held concerning the Soul, but\nto render them more perceptible let us divide them into material and\nspiritual, and name the supporters of each theory that we may not err.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nPythagoras and Plato have said that the soul is spiritual, that is\nto say, a being capable of existence without the aid of the body,\nand can move itself: that all the particular souls of animals are\nportions of the universal soul of the world: that these portions are\nspiritual and immortal, and of the same nature, as we may conceive\nthat one hundred little fires are of the same nature as the great\nfire at which they have been kindled.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nThese philosophers believed the animated universe a substance,\nspiritual, immortal and invisible, pursuing always that which attracts,\nwhich is the source of all movements, and of all Souls which are\nsmall particles of it. Now, as Souls are very pure, and infinitely\nsuperior to the body, they do not unite immediately, but by means\nof a subtile body, such as flame, or that subtile and extensive\nair which the vulgar take for heaven. Afterwards they take a body\nless subtile, then another a little more impure, and always thus by\ndegrees, until they can unite with the sensible bodies of animals,\nwhence (sic) they descend like into dungeons or sepulchres. The death\nof the body, they say, is the life of the soul wherein it was buried,\nand where it exercises but weakly its most beautiful functions.\n\nThus at the death of the body the soul comes out of its prison\nuntrammelled by matter, and reunites with the soul of the universe,\nfrom whence it came. Thus, following this thought, all the Souls of\nanimals are of the same nature, and the diversity of their functions\ncomes only from the difference in the bodies that they enter.\n\nAristotle admits further, a universal understanding common to all\nbeings, and which acts in regard to particular intelligences as light\ndoes in regard to the eyes; and as light makes objects visible, the\nuniversal understanding makes objects intelligible. This philosopher\ndefines the Soul as that which makes us live, feel, think and move,\nbut he does not say what the Being is that is the source and principle\nof these noble functions, and consequently we must not look to him\nto dispel the doubt which exists concerning the Nature of the Soul.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nDicearchus, Asclesiade (? Esculapius), and in some ways Galen, have\nalso believed the soul to be incorporeal, but in another manner,\nfor they have said that it is nothing more than the harmony of all\nparts of the body, that is to say, that which results in an exact\nblending and disposition of the humors and spirits. Thus, they say,\nhealth is not a part of him who is well, however it be his condition,\nso that, however, the soul be in the animal, it is not one of its\nparts, but a mutual accord of all of which it is composed. On which it\nis remarked that these authors believe the soul to be incorporeal,\non a principle quite opposed to their intent, by saying that it\nis not a body, but only something inseparably attached to a body,\nthat is to say, in good reasoning, that it is quite corporeal, since\ncorporeality is not only that which is a body, but all which is form\nor accident that cannot be separated from matter.\n\nThese are the philosophers who have believed the soul incorporeal\nor immaterial, who, as you see, are not in accord with themselves,\nand consequently do not merit any belief. Let us now consider those\nwho have avowed it to be a body.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nDiogenes believed that it was formed of air, from which he has inferred\nthe necessity of breathing, and defines it as an air which passes\nfrom the mouth through the lungs to the heart, where it is warmed,\nand from whence it is distributed through the entire body.\n\nLeucippus and Democritus have claimed that it was Fire, as that element\nis composed of atoms which easily penetrate all parts of the body, and\nmakes it move. Hippocrates has said that it is a composition of water\nand fire. Empedocles says that it includes the four elements. Epicurus\nbelieved like Democritus, that the soul is composed of fire, but he\nadds that in that composition there enters some air, a vapor, and\nanother nameless substance of which is formed a very subtile spirit,\nwhich spreads through the body and and which is called the soul.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nNot to shuffle, as all these philosophers have done, and to have\nas perfect an idea as is possible of the souls of animals, let us\nadmit that in all, without excepting man, it is of the same nature,\nand has no different functions, but by reason of the diversity of\norgans and humors; hence we must believe what follows.\n\nIt is certain that there is in the universe a very subtile spirit, or\na very delicate matter, and always in motion, the source of which is\nin the Sun, and the remainder is spread in all the other bodies, more\nor less, according to Nature or their consistency. That is the Soul of\nthe Universe which governs and vivifies it, and of which some portion\nis distributed among all the parts that compose it. This Soul, and\nthe most pure Fire which is in the universe does not burn of itself,\nbut by the different movements that it gives to the particles of other\nbodies where it enters, it burns and reflects its heat. The visible\nfire has more of this spirit than air, the latter more than water,\nand the earth much less than the latter. Among the mixed bodies,\nplants have more than minerals, and animals more than either. To\nconclude, this fire being enclosed in the body, it is rendered capable\nof thought, and that is what is called the soul, or what is called\nanimal spirits, which are spread in all parts of the body. Now, it\nis certain that this soul being of the same nature in all animals,\ndisperses at the death of man in the same manner as in other animals,\nfrom whence it follows that what Poets and Theologians sing or preach\nof the other world, is a chimera which they have invented, and which\nthey narrate for reasons that are easy to guess.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOF SPIRITS WHICH ARE CALLED DEMONS.\n\n\nI.\n\nWe have fully commented on how the belief in Spirits was introduced\namong men, and how these Spirits were but phantoms which existed in\ntheir imagination. The ancient Philosophers were not sufficiently clear\nto explain to the people what these phantoms were, and did not allow\nthemselves to say that they could raise them. Some seeing that these\nphantoms dissolved and had no consistency, called them immaterial,\nincorporeal, forms without matter, or colors and figures, without\nbeing, nevertheless, bodies either colored or defined, adding that\nthey could cover themselves with air like a mantle when they wished\nto render themselves visible to the eyes of men. Others said that\nthey were animated bodies, but were composed of air, or some other\nmore subtile matter which condensed at their will when they wished\nto appear.\n\n\n\n\nII.\n\nThese two kinds of Philosophers being opposed in the opinion which\nthey had of phantoms, agreed in the name which they gave them, for\nall called them Demons, in which they were but little more enlightened\nthan those who believed they saw in their sleep the souls of the dead,\nand that it is their soul which they see when they look in a mirror,\nand who also believed that they saw (reflected) in the water the souls\nof the stars. After this foolish fancy they fell into an error which is\nhardly less supportable, that is, the current idea that these phantoms\nhad infinite power. An absurd but ordinary belief with the ignorant who\nimagined that whatever they did not understand was an infinite power.\n\n\n\n\nIII.\n\nThis ridiculous opinion was no sooner published than the Sovereigns\nbegan to use it to support their power. They established a belief\nconcerning spirits which they called Religion, so that the fear which\nthe people possessed for invisible powers would hold them to their\nobedience. To have it carry more influence they distinguished the\ndemons as good and bad. The latter to encourage men to obey their laws,\nand the former to restrain and prevent them from infringing them. Now\nto learn what these demons were it is only necessary to read the\nGreek poets and their histories, and above all what Hesiod says in\nhis Theogony where he fully treats of the origin and propagation of\nthe Gods.\n\n\n\n\nIV.\n\nThe Greeks were the first who invented them, and by them they were\npropagated through the medium of their colonies, and their conquests in\nAsia, Egypt and Italy. The Jews who were dispersed in Alexandria and\nelsewhere got their acquaintance with them from the Greeks. They used\nthem as effectively as the other peoples but with this difference,\nthey did not call them Demons like the Greeks, but good and bad\nspirits; reserving for the good Demons the name of Spirit of God,\nand calling those Prophets who were said to possess this good spirit\ncalled the Divine, which they held as responsible for great blessings,\nand cacodaemons or Evil spirits on the contrary those which were\nprovocative of great Evil.\n\n\n\n\nV.\n\nThis distinction of good and evil made them name as Demoniacs those\nwhom we call lunatics, visionaries, madmen and epileptics, and those\nwho spoke to them in an unknown tongue. A man ill-shaped and of evil\nlook was to their notion possessed of an unclean spirit, and a mute of\na dumb spirit. Now, these words spirit and demon became so familiar to\nthem that they spoke of them on all occasions, so that it is evident\nthat the Jews believed like the Greeks, that these phantoms were not\nmere chimeras and visions, but real beings that existed independent\nof imagination.\n\n\n\n\nVI.\n\nSo it happens that the Bible is quite filled with these words Spirits,\nDemons and Fiends, but nowhere is it said when they were first known,\nnor the time of their creation, which is hardly pardonable in Moses,\nwho is earnest in depicting the Creation of Heaven, Earth and Man. No\nmore then is Jesus Christ who had such close intimacy with them,\nwho commanded them so absolutely according to the Gospel, and who\nspoke so often of angels and good and bad spirits, but without saying\nwhether they were corporeal or spiritual; which makes it plain that\nhe knew no more than the Greeks had taught other nations, in which\nhe is not less culpable than for denying to all men the virtue of\nfaith and piety which he professed to be able to give them.\n\nBut to return to the Spirits. It is certain that the words Demon,\nSatan and Devil, are not proper names which designated any individual,\nand which never have any credence but among the ignorant; as much\namong the Greeks who invented them, as among the Jews where they were\ntolerated. So the latter being overrun by them gave them names--which\nsignified enemy, accuser, inquisitor,--as well to invisible powers\nas to their own adversaries, the Gentiles, whom they said inhabited\nthe Kingdom of Satan; there being none but themselves, in their own\nopinion, who dwelt in that of God.\n\n\n\n\nVII.\n\nAs Jesus Christ was a Jew, and consequently imbued with these silly\nopinions, we read everywhere in the Gospels, and in the writings\nof his Disciples, of the Devil, of Satan and Hell as if they were\nsomething real and effective. While it is true, as we have shown,\nthat there is nothing more imaginary, and when what we have said is\nnot sufficient to prove it, but two words will suffice to convince\nthe most obstinate. All Christians agree unanimously that God is\nthe first principle and the foundation of all things, that he has\ncreated and preserves them, and without his support they would fall\ninto nothingness. Following this principle it is certain that God\nmust have created what is called the Devil, and Satan, as well as\nthe rest, and if he has created both good and evil, why not all the\nbalance, and if by this principle all evil exists, it can only be by\nthe intervention of God.\n\nNow can one conceive that God would maintain a creature, not only\nwho curses him unceasingly, and who mortally hates him, but even\nwho endeavors to corrupt his friends, to have the pleasure of\nbeing cursed by a multitude of mouths. How can we comprehend that\nGod should preserve the Devil to have him do his worst to dethrone\nhim if he could, and to alienate from his service his elect and his\nfavorites? What would be the object of God in such conduct? Now what\ncan we say in speaking of the Devil and Hell. If God does all, and\nnothing can be done without him how does it happen that the Devil\nhates him, curses him, and takes away his friends? Now he is either\nagreeable, or he is not. If he is agreeable, it is certain that the\nDevil in cursing him only does what he should, since he can only do\nwhat God wills. Consequently, it is not the Devil, but God in person\nwho curses himself; a situation to my idea more absurd than ever.\n\nIf it is not in accord with his will then it is not true that he\nis all powerful. Thus there are two principles, one of Good, the\nother of Evil, one which causes one thing and the other that does\nquite the contrary. To what does this reasoning lead us? To avow\nwithout contradiction that there is no God such as is conceived,\nnor Devil, nor Soul, nor Paradise, such as has been depicted, and\nthat the Theologians, that is to say, those who relate fables for\ntruth, are persons of bad faith who maliciously abuse the credulity\nof the ignorant by telling them what they please, as if the people\nwere capable of nothing but chimera or who should be fed with insipid\nfood in which is found only emptiness, nothingness and folly, and not\na grain of the salt of truth and wisdom. Centuries have passed, one\nafter the other, in which mankind has been infatuated by these absurd\nimaginations which have been combatted; but during all the period\nthere have also been found sincere minds who have written against the\ninjustice of the Doctors in Tiaras, Mitres and Gowns, who have kept\nmankind in such deplorable blindness which seems to increase every day.\n\n\n                                 FINIS.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBy permission of the Lord Baron de Hohendorf I have compiled this\nepitome out of the manuscript Library of his Most August Highness,\nDuke Eugene of Sabaudio, in the year 1716.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDICITIS.\n\nA DISEASE COMMON TO NEARLY ALL WORKS OF THIS CHARACTER, AND WHICH\nCONDITION IS PAST ALL SURGERY.\n\n\nAnother sketch of Mahomet translated from the \"Edition en Suisse,\"\n1793, and which may interest worshippers of Arabian mysteries evolved\nfrom imaginative brains, tinctured with extracts from \"Thory's Ada\nLatomorum,\" and similar works, and embellished with effects from\n\"Michael Strogoff.\"\n\n\n\n\nXXII.\n\nOf Mahomet.\n\nHardly had the disciples of Christ abolished the Mosaic law to\nintroduce the Christian dispensation, than mankind, carried away by\nforce, and by their ordinary inconstancy, followed a new law-giver,\nwho advanced himself by the same methods as Moses. He assumed, like\nhim, the title of prophet, and envoy of God, like him he performed\nmiracles and knew how to profit by the passions of the people. First\nhe was accompanied by an ignorant rabble, to whom he explained the\nnew oracles of heaven. These unfortunates, seduced by the promises\nand fables of this new impostor, spread his renown and exalted him\nto a height that eclipsed his predecessors.\n\nMahomet was not a man who appeared capable of founding an empire, as\nhe excelled neither in politics [50] nor philosophy; in fact, could\nneither read nor write. He had so little firmness that he would often\nhave abandoned his enterprise had he not been forced to persist in\nhis undertaking by the skill of one of his followers. From that time\nhe commenced to rise and become celebrated. Corais, a powerful Arab,\njealous that a man of his birth should have the audacity to deceive\nthe people, declared himself his enemy, and attempted to cross his\nenterprise, but the people persuaded that Mahomet had continual\nconferences with God and his angels caused him to prevail over his\nenemy. The tribe of Corais were at a disadvantage and Mahomet seeing\nhimself followed by a crazy crowd who thought him a divine man,\nthought he would have no need of a companion, but fearing that the\nlatter (Corais) might expose his impostures he tried to prevent it,\nand to do it more certainly he overwhelmed him with promises, and\nswore to him that he wished only to become great by sharing the power\nto which he had contributed. \"We have reached,\" said he, \"the moment\nof our elevation, we are sure of the great multitude we have gained,\nand we must now assure ourselves by the artifice you have so happily\nconceived.\" At the same time he induced him to hide himself in the\ncave of oracles. There was a dried-up well from which he made the\npeople believe that the voice of God declared himself for Mahomet,\nwho was in the midst of his proselytes. Deceived by the caresses of\nthis traitor, his associate went into the well to counterfeit the\noracle as usual; Mahomet then passing by at the head of an infatuated\nmultitude a voice was heard saying: \"I who am your God, declare that\nI have established Mahomet as the prophet of all nations: from him\nyou will learn my true law which has been changed by the Jews and\nthe Christians.\" For a long time this man played this game, but in\nthe end he was paid by the greatest and blackest ingratitude. Mahomet\nhearing the voice which proclaimed him a divine being, turned towards\nthe people and commanded them in the name of the God who recognized\nhim as his prophet, to fill with stones the ditch from whence had\nissued such authentic testimony in his favor, in memory of the stone\nwhich Jacob raised to mark the place where God appeared to him. [51]\nThus perished the unfortunate person who had contributed to the\nelevation of Mahomet; it was on this heap of stones that the last\nof the celebrated prophets established his law. This foundation is\nso stable and founded in such a way that after a thousand years of\nreign it has no appearance of being overthrown.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nA LITERAL TRANSLATION\n\n\n                        DE TRIBUS IMPOSTORIBUS.\n\n                              ANNO MDIIC.\n\n                                 ZWEITE\n               MIT EINEM NEUEN VORWORT VERSEHENE AUFLAGE\n                                  VON\n                              EMIL WELLER.\n\n                               HEILBRONN\n                      VERLAG VON GEBR. HENNINGER.\n                                  1876\n\n\nMany maintain that there is a God, and that he should be worshipped,\nbefore they understand either what a God is, or what it is to be,\nas far as being is common to bodies and spirits, according to the\ndistinction they make; and what it is to worship God, although they\nregard the worship of God according to the standard of the honor\ngiven to ruling men.\n\nWhat God is, they describe according to the confession of their own\nignorance. For it is inevitable that they declare how he differs\nfrom other things by the denial of former conceptions. They cannot\ncomprehend that there is an infinite being; that is, one of whose\nlimits they are ignorant. There is a creator of heaven and earth,\nthey say, but who is his creator they do not say, because they do not\nknow; because they do not understand. Some say that he is the origin\nof himself and maintain that he comes from nothing but himself. We do\nnot understand his origin they say, therefore he has none (why so? if\nwe do not understand God himself, is there, therefore, no God?) And\nthis is the first principle of their ignorance.\n\nThere is no progression into infinity; why not? because the human\nintellect must have some foundation? because it is accustomed to this\nbelief? because it cannot imagine anything beyond its own limits? As\nif, indeed, it followed, that if I do not comprehend infinity,\ntherefore there is no infinity.\n\nAnd nevertheless as is known from experience, some among the members of\nthe sects of Christ, think there is an infinite progression of divine\nproperties or persons, concerning the limitations of which, however,\nthere has hitherto been dispute, and so indeed they think that there\nis a progression into infinity. For the son is begotten from infinity,\nand the holy spirit is breathed from infinity. This begetting and\nthis procession goes on to infinity. For if that begetting or that\nbreathing of the spirit had begun or should once have ceased, the\nconception of eternity would be destroyed. But if you should agree\nwith them on this point also, that the creation of man can not be\nprolonged to infinity, which they infer, however, on account of\ntheir finite minds, it will not yet be evident whether other beings\nhave not been begotten among the higher powers, in a peculiar manner\nand in great number, as well as among men on earth; and who of this\ngreat number should especially be accepted as God. For every religion\nadmits that there are Gods who are mediators, although they are not\nall under equal limitations, whence that principle, that there must\nbe one being only, raised above men by his own nature, is evidently\ndemolished. And so it will be possible to say that from a diversity of\nGods as creators, a diversity of religions, and a variety of kinds of\nworship afterwards arose: which the religious feeling of the heathen\nespecially employed. But as to the objection which is raised about the\nmurders and the concubinage of the Pagan Gods, aside from the fact that\nthe Pagans have long since shown that these things must be understood\nas mysteries, similar things will be found in other religions.\n\nThe slaughter of many tribes was perpetrated by Moses and Joshua at\nthe command of God. Even human sacrifice the God of Israel demanded\nof Abraham, but it was not carried into effect in this remarkable case.\n\nBut he could either not have given a command, or Abraham could not have\nbelieved that it had been given in earnest, which would have been in\nitself utterly at variance with the nature of God. Mahomet promises\nthe whole world as the reward offered by his religion, and Christians\ntalk about the universal slaughter of their enemies and the subjugation\nof the foes of the church, which indeed has not been insignificant,\nfrom the fact that the church had the entire control of public affairs.\n\nWas not polygamy also permitted by (Mohammed) Moses, and as some\nmaintain, even in the New Testament, by Christ? Did not the Holy Spirit\nbeget the son of God by a peculiar union with a betrothed virgin?\n\nAs for other objections which are made to the pagans about their\nridiculous idols, and their misuse of worship, they are not so\nweighty that similar ones can not be made to the members of other\nsects; nevertheless it can easily be proved that these abuses have\nproceeded from the subordinates rather than from the leaders, from\nthe disciples, rather than from the masters of religions.\n\nBut to return to the former argument. This being,--since the intellect\nlimits its extent,--is what some call Nature and others God. On these\npoints some agree, others disagree. Some fancy that the worlds have\nexisted from eternity, and call the connection of things God; certain\nones call God an individual being, which can be neither seen or known,\nalthough among these disputes are not infrequent.\n\nReligion, as far as it concerns worship, some attribute to the fear,\nsome to the love, of invisible powers. But if the invisible powers are\nfalse, idolatry is just as the principles of each worshipper demand.\n\nThey will have it that love springs from kindness and refer it\nto gratitude; although nevertheless it chiefly arises from the\nsympathy of humors. The kind deeds of enemies inspire especially\nviolent hatred although no one of the hypocrites has dared to confess\nit. But who would suppose that love arises from the kindness of him\nwho gave to man the characteristics of a lion, a bear and other\nwild beasts that he might assume a nature contrary to the will\nof the creator? Who, well knowing the weakness of human nature,\nplaced before [our progenitors] a tree, by which he was sure they\nwould bring a fatal sentence upon themselves and their descendants\n(as some will have it)? And yet the latter are bound to worship and\nto perform deeds of gratitude, as if for a great favor, Forsooth! So\nthe Ithacan may have it, etc. Take deadly arms, a sword for instance,\nand if you had the most certain foreknowledge (which some claim for\nGod also in this very case, inasmuch as there can be no chance with\nGod) of the very purpose that he, before whose eyes you place it,\nwill seize it and inflict on himself and all his descendants the\nmost dreadful death. (He who has still one drop of the milk of human\nkindness will shudder to do such a deed). Take, I say, a sword, you\nwho are a father, for instance, or you who are a friend; and if you\nare a father, if you are a real friend, present it to your friend,\nor your children, with the command that they should not run upon it,\nyou foreseeing beyond all doubt, nevertheless, that he will run upon\nit, and inflict on his children and those hitherto innocent, the most\ndreadful death. Consider, you who are a father, would you do such a\nthing? What is it to make a command a mockery, if this is not? And\nnevertheless God must have given such a command. But they maintain\nthat God should be worshipped for his kindness, saying: If God is,\nhe must be worshipped; just as they make this inference, the Great\nMogul is, therefore he must be worshipped. His own people do indeed\nworship him, but why? assuredly that his unbridled pride and that\nof all great men may be gratified, and for no other reason. For he\nis worshipped chiefly on account of the fear of his visible power\n(hence at his death the worship ceases), and then too on account of\nthe hope of rewards. This same reason exists for the reverence shown\nparents and other people in power; and since invisible powers are\nconsidered more important and greater than visible ones, therefore,\nthey will have it that still more should they be worshipped. And this\nGod should be worshipped on account of his love, they say. And what\nkind of love is it to expose innocent posterity to infinite suffering\non account of the fall of one man, certainly foreseen and therefore\nforeordained (foreordained as far at least as being permitted). But,\nyou say, they are to be redeemed. But how? The father exposes his\nonly son to extreme suffering, that he may deliver the other man from\ntortures no greater, because of the redemption offered by the former.\n\nThe Barbarians had no such silly idea. But why should God be loved,\nwhy worshipped? because he created us? But to what end? that we should\nfall! because assuredly he had foreknowledge that [our progenitors]\nwould fall, and set before them the medium of the forbidden fruit,\nwithout which they could not have fallen. Granted, however, that\nhe should be worshipped because on him all things depend for their\ncreation; some, nevertheless, add, for their continued existence also,\nand their preservation. Why should God be worshipped? Does he himself\ndelight in worship? Certainly. Parents and benefactors are honored\namong us. But why is this honor given? Human nature has regard for\nmutual wants and, the bestowal of honor is due to the idea that we can\nbe aided by a greater and more enduring power. No one wishes to aid\nanother unless his own wants are satisfied in turn. That is called\na person's recognition of kindness and gratitude, which demands\na greater recognition of his own kindness; and in order that his\nreputation may be spread abroad, it demands that the other be ready,\nas a handmaid, so to speak, to inspire in others an idea of his fame\nand nobility. Doubtless the idea others may entertain of our ability\nto be of service to general or individual needs, tickles us, and\nraises plumes for us like those of a peacock, wherefore generosity\nis found among the virtues. But who does not see the imperfection\nof our nature? Who, however, would say that God, the most perfect\nof all beings, wants anything? Or that he wishes for any such thing\nif he is perfect and already self-sufficient and honored without any\nexternal honors. Who would say that he wants honor except those who\npersist in honoring him?\n\nThe desire for honor is a sign of imperfection and lack of power.\n\nThe consensus of opinion among all races on this subject, is urged by\nthose who have talked with scarcely all even of their own friends,\nor have examined three or four books treating of the testimony of\nthe world, not even carefully considering how far the authors had\nknowledge of the customs of the world; but those excellent authors\nwere not familiar with all customs. Notice, however, that when one is\nconsidering the matter, the objection here arises, that the fundamental\nreasons for worship are connected with God himself and his works,\nand not with the elementary constitution of any society. For there is\nno one who is not aware that worship is due to the custom, prevalent\namong the ruling and rich classes especially, of maintaining some\nexternal form of religion in order to calm the passions of the people.\n\nBut if you are concerned about the former reason, who would believe\nthat in the principal seat of the Christian religion,--Italy,--there\nare so many free-thinkers, or to speak more meaningly, Atheists, and if\nhe should believe it, would say that there is a consensus of opinion\namong all races. God is, therefore should he be worshipped? Because,\nforsooth, the wiser men at least say so? Who, pray, are the wiser? The\nhigh priest, the augurs, the soothsayers of the ancients, Cicero,\nCaesar, the leading men and their priestly adherents, etc.\n\nWould they let it be known that such practices were to their\ninterests? Doubtless those in control of public affairs, deriving\ntheir profits from the credulity of the people, told fear-inspiring\nstories of the power and vengeance of the invisible gods, and lied\nabout their own occasional meetings and association with them; and\ndemanded in proportion to their own luxury beings suitable for or even\nsurpassing themselves. For it is not to be wondered at that priests\npromulgate such teachings, since this is their method of maintaining\ntheir own lives. And such are the teachings of the wiser men.\n\nThis world may depend on the control of a prime mover; this\nis certainly the fact--that the dependence will be only at the\nstart. For why might there not have been a first command of God, such\nthat everything would go in a foreordained course to a fixed end,\nif he wished to fix one. There would no longer be need of new care,\ndependence or support, but he might at first have endowed every one\nwith sufficient powers. And why should it not be said that he did\nthis? For it is not to be supposed that he visits all the elements\nand parts of the universe as a physician does a sick man.\n\nWhat then is to be said of the testimony of conscience? and whence\nwould come those fears of the mind because of wrong-doing, were it\nnot evident that there is near us a higher power who sees and punishes\nus, whom wrong-doing displeases just as it is altogether at variance\nwith worship of him? It is not now my purpose to inquire more deeply\ninto the nature of good and evil nor the dangers of prejudice and\nthe folly of great fear which springs from preconceived ideas. This\nmerely I say. Whence did they arise? especially since all evil-doing\ndepends on the corruption and destruction of the harmony resulting\nfrom the interchange of services in the wants to which the human\nrace is subject, and since the idea about one who wishes to increase\nrather than to be of aid in those wants, renders him an object of\nhatred. Whence it happens that he himself may fear lest he may incur\nthe hatred and contempt of others, or a like refusal to satisfy his\nwants; or may lose his power of being of service not only to others\nbut to himself, in so far indeed as he needs to fear any harm from\nbeing wronged by others.\n\nAnd so, they say, those who do not have the light of Holy Scriptures,\nfollow the natural light in accordance with the dictates of their\nconsciences, which proves to be sure, that God has endowed the\nintellect of all men with some sparks of his own knowledge and will,\nand if they act according to these it must be said that they have\ndone right. For what reason of theirs can be a command to worship God\nif this is not? But it is maintained on many grounds that beasts act\naccording to the guide of reason, and this matter has not yet been\ndecided; nevertheless I do not urge this. Who has said anything to\nyou to prove that this does not occur, or that a trained animal does\nnot at times surpass an ignorant and uneducated man in intellect and\npowers of judgment? But to speak to the point, the majority of men of\nleisure who have had time to consider subtile ideas and those beyond\nthe comprehension of the ordinary intellect, in order to gratify\ntheir own pride and promote their own advantage, have devised many\nsubtile principles for which Alexis and Thyrsis, prevented by their\npastoral and rustic duties, could have had no leisure. Wherefore,\nthe latter have placed confidence in the philosophers of leisure,\nas if they were wiser, while they are more fitted to impose on the\nfoolish. Hence, good Alexis, go to, worship the sylvan Pans, Satyrs and\nDianas, etc. For the great philosophers will tell you about the dream\nof Numa Pompilius, and narrate to you the story of his concubinage\nwith the nymph Aegeria, and they will wish by this very account\nto bind you to his worship, and as a reward for this pious work,\nbecause of the reconciliation and favor of those invisible powers,\nthey will demand for their own support, the flower of your flock and\nyour labor as a sacrifice. And hence, since Titius worshipped Pan,\nAlexis, the Fauns, Rome, the Gods of War, Athens, the unknown Gods,\nis it to be supposed that those good men learned from the light of\nreason certain tales which were the idle inventions and ideas of\nphilosophers? not to attack too harshly the religion of others.\n\nAnd why did not this reason also tell that they were mistaken in\ntheir worship, in foolishly worshipping statues and stones, as if\nthey were the dwelling places of their Gods? But is it indeed to be\nsupposed that since good women bestowed such worship on Francis,\nIgnatius and Dominicus and such men, reason teaches that at least\nsome one among holy men should be worshipped? That they learn from the\nlight of nature the worship of some superior power no longer visible,\nalthough, nevertheless, such are the fabrications of our priests of\nleisure for the more splendid increase of their own means of support.\n\nTherefore, there is no God? Suppose there is (a God.) Therefore,\nshould he be worshipped? But this does not follow, because he desires\nworship as far as he has inscribed it in the heart. What more then? We\nshould then follow the guide of our nature. But this is known to be\nimperfect. In what respects? For is it sufficient enough to maintain\nthe society of men peacefully? Because other religious people,\nfollowing revelation, do not pass more tranquil lives?\n\nBut is it rather because God demands of us especially a more precise\nidea of God? But nevertheless you who promise this of any religion\nwhatsoever, do not supply it. For any revelation of what God is, is\nfar more unintelligible than before. And how will you make this clearer\nby the conception of the intellect, since he limits every intellect?\n\nWhat do you think of these things?\n\nNo one, I say, has a knowledge of God, moreover eye has not seen him,\nand he dwells in unapproachable light, and from the time of revelation\ntill now, in allegory. But I suppose every one knows how clear an\nallegory is. Wherefore do you indeed believe that God makes such\ndemands? or is it from the desire of the intellect to surmount the\nlimitations of its own capacity in order to comprehend everything more\nperfectly than it does, or from something else? Who of you is there\nwho speaks from special revelation? Good God! what a hodge-podge of\nrevelations. Do you point to the oracles of the heathen? Antiquity\nhas already held them up to ridicule. To the testimony of your\npriests? I can show you priests who will contradict them. You may\nprotest in your turn, but who will be the judge? Who will put an end\nto these disputes? Do you call attention to the writings of Moses,\nthe Prophets and Apostles? I bring to your notice the Koran, which\nsays that, according to a new revelation, these are corrupt and its\nauthor boasts of having settled by the sword the corruptions and\naltercations of Christians as did Moses those of the heathen. For\nby the sword Mahomet and Moses subjugated Palestine, each instructed\nby great miracles. And the writings of the Sectarians as well as of\nthe Vedas and the Brahmins 1300 years back, are in opposition, to say\nnothing of the Sinenses. [52] You, who in some remote spot in Europe\nare disputing about such things disregard or deny these writings. You\nyourself should see very clearly that with equal ease they deny your\nwritings. And what proofs not miraculous, would be sufficient to\nconvince the inhabitants of the world, if it were evident from the\nfirst three books of Veda, that the world was contained in and came\nfrom an egg of a scorpion, and that the earth and first elements\nof things was placed on the head of a bull, if some envious son of\nthe Gods had not stolen these first three volumes. In our times this\nwould be laughed at; and among those people there would not be this\nstrange argument to establish their religion if it did not have its\norigin in the brains of these priests.\n\nAnd whence else came those many immense volumes concerning the gods of\nthe pagans and those wagon loads of lies? Moses acted very wisely in\nfirst becoming skilled in the arts of the Egyptians, that is in the\nmastery of astrology and magic, and then by cruel war driving from\ntheir homes the petty kings of Palestine, and pretending a conference\nlike that of Numa Pompilius. Leading his army, confident of their\nfortunes, into the possessions of peaceful men; in order that he,\nforsooth, might be a great general and his brother high priest,\nand that he himself might be a leader and dictator. But of what\na people! Others by milder means and by pulling the wool over the\neyes of the people under cover of profound sanctity (I am afraid to\nmention other things,) and by the pious deceits of members of their\nsect in secret assemblies, first got control of the ignorant country\npeople and then, because of the growing strength of the new religion,\nthey got control of those who feared for themselves, and hated a\nleader of the people. At length another eager for war, by feigning\nmiracles attached to himself the more ferocious people of Asia,\nwho had suffered ill treatment at the hands of commanders of the\nChristians, and who, like Moses, with the promise of many victories\nand favors, he subjugated the warring and peaceful leaders of Asia,\nand established his religion by the sword. The first is considered\nthe reformer of the heathen, the second of Judaism and the third the\nreformer of both. It remains to be seen who will be the reformer\nof Mahomet and Mahometanism. Doubtless then, the credulity of men\nis likely to be imposed on, and to take advantage of this under the\npretense of some gain to be derived, is rightly called imposture.\n\nIt would be too long and tedious to show more at length in this\nplace, the nature and forms of what goes under the name of imposture,\nbut we must observe, that, even if natural religion is granted and\nthe worship of God is right as far as it is said to be commanded by\nnature; that up to this time the leader of every new religion has been\nsuspected of imposture, especially since it is evident to all and is\nobvious from what has been said or can be said, how many deceptions\nhave been used in propagating any religion.\n\nIt remains then unanswerable according to the previous argument, that\nreligion and the worship of God according to the promptings of natural\nlight, is consistent with truth and justice; but if any one wishes to\nestablish any new principles in religion, either new or displeasing,\nand that by the authority of invisible powers, it will evidently be\nnecessary for him to show his power of reforming, unless he wishes to\nbe considered by all an impostor. Since, not under the conclusions\nof natural religion, nor under the authority of special revelation,\nhe offers opposition to the ideas of all. Moreover he should be so\nupright in life and character that the people may believe him worthy\nof being associated with so high and holy a power, who does not\napprove of anything impure. Nor can merely his own confession, nor\nthe holiness of a past life, nor any miracles--that is extraordinary\ndeeds--prove this; for this is common rather among the skillful and\nthe deceivers of men, lying hypocrites who pursue their own advantage\nand glory in this way. For it is not worth considering that some\nreached such a degree of madness that they voluntarily sought death,\nin order that it might be supposed that they despised and conquered\neverything, like different ones among the ancient philosophers. Nor\nis it to be supposed that they were upheld by special divine powers\nin that which they did because of foolish fancies and fond hopes of\nmountains of gold, rising from a defective judgment. For they did not\ngive the matter the proper consideration, nor did the real teachers,\nfor in order that you may come to a fair decision about them, I have\nsaid not only is their own testimony not sufficient, but in order\nto reach the truth of the matter, they must be compared with one\nanother; and other witnesses with them, and then their acquaintances\nand friends, and then strangers, then friends and enemies; and then\nafter the testimony is all gathered in, that of each teacher concerning\nhimself, and then that of others must be compared. And if we do not\nknow the witnesses, we must consult the witnesses of the witnesses,\nand so on; besides instituting an investigation as to your powers of\ndistinguishing from the true and the false involved in such or other\ncircumstances. Especially in similar ones, inquiring, moreover, whence\nyou desired data to learn the truth, for this purpose comparing the\njudgment of others, as to what they infer from such an investigation\nor from the testimony of witnesses. And from these data it will\nbe permissible to infer whether he who makes this claim, is a true\nmessenger of the revelation of divine will and whether his teachings\nshould be gradually adopted. But at this point we must be very careful\nnot to get into a circle. Whenever the nature of important religions\nmay be such that one supplants another, as that of Moses, Paganism,\nthat of Mahomet, Christianity,--the later one may not always nor in\nevery particular cast aside the earlier, but only in certain parts,\nto such an extent that the latter is founded on the former, it will\nbe necessary to investigate carefully not only either the last,\nor the middle, or the first, but all, especially since the charge\nof imposture is brought by every sect. So the ancients were charged\nwith it by Christ, because they corrupted the law; the Christians\nby Mahomet, because they corrupted the gospels, a fact not to be\nwondered at, inasmuch as one sect of Christians charges the other\nwith corrupting texts of the New Testament, so that it can [not]\nbe ascertained whether he who is offered as an example is a teacher\nof a true religion or how far those who claim to have been given\nauthority, should be listened to. For in an investigation no sect\nmust be overlooked, but each must be compared with the rest without\nany prejudice. For if one is overlooked, that perhaps, is the very\none which is nearer the truth. Thus, those who followed Moses, have\nfollowed the truth according to the Christians also, but they ought\nnot to have paused at that point, but should examine the truth of\nthe Christian religion also.\n\nEach sect maintains that its own teachers are the best and that it\nhas had and is daily having proof of this, and that there are no\nbetter ones, so that either every one must believe it, which would\nbe absurd, or no one, which is the safer plan, until the true way is\nknown, though no sect should be disregarded in a comparison.\n\nThere is no need of presenting the objection that it is known that\nall mathematicians agree that twice two is four. For it is not a\nsimilar case, since no one has been known to doubt whether twice\ntwo is four, while on the contrary religions agree neither in end,\nbeginning nor middle. Suppose that I do not know the true way of\nsalvation; I follow, however, the Brahmins or the Koran. Will not\nMoses and the rest say: What wrong have we done you that you thus\nreject us, though we are better and nearer the truth? What reply shall\nwe make? I believed in Mahomet or the Gymnosophistes [53], in whose\nteachings I was born and brought up, and from them I learned that\nyour religion and that of the Christians which followed, have long\nsince decayed and grown corrupt, and are still misleading. Will they\nnot reply that they do not know anything about the others and that\nthese do not know anything about the true guide to salvation, since\nthey know that those who are corruptors of the people are impostors,\nfeigning miracles, or by lies pulling the wool over the eyes of the\npeople. Nor should faith be thus simply given to one man or one sect,\nrejecting all others without a complete and proper investigation. For\nwith equal right the Ethiopian, who has not left his own land, says\nthat there are no men under the sun except those of a black color.\n\nMoreover, this precaution also should be taken in the investigation\nof other sects, that equal care should be used in an investigation of\nall, and while one is explained with great pains, the other should not\nbe slighted, because one claim or another at first sight seems to be\nwrong, or because of the evil reports of gossip concerning the leader\nof that sect, while other reports are cast aside. For that should\nnot be set down as doctrine or indubitable testimony, which the first\nvagabond that comes along asserts about a hostile religion. Indeed,\nwith equal right on account of common gossip and the mere mention of\na name, the Christian religion was to some an object of horror, and\nto others an object of scorn. With the latter because the Christians\nworshipped the head of an ass, and with the former because they ate\nand drank their God, so that at length the report became current\nthat to be a Christian was to be a deadly enemy of God and men;\nwhen, nevertheless, such tales were either things which had been\nmisunderstood or skillfully told lies, which were then confirmed,\nand having some foundation, spread abroad because an enemy of that\nreligion had absolutely no intercourse, or no proper intercourse,\nwith the Christians themselves, or the more learned among them,\nbut believed the first ignorant person or deserter or enemy of that\nreligion. Such a method of investigation being decided upon, it would\nalways be a matter of great difficulty. What shall we say about women,\nwhat about children, what about the majority of the masses of the\npeople? All children will be excluded from a feeling of security\nin regard to their religion, and the majority of women to whom even\nthose matters which have been most clearly explained by the leaders\nof any religion, as far as can be done, are obscure: also from their\nmanner of life you rightly perceive that with the exception of a\nvery few superior ones, they have no accurate powers of comprehending\nmysteries of such a character, to say nothing of the countless numbers\nof insignificant persons and country people for whom the question of\ntheir own support is the most important subject for the exercise of\ntheir powers of reason, while other matters they accept or reject in\ngood faith. Doubtless there is only a very small part of the world,\nwho weigh all religions, compare their own carefully with others and\ncorrectly distinguish true reasons from false, in details in which\ndeception may creep in; but the majority rather adopt the faith of\nothers, of teachers of sacred matters especially, whose knowledge\nand powers of judgment in sacred matters are considered noteworthy.\n\nAnd so in any religion this is done, especially by those who can not\nread and write or do not have anything to read. But it should have been\nobserved that in this matter it is not sufficient that the teachers of\nany religion should have the power, because of very exact powers of\njudgment and avowed experience, of distinguishing the true from the\nfalse. Indeed it ought to be very certain to others, with powers of\njudgment no less exact, that those teachers have not only the ability\nto distinguish the true from the false, but the desire as well, and\nindeed we ought to be especially certain that he who professes such\na knowledge and desire is neither deceived nor wishes to be.\n\nAnd what choice shall we make here among so many teachers so much at\nvariance in even one eminent sect? For when we look at our comrades\nand associates, who disagree on many subjects, although they are most\nfriendly in other respects, one of the two disputants will maintain\nhis opinion on account of some defect, either because he has not a\ncorrect understanding of the matter, and lacks the power of judgment,\nor because he does not wish to give up, and so does not desire to\nconfess the truth. But although it might be matters of secondary\nimportance in which this happened, nevertheless the result will be\nthat they will be mistrusted in other matters also. Each doubtless is\nin possession of one truth, and he who gives this up in one place,\neither from a defect of judgment or a wrong desire is deservedly\nmistrusted of doing the same thing in other cases.\n\nTherefore, that you may judge of the ability and honesty of any teacher\nin religion, first, it is necessary for you to be just as able as he;\nfor otherwise he will be able to impose on you very easily, and,\nmoreover, if he is unknown to you, he will need the testimony of\nothers, and these again of others, and so on indefinitely; not only\nin regard to his truthfulness, that he really taught such doctrines,\nbut in regard to his honesty, that he did this without deceit. And\nthe same method must at once be employed in regard to the witnesses\nof his honesty and his teachings. But where will you place an end to\nthis? It is not enough that such discussions have already taken place\namong others; you must consider how well this has been done. For\nthe ordinary proofs which are set forth are neither conclusive nor\nmanifest, and prove doubtful matters by others more doubtful, so that,\nlike those who run in a circle, you return to the starting point.\n\nIn order that it may be manifest whether any one is a teacher of a true\nreligion or an impostor, there is need either of personal knowledge,\nwhich we can not have in the case of the three great founders of\nthe religions of Judaism, Christianity and Mahometanism, inasmuch\nas they lived in far distant places and died long before our time;\nor of the knowledge of others, which, if any one imparts it to you,\nwe call testimony.\n\nBetween these, there is still another way of knowing any one, namely\nthrough his own writings, which may be called one's own testimony\nconcerning himself. And concerning Christ, there is no such testimony;\nconcerning Moses, it is doubtful whether there is; concerning Mahomet,\nthere is the Koran. The testimony of others is of two classes--that\nof friends and that of enemies. Between these extremes there is no\nthird class, according to the saying, \"who is not with me is against\nme.\" Mahomet in his writings assumes and attributes to himself the\nsame divine qualities as did Moses and another. Moreover the friends of\nMahomet and members of his sect wrote the same things concerning him as\ndid the members of the sects of the others concerning their masters,\nand the enemies of the others wrote just as disparagingly of them as\ntheir friends did of Mahomet. As for the rest, the testimony of any one\nconcerning himself is too unreliable to inspire implicit confidence,\nand is of no consequence except, perchance, to perplex a thoughtless\nhearer. The assertions of friends, who doubtless unanimously repeat\nthe sayings of their masters, are of the same nature. Nor should\nthe enemies of any one be heeded on account of their prejudices. But\nas it is, in spite of these facts, it is for such trivial reasons,\nwhich are confirmed only by the master's own boasts, the assertions\nof friends, or the calumnies of enemies, that every follower of\nany one of the three assumes that the claims of his enemy are based\nwholly on imposture, while the teachings of his master are founded\nwholly on truth. Nevertheless Mahomet is undoubtedly considered an\nimpostor among us; but why? Not from his own testimony or that of his\nfriends but from that of his enemies. Then, on the contrary, among\nthe Mahometans he is considered a most holy prophet; but why? From\nhis own testimony, but especially from that of his friends. Whoever\nconsiders Moses an impostor or a holy teacher employs the same method\nof reasoning. And there is equal reason in the case of Mahomet as\nin the case of the others, either for charging him with imposture\nor for answering that charge, although, nevertheless, the former\nare considered holy, while he is considered a scoundrel, contrary\nto all the demands of justice. To put it in the scholastic manner,\nthen, the following conclusions are most firmly established: Whenever\nthere is the same reason as in the case of Mahomet for charging any\nperson with imposture or for answering that charge, they should be\nplaced in the same category. And for example, in the case of Moses,\nthere is the same reason, therefore justice should be demanded just\nas in the case of Mahomet, nor should he be considered an impostor.\n\n\n\n\nPROOF OF MINOR PREMISE.\n\n(a.) In regard to the rebuttal of the charge of imposture: this is\nbased on the above-mentioned testimony not only of Mahomet concerning\nhimself in his well-known writings, but on that of every one of his\nfriends concerning their master, and hence, it logically follows:\n\n(I.) Whatever value the testimony of Moses' friends has in defending\nhim on the charge of imposture, the testimony of Mahomet's friends\nought to have the same value. And whatever the value of the acquittal,\nthough their favorable testimony, etc., etc. Therefore, etc.\n\n(II.) And whatever value the books of Moses have for this purpose,\nthe same value the Koran has also. And so, etc. Therefore, etc.\n\nMoreover, the Mussulmen, from the very books of the New Testament\n(although according to these very persons, these books have been much\ncorrupted in other respects,) draw various arguments even in support\nof their Mahomet, and especially that prediction of Christ concerning\nthe future Paraclete. [54] They maintain that he came and exposed the\ncorruption of the Christians, and established a new covenant. And\nalthough at other times the Koran is charged with many silly, nay\nimpious tales, all these nevertheless, can be explained in a spiritual\nsense or smoothed over in other ways, since the rest of the teachings\ninsist on nothing but extreme sanctity and a stringent mode of morals,\nbut especially on temperance and abstinence from wine. And to the\nobjection frequently raised that wine is the gift of God, the reply\ncan be made that so also are poisons, and yet we are not supposed\nto drink them. The further objection often made that the spirit of\nthe Koran is too carnal, and fills eternal life with pleasures of\nthe world and the flesh, polygamy moreover being so indiscriminately\npermitted, it is not of such weight that it can not be confuted, since\nMoses also permitted polygamy and in the New Testament life eternal\nadmits of banquets, e. g., you will sit down with Abraham and Isaac,\netc., etc. Again, I shall not taste wine except in the Kingdom of my\nFather. It is said that all those pleasures mentioned in the Song of\nSolomon, which is, of course, also instanced, are not wrong, and when\nexplained in a spiritual sense imply no wrong, although the same thing\nis not said of the Koran. And if we are too severely critical of the\nwords of the Koran, we ought to employ the same severity of criticism\nagainst the writings of Moses and others. Moreover the arguments which\nare offered from Moses himself in answer to the charge of imposture,\ndo not seem reasonable nor of sufficient weight.\n\n(I.) Our knowledge of the intercourse Moses had with God depends on\nhis own testimony and that of his friends, and hence such evidence\ncan have no more weight than similar arguments of the Mussulmen\nconcerning the conference that Mahomet had with Gabriel; and what\nis more, this intercourse of Moses, according to Moses himself (if\nall those sayings are Moses', which are commonly attributed to him)\nis open to the suspicion of imposture, as is to be shown below.\n\n(II.) No one indeed who is acquainted with the many very grave crimes\nof Moses, will be able to say easily or at least justly, that his\nholiness of life can not easily be matched. His crimes then are\nthe following:\n\n(a.) Fraud, which none but his friends have palliated, but they are\nnot impartial judges of the matter; nor does that commendatory passage\nof Luke in the Acts of the Apostles form any apology, for there is\ndispute as to the honesty and veracity of that witness.\n\n(b.) The stirring up of rebellion; for it can not be proved that\nthis was due to a command of God, nay, the contrary is clear, since\nelsewhere Moses is urged to forbid resistance to tyrants.\n\n(c.) Wars, although murder is contrary to the V. and VII. (?VI.) [55]\ncommandments of Moses himself, unrestrained plunder, etc., etc.; just\nas the high priest in India, or Mahomet in his land, offering the\ncommand of God as a pretext, drove from their territory the former\npossessors. Moses slew thousands and gave them over to slaughter in\norder to insure salvation to himself and his people.\n\n(d.) The teaching concerning the taking of the property of others\nunder the pretense of a loan.\n\n(e.) The prayer to God in which Moses desired to die eternally for\nhis people, although this petition asked of God such things as would\ndestroy his essence. See Exodus xxxii, 31, 32. [56]\n\n(f.) Neglect of the commands of God in regard to circumcision (Exodus\niv, 24, 25, 26,) [57] and finally,\n\n(g.) The chief of Moses' crimes, the extreme and stupid incredulity\nof one who was chosen to perform so many miracles by the power of God,\nand who nevertheless on account of his wavering faith was censured by\nGod himself severely and with the threat of punishment. (Numbers xx,\n12). [58]\n\nAs to\n\n(b.) The proof of the other argument, namely, the charge of imposture,\nit can be said: We believe that Mahomet was an impostor, not from\nour personal knowledge, as was pointed out above, but from the\ntestimony, not of his friends, but of his enemies. But all such\nare anti-Mahometans, according to the saying \"Who is not with me\nis against me,\" etc., etc.: hence follows the conclusion: Whatever\nweight the testimony of enemies has in the case of one, that it ought\nto have in the case of the other also. Otherwise we shall be unjust\nin condemning one from the testimony of enemies and not the other;\nif this were done, all justice would be at an end.\n\nAnd in the case of Mahomet, the testimony of enemies has such weight,\nthat he is considered an Impostor, therefore, etc., etc.\n\nFurthermore, I say that reasons for suspecting Moses of imposture\ncan be elicited not only from external, but from internal evidence,\nwhereby imposture can be proved by his own testimony as well as by\nthat of others, albeit, his followers, although there is still dispute.\n\n(I.) Whether the books, which are said to be those of Moses, are his or\n(II.) those of compilers, (III.) or those of Esdras, especially, and\n(IV.) whether they were written in the Samaritan, or (V.) the real\nHebrew language; and (VI.) if the latter, whether we can understand\nthat language. All these matters are doubtful for many reasons, and\nespecially it can be shown from the first chapters of Genesis that we\ncan not correctly interpret that language. I confess I am unwilling\nto concern myself with these points, but I wish to discuss the man.\n\nI. From Moses' own testimony and indeed\n\n(a.) concerning his life and character which we have considered above,\nand which, if any blame is attached to Mahomet on account of the fierce\nwars he waged, especially against the innocent, is equally blamable,\nand in other respects does not seem at all different from Mahomet's.\n\n(b.) Concerning the authority of his own teaching. And here applies\nwhat was said above about Moses' intercourse with God, which Moses\nindeed boasted of but evidently with too great exaggeration. For if\nany one boasts of intercourse with God of an impossible nature, his\nintercourse is properly doubted and Moses, etc. Therefore, etc. It is\nproved because he boasts of having seen that of which in the Old and in\nthe New Testament afterward, it is very often said that no eye has seen\n(namely) God face to face. Exodus xxxii. 11. Numbers xii. 8. [59] Thus\nhe saw God (1) in his own form, not in a vision nor in a dream (2),\nbut face to face as friend to friend when he spoke directly to him. But\nany vision, which (1) is like that of friends speaking face to face,\ndirectly to one another, (2) like that of the blessed in the other\nlife, is properly called and considered a vision of God. And Moses,\netc. Therefore, etc. The Minor premise is proved from the passages\npreviously cited and from the words of the Apostle: then indeed\nface to face, etc., and there is the same argument in the passages\nof Moses and in that of the Apostle. And yet among Christians the\nbelief is most firmly established that no unjust person can see God\nin this life. And in the above passage of Exodus xxxiii. 20, [60]\nit is expressly added: you will not be able to see my face. These\nwords God addressed to Moses and they are in direct contradiction to\nthe passages previously cited, so that these claims can be explained\nin no other way than by saying that they were added by a thoughtless\ncompiler, but by so doing the whole is rendered doubtful.\n\n(c.) Concerning the teachings of Moses, which relate either to the\nlaws or the gospel. Among the laws, all of which for the sake of\nbrevity I can not now consider, the decalogue is most important, being\ncalled the special work of God and said to have been written on Mount\nHoreb. But it is evident it was devised by Moses before it was written\nby God, because these commands are not in themselves characterized\nby the perfection of God, since (1) they are either superfluous,\nnamely the last three, arguing from the words of Christ in Math. v,\n[61] undoubtedly relating to the former, while the IX should not\nbe separated from the X, and they will likewise be superfluous (2)\nor they are defective. For where are these commandments: thou shalt\nnot desire to have other Gods, nor desire to curse God, nor desire to\ndesecrate the Sabbath, nor to injure thy parents, and similar ones? And\nis it to be presumed that God would forbid the lesser sins of coveting\na neighbor's house, land and property especially, and in an order\nso extraordinary, and not the greater? As to the teaching of Moses\nconcerning the gospel, he establishes a very foolish and untrustworthy\nsign of the future great prophet, or Christ. Deut. xviii, 21, 22,\n[62] since this sign makes faith impossible for a long time. From this\ndictum it follows that Christ, having predicted the fall of Jerusalem,\nought not to have been considered a true prophet while that prophecy\nwas as yet unfulfilled (nor should Daniel, until his prophecy had\nbeen fulfilled), and so those who lived in the interval between the\ntime of Christ and the overthrow of Judea, can not be blamed for not\nbelieving in him, although Paul hurled anathemas at those who did\nnot attach themselves to Christ before the fall.\n\nWhatever sign, then, permits people for a long time to believe what\nthey please with impunity, can not proceed from God, but is justly\nsubject to suspicion. And this sign was given, etc., therefore, etc.\n\nWhat is said concerning the fulfillment of other prophecies is no\nobjection. For it is the special and genuine sign of that great\nprophet, that his predictions are fulfilled. Wherefore, naturally,\nprevious to this fulfillment he could not have been considered such\na prophet.\n\nThe other absurd conclusion which evidently follows from this passage,\nis this: that although this sign ought to have been the proof of the\ndivine inspiration of all prophets, in the case of certain prophets\nwho made predictions, indefinite indeed, but in words not admitting a\nmoral interpretation (such as soon, swiftly, near, etc.,) that sign\ncan by no means be found, e. g. Many predict the last day of the\nworld and Peter said that that day was at hand; therefore, so far,\nuntil it comes it will be impossible to consider him a true prophet.\n\nFor such is the express requirement Moses makes in the passage cited.\n\n(d.) Concerning the histories of Moses. But if the Koran is charged\nwith containing many fables, doubtless in Genesis there are many\nstories to arouse the suspicions of the thoughtful reader: as the\ncreation of man from the dust of the earth, the inspiration of\nthe breath of life, the creation of Eve from the rib of the man,\nserpents speaking and seducing human beings, who were very wise and\nwell aware that the serpent was possessed by the father of lies,\nthe eating of an apple which was to bring punishment upon the whole\nworld, which would make finite one of the attributes of God, namely\nhis clemency (the attributes of God being identical with his essence),\nas the redemption of the fallen would make finite the wrath of God,\nand so God himself: for the wrath of God is God himself; men eight\nor nine hundred years old; the passage of the animals into the\nark of Noah, the tower of Babel, the confusion of tongues, etc.,\netc. These and a thousand other stories can not fail to impress the\ninvestigating freethinker as being similar to the fables, especially\nof the Rabbins since the Jewish race is very much addicted to the use\nof fables; nor at all inconsistent with other works, to mention those\nof Ovid, the Vedas, those of the Sinenses and the Brahmins of India,\nwho tell that a beautiful daughter born from an egg bore the world,\nand similar absurdities. But Moses especially seems to arrest our\nattention because he represents God as contradicting himself, namely,\nsaying that all things were good and yet that it was not good for Adam\nto be alone. Whence it follows that there was something apart from\nAdam that was not good and so could injure the good condition of Adam,\nwhile, nevertheless, the solitude of Adam itself was the work of God,\nsince he had created goodness not only of the essences but also of\nthe qualities.\n\nFor all things were good in that quality in which God had created\nthem. I adduce as proof: It is impossible for any work created by God\nnot to be good. And the solitude of Adam, etc., etc. Therefore, etc.\n\nWhoever enters upon the study of the genealogies of the Old Testament\nfinds many difficulties in Moses. I shall not now cite all, contenting\nmyself with merely this one example, since Paul, I. Tim. i., 4,\n[63] has taught that genealogies are useless, and the study of them\nunprofitable, nay, to be avoided. Of what use were so many separate,\nnay, so oft times repeated, genealogies? And there is a remarkable\nexample to arouse suspicion at least of the corruption of the text\nor of the carelessness of compilers, in the case of the wives of Esau\nand the different things said of them.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWIVES OF ESAU.\n\n [64]Genesis xxvi, 34:\n\n\n    Judith, daughter of Berit, the Hittite.\n    Basnath, daughter of Elon, the Hittite.\n\n\nGenesis xxviii, 9:\n\n\n    Mahalaad, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nabajoth, who is mentioned\n    after the two former.\n\n\nGenesis xxxvi, 2:\n\n\n    Ada, daughter of Elon, the Hittite.\n    Akalibama, C. I.\n    Basnath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nabajoth.\n\n\nThe one who is called Ada in Genesis xxxvi, is called Basnath in\nGen. xxvi, namely, the daughter of Elon, the Hittite, and the one who\nis called Basnath in Gen. xxxvi, is called Mahalaad in Gen. xxviii,\nnamely, the sister of Nabajoth, although, nevertheless, Mahalaad,\nin the passage cited in Gen. xxviii, is said to have been married\nafter Judith and Basnath, previously mentioned in Gen. xxvi.\n\nI do not yet see how these names are to be reconciled. And these and\nsimilar passages increase the suspicion that the writings of Moses\nwhich we have, have been put together by compilers and that errors\nin writing have crept in at some time.\n\nFinally the most conclusive argument against the authenticity of\nMoses is the excessive tautology and useless repetition, with always\nthe same amount of difference, as if different passages had been\ncollected from different authors.\n\n(II.) To prove that Moses is subject to suspicion from the testimony,\nnot of his enemies only, but from that of those who openly professed\nto be his followers and disciples. And this testimony is\n\n(g.) Of Peter, Acts xv. 10, [65] calling the yoke of Moses\ninsupportable: and hence either God must be a tyrant, which would be\ninconsistent with his nature, or Peter speaks falsely, or the laws\nof Moses are not divine.\n\n(h.) Of Paul always speaking slightingly of the laws of Moses, which\nhe would not do if he considered them divine. Thus Gal. iv. [66]\nhe calls them\n\n(a.) Bondage v. 3, 4, but who would have so called the laws of God.\n\n(b.) Beggarly commands v. 9. [67]\n\n(c.) V. 30, [67] he writes: Cast out the bondwoman and her son. Hagar,\nthe bondwoman, is the covenant of Mount Sinai, which is the law\nof Moses according to v. 24. [67] But who would tolerate the saying,\ncast out the law of God and its children, and followers, although Paul\nhimself, as he asserts here and in the following chapter Gal. iv. 2,\n3, [67] does not permit Timothy to be circumcised. Act xvi. [68]\n\n(d.) He calls the law a dead letter, and what else does he not call it?\nII. Cor. iii., 6-10 [67] and following. Likewise he did not consider\nits glory worth considering. c. v., 10. Who would say such things of\nthe most holy law of God? If it is just as divine as the gospel it\nought to have equal glory, etc., etc.\n\nThe testimony of those who are outside of the Jewish or Christian\nchurch, is etc., etc.\n\n\n                                TANTUM.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY.\n\n\nIn the library of Cornell University, at Ithaca, N. Y., is a large\ncollection of Spinoza manuscripts and printed books by the same\nauthor. The collection was left to the library, and is known as the\n\"Strauss Collection.\" In the collection is a manuscript copy of \"La\nvie et l'esprit de M. Benoit de Spinosa,\" which includes \"Le trait\u00e9\ndes trois Imposteurs.\"\n\nThis particular manuscript is much longer than any of the printed\neditions of Trait\u00e9 des Trois Imposteurs, and includes several more\nchapters than another manuscript which is in same library.\n\nThe printed editions usually contain six chapters, although the\nedition \u00e0 Philadelphie, 1796, alluded to on pages 18-19, contains\nnine chapters. None of the printed editions that I have seen contains\na chapter entitled Numa Pompilius.\n\nThe manuscript in Cornell library has six additional chapters\nmore than our manuscript, 1716, which chapters are entitled:\n1. Religions. 2. Of the Diversity of Religions. 3. Divisions of\nChristians. 4. The Superstitious,--of the superstition and credulity\nof the people. 5. Of the Origin of Monarchies. 6. Of Legislators and\nPoliticians, and how they serve themselves with Religion.\n\nThese chapters being but an elaboration of the matters and ideas\ncontained in our English translation.--A. N.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATIONS OF LATIN FOUND IN THE TEXT.\n\n\nP. 8, paragraph 3, \"Atheismus Triumphatus.\" Atheism destroyed.\n\nP. 10, paragraph 1, \"Perini del Vago, Equitis de Malta, Epistolium\nad Batavum in Brittania hospitem de tribus Impostoribus,\" (3 Greek\nwords omitted). Epistle to Batavus, a friend in Britain, about the\nThree Impostors (the Pamphleteers, Sycophants and so-called Doctors).\n\nP. 12, line 2, \"Ridiculum et imposturae in omni hominum\nreligione, scriptio paradoxa, quam ex autographo gallico Victoris\nAmadeo Verimontii ob summam rei dignitatem in latinum sermonem\ntranstulit.\" What is ridiculous, and the impostures in every religion\nof mankind, a strange writing, which he translated into Latin from\nthe original French of Victor Amadeus Verimontius, on account of the\ngreat worth of the subject matter.\n\nP. 12, line 9, \"Quaedam deficiunt s. fragmentum de libro de tribus\nimpostoribus.\" Certain things are missing. His fragment of the book\nabout the three impostors.\n\nP. 12, line 12, \"De imposturis religionum breve. Compendium descriptum\nab exemplari manuscripto quod in bibliotheca J. Fred. Mayeri, Berolini,\npublice distracta deprehensum et a Principe Eugenio de Sabaudio,\n80 Imperialibus redemtum fuit.\" An abstract about the impostures\nof religions. An abridgment copied from the original manuscript\nwhich, at the dispersal of the library of J. Fred. Mayer of Berlin,\nwas discovered and repurchased by Prince Eugene de Sabaudio for\n80 imperials.\n\nP. 12, line 18, \"Communes namque demonstrationes, quae publicantur,\nnec certae, nec evidentes, sunt, et res dubias per alias saepe\nmagias dubias probant, adeo ut exemplo eorum, qui circulum currunt,\nad terminum semper redeant, a quo currere inceperant. Finis.\" For the\nordinary arguments which are set forth, are not established, nor are\nthey evident, and prove doubtful matters by others often much more\ndoubtful, just like those who run in a circle, and always return to\nthe starting point. End.\n\nP. 12, last 7 lines, \"Quamvis omnium hominem intersit nosse veritatem,\nrari tamen boni illi qui eam norunt,\" etc. Although it is to the\ninterest of all men to know the truth, nevertheless those few good\nmen who know it, etc.\n\n\"Qui veritates amantes sunt, multum solatii inde capient, et hi sunt,\nquibus placere gestimus, nil curantes mancipia, quae prejudicia\noraculorum--infallibilium loco venerantur.\" Those who are lovers of\nthe truth will derive much comfort from this, and those are the ones\nwhom we are anxious to please, not caring for those servile persons\nwho reverence prejudices as infallible oracles.\n\nP. 13, paragraph 7, \"De impostura religionum compendium s. liber de\ntribus impostoribus.\" Treatise about the imposture of religions. His\nbook about the three impostors.\n\nP. 15, paragraph 2, \"Homo sum, nihil humania me alienum puto.\" I am\na man, I consider nothing human alien to me.\n\nPage 29, 4th paragraph. Latin orthography corrected:\n\n\"Quod de tribus famosissimis Nationum Deceptoribus in\nordinem. Jussu. meo digessit Doctissimus ille vir, quocum Sermonem\nde illa re in Museo meo habuisti exscribi curavi atque codicem illum\nstilo aeque, vero ac puro scriptum ad te ut primum mitto, etenim\nipsius perlegendi te accipio cupidissimum.\"\n\nThis treatise about the three most famous impostors of the world, in\naccordance with my instructions was put in order by that scholar with\nwhom you had the conversation concerning that matter in my library,\nI had it copied, and that MS. written in a style equally genuine and\nsimple. I send you as soon as possible, for I am sure you are very\neager to read it.\n\nP. 29-30, last paragraph, (Latin orthography corrected),\n\"I. liber de Nat. Deor. Qui Deos esse dixerunt tanta sunt in\nVarietate et dissentione constituti ut eorum molestum sit dinumerare\nsententias. Alterum fieri profecto potest ut eorum nulla, alterum certe\nnon potest ut plus unum vera fit. Summi quos in Republica obtinuerat\nhonores orator ille Romanus, eaque quam servare famam Studiote curabat,\nin causa fuere quod in Condone Deos non ausus sit negare quamquam in\ncontesta Philosophorum, etc.\"\n\nI. Book about the nature of the Gods. \"Those who have said that there\nare Gods, are characterized by such a variety of ideas and difference\nof belief, that it would be difficult to enumerate their opinions.\n\n\"On the one hand it might indeed happen that not one of their opinions\nwas true, but on the other hand, certainly not more than one can be\ntrue.\" The great honors which that famous Roman orator had gained in\nthe state, and that reputation, which he took the most zealous care\nto maintain, were the reason why in a public speech he dared not deny\nthe Gods, although in a discussion of philosophers, etc.\n\nP. 35, last paragraph, \"De poteste Imperiali,\"--Of the Imperial power.\n\nP. 144, TANTUM--So Far.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nQUIXOTISM.\n\n\nDid you ever attend a meeting of the society for the--perhaps I had\nbetter not mention the name of the society, lest I tread on your\nfavorite Quixotism. Suffice it to say that it has a noble purpose. It\naims at nothing less than the complete transformation of human\nsociety, by the use of means which, to say the least, seem quite\ninadequate. After the minutes of the last meeting have been read,\nand the objects of the society have been once more stated with much\ndetail, there is an opportunity for discussion from the floor.\n\n\"Perhaps there is some one who may give some new suggestions, or who\nmay desire to ask a question.\"\n\nYou have observed what happens to the unfortunate questioner. What\na sorry exhibition he makes of himself! No sooner does he open his\nmouth than every one recognizes his intellectual feebleness. He seems\nunable to grasp the simplest ideas. He stumbles at the first premise,\nand lies sprawling at the very threshold of the argument.\n\n\"If what I have taken for granted be true,\" says the chairman, \"do not\nall the fine things I have been telling you about follow necessarily?\"\n\n\"But,\" murmurs the questioner, \"the things you take for granted are\njust what trouble me. They don't correspond to my experience.\"\n\n\"Poor, feeble minded questioner!\" cry the members of the society,\n\"to think that he is not able to take things for granted! And then\nto set up his experience against our constitution and by-laws!\"\n\nThe Gentle Reader--Quixotism--Samuel M. Crothers.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n      PAGE.\n\nIntroduction      3\nBibliography      7\nDissertation      26\nLetter of Frederic the Emperor, to Otho, the Illustrious      37\n\n\nTREATISE.\n\nGod, of      38\n(Originally Secs. 1-6, later, Chap. I.)\nReasons which have caused mankind to create for themselves an Invisible\nBeing which has been commonly called God      44\n(Originally Secs. 1-9 and x-xi, later Chap. II.)\nGod, what is      52\n(Originally Secs. x-xi, later, Secs. 1-2, Chap. III.)\nReligions, what the word signifies, and how and why such a great\nnumber have been introduced in the world      56\n(Originally Secs. i-xxiii, later, Secs. 1-8, Chap. IV.)\nMoses, of      62\n(Originally Secs. ix-x, later, Secs. 1-2, Chap. V.)\nNuma Pompilius, of      71\n(Originally Secs. xi, later, Chap. VI.)\nJesus Christ, of      72\n(Originally Secs. xii, later, Chap. VII.)\nJesus Christ, of the Policy of      75\n(Originally Secs. xiii-xvi, later, Secs. 1-6, Chap. VIII.)\nJesus Christ, of the Morals of      80\n(Originally Secs. xvii-xviii, later, Secs. 1-3, Chap. IX.)\nJesus Christ, of the Divinity of      84\n(Originally Secs, xix-xxi, later, Secs. 1-3, Chap. X.)\n\nMahomet      88\n(Originally Secs. xxii-xxiii, later, Secs. 1-3, Chap. XI.)\nTruths, sensible and obvious      93\n(Original Secs. i-vi.)\nSoul, of the      96\n(Original Secs. i-vii.)\nDemons, of Spirits called      101\n(Original Secs. i-vii.)\nAppendicitis      107\nMahomet, Edition \"En Suisse,\" 1793      107\nDe Tribus Impostoribus, Edition MDIIC      111\n(A literal translation of Latin reprint by E. Weller, 1876.)\nCornell University      145\nTranslations of Latin in the Text      146\nThe Gentle Reader--Quixotism      149\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\nP. 5, 2d paragraph, 1st line, Werner should read Weller.\n\nP. 12, line 5, sermonen should read sermonem.\n\n\n\nOriginal Mss., A. D. 1716, Contains--\n\n    Dissertation, pp. 26-36,    3300 words French.\n    Treatise, pp. 37-101,      19800 words French.\n                               -----\n        Total,                 23100 words.\n\n    Weller's reprint, 1876, Edition, 1598 contains 5800 words Latin.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNOTES\n\n\n[1] The History of the Three Infamous Impostors of this Age.\n\n1. Padre Ottomano, a pretended son of the Sultan of Turkey who\nflourished about 1650, and who latterly, under the above title,\nbecame a Dominican Friar.\n\n2. Mahomed Bei, alias Joannes Michael Cigala, who masqueraded as a\nPrince of the Ottoman family, a descendant of the Emperor Solyman\nthe Magnificent, and in other characters about 1660.\n\n3. Sabbatai Sevi, the pretended Messiah of the Jews, \"the Only and\nFirst-borne Son of God,\" who amused the Jews and Turks about 1666.\n\n[2] La vie et l'esprit de M. Benoit de Spinosa was published without\nthe author's name, in Amsterdam 1719. In the \"Preface du Copiste\" it\nis stated that the author of it is not known, but that if a conjecture\nmight be permitted it might be said, perhaps with certitude, that the\nbook is the work of the late Mr. Lucas, so famous for his Quintessences\nand for his manners and way of living.\n\nKuno Fischer, in his Descartes und seine Schule. Zweiter Theil,\nHeidelberg, 1889, p. 101, says:\n\n\"The real author of the work is not known with entire certainty;\nprobably the author was Lucas, a physician at the Hague, notorious\nin his own day; others name as author a certain Vroese.\"\n\nFreudenthal, in his Die Lebensgeschichte Spinoza's. Leipzig, 1899,\nwriting of the various conjectures as to the authorship of the book,\nstates that W. Meyer has lately sought to prove that Johan Louckers,\na Hague attorney, was the author, but that the authorship had not\nbeen settled.\n\nOettinger in his Bibliographie Biographie Universelle, Bruxelles 1854,\np. 1707, gives Lucas Vroese as the author.\n\nIt has also been suggested that Lucas and Vroese were two men and\ntogether wrote the book.\n\nThe authority for ascribing the book to Vroese, of whose life no\nparticulars seem to have been recorded, appears to be the following\npassage in the Dictionnaire Historique, par Prosper Marchand, \u00e0 la\nHaye, 1758, v. 1., p. 352:\n\n\"A la fin d'une copie manuscrit de ce Trait\u00e9 que j'ai v\u00fbe et l\u00fbe, on\nlui donne pour v\u00e9ritable Auteur a Mr. Vroese, conseiller de la cour\nde Brabant \u00e0 la Haie, dont Aymon et Rousset retouch\u00e8rent le langage;\net que ce dernier y ajouta la Dissertation ou R\u00e9ponse depuis imprim\u00e9e\nchez Scheurleer.\"\n\nThe name \"Vroese\" appears at the side of the colophon at end of our\ntranslation, but probably as a reference only.\n\n[3] This is probably a Latin edition of the original manuscript from\nwhich our translation was made.--Ed.\n\n[4] See translation Chap. 1 \"Of God,\" first two lines.\n\n[5] DISRAELI'S CURIOSITIES OF LITERATURE.\n\nTitle, \"Literary Forgeries.\"\n\n\"The Duc de la Valliere and the Abbe de St. Leger, once concerted\ntogether to supply the eager purchaser of literary rarities with\na copy of \"De Tribus Impostoribus,\" a book, by the date, pretended\nto have been printed in 1598, though probably a modern forgery of\n1698. The title of such a book had long existed by rumor, but never\nwas a copy seen by man. Works printed with this title have all been\nproved to be modern fabrications--a copy however of the 'introuvable'\noriginal was sold at the Duc de la Valliere's sale. The history of this\nvolume is curious. The Duc and the Abbe having manufactured a text had\nit printed in the old Gothic character, under the title 'De Tribus\nImpostoribus.' They proposed to put the great bibliopobet, De Bure,\nin good humor, whose agency would sanction the imposition. They were\nafterwards to dole out copies at 25 louis each, which would have been\na reasonable price for a book which no one ever saw! They invited De\nBure to dinner, flattered and cajoled him, and, as they imagined at\nthe moment they had wound him up to their pitch, they exhibited their\nmanufacture--the keen-eyed glance of the renowned cataloguer of the\n'Bibliographie Instructive' instantly shot like lightning over it, and\nlike lightning, destroyed the whole edition. He not only discovered the\nforgery but reprobated it! He refused his sanction; and the forging\nDuc and Abbe, in confusion suppressed the 'livre introuvable'; but\nthey owed a grudge to the honest bibliographer and attempted to write\ndown the work whence the De Bures derive their fame.\"\n\n[6] The names are noted on title page in pencil.\n\n[7] The French nation recognize the Supreme Being, the Immortality\nof the Soul, and the Freedom of Worship.\n\n[8] Treatise of the Dominant Religions.\n\n[9] In old prints Moses is always depicted with horns on his forehead.\n\n[10] When they weep at Rome, they do not laugh in Paris.\n\n[11] There is a measure in everything.\n\n[12] As to the printing of the book they can bring forward no proof\nwhatever of its having being done prior to this date (1716) and it\nis impossible to conceive that Frederick, surrounded as he was by\nenemies, would have circulated a work which gave a fair opportunity of\nproclaiming his infidelity. It is probable therefore that there were\nonly two copies, the original one and that sent to Otho of Bavaria.\nJ. L. R. L.\n\n[13] 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\nassailed the errors of the Church was attacked one evening by an\nassassin. Fortunately the blow did not prove fatal; but the weapon (a\nstylus, or dagger, which is also the Latin name for a pen) having been\nleft in 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[14] Sep. 20, 1703.\n\n[15] Frederick Barbarossa was Emperor of Germany in 1152 and was\ndrowned during Crusade in Syria June 10, 1190. He created Henry the\nLion (? Henry VI.) Duke of Bavaria in 1154, expelled him in 1180,\nand Henry died 1195.\n\nOtho the Great, Count of Witelspach, was made Duke of Bavaria 1180,\nand died 1183. He was the grandfather of Otho the Illustrious, who\ngained the Palatinate and was assassinated in 1231. He married the\ndaughter of Henry the Lion about 1230.\n\nHenry VI succeeded to the Empire on death of his father, Frederick\nBarbarossa, 1190, and died 1195--that is if Henry the Lion and Henry\nVI are identical.\n\nFrederick II, son of Henry VI, began to reign (?) 1195, and was\nliving 1243.\n\nThe succession of Popes during the period 1152-1254 (Haydn's Dict. of\nDates), was as follows:\n\nAnastasius IV, 1153, Adrian IV, 1154, (Nicholas Brakespeare, the only\nEnglishman elected Pope. Frederick I. prostrated himself before him,\nkissed his foot, held his stirrup, and led the white palfrey on which\nhe rode.)\n\nAlexander III. 1159, (Canonized Thomas \u00e0 Becket and resisted Frederick\nI.) Victor V. 1159, Pascal III. 1164, Calixtus III. 1168, Lucius\nIII. 1181.\n\nUrban III. 1185, (opposed Frederick I.) Gregory VIII. (2 months)\n1187. Clement III. 1187, proclaimed third Crusade.\n\nCelestin III. 1191. Innocent III. 1198, excommunicated John, King of\nEngland. Honorius III. 1216, learned and pious. Gregory IX. 1227,\npreached new Crusade. Celestine IV. 1241. Innocent IV. 1243-1254\n(opposed Frederick II.).\n\nIf Frederick II. caused pamphlet to be written about 1230, it could\nnot have been burned by Honorius III., who reigned as Pope 1216-1227,\nbut by Gregory IX., who reigned 1227-1241, who sent Frederick II. to\nthe Crusades, upset his affairs while he was gone, and against whom\nthe \"Dissertation\" says the pamphlet was written.\n\n[16] Carlyle, in his \"History of Frederick II. of Prussia, called\nFrederick the Great,\" mentions Hermann von der Saltza, a new sagacious\nTeutschmeister or Hochmeister (so they call the head of the Order)\nof the Teutonic Knights, a far-seeing, negotiating man, who during\nhis long Mastership (A. D. 1210-1239,) is mostly to be found at Venice\nand not at Acre or Jerusalem.\n\nHe is very great with the busy Kaiser, Frederick II., Barbarossa's\ngrandson, who has the usual quarrels with the Pope, and is glad of such\na negotiator, statesman as well as armed monk. A Kaiser not gone on the\nCrusade, as he had vowed: Kaiser at last suspected of free thinking\neven:--in which matters Hermann much serves the Kaiser.--People's\nEdition, Boston, 1885, Vol. 1, p. 92.\n\n[17] Pierre des Vignes, suspected of having conspired against the life\nof the Emperor, was condemned to lose his eyes, and was handed over to\nthe inhabitants of Pisa, his cruel enemies: and where despair hastened\nhis death in an infamous dungeon where he could hold intercourse with\nno one.\n\n[18] In \"Volney's Lectures on History,\" it is said: \"If a work be\ntranslated it always receives a colouring which is more or less\nfaint or is vivid according to the opinions and ability of the\nTranslator.\" From an examination of other translations of this\nTreatise, I am assured that Volney's statement above has actuated\nand governed all who have been previously engaged with this work. I\ncan assure the readers hereof, that the Treatise contained herein is\na literal translation of the manuscript and the notes found therein,\nand no liberties have been taken with the text.\n\nAny additional notes from other sources are so marked.    A. N.\n\n[19] Moses killed at one time 24,000 men for opposing his law.\n\n[20] It is written in the First Book of Kings, ch. 22, v. 6, that Ahab,\nKing of Israel, consulted 400 prophets, and found them entirely false\nin the success of their predictions.\n\n[21] Man is the noblest work of God--but nobody ever said so but\nman.--Fra Elbertus.\n\n[22] So of water, however, it may be subject to generation and\ncorruption, as long as it is substance it is not subject to separation\nand division.\n\n[23] The four first Councils were 1. That of Nice in the year 345,\nunder the Emperor Constantine the Great, and under Pope Sylvester I.;\n2. That of Constantinople in the year 381, under the Emperors Gratian,\nValentinian and Theodore and the Pope Damase I.; 3. That of Ephesus in\nthe year 431, under the Emperor Theodore, the younger, and Valentinian\nand under the Pope Celestin; 4. That of Chalcedon in the year 451,\nunder Valentinian and Martian, and under Pope Leo I.\n\n[24] These, among us, are the Astrologers and Fanatics.\n\n[25] The Talmud remarks that the Rabbins deliberated whether they\nshould omit the Book of Proverbs and that of Ecclesiastes from the\nnumber of canonicals, and would have done so had they not found\nin several places that they eulogized the Mosaic law. They would\nhave done the same with the prophecies of Ezekiel had not a certain\nChananias undertook to harmonize them with the same law.\n\n[26] The versions that we have differ greatly in a thousand places,\none with another, until the end of the book.\n\n[27] See Tertullian ante, also Hobbes' Leviathan, C. 12, p. 56.\n\n[28] This word must not be taken in the ordinary sense, for what\nis called a magician among learned people means an adroit man, a\nskillful charlatan, and a subtle juggler whose entire art consists\nin dexterity and skill, and not in any compact with the devil as the\ncommon people believe.\n\n[29] He remained from time to time in a solitary place under pretext\nof privately conferring with God, and by this pretended intercourse\nwith the Divinity he taught them a respect and obedience which was,\nin the meanwhile, unlimited.\n\n[30] See Book of Kings, Chapter II.\n\n[31] Romulus drowned himself in the morass of Cherres, and his body not\nbeing found, it was believed that he was raised to heaven and deified.\n\nWhen Romulus was reviewing his forces in the plain of Caprae there\nsuddenly arose a thunderstorm during which he was enveloped in so thick\na cloud that he was lost to the view of his army: nor thereafter on\nthis earth was Romulus seen. Livy I. 1, c. 16.\n\n[32] Empedocles, a celebrated philosopher, threw himself into the\ncrater of Mount Etna, to cause the belief that, like Romulus, he was\nraised to heaven.\n\n[33] It is recorded by Livy (liber II., c. 21,) that there is a grove\nthrough which flowed a perennial stream, taking its origin in a dark\ncave, in which Numa was accustomed to meet the goddess, and to receive\ninstructions as to his political and religious institutions.\n\n[34] Breath or inspiration of the Gods.\n\n[35] The Tartars assert that Genghis Khan was born of a virgin, and\nthat Foh, according to the Chinese belief, derived his origin from\na virgin rendered pregnant by the rays of the sun.\n\nSince the introduction of the umbrella or sun-shade into the Central\nFlowery Kingdom occurrences like the latter have been infrequent.\n\n[36] Celsus says, in Origen, that Jesus Christ was a native of a\nlittle hamlet in Judea, and that his mother was a poor villager who\nonly existed by her labor. Having been convicted of adultery with\na soldier named Pandira, she was induced to flee by her betrothed,\nwho was a carpenter by trade, who condoned their offence, and they\nwandered miserably from place to place. She was secretly delivered\nof Jesus, and finding themselves in want, they were constrained to\nflee to Egypt. After several years, his services being of no value\nto the Egyptians, he returned to his own country, where, quite proud\nof the miracles he knew how to perform, he proclaimed himself God.\n\nHuman nature was at those times not fundamentally different from what\nit is now, and we need, therefore, not be surprised to hear that one\nof the stalwart Roman warriors, whose name was Pandira, fell in love\nwith one of the dark-eyed daughters of Nazareth, and that the fruit\nof their \"illegitimate\" union was a son whom they called Jehoshua,\nand who inherited from his father the manly pride of the Roman,\nand from his Jewish mother his almost feminine beauty and modesty.\n\nOf Jehoshua's mother, little is to be said. * * * * * Ignorant,\ninnocent, and of modest manners, uneducated but kind, sympathetic and\nbeautiful, Stada, like many others of her sex, was guided more by the\ndecision of her heart than by the calculations of her intellect. Her\nheart yearned for love and she hoped to find in Pandira the realization\nof her ideal.--Life of Jehoshua, The Prophet of Nazareth, an Occult\nStudy and a Key to the Bible. Franz Hartmann, M. D., Boston, 1889.\n\n[37] A beautiful dove overshadowed a virgin; there is nothing\nsurprising in that. It happened frequently in Lydia, and the swan of\nLeda is the counterpart of the dove of Mary.\n\n\nQu'un beau Pigeon a tire d'aile   When a pretty dove under her wing\nVienne abombrer une Pucelle,      Happens to conceal a Virgin,\nRien n'est suprenant en cela;     There is nothing surprising in that.\nL'on en vit autant en Lydie.      The same thing is known in Lydia,\nEt le beau Cygne de Leda          For the beautiful swan of Leda\nVaut bien le Pigeon de Marie.     Is just as good as Mary's pigeon.\n\n\n[38] In the book of Samuel, chap. vii, it is related that the\nIsraelites being discontented with the sons of Samuel who judged them,\ndemanded a King, the same as other nations, with whom they wished\nto conform.\n\n[39] Jesus Christ was of the sect of the Pharisees, or the poor,\nwho were opposed to the Sadducees, who formed the sect of the rich.\n\n[40] By this Norman reply he eluded the question. A Norman never says\nyes, or no. Blason populaire de la Normandie.\n\n[41] Vide Boniface VIII. (1294) and Leo X. (1513) Boniface said\nthat men had the same souls as beasts, and that these human and\nbestial souls lived no longer than each other. The Gospel also\nsays that all other laws teach several virtues and several lies;\nfor example, a Trinity which is false, the child-birth of a Virgin\nwhich is impossible, and the incarnation and transubstantiation which\nare ridiculous. I do not believe, continued he, other than that the\nVirgin was a she-ass, and her son the issue of a she-ass.\n\nLeo X. went one day to a room where his treasures were kept, and\nexclaimed \"we must admit that this fable of Jesus Christ has been\nquite profitable to us.\"\n\n[42] The belief in the Christian doctrine is strange and wild to reason\nand human judgment. It is contrary to all Philosophy and discourse of\nTruth, as may be seen in all the articles of faith which can neither\nbe comprehended nor understood by human intellect, for they appear\nimpossible and quite strange. Mankind, in order to believe and receive\nthem, must control and subject his reason, submitting his understanding\nto the obedience of the faith. St. Paul says that if man considers\nand hears philosophy and measures things by the compass of Truth,\nhe will forsake all, and ridicule it as folly.\n\nThat is the avowal made by Charron in a book entitled \"The Three\nTruths,\" page 180. Edition of Bordeaux, 1593. (This inserted\nnote is written on the back of a portion of a letter addressed to\n\"Prince graaft by de Spiegelstraat. A Amsterdam,\" postmarked \"Ce\n4e. Aout. 1746.\")\n\n[43] Hermaphrodites.\n\n[44] Which determined the Emperor Julian to abandon the sect of\nNazarenes whose faith he regarded as a vulgar fiction of the human\nmind, which he found based solely on a simple tale of Perdiccas.\n\n[45] Also his belief in visions and the legend of his translation\nto Heaven.\n\n[46] A friend of the celebrated Golius having asked what the Mahometans\nsaid of their prophet, this wise professor sent him the following\nextract which contains an abridgement of the life of that Impostor\ntaken from a manuscript in the Turkish language: \"The Lord Mahomet\nMustapha, of glorious memory, the greatest of the Prophets, was born\nin the fortieth year of the Empire of Anal Schirwan, the Just. His\nholy nativity happened the twelfth day in the second third of the\nmonth Rabia. Now, after the fortieth year of his age had passed, he\nwas divinely inspired, received the crown of prophecy and the robe of\nLegation, which were brought him from God by the faithful messenger\nGabriel, with instructions to call mankind to Islamism. After this\ninspiration from God was received, he dwelt at Mecca for thirteen\nyears. He left there aged fifty-three years the eighth day of the\nmonth Rabia, which was a Friday, and took refuge at Medina. Now, it was\nthere, after his retreat the twentieth day of the eleventh month, and\nthe sixty-third year of his blessed life, he succeeded to the enjoyment\nof the divine presence. Some say that he was born while Abelaka, [47]\nhis father, was yet living, others say after his death. Lady Amina,\na daughter of the Wahabees, gave him for nurse lady Halima, of the\ntribe of Beni-Saad. Abdo Imutalib, [47] his grandfather, gave him the\nblessed name of Mahomet. He had four sons and four daughters. The sons\nwere Kasim, Ibrahim, Thajib and Thahir, and the daughters, Fatima,\nOmokeltum, Rakia and Zeineb. The companions of this august envoy of\nGod were Abulekir, Omar, Osman and Ali, all of sacred memory.\n\n[47] These names, Abdul-Motallab and Abdallah, in Arabic, seem to be\nrendered Abdo-Imutalib and Abelaka in the Turkish language.--A. N.\n\n[48] This includes Numa Pompilius.--A. N.\n\n[49] Hades.\n\n[50] \"Mahomet,\" says the Count de Boulainvilliers, \"was ignorant of\ncommon knowledge, as I believe, but he assuredly knew much of what a\ngreat traveler might acquire with much native wit, when he employed it\nusefully. He was not ignorant of his own language, the use of which,\nand not by reading, taught him its nicety and beauty. He was not\nignorant of the art of knowing how to render odious what was truly\nculpable, and to portray the truth with simple and lively colors in\na manner which could not be forgotten. In fact, all that he has said\nis true in comparison with the essential dogmas of religion, but he\nhas not said all that is true. It is in that particular alone that\nour Religion differs from his.\" He adds further on, \"that Mahomet was\nneither rude nor barbarous, that he conducted his enterprise with all\nthe art, delicacy, constancy, intrepidity, and all the other great\nqualities which would have actuated Alexander or Cesar were they in\nhis place.\" Life of Mahomet, by Count de Boulainvilliers. Book II.,\npp. 266-7-8. Amsterdam Edition, 1731.\n\n[51] Genesis ch. xxviii., v. 18.\n\n[52] (?)Those holding sinecures.\n\n[53] A sect of East Indian philosophers who went about almost naked,\nate no flesh, renounced all bodily pleasures, and simply contemplated\nnature.\n\nThe \"Pre-Adamite doctrine,\" similar to the above, was published by\nIsaac de Peyrere about 1655. These fanatics believed that mankind\nlost none of their innocence by the fall of Adam. Both men and\nwomen made their appearance in the streets of Munster, France, in\npuris naturalibus, as did our first parents in the Garden of Eden,\nbefore the fruit incident, which brought so much trouble into the\nworld. The magistrates failed to put them down, and the military had\nsome difficulty in abolishing this absurdity.--A. N.\n\n[54] An Intercessor, applied to the Holy Spirit.\n\n[55] Average seems to indicate the VI. Commandment.--A. N.\n\n[56] Exodus xxxii, 31, 32. And Moses returned unto the Lord, and\nsaid, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them\ngods of gold.\n\nYet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin, and if not, blot me, I pray\nthee, out of thy book which thou hast written.\n\n[57] Exodus iv, 24, 25, 26. Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut\noff the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his (?the Lord's) feet,\nand said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.\n\nSo he (the Lord) let him (Moses) go: then she said, a bloody husband\nthou art, because of the circumcision.\n\n[58] Numbers xx, 12. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, because\nye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of\nIsrael, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land\nwhich I have given them.\n\n[59] Exodus xxxii. 11. And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said,\nLord why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast\nbrought forth out of the land of Egypt, with great power, and with\na mighty hand?\n\nNumbers xii. 8. With him (Moses) will I speak mouth to mouth, even\napparent and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord\nshall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against\nmy servant Moses?\n\n[60] Exodus xxxiii. 20. Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep\nthee in the way, and to bring thee in the place which I have prepared.\n\n[61] Matthew V. Sermon on the Mount, 17. Think not that I am come to\ndestroy the law, etc. Matt. x, 2? names Apostles.\n\n[62] Deuteronomy xviii, 21, 22. And if thou say in thine heart,\nHow shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?\n\nWhen a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow\nnot, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not\nspoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt\nnot be afraid of him.\n\n[63] Paul to Timothy (I.) I. 4. Neither give heed to fables and\nendless genealogies, etc.\n\n[64] Genesis xxvi, 34, 35. And Esau was forty years old when he took\nto wife Judith the daughter of Beeri, the Hittite, and Bashemath the\ndaughter of Elon, the Hittite, which were a grief of mind unto Isaac\nand Rebekah.\n\nGenesis xxviii, 9. Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the\nwives which he had, Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael, Abraham's son,\nthe sister of Nabajoth, to be his wife.\n\nGenesis xxxvi, 2, 3. Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan,\nAdah, the daughter of Elon, the Hittite, and Aholibamah, the daughter\nof Anah, the daughter of Zibeon, the Hivite, and Bashemath, Ishmael's\ndaughter, sister of Nabajoth.\n\n[65] Acts xv. 10. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon\nthe neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able\nto bear?\n\n[66] Galatians 3, 4. Even so we when we were children, were in\nbondage under the elements of the world: but when the fulness of the\ntime was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under\nthe law. v. 9. But now after that ye have known God, or rather are\nknown of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements,\nwhereunto ye desire again to be in bondage.\n\nv. 30. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? cast out the bond-woman\nand her son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with\nthe son of the free-woman.\n\nv. 24. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants;\nthe one from the mount of Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which\nis Agar.\n\nGalatians v. 2, 3. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be\ncircumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to\nevery man that is circumcised, that is a debtor to do the whole law.\n\n[67] II. Cor. iii., 6-10. Who also hath made us able ministers of the\nNew Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter\nkilleth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death,\nwritten and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children\nof Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the\nglory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall\nnot the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the\nministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration\nof righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious\nhad no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.\n\nII. Cor. v. 10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat\nof Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body,\naccording to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.\n\n[68] Acts xvi, 1, 2, 3. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra, and behold,\na certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain\nwoman which was a Jewess, and believed, but his father was a Greek;\nwhich was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and\nIconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him, and took and\ncircumcised him, because of the Jews which were in those quarters,\nfor they knew all that his father was a Greek.","title":"De Tribus Impostoribus, A. D. 1230: The Three Impostors: Translated (with notes and comments) from a French manuscript of the work written in the year 1716, with a dissertation on the original treatise and a bibliography of the various editions","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":40307}